Originally posted by fenrisblue

i come here to get mmo new not news about other types of games, you can go many places to get news about the other types of games, there are relativley few GOOD sources of mmo news, if you guys start wasting space on non mmo news i may as well go to g4 to get all my news, so if you hav not figured it out, NO you ahoulsn't add non mmo news to the game until said game fits all the definitions that are impied a masssive world where you interact with thousands of people at the same time and can only be entered into by a persistant world frankly some of the curent games shouldn't have been added either, like guild wars 1, the only thing massive about it is the hubs,but enough of my chatter , you get the point

I'm of the opposite opinion, if they add other games. I won't have to go to the MTV of gaming type of sites like IGN or G4, to get info on other games I'm interested in, win win for me.

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by servedogg

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by servedogg

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by just1opinion

Originally posted by servedogg

Originally posted by lizardbones

Massive - pretty sure it will be

Multiplayer - check

Online - check

RPG - check

It should be added.

 It is not massive.  All the gameplay is instanced worlds with small parties.  How is that massive?

 

Exactly.  It's a co-op game really, not massive.

How many people could I potentially group with in D3? More than 4? If so it's already a bigger group experience than TOR is offering, massive or not really doesn"t matter IMO. It's relevancy to the player-base that's most important. If it's relevant and would generate discussion (which it's already shown to in multiple forum sections) it's fair game IMO.

TOR will have worlds with huge populations.  I think you are severely missing the point. 

No I don't think I missed that point, as if you read my post I said massive ( huge populations) isn't as important as relevancy to those who play MMO's.

I'm sure many fans of MMOs will find it fun and wont care that it is small population instanced games, but being massive is most definitely relevant if you want to call a game a MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online) game. 

Oh I agree, but I don't think anyone is trying to call D3 an MMORPG, it's just a question of should it be given it's own section.

 

many games that are not mmo have been given articles on mmorpg.com,the articles have been clearly titles as such, i have no problem with that, i do have a problem with it being ADDED which means when you go to the game list it would be amongst the mmo titles,as i have said already this site is about mmo news,and is what makes it a destination for me when i want to know about mmo news, if this hapens we need to be able to seperate the titles by mmo and non mmo, and not just color coded , but a functional and intuitive search engine.and the news articles neew a tab for mmo and non mmo, or you can just change the name of the site, to reflect its no longer mmorpg niche

Originally posted by fenrisblue

many games that are not mmo have been given articles on mmorpg.com,the articles have been clearly titles as such, i have no problem with that, i do have a problem with it being ADDED which means when you go to the game list it would be amongst the mmo titles,as i have said already this site is about mmo news,and is what makes it a destination for me when i want to know about mmo news, if this hapens we need to be able to seperate the titles by mmo and non mmo, and not just color coded , but a functional and intuitive search engine.and the news articles neew a tab for mmo and non mmo, or you can just change the name of the site, to reflect its no longer mmorpg niche

Sorry had to get rid of the pyramid we were building. While I agree, it doesn't seem as though it would be that way considering staff comments here. The way it sounds they're in the works of splitting up the games list.

It should be added as an exception to the rule.  Another way to put it: If Diablo 2 or Diablo 1 were being released today hypotheticly, then they should not be added because they lacked certain elements that we're interested in as an MMO community.  Namley the potential grand economy the D3 is gearing up to offer, and PvP on a large scale via battlegrounds.  

Also there is a growing trend for seasoned gamers wanting to play simpler 'browser-based' or 'point-and-click' games which is worthy of a few articles.

Well seeing as the MMORPG genre is being more and more dilluted every day I dont see why not. Heck even non MMORPGs like League of Legends are listed on this site so dont discriminate and just add every game that allows alot of people to play the game online, be it on the same session/world or not.

