Originally posted by fallenlords

  All to my mind

/thread

It's obvious that you have a way of looking at stuff with your own viewpoint and use of terminology that isn't conform  the general usage of those terms and general opinion. Also it's quite clear that you have a thing against Funcom and as a result against AoC and TSW, hence that you keep repeating your 'terminology' over and over and over again.

I think you've explained your viewpoint in 10+ posts now, while to most it was already clear after the third time. People won't convince you of the incorrectness - or your 'highly individualised interpretation' - of broadly used MMO terms, and neither will you convince people that how MMO terms have been used by the industry and MMO player base in general is wrong. The only thing that you might convince people of is that you have a strong dislike of Funcom, their game design and their games

But go ahead, parrot your same opinion for an 11th, or 12th and 13th post, like a broken record, as if the former 10 weren't clear.

Originally posted by graham187

And I couldn't be happier. I loved the design of Ultima Online and believe the level-less design is the best way a person can get lost in their character. In UO over 5 years I had the same character redesigned at least 50x, and it was possible because the mechanics of the game would let you change your class as much often as you desired. No level up needed, just grab some new skills and make the character what you wanted it to be without many constraints.

For this reason I am excited to see what The Secret World has to offer. I am so hopeful the game is character driven and not gear driven like so many of the offerings since the original inception of UO. I have never seen classless design done as well as the MMO that defined what massively multiplayer was all about; hopefully TSW can capture what Origin figured out from the beginning.

Before this thread was hijacked (again) by a neverending discussion with Fallenlords, this was I think the OP's topic.

While I think that it depends from one person to the next whether they get lost in their character more in a level-less design, I agree that it'll be interesting to see how it'll work out, and it's certainly different from most current MMO's.

I think that UO and TSW are two very different games, but it's good to see that MMO companies are trying different approaches to features than the current standard set and ways.

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

Originally posted by fallenlords

  All to my mind

/thread

 

It's obvious that you have a way of looking at stuff with your own viewpoint and use of terminology that isn't conform  the general usage of those terms and general opinion. Also it's quite clear that you have a thing against Funcom and as a result against AoC and TSW, hence that you keep repeating your 'terminology' over and over and over again.

I think you've explained your viewpoint in 10+ posts now, while to most it was already clear after the third time. People won't convince you of the incorrectness - or your 'highly individualised interpretation' - of broadly used MMO terms, and neither will you convince people that how MMO terms have been used by the industry and MMO player base in general is wrong. The only thing that you might convince people of is that you have a strong dislike of Funcom, their game design and their games

But go ahead, parrot your same opinion for an 11th, or 12th and 13th post, like a broken record, as if the former 10 weren't clear.

 

I think that it's convenient for people to hide behind terminology. Just because something is a popular belief doesn't make it true.   You will be telling me next the sky in Ancient Greece was blue, that Nero fiddled while Rome burned, frogs make a ribbit noise and a centipede has a 100 legs.  All of which I use as commonly held beliefs that are just wrong.  AOC is not an MMO the world is instanced to the hilt, though AOC is an RPG.  Just because terms are being used incorrectly doesn't mean I should just accept them. Though I do appreciate how annoying I can be,  but then people tend for the most to focus on the terminology.  Rather than argue AOC is an MMO because, we have the industry calls it an MMO so it's an MMO sort of approach.  All hail to the industry, not like they would ever lead any of us astray. I mean it's not like they are actually trying to sell us something in most instances.

Originally posted by fallenlords

Rather than argue AOC is an MMO because, we have the industry calls it an MMO so it's an MMO sort of approach.  All hail to the industry, not like they would ever lead any of us astray. I mean it's not like they are actually trying to sell us something in most instances.

It's not just the industry. Ask 1000 MMO gamers objective enough to look at things without emotional bias whether AoC is an MMORPG or not. 999 will say 'yes, it is'. Only you (and people like you) will say it's not for own personal reasons and grievances, that's telling enough.

And you've derailed the thread from OP's topic enough, I think, with your own personal soapbox.

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

It's not just the industry. Ask 1000 MMO gamers objective enough to look at things without emotional bias whether AoC is an MMORPG or not. 999 will say 'yes, it is'. Only you (and people like you) will say it's not for own personal reasons and grievances, that's telling enough.

