What actually defines a game as "Massively Multiplayer",  is it based on game mechanics or is it related to player population (curent or intended)?

If the answer is the latter, is there a point during a game's inception or demise where it wouldn't be considered MM based on active players?

Originally posted by fat_taddler

What actually defines a game as "Massively Multiplayer",  is it based on game mechanics or is it related to player population (curent or intended)?

If the answer is the latter, is there a point during a game's inception or demise where it wouldn't be considered MM based on active players?

 

 

 

 

In my opinion, Massively Muliplayer is defined by the game mechanics, current population is irrelevant.

I think it's based on both, as in the number of a people that a game can support logging in simultaneously and have the ability to interact with in some way.

The number is vague and just more than a multiplayer can handle, the interaction is vague as well (grouping/auction/chatting...).

The actual population of the game is not a factor.

A city mass-transit bus is built to seat 40 people, if the bus is empty it's still a bus.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

I think it's based on both, as in the number of a people that a game can support logging in simultaneously and have the ability to interact with in some way.

^

Orignally? Having 50 players running around on the same game screen was pretty amazing.

16 years later, well...we probably lean a bit toward the game design (server architecture) side a bit more?

And no, it don't stop being massive if most of those players are logged out. Unless it stops operating entirely, anyway.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

I think it's based on both, as in the number of a people that a game can support logging in simultaneously and have the ability to interact with in some way.

^

Orignally? Having 50 players running around on the same game screen was pretty amazing.

16 years later, well...we probably lean a bit toward the game design (server architecture) side a bit more?

 Well that could mean 2 or 3 things I guess.

1. If multiplayer games can now handle the same numbers as original MMO's than the two genres are and should blur.  This is actually happening.

2. If multiplayer games can now handle the same numbers as original MMO's than current MMO's should push the envelope further to have evern more simulataneous players logging in. 

3.  Perhaps new terms need to be coined.

Game mechanics and capacity.

I view it as "a connected multiplayer world with capacity of 500+ player characters in the same world at the same time".

By connected, I judge this as "any player character can walk or travel to any other player character, in any location in the world, at any time".

In fairness plenty of MMOs don't adhere strictly to this, but the general idea should fit the game under most circumstances.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

3.  Perhaps new terms need to be coined.

Or we can stop spending so many freaking hours trying to define acronyms. :shrug:

I don't remember massive being adverb-fied (-ly) added, originally. Was that the subject of endless pedantry, too?

Possibly however unless there is some general agreement on words, including acronyms, communication is difficult.

Yes we know that definiations are a huge part of these boards, but still there is some agreement among many people as to what constitutes an MMO.

Barrikor said it best:

"A city mass-transit bus is built to seat 40 people, if the bus is empty it's still a bus."

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

what constitutes an MMO.

On this site? What the owners want to cover.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Barrikor said it best:

 

"A city mass-transit bus is built to seat 40 people, if the bus is empty it's still a bus."

Agreed, here though, certain people who drive small cars, but think buses are cool, want everyone to call their car a bus and to limit the number of seats on the bus from 40 to 4.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Possibly however unless there is some general agreement on words, including acronyms, communication is difficult.

Yes we know that definiations are a huge part of these boards, but still there is some agreement among many people as to what constitutes an MMO.

Just use the industry categorization. Go to IGN, or gamerankings .. and games are listed by category.

To me, it is just silly debate endless for a definition.

Or better yet, discuss specific games. If i say "wow, LOTRO, and games have similar features ...." .. that would be clear what i mean, right?

To me, "massively multiplayer" still goes back to the notion of "more than just a multiplayer lan game", that is to say: enough users connecting at all hours of the day and night that the game never turns off.

Frankendoodle, I think you found a quirk I hadn't pondered.

If you name it Massive Multiplayer that says to me the world is huge, the words are both separate and don't complement in ascendence like Massively Multiplayer does. 

Maybe it can be describing both depending on the way you word it.

Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game = Massive Online Role Playing Game with multiple players

Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game = Online Role Playing Game with a massive amount of multiple players

I make sense of that by what effect a comma would have between the two.

Massive, Multiplayer, Online Role Playing Game

versus

Massively Multiplayer, Online Role Playing Game

I always thought of it as being a bunch of people online but I could see the wording meaning the gamefield instead. How many a bunch is was them claiming to have space for as many as would fit by hardware capability and networking instead of how many were online at one time. Since I use the lazy term MMO, don't think I'm even reading the complete words often.

Originally posted by greenreen

If you name it Massive Multiplayer..

...then you'd be wrong because that's not what the letters stand for.

It should be related to a large group of players that can access the same space (zone).  I would not classivy an ARPG, MOBA, Lobby Shooter or games with only persistent cities as MMORPG's.  

HOWEVER - I agree to have them listed here since these types of games are of greater interest to MMO players since they are still online and involve playing with others.  A tomato technically isn't a vegetable, but it's sold in the vegetable section.  The asparagus isn't all "GTFO 'mater you don't belong here".

if you click on that link to the left of the forum that says "WWII Online", youll understand what it means to be an mmo. WWII Online is a single-instance persistant server 350,000 square km in size with a 10,000 player capacity @ 196 viewable. WWII Online was one of the first mmo's made along with Everquest and Ultima Online 12 years ago.