since more and more games coming out are dedicated to solo play it seems like they are trying to get rid of the massive multiplayer part of the genre. where when they genre first started the draw for many was the open world, interacting with thousands and competeing with or against them.

now it seems the genre is leading us toward a more private playground with more and more use of instancing. so gamers can have thier own personal world and the only interaction they get from other players is a chat box.

so what should we call this new genre ... the ORPG (Online RPG) the MSORPG (Massive Singleplayer Online RPG) or some other name?

and what should we name the genre of game that offers more open world type game play? OWRPG (Online World RPG) SORPG (Sandbox Online RPG)

Maybe with this new name for the genre developers can cater and design thier games from the ground up on the principles of that genre. so that gamers can stick to thier genre and not ruin the other.

I don't think they are trying to get rid of the multiplayer part; I simply believe that they are experimenting with different types of games. Take guild wars for an example. You have the spots where you can meet and interact with the rest of the players there, and then you enter the private world where you can be accompanied. In this type of game, I think they are simply trying to see what the benefits and features are, of letting the user decide who they want to play with. I still think, that most of the MMORPG's live up their name. Massive Multiplayer, a lot of people at same time, playing the same game, at the same place with an online addition so they can interact. Most of the MMORPG games live up to that. Online Role Playing Game, the game is online and the user's define and control their unique character in a role.

But I really support the idea with creating other sorts of names, to prevent misunderstanding.

It would make more sense to get rid of the RPG part as nobody role plays anymore... lets just call them OGs

now it seems the genre is leading us toward a more private playground with more and more use of instancing. so gamers can have thier own personal world and the only interaction they get from other players is a chat box.

so what should we call this new genre ... the ORPG (Online RPG) the MSORPG (Massive Singleplayer Online RPG) or some other name?
 

Calling it massive singleplayer would probably upset people so better stick to ORPG.  Or we could be real assholes and call it "basically linear action hack-and-slash" or Blah.

and what should we name the genre of game that offers more open world type game play? OWRPG (Online World RPG) SORPG (Sandbox Online RPG)

How about "persistant online world"  POW. 

MMO works for me. Easy to say and covers the range of virtual worlds, RPGs, RTSs, FPSs and everytihng else inthe mix.

Originally posted by mbd1968

It would make more sense to get rid of the RPG part as nobody role plays anymore... lets just call them OGs

Do people roleplay in single player rpgs?

I think naming conventions shouldnt be implemented but work themselves out naturally. A company will label their product (usually in plain English) and aside from a couple of gimmicky attempts such as copyrighting RvR or the PvPvE thing, will be better off using only those terms already widely accepted in the gaming comunity.

We need quality games not new ways to name them.

 Not much in terms of RP, true, but eeven less in terms of massive or socializing, what with instances, fake quests, no real groups, ect ect

Originally posted by Neanderthal

 

 

Calling it massive singleplayer would probably upset people so better stick to ORPG.  Or we could be real assholes and call it "basically linear action hack-and-slash" or Blah.

LMAO yeah i like that, i agree that should be the name.

"what are you playing?!?!"
"im playing a Blah"

How about "persistant online world"  POW. 

very well done!

Such a confused original post.

First, a genre is not a goal, it's a result. Just like writers and artists, developers don't have to comply to some other people's preconceived rules of what this or that sort of game is supposed to be. They just write and create - the genre categorization is something that should come up after the fact. Otherwise it'd be a predictable, unchanging, boring world.

Second, multiplayer does not mean group play only. It also does not mean full PVP. As it does not mean sandbox, raiding or whatever feature you or I might prefer to see. It just means there are many players playing at the same time, in the same game space through which they can interact. The means of this interaction are not defined. 

Let's say in an MMO I play a loner sociopath PK who groups with nobody, talks to nobody but kills anyone he can. Now, going by some of the pro-groupers' arguments, this would suddenly make that game not "massively multiplayer"? And that's just hilarious - if it's not massively multiplayer, how am I finding and killing a massive amount of players in said game?

Even if I did not group or PK, there would still be a load of multiplayer aspects I could enjoy: Crafting and trading, chatting, holding competitions, social roleplaying, mini-games... The massively multiplayer online game just provides the player with a massive canvas he can work with in a lot of different ways (hopefully). 

It seems some people have a pretty narrow-minded view of this sort of game...

I agree with the OP, there is 1 of 2 things that should be done : 1) MORPG (multiplayer online) for these new games. 2) Give the real MMORPG fans a new genre called MMOW (massivly multiplayer online world)

Its sad to see the MMORPG's turning into online RPG's. RPG's should turn into this not the mmorpg's de-evolving.