 

And you've derailed the thread from OP's topic enough, I think, with your own personal soapbox.

I like it when people pull stats out of nowhere.   Well I reckon, making up my own, if you ask 1000 ex AOC players if AOC is an MMO and they will so no.  It's too instanced to be an MMO, the massively multiplayer aspects hardly worked (things like sieges).  You might call it an MMO for want of a better term, but there is no open world, just instanced regions. 

Fair enough I agree the thread has been derailed.  But if people are not hiding behind terminology they hide behind other smoke screens, like made up stats .

---

Originally posted by fallenlords

---

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

---

Originally posted by fallenlords


  All to my mind

---

/thread
 
It's obvious that you have a way of looking at stuff with your own viewpoint and use of terminology that isn't conform  the general usage of those terms and general opinion. Also it's quite clear that you have a thing against Funcom and as a result against AoC and TSW, hence that you keep repeating your 'terminology' over and over and over again.
I think you've explained your viewpoint in 10+ posts now, while to most it was already clear after the third time. People won't convince you of the incorrectness - or your 'highly individualised interpretation' - of broadly used MMO terms, and neither will you convince people that how MMO terms have been used by the industry and MMO player base in general is wrong. The only thing that you might convince people of is that you have a strong dislike of Funcom, their game design and their games
But go ahead, parrot your same opinion for an 11th, or 12th and 13th post, like a broken record, as if the former 10 weren't clear.
 

---

I think that it's convenient for people to hide behind terminology. Just because something is a popular belief doesn't make it true.   You will be telling me next the sky in Ancient Greece was blue, that Nero fiddled while Rome burned, frogs make a ribbit noise and a centipede has a 100 legs.  All of which I use as commonly held beliefs that are just wrong.  AOC is not an MMO the world is instanced to the hilt, though AOC is an RPG.  Just because terms are being used incorrectly doesn't mean I should just accept them. Though I do appreciate how annoying I can be,  but then people tend for the most to focus on the terminology.  Rather than argue AOC is an MMO because, we have the industry calls it an MMO so it's an MMO sort of approach.  All hail to the industry, not like they would ever lead any of us astray. I mean it's not like they are actually trying to sell us something in most instances.

---

Take a look at UO, Anarchy Online, Eve Online .. 

You choose what skills to raise, how many points to spend etc .. sure you can spend ages building the character up ... in effect levelling it up you can say .. but there are no levels to compare with, no lfg lvl14 only etc

You might have a character exactly the same class, better gear but less effective due to skills chosen and where, how you spent points etc .. it's more planning, you think more about what your doing, at least people 'should' think more about what they are doing.  

Unfortunately certain people tend to not bother reading anything, immediately jump into playing, not think about what they are doing, never follow advice when they ask and get replies etc .. then moan constantly on the forum because they never bothered looking on it up until they'd done the above.

Originally posted by lizardbones

---

If you were talking about something that existed in nature and wasn't 100% made up by humans, you would have a point. Since mmorpg are 100% human created from scratch, what more than 90% of the population accepts as the definition is the definition. This applies to the different types of progression the same way it applies to the definition of an out of bounds ball in soccer.

AoC is an MMORPG because more than 90%* of the general population says it is. Diablo III is not an MMORPG because less than 10% of the population accepts that it is. TSW has skill based progression without levels because more than 90% of the population looks at TSW and what they've done and says to themselves, "That's skill based progression without levels."

Shenanigans, thy name is fallenlords.

* As an interesting side note, if you could convince as little as 10% of the population that you were correct in what you're saying, then your views would be quickly adopted by more of the general population.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110725190044.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29

 

We ought to have a theology debate then, by your definition we may even to able to prove the existence of God. AOC is is classified as an MMORPG because nobody has challenged that it isn't, nobody has said 'hold on that term doesn't quite fit'.  With generalised terms you can apply terms to anything.   Also depends a lot on your frame of reference if you have only played AOC, then it may appear to be an MMO for that reference point.   But once you play other games classed as MMO in nature you may be able to see the differences.   The majority of the population thought the world was flat at one point, the majority of the population were wrong.  Frame of reference, available information, all go to shaping generalised views.

