GTA:SA Multiplayer has like 200 people per server does that make it an mmo? No. Counter Strike has 100,000 people playing at the same time but on different servers does that make it an mmo? No.

Massively Multiplayer needs to be an online persistent world where in theory thousands of people can come together.

http://mos.futurenet.com/video/pcgamer/podcast/podcast.xml Episode 30.

If you listen from the start they talk about SW:ToR.

Listen from 6:30 they talk about APB.

 

Originally posted by John.A.Zoid

http://mos.futurenet.com/video/pcgamer/podcast/podcast.xml Episode 30.

If you listen from the start they talk about SW:ToR.

Listen from 6:30 they talk about APB. 

Interesting but still just speculation on the servers/players/instancing thing, so it says nothing more than the very first post.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by MrTRiot

Originally posted by neosapience

The technology just doesn't exist to allow for a massive amount of people to play a true FPS together. Well, at least not in any affordable, marketable form.

 

There is only one MMOFPS and that's Planetside. It never really hit it big....kind of shows a lack of a market for this type of game.

 

 

Wrong. My experience from Planetside was that it was very, very laggy spawn camp all the way (no sugar coating). And those mechs were something of a game breaker (I might be wrong). So yeah, no market for those.

Jeez. Even Endless Ages did better. Ever heard of that?

Planetside was a good game and it could perform well, more than good enough to have some fun massive FPS style battles.

Originally posted by CyberWiz

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by MrTRiot

Originally posted by neosapience

The technology just doesn't exist to allow for a massive amount of people to play a true FPS together. Well, at least not in any affordable, marketable form.

 

There is only one MMOFPS and that's Planetside. It never really hit it big....kind of shows a lack of a market for this type of game.

 

 

Wrong. My experience from Planetside was that it was very, very laggy spawn camp all the way (no sugar coating). And those mechs were something of a game breaker (I might be wrong). So yeah, no market for those.

Jeez. Even Endless Ages did better. Ever heard of that?

 

Planetside was a good game and it could perform well, more than good enough to have some fun massive FPS style battles.

 

The reason people saw lag in Planetside was because the game didn't have a ping limit so you saw people with 300+ pings lagging around ruining it for people who had broadband.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by Waterlily

Originally posted by mutombo55

Its NOT 100 per server. Its something like 100 per "City" Instance, or some such. I haven't read any clear explanations on how the instancing works yet.

 

All the more reason to refrain from calling it an MMO for now. If the server isn't based on a persistent world but just dumps players into open instances, it not an MMO.

 

What would you classify Combat Arms, Guild Wars, Crossfire, Wolf Team, and Exteel as?

 

 

They are mogs ( multi-player online games ), not mmogs ( massively multi-player online games ). Which is why I've never understood this site claiming it's for mmos, yet continually adding games like Hellgate: Failure and Guild Wars. They might as well just add Diablo and every other non-mmo.

 I think there's a hub and then there's "instances" of the city with up to 100 players, so it's around the same as AoC in this case.

Lets re-iterate a little on what little we know in regards to player numbers:

From the APB FAQ:

• Approximately 10,000 players per world consisting of 100 player district maps.

We've also been told

• 100 players instances

So there seems to be some link between Districts and Instancing, and numbers of 10,000 and 100 thrown about.

That's about all we know. If you want to magically conjure up assumptions and convince yourself it is or isn't an MMO, good for you. But until MORE information is revealed, this topic will only continue to go in circles... thankfully it hasn't quite yet spiralled down into the black hole of "what makes an MMO an MMO...."

I leave you all now to jabber away incessantly.....

All this is, is a fps in the Diablo mold with an increase in the player count.  Everything is instanced.  So no, for my standards, this is not a MMO.  It is a FPS that aspires to be a MMO, but does not quite make it.  Call it what you want.

For me to call something a MMO you have to have common areas beyond a central meeting point.  So I don't consider Guild Wars a MMO either.  But this site has different standard that are less restrictive, so it does meet theirs.

Originally posted by John.A.Zoid

GTA:SA Multiplayer has like 200 people per server does that make it an mmo? No. Counter Strike has 100,000 people playing at the same time but on different servers does that make it an mmo? No.

Massively Multiplayer needs to be an online persistent world where in theory thousands of people can come together.

If the characters are persistent in SA:MP and the claims of 200 on a server are true then that GTA mod pretty much qualifies as an MMO.

Counterstrike has no persistence (world or character) and no main world for the players to gather. It doesn't really have any of the qualities of an MMO.

What you sate an MMO *needs* to be is your personal opinion. Resets int he game world happen in several MMOs that are unquestionably MMOs - ATITD and PotBS are the first two to come to mind.

If MMO gamers spent less time trying to label, classify and pigeon hole their MMOs and spent more time just playing them they would probably enjoy them a lot more than they currently do. As it stands, large chunks of the MMO gamer populace will immediately reject and rebuke an MMO - sight unseen - based on certain keywords in a basic description of it. .

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by John.A.Zoid

GTA:SA Multiplayer has like 200 people per server does that make it an mmo? No. Counter Strike has 100,000 people playing at the same time but on different servers does that make it an mmo? No.

Massively Multiplayer needs to be an online persistent world where in theory thousands of people can come together.

 

If the characters are persistent in SA:MP and the claims of 200 on a server are true then that GTA mod pretty much qualifies as an MMO.

Counterstrike has no persistence (world or character) and no main world for the players to gather. It doesn't really have any of the qualities of an MMO.

 

What you sate an MMO *needs* to be is your personal opinion. Resets int he game world happen in several MMOs that are unquestionably MMOs - ATITD and PotBS are the first two to come to mind.