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by fenrisblue

many games that are not mmo have been given articles on mmorpg.com,the articles have been clearly titles as such, i have no problem with that, i do have a problem with it being ADDED which means when you go to the game list it would be amongst the mmo titles,as i have said already this site is about mmo news,and is what makes it a destination for me when i want to know about mmo news, if this hapens we need to be able to seperate the titles by mmo and non mmo, and not just color coded , but a functional and intuitive search engine.and the news articles neew a tab for mmo and non mmo, or you can just change the name of the site, to reflect its no longer mmorpg niche

Sorry had to get rid of the pyramid we were building. While I agree, it doesn't seem as though it would be that way considering staff comments here. The way it sounds they're in the works of splitting up the games list.

 

 i have nothing further to add that would move this conversation forward,...but i LIKED the pyramid LOL jk

Originally posted by poefue

Originally posted by lizardbones

Massive - pretty sure it will be
Multiplayer - check
Online - check
RPG - check

It should be added.

 

Seems like it fits the criteria.

 This definition is wrong.

MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER online rpg. That means hundreds or thousands of people in a PERSISTANT world. .. WTF is happening to this site? It's all about the CHA CHING! now.

Originally posted by SBFord

The title pretty much says it all and MMORPG.com Managing Editor Bill Murphy really wants your input.

Yes.  Not only becuase their is a clear delineation between game-type, game-play, mechanics, but also off-line vs on-line, lobby team-based vs persistent world massively-multiplayer.

So, be specific about it under an "Action RPG Section" or modifier or something that clearly identifies it as an Action RPG as opposed to a mmorpg, for such games like:

Diablo3

Torchlight2

Grim Dawn http://www.grimdawn.com/index.php

Path of Exile http://www.pathofexile.com/about/

Please include other game, because it's just not about D3, and may Action RPG enthusiasts that visit this site shouldn't think that Diablo 3 is their only option.

It will be added to MMORPG.COM anyway. People are interested in it, so you will add it. What I want is irrelevant.

Is it just me or we cannot see the results of the poll? would have been nice to see it.

Please add D3!

I love any RPG, MMO or not (eventhough this game has different games instead of 1 world, it is gonna be most massive of all time and you get involved in PvP arena combat as well).

And the diablo series are simply the best.

An unqualified and hearty YES from me. Please cover D3 and Neverwinter, too, imo.

Seriously, WoW, Rift, LotRO, STO, CoX, etc., play for all intents and purposes like CORPGs for 95% of their respective contents, since you spend the VAST majority of your time questing either alone or in small player groups in -- eegad! -- instances.

Look at how much Diablo 3 has been debated on these forums already over various topics. Pop it in its own 'not strictly an mmo' section by all means, but not having a section for it would seem just dumb when so many will be playing it and wanting info.

This isn't about whether D3 is an MMORPG or not, it isn't and the article says so.  It's about whether or not to add it on this site.  Assuming that what was said in the article was true (concerning the new planned game categories ie. mmorpg, mmofps etc), then yes, it should be included in this site and categorized correctly.

If the mmorpg.com guys want to add more game types to the website more power to them.

But just keep in mind if you add Diablo 3 you will have to add in every damn co-op rpg with a online option.

Seems like too much work to me.

On futher thought, is this the MMORPG.com NFE? Like is this just a topic to gauge reaction and tomorrow when I log in all my progress will be gone, and the site will be completely different?

Diablo3 is as much an MMo as quite a few games on the game list. I am honestly surprised it hasn't been added yet.

I voted yes.

Whether or not hubs are "in-game" or just a glorified chat room, I would say its still very much a MMORPG.  Remember, MMOs first came to be as MUDs where were in essense, glorified chat rooms.  The primary difference between GW1 and D2 were the in-game hubs.  You were still adventuring in instanced areas.

Also, even if the only difference between D2 and D3s online model is the AH, the AH sounds like it will provide a variety of metagame experiences that are MMOish.  I think this is key.  It will have the economy of a MMO (and D2 did to some degree).  I have always felt we will never see a "Diablo Online" as Diablo's online model has evolved with each game... I imagine by the time we see D4, it will be more MMORPG than MRPG.

With MMOs having more and more influence in other genres, the definition of a MMO should be expected to change and evolve.

I think Lostkost said it best.

When "mmo" was coined the there were only a few games around that could wear that moniker.

The field of games has widened.

As long as there is some persistence such as what Guild Wars has then I don't see any reason not to include it.