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

Nonsense. You might hate and bash on AoC and FC all you like, but as a rule most people aren't that delusional to think that an MMORPG isn't an MMORPG just because they hated it. EQ didn't have an open world, it was zoned and still it was an MMORPG. Aion uses instances (channels) and segmented zones as well, yet not a soul - except for maybe a few far out ones - thinks that it's not an MMORPG.

We could hold the poll right here and on other sites, if it wasn't that stupid to ask a question like that. Every single gaming site considers AoC an MMORPG, MMO gamers all around consider AoC an MMORPG, only you do not (and maybe a few  people like you).

Look, this is going nowhere and frankly this whole petty neverending anti FC/AoC/TSW Don Quichote crusade of yours, it's getting annoying.

This whole thread derailing you've been doing yet once again for your own personal soapboxes is irritating as hell, so I'm going to leave it at this. I suggest you stop abusing and derailing this thread for personal convenience any further as well

I never hated AOC, people misinterpret this all the time.  I hate the fact Funcom took a good game like AOC and didn't realise it's potential.   That is quite different.

Well if you are so concerned about this thread going off topic or derailing then bring it back on topic, rather than replying to me which then forces me 'out of politeness' to reply to you.

This thread has gotten off topic several times, let's focus on what the OP mentioned.

Originally posted by fallenlords

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

Originally posted by fallenlords

  All to my mind

/thread

 

It's obvious that you have a way of looking at stuff with your own viewpoint and use of terminology that isn't conform  the general usage of those terms and general opinion. Also it's quite clear that you have a thing against Funcom and as a result against AoC and TSW, hence that you keep repeating your 'terminology' over and over and over again.

I think you've explained your viewpoint in 10+ posts now, while to most it was already clear after the third time. People won't convince you of the incorrectness - or your 'highly individualised interpretation' - of broadly used MMO terms, and neither will you convince people that how MMO terms have been used by the industry and MMO player base in general is wrong. The only thing that you might convince people of is that you have a strong dislike of Funcom, their game design and their games

But go ahead, parrot your same opinion for an 11th, or 12th and 13th post, like a broken record, as if the former 10 weren't clear.

 

I think that it's convenient for people to hide behind terminology. Just because something is a popular belief doesn't make it true.   You will be telling me next the sky in Ancient Greece was blue, that Nero fiddled while Rome burned, frogs make a ribbit noise and a centipede has a 100 legs.  All of which I use as commonly held beliefs that are just wrong.  AOC is not an MMO the world is instanced to the hilt, though AOC is an RPG.  Just because terms are being used incorrectly doesn't mean I should just accept them. Though I do appreciate how annoying I can be,  but then people tend for the most to focus on the terminology.  Rather than argue AOC is an MMO because, we have the industry calls it an MMO so it's an MMO sort of approach.  All hail to the industry, not like they would ever lead any of us astray. I mean it's not like they are actually trying to sell us something in most instances.

I think this is a really interesting point. One could take it a step further though. *Is* AoC really an RPG? Well, what is an RPG? If I took Counterstrike and slapped persistent characters and levels on top, is it now an RPG? If I took that and made a persistent chat lobby where millions of players could chat with each other, would it be an MMORPG? What if the lobby was graphical, like a major city such as New York where you could run around and show off the gold desert eagles you purchased from the item shop? How is this functionally different than the MMO model of hubs/dungeon finder/instanced gameplay?

Two schools of thought here. First is that words mean things, and language doesn't evolve - rather words are misued. Second is that perception is reality, and words mean whatever a consensus say they mean.

Personally, I'm not convinced that MMORPGs are really MMORPGs anymore. In that sense that we're living in the age of genre cross-bleed... shooters have RPG elements, RPGs have online elements, Online Games have arenas and semi-persistent areas. How can one possibly draw lines? I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. On the positive side, it means a lot more options for gamers... 10 years ago the conventional wisdom might have been "This is a game of X genre, that's what gamers expect! You can't add elements of Y genre! It's too confusing!" On the negative side, it makes marketing more difficult. I'm not a marketing guy, but in my humble opinion effective marketing campaigns tend to be short and sweet, and drive home a unified message of the product. Gamers want to know what they are purchasing, but nobody wants to parse "World of Awesomeness is a massively multiplayer instance-based tab-target non-traditional-level based game with role-driven-grouping and shooter elements for 3d vehicle combat set in the fanstical world of SpellJammer" (or whatever). Instead you just say "Blow away your opponents with our innovative skyship combat system!"