 

If MMO gamers spent less time trying to label, classify and pigeon hole their MMOs and spent more time just playing them they would probably enjoy them a lot more than they currently do. As it stands, large chunks of the MMO gamer populace will immediately reject and rebuke an MMO - sight unseen - based on certain keywords in a basic description of it. .

I think that is valid, to reject certain games out of hand based on a certain criteria.

This is a site for MMORPGs supposedly. When I'm here, I want to discuss MMORPGs, and what kind of MMORPG I'd like to play.

It doesn't mean I don't like First Person Shooter games, or multi player online games like Diablo. Diablo is a great game, and lots of fun. BUT, when I want to play an MMORPG, or discuss MMORPGs, Diablo doesn't qualify any more than Call of Duty.

It's like I go to a wine tasting party, and someone wants to taste or talk about beer. Yes, beer can be very good, and there are beer tasting parties, and there's nothing wrong with beer, but dude, we're at a wine tasting party right now, so could you stick with the program?

Basic definition of MMORPG, Massive = more than 128 people online in the same world at the same time.

Roleplaying= in the computer game realm, character progression, and character stats more important in determining the outcome of combat than player twitch skills. The progression is persistant (saved till the next time you play), however a reset does not negate the character progression, just means ya got to start a new game, like making an alt.

Doesn't mean massive multi player first person Shooter games are bad, or that I wouldn't want to play them, doesn't mean that games with less than 128 players in the same game world are bad or that I wouldn't want to play them, but they aren't MMORPGs.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by Czzarre

 By the general definition of MMO you need > 500 I believe

Source?

On this site, the game has to support at least 500 players, per server.

But really at what point does a MOG become a MMOG?
I thought 150 players in a FPS (Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising) was pretty massive.

So I think it should based of type of game, it is.

Originally posted by lornphoenix

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by Czzarre

 By the general definition of MMO you need > 500 I believe

Source?

 

On this site, the game has to support at least 500 players, per server.

But really at what point does a MOG become a MMOG?
I thought 150 players in a FPS (Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising) was pretty massive.

So I think it should based of type of game, it is.

It's my understanding that everything goes in multiples of 8. 16, 32, 64, 128, and  256, etc.

When you are designing a multi player online game, you can design for the server to hold one of these multiples in a game, like 64, or 128.

This is the general architecture that games like call of duty, or Diablo use.

However, a MMORPG uses some thing completely different, so they don't have to stick to these multiples of 8, and can have for example 3K concurrent users on a single server in the same world, which distinguishes the MASSIVE game, from the multiplyaer online game.

I don't really know the math or programming which leads to the multiples of 8, but that's the way I understand it.

So, once a games breaks this rule, and has like 347 players in the game, it's Massive.

If you see 64, 128, 256 ot less, it's probably just multiplayer, not Massive.

Originally posted by lornphoenix

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by Czzarre

 By the general definition of MMO you need > 500 I believe

Source?

 

On this site, the game has to support at least 500 players, per server.

But really at what point does a MOG become a MMOG?
I thought 150 players in a FPS (Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising) was pretty massive.

So I think it should based of type of game, it is.

Their 500+ criteria isn't for MMOs, but to qualify for listing on the site since the site would be both unwieldy and useless if they listed every single MMO out there. 

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Their 500+ criteria isn't for MMOs, but to qualify for listing on the site <snip>

 

 

never said it was.

100 people per instance, and 10,000 person servers is an MMO.
The starcraft/counterstrike argument is stupid.
Counterstrike you don't develop a persistant character. You join a game, every player is equal and you finish a game and its over.
Thats what defines an MMO.
That you have a large amount of players persistantly existing on a server.

Besides; professional game developer VS some shmuck on the forums. I'd go with the judgement of the professional.

Originally posted by Munki

100 people per instance, and 10,000 person servers is an MMO.
The starcraft/counterstrike argument is stupid.
Counterstrike you don't develop a persistant character. You join a game, every player is equal and you finish a game and its over.
Thats what defines an MMO.
That you have a large amount of players persistantly existing on a server.

Besides; professional game developer VS some shmuck on the forums. I'd go with the judgement of the professional.

You mean like Bill Roper when he called Hellgate: Failure an mmo? lol

So much for your "professional vs. schmuck" theory.

Originally posted by Munki

100 people per instance, and 10,000 person servers is an MMO.
The starcraft/counterstrike argument is stupid.
Counterstrike you don't develop a persistant character. You join a game, every player is equal and you finish a game and its over.
Thats what defines an MMO.
That you have a large amount of players persistantly existing on a server.

Besides; professional game developer VS some shmuck on the forums. I'd go with the judgement of the professional.

Important information is going to be how big the instances are and how easily it is to move between them. That will determin a lot how the game feels. For example if the instances are relatively small and requires loading screens to move between its going to put a big crimp in some peoples play style.

Originally posted by Munki

100 people per instance, and 10,000 person servers is an MMO.

No, 100 people per instance is a big chat room, but its certainly not an MMO.  There just is no "massive" in 100.

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Munki

100 people per instance, and 10,000 person servers is an MMO.

 

No, 100 people per instance is a big chat room, but its certainly not an MMO.  There just is no "massive" in 100.

Guess it depends on how seamless the instances are woven into the whole. Too many unanswered questions.

Can you move between instances? If you can, is it seamless or loading screen? If you can, and the instance is full, what happens? Denied entry or does another instance spawn? Can you communicate with players server wide?

Well, despite my desire to really want to like this game, chalk it up as another game that better have a free trial before I pay.