Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by Nevulus

all jokes aside I knew it was over when they introduced Guild Wars to this forum. It was not a MMO, it was just another lobby game. Slowly the tides turned in favor of this new ez-mode lobby game format. And that was that.

 

Bottomline, as a business, mmorpg.com has no choice but to accept all gaming genres in order to maintain some sort of business model with a revenue stream vast enough to keep the model going. Plain & simple, this site isn't hosted on hopes & dreams, nor wishful thinking. 

 

Minecraft is more MMO than Diablo 3 and GW1 put together, yet Minecraft is not listed on this site.[mod edit]

I saw it coming too... but I didn't think it would get THIS bad. I was just hoping people would understand what the difference between a general multiplayer game was and a MASSIVE version of it was.

[mod edit]

Irony.

[mod edit]

And even more irony.

Originally posted by grimal

Irony.

More than you know--GTA clones had a very real influence on the mmo genre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_clone

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by Nevulus

all jokes aside I knew it was over when they introduced Guild Wars to this forum. It was not a MMO, it was just another lobby game. Slowly the tides turned in favor of this new ez-mode lobby game format. And that was that.

 

Bottomline, as a business, mmorpg.com has no choice but to accept all gaming genres in order to maintain some sort of business model with a revenue stream vast enough to keep the model going. Plain & simple, this site isn't hosted on hopes & dreams, nor wishful thinking. 

 

Minecraft is more MMO than Diablo 3 and GW1 put together, yet Minecraft is not listed on this site. Oh that's right, Notch didn't cough up the $$ for the mmorpg promotion package that included their own subforum and support.   :)   See how it works?

I saw it coming too... but I didn't think it would get THIS bad. I was just hoping people would understand what the difference between a general multiplayer game was and a MASSIVE version of it was.

After a few of the posts on here, I give up. People here just don't want to understand. This topic isn't even a matter of opinion. MMO has a definition. When you look at the words apart, then you put them together you get a pretty clear description.

I am going to go play GTA 4 now, it too is apparently an MMO because it has multiplayer and many people are networked playing the game too. Never mind there will only be 4-8 people in my game world, 4-8 is massive because somewhere else there is another game world with 4-8 people.

 Once again it isn't a matter of understanding.  We do understand your point of view.  We do not agree.

MMO has a definition - lots of people online at the same time. 

d3 has this.  It lets me interact with hundred of people online at the same time.  This is more than multiplayer.  It is an MMO, just not a traditional one.

GW lets me interact with hundreds/thousands of people online at the same time.  This is more than multiplayer. It is an MMO, just not a traditional one.

Anything more than that definition is a personal definition.

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by evolver1972

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by Drevar

It wouldn't be such a big deal to me if the site name was just MMO.com.   You could then argue that any game or network that has thousands of players online regardless of being in a single world, having traditional RPG elements, etc. should be featured here. 

The name, however is MMORPG.com.  The RPG part is what (I thought) distinguished it's content from all other types of half-ass-sorta-hybrid MMO's.

YOU!!! YOU are the type of person that doesn't know what an MMO is! YOU ARE MY EXAMPLE FOR THIS THREAD!!!!!!

This people, this guy right here is what I am talking about!!!!!

I don't mind that the site has grown to cover many other MMO's, my point is that people need to know what an MMO is so they know what they are talking about in an MMO forum. Drevar is a perfect example of not knowing what MASSIVE and MULTIPLAYER mean when combined.

MMO = "any game or network that has thousands of players online"

Can't get much more clear than that.  Not sure why Drevar supposedly doesn't know what an MMO is.  Seems like he (?) summed it up pretty well.

 

And before you start talking about how the players all need to be in the same world, does that exclude dungeons?  How about dynamic layers?  Different servers?  Instances that allow thousands of players?  How about a game where you can play by yourself in some, or even most, areas and maybe only need others to take down a difficult boss?

 

It seems to me you are trying to make up what you think MMO should mean, and anything that doesn't conform to that needs to not be included in the term.  It seems like you're trying to say that MMO only means that a game has to have a whole bunch of players online who can see/interact with every other player if they want to in one open world on one server.  Rather than the actual definition of a game that is capable of having a bunch of players online, provided that online element is a requirement to play the game.

[mod edit]

By your definition WoW is not an MMO.  Neither is GW2.  Or any game that has instances where less than thousands of people can play.

So, oh great one, what's the cutoff?  How many people define massive?  It's obviously not 2, or even 4 according to your posts.  So, what is it?  100?  1000?  1000000?

How about this:  I'll make up my own definition of what MMO means like you seem to be doing.  From now on, no game is considered a Massively Multiplayer Online game unless it meets the following qualifications:

1 - no less than 1000000 people must be playing at the same time

2 - There must only be one map

3 - There must only be one server

4 - Players do any content with less than 100 players in their group.

5 - The game world must be played online at all times.

And, no, I never stated anywhere that I think that CoD or Counter Strike or even D3 should be called MMOs.  They aren't.  They have the multiplayer capability, and in some cases the massive capability, but they don't fit the definition of having to be online to play any part of the game.

Originally posted by evolver1972

 

So, oh great one, what's the cutoff?  How many people define massive?  It's obviously not 2, or even 4 according to your posts.  So, what is it?  100?  1000?  1000000?

MUDS typically had hundreds in primetime.  So it must be at least 10^3, else that would qualify as MMOs, and we can't have that.

But not too many thousands, or we're going to have to discard the smaller indy titles.

That is a thorny little definition, isn't it?

Originally posted by Banquetto
But I get mad when I hear e.g. that World of Tanks (excellent game, don't get me wrong) won an award for Best MMO of the year. That's just sloppy and wrong.

Time to check the accreditation.  Gaming companies have been known to create their own awards from time to time.