---

Originally posted by fallenlords

---

Originally posted by lizardbones

---

---

If you were talking about something that existed in nature and wasn't 100% made up by humans, you would have a point. Since mmorpg are 100% human created from scratch, what more than 90% of the population accepts as the definition is the definition. This applies to the different types of progression the same way it applies to the definition of an out of bounds ball in soccer.

AoC is an MMORPG because more than 90%* of the general population says it is. Diablo III is not an MMORPG because less than 10% of the population accepts that it is. TSW has skill based progression without levels because more than 90% of the population looks at TSW and what they've done and says to themselves, "That's skill based progression without levels."

Shenanigans, thy name is fallenlords.

* As an interesting side note, if you could convince as little as 10% of the population that you were correct in what you're saying, then your views would be quickly adopted by more of the general population.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110725190044.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29

 

---

We ought to have a theology debate then, by your definition we may even to able to prove the existence of God. AOC is is classified as an MMORPG because nobody has challenged that it isn't, nobody has said 'hold on that term doesn't quite fit'.  With generalised terms you can apply terms to anything.   Also depends a lot on your frame of reference if you have only played AOC, then it may appear to be an MMO for that reference point.   But once you play other games classed as MMO in nature you may be able to see the differences.   The majority of the population thought the world was flat at one point, the majority of the population were wrong.  Frame of reference, available information, all go to shaping generalised views.

---

Originally posted by lizardbones

---

The Secret World has skill based leveling without levels because people say that's what it is. There is no fundamental 'Skill Based Progression', nor is there some fundamental 'Level Based Progression' that exists outside of human ideas*. There isn't even some fundamental 'Progression' that exists outside of made up human ideas. Someone decided what those things were, and then most everyone else said, "We agree, that's what those things mean."

You can disagree with the definitions as much as you want, but until you convince at least 10% of the people who use those terms, you are wasting your time.

* The Earth being disc shaped or spherical is something that exists outside of human ideas. If humans weren't here, the Earth would still be flat or spherical. The same cannot be said about 'Progression', 'Level Based Progression' or 'Skill Based Progression'. Also, they knew as far back as Ancient Greece that the world was spherical...they proved it with math and shadows.

 

Err what?  My argument is that TSW is neither classless nor level-less.  This is like getting a square shaped peg in a round hole.    I agree there are specific MMO based terms being used here, that the majority of the MMO community are happy to use.  But overall I think the terms infer something beyond their meaning.

{mod edit}

Give up trying to convince him about the terms being used. He has his opinion and he is entitled to that.

We all know how the character progression in TSW is gonna be like and most are looking forward to it because its something different and possibly a much more satisfying and complex system. Lets just be happy that the vast majority agrees with the terms being used by Funcom and that we all understand them.

---

Originally posted by fallenlords

---

Originally posted by lizardbones

---

---

The Secret World has skill based leveling without levels because people say that's what it is. There is no fundamental 'Skill Based Progression', nor is there some fundamental 'Level Based Progression' that exists outside of human ideas*. There isn't even some fundamental 'Progression' that exists outside of made up human ideas. Someone decided what those things were, and then most everyone else said, "We agree, that's what those things mean."

You can disagree with the definitions as much as you want, but until you convince at least 10% of the people who use those terms, you are wasting your time.

* The Earth being disc shaped or spherical is something that exists outside of human ideas. If humans weren't here, the Earth would still be flat or spherical. The same cannot be said about 'Progression', 'Level Based Progression' or 'Skill Based Progression'. Also, they knew as far back as Ancient Greece that the world was spherical...they proved it with math and shadows.

 

---

Just because people agree on something doesn't make it fact.

---

Okay, guys, if you want to discuss the "what makes an MMORPG an MMORPG", that's a topic better suited for The Pub or a different forum. Please stay on topic here. Last warning.