Originally posted by Quirhid

As demonstrated by Planetarion (wikipedia link), Dominion and various other similar games where your planet, kingdom etc. is represented by a webpage(s) of numbers and stats. These games have everything they need to be called an MMO and the ones which have player characters in them (instead of planets or dominions) are fully fledged MMORPGs.

A lack of a world does not unmake an MMORPG and a "true MMORPG" (if you insist such a thing exists) does not need a world nor does it need to be a world simulation.

Ahh yes, another prophet. Everyone, listen to his sermon on the mount.

Originally posted by Ramonski7
I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.

By that definition, even GW1 was a MMO, which most people here seem to disagree with.

I don't really care though.  Games are evolving, so are players.  These old definitions will change also, or the terms will die out.  One of the two, most likely.

Originally posted by evolver1972

Originally posted by Ramonski7
I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.

By that definition, even GW1 was a MMO, which most people here seem to disagree with.

 

I don't really care though.  Games are evolving, so are players.  These old definitions will change also, or the terms will die out.  One of the two, most likely.

Yeh. People who can't deal with changge will continue to rant though.

A world may not be required but i think designing a game world-first is likely to make it a more profitable game on average partly simply because some people like it but also partly indirectly because worldy games unintentionally create a side-effect of keeping people playing longer.

Reason:

If you say for the sake of argument that the amount of money a game can potentially make has some connection with player-time spent in a game then what generates player-time?

1) initial levelling

2) endgame activities

3) pastime activities i.e. not levelling or endgame e.g. socializing, crafting, collecting, achievements, reading lore etc

4) repeat levelling, replayability

I think aiming to make game "worldy" has an indirect and in the past probably unconscious effect of improving all four of the above but especially 3 and 4. The obvious example being a worldy game tends to have lots of races and starting areas which increases 4.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by evolver1972

Originally posted by Ramonski7
I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.

By that definition, even GW1 was a MMO, which most people here seem to disagree with.

 

I don't really care though.  Games are evolving, so are players.  These old definitions will change also, or the terms will die out.  One of the two, most likely.

Yeh. People who can't deal with changge will continue to rant though.

 

 

 

 

Careful, i think supporters of asbestos and early pesticides probably thought the same way :)

Flame on!

:)

I disagree. The term MMO is used way too often today. Back in 2000, Massive multiplayer might have meant something like 60-100 people running around in the same area interacting, wich is what the technology could handle. They were usually connected on servers that housed ~5000 people.

By todays standard, that is not massive anymore. And even though the technology has advanced, zones get clustered up into a hundred instances of the same zone. I do not call that massive multiplayer by todays standards.

So I think the term MMO can be argued about in itself. The definition must change, as technology has changed.

The reason why all of this is happening I think are twofold:

Choice of the wrong game engines to create MMOs, due to lack of funding or just plain cluelessness and/or the lack of money / willpower / expertise to create a working open world non instanced game engine with todays technology

It must be allowed to be said that most "MMOs" today are doomed before they even launch, because they use inappropriate game engines. In other words, the products are crap, plain and simple. They do not deserve to be called MMOs

Originally posted by Khorian

I disagree. The term MMO is used way too often today. Back in 2000, Massive multiplayer might have meant something like 60-100 people running around in the same area interacting, wich is what the technology could handle. They were usually connected on servers that housed ~5000 people.

By todays standard, that is not massive anymore. And even though the technology has advanced, zones get clustered up into a hundred instances of the same zone. I do not call that massive multiplayer by todays standards.

So I think the term MMO can be argued about in itself. The definition must change, as technology has changed.

The reason why all of this is happening I think are twofold:

Choice of the wrong game engines to create MMOs, due to lack of funding or just plain cluelessness and/or the lack of money / willpower / expertise to create a working open world non instanced game engine with todays technology

 

It must be allowed to be said that most "MMOs" today are doomed before they even launch, because they use inappropriate game engines. In other words, the products are crap, plain and simple. They do not deserve to be called MMOs

The thing is that the name MMO (a synonym for MMORPG) is also used wrongly. acording to those people D3 is an MMO, might as well call the CoD series an MMO then and evrey game with an online function. an MMO requires a persistant world wich houses alot of people at the same time. not box evryone in their own little instance that is not an MMO.

Browser games couled be called MMO's but for the sake of gameplay elements lets not.

Well we do seem to have people on here who find having to use more than one abbreviation for everything in online gaming hurts their brain. :)

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Quirhid

---

Please define the term "world" as you are using it.

 

+1  

Clarity on that would really help move the discussion forward.

Something that mimics or tries to mimic a world is enough. It does not need to carry on when the players are not around. A world does not carry on when a P&P play session ends. it works in much the same way as instances. Yet it still feels like a world. More than any MMO, I might add.

In contrast, board games don't even try to mimic a world. Planetarion doesn't. Last time I played. It is more like a big game board. Hundreds, if not thousands, of players fighting for dominance.

---

Originally posted by Quirhid

---

Originally posted by Loktofeit

---

Originally posted by lizardbones  

---

Originally posted by Quirhid

---

Please define the term "world" as you are using it.  

---

+1   Clarity on that would really help move the discussion forward.

---

Something that mimics or tries to mimic a world is enough. It does not need to carry on when the players are not around. A world does not carry on when a P&P play session ends. it works in much the same way as instances. Yet it still feels like a world. More than any MMO, I might add.

In contrast, board games don't even try to mimic a world. Planetarion doesn't. Last time I played. It is more like a big game board. Hundreds, if not thousands, of players fighting for dominance.

---

Originally posted by Quirhid

A world does not carry on when a P&P play session ends.

Mine does :)

Originally posted by xeniar

 

The thing is that the name MMO (a synonym for MMORPG) is also used wrongly. acording to those people D3 is an MMO, might as well call the CoD series an MMO then and evrey game with an online function. an MMO requires a persistant world wich houses alot of people at the same time. not box evryone in their own little instance that is not an MMO.

Browser games couled be called MMO's but for the sake of gameplay elements lets not.

Wrong by your definition? There is no governing body .. no authority of what should be called MMO .. or for that matter, any game genre. It is just for convenient. If the perception change, who cares if there is a persisent world with a lot of people.

Plus, if you go by the name .. "persistent world" is not in there, "massive" can mean anything from a lot of people trading on a AH (don't tell me you don't think ebay is "massive"), to a big pvp battle.

Just use what is common out there.