Originally posted by toddze

I agree with the OP, there is 1 of 2 things that should be done : 1) MORPG (multiplayer online) for these new games. 2) Give the real MMORPG fans a new genre called MMOW (massivly multiplayer online world)

Its sad to see the MMORPG's turning into online RPG's. RPG's should turn into this not the mmorpg's de-evolving.

Well the whole industry has been rolling backwards since WoW came to fame. The super casuals shall inherit the world. Or the the 40 man instance of the world.

Originally posted by solarine

They just write and create - the genre categorization is something that should come up after the fact.
 

We're already in that "after the fact" time. 

Originally posted by Neanderthal

How about "persistant online world"  POW. 

Persistent State Worlds is what UO used initially in their ads, and I believe even onthe original box. I find that more fitting for the category than MMORPG considering how diverse they are now.

Originally posted by solarine

Such a confused original post.

First, a genre is not a goal, it's a result. Just like writers and artists, developers don't have to comply to some other people's preconceived rules of what this or that sort of game is supposed to be. They just write and create - the genre categorization is something that should come up after the fact. Otherwise it'd be a predictable, unchanging, boring world.

Second, multiplayer does not mean group play only. It also does not mean full PVP. As it does not mean sandbox, raiding or whatever feature you or I might prefer to see. It just means there are many players playing at the same time, in the same game space through which they can interact. The means of this interaction are not defined. 

Let's say in an MMO I play a loner sociopath PK who groups with nobody, talks to nobody but kills anyone he can. Now, going by some of the pro-groupers' arguments, this would suddenly make that game not "massively multiplayer"? And that's just hilarious - if it's not massively multiplayer, how am I finding and killing a massive amount of players in said game?

Even if I did not group or PK, there would still be a load of multiplayer aspects I could enjoy: Crafting and trading, chatting, holding competitions, social roleplaying, mini-games... The massively multiplayer online game just provides the player with a massive canvas he can work with in a lot of different ways (hopefully). 

It seems some people have a pretty narrow-minded view of this sort of game...

 

No one is disputing the multiplayer part. I cant think of any online game in any genre that isnt multiplayer ( what would be the point of online). 

Where does the massive come from? What does the massive mean? There is a massive group of people who is going to buy the new COD: MW2, and there will be a massive group of them playing it online, its multiplayer and online, yet we dont call it an MMOFPS. The massive means differnt things to different people.

To some Massive in an MMO  does NOT mean playing online by yourself, or in your own little instance.  While others consider GW an MMO because they see groups of people in the hubs. No one is right! this is an opinion thread. 

Indeed people do have narrow minds that they dont understand the other side that they so blantantly insult. 

Lol Isn't Massive Online Single Player RPG a bit contradictory?

...I think the best name should be simple but to the point Online Single-Player RPG (OSRPG). Or maybe Online Instanced RPG (OIRPG). The first one sounds better.

...For everything else?  MMORPG works fine.

And just to throw a wrench in the works...

It's not a genre. It's a platform.

Originally posted by mbd1968

It would make more sense to get rid of the RPG part as nobody role plays anymore... lets just call them OGs

i agree, and that way the 5% that still, can stop crying about RP rules and RP servers and just go LARP

Before internet, "multiplayer" most often meant 2 people in front of a screen, maybe 4 or even 8 depending on the game and platform. So in a way "massively" is at leat a dozen people in that context...

Originally posted by mbd1968

It would make more sense to get rid of the RPG part as nobody role plays anymore... lets just call them OGs

It's a SAD but true statement...I remember in the old EQ days lots of people rolep layed and they even had a /ooc (out of character) chat that was usually used properly...I role played an evil human shadow knight who betrayed the shortlings because he was insane. But you couldn't have that on RPG's now, instead you have to have 1 server tagged a a (RP) server...thanks WoW for making me feel even more like a nerd...

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by Neanderthal

How about "persistant online world"  POW. 

 

Persistent State Worlds is what UO used initially in their ads, and I believe even onthe original box. I find that more fitting for the category than MMORPG considering how diverse they are now.

POW is already taken try again. Lol.

What about MMORPC.

C stands for "crap".

They're still RPGs that can be played online by massive numbers of people.

I'll stick with "MMORPG" if you don't mind.

RPG was the first thing to go, as you can see now most people just call a MMORPG an MMO. Granted one may make the argument that its just a shorter version of the same thing, however any gamer knows the RPG element has mostly disappeared in MMORGP's.