Originally posted by vesavius

 

I am less concerned about the 'MMO' part of the name being ignored then I am the 'RPG' personally.

Here, here. And don't forget, when the term mmo was first coined, it was pretty much used to describe any game that made room for more than the typical 4 player, or if you were lucky, 8 person multi-player game. But who really cares, it's the 'RPG' aspect that is seriously lacking in most games these days.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Adam1902, the changes made to the genre have made it inarguably more popular.  WOW and modern MMORPGs are inarguably more fun to a larger group of people than UO.

If you don't call that evolution, I'm not really sure what to say.

I'm not even sure I'd call this "dumbing down" the genre.  Perhaps you'd care to explain what made UO so "complex"?

To me it always sounded rather rudimentary and simplistic, with a weak combat system and poorly thought out game mechanics (well-thought out for their day, but the inelegance is to be expected for any pioneering individual.)

Oh it had plenty of freedom, but that freedom didn't sound like it created deep/interesting gameplay.

Nice post, and I totally see what you're saying.
But, imagine yesterdays features, with todays graphically enhanced 3D worlds and game engines. I personally believe that the only reason this hasn't been done in a fantasy MMO (there are reasons why it can be done in a game like Eve Online) is because of technology limitations.

"My opinion, GW is an mmo. How about them apples?"
Don't mean to be picky, but things like this is fact, not really opinion. GuildWars is not an MMO, and the only 'MMO' part about it is the towns. Actually, I believe it says on their website somewhere in black & white, that GuildWars is not an MMO, they prefer to call it a -can't remember-. Not sure if it's still there or not.

"however mmorpg.com has put that number at 500"
Ah-ha! Now this is interesting. You see, most Korean FPS games (such as all the ones on the list here) are slightly different to the way "our" "western" FPS games work. In CounterStrike, or Call of Duty for example, the game servers (rooms where you play the game) are hosted by the players and gaming communities themselves, they are not hosted by the game developers (although a couple might be).

In Korean FPS, I'll use SuddenAttack as an example (because I believe this is what made FPS games take off in Korea). The rooms are not actually hosted by a players connection, infact none of it is hosted by the players connection. In SuddenAttack, you login -> Connect to a server (which holds 500 players!) -> then join a room (16 players max) which has been made by a player. Like I said, these rooms are not hosted by the player, they run from the server. In a server, there is many rooms holding 16 players, so technically, all these players are playing on the same server, right? See what I'm saying?
So they have the technology to have 500 people connected to 1 server, but they aren't using it to put those 500 players in the same game. 16 players is the max to a game. WarRock works like this, CombatArms works like this. All the Korean FPS games seem to (which seem to be the ones that are listed).

So, are they defining the term 'MMO' by what the technology they are using is probably capable of, and not the actual gameplay its self? See what I'm saying?

Another note: It's cool to have a general gaming section and all, definately a good thing. But at the end of the day, this is an MMORPG website, which I assume to come to for talking about MMORPGs? ;) It's good having a general gaming forum, but listing them in the MMORPG list is strange to me (yes, it's their site I know). Maybe if they seperate the list, MMOs and general game sections.

Ah, and someone posted something along the lines of "Oh, who looks at the list, it's useless". Actually, I look at the list, so I'm sure quite alot more do. I basically use this website to inform me of MMORPGs. This is what I use to know about new MMORPGs in the making, being released etc. This is the website that when I'm researching a game for example, I'd come look here first, and follow the links off this site to lead on to more information.
This site is quite a bit more than a forum. You got blogs, reviews, news, "the List", etc. ;)

Anyway, sorry about the way I've been quoting.
Interesting replies,
Cheers.

Originally posted by Adam1902

 

"My opinion, GW is an mmo. How about them apples?"
Don't mean to be picky, but things like this is fact, not really opinion. GuildWars is not an MMO, and the only 'MMO' part about it is the towns. Actually, I believe it says on their website somewhere in black & white, that GuildWars is not an MMO, they prefer to call it a -can't remember-. Not sure if it's still there or not.

It's not a fact, it's your opinion.

An opinion is a belief that may or may not be backed up with evidence, but which cannot be proved with that evidence. It is normally a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts.

A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and confirmed. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation.

All of this is just opinion. Until we have a concrete definition of a MMORPG and we can all decide on what those parameters on what determines an mmo and what doesn't than all of this is just conjecture. You don't think Gulid Wars is an mmo = opinion. I think Guild Wars is an mmo = opinion.

Are they going to be F2P? If your F2P thats your ticket for the game list.

When will BF2 etc make the game list, they might as well be on there? And while you are at it put Pong Online on the list will you, it has two people playing, thats multiplayer.

 Massive, Multiplayer, Online - it really has to be more complicated or else they wouldn't be so great, right?

Really take it at the minimum...but knowing that would include too many and god forbid to use simple logic to explain an acronym, its great to nit pick & point at games going "thats no mmo, no sir!" - "instancing is makes it not/less an mmo" - etc, etc.  The topic is dull & utterly useless to even ask the question, a better one for you:  

Why shouldn't MMORPG list more games as MMORPGs?  Its their site & it opens the flood gates for this inane discussion.  Oh wait, maybe thats why they don't then...

"Its an online RPG or a co-op RPG, its not an MMO" ....they never will be 'massive' enough for you, or have enough "immersion"...so really just let it go.  Its as bad as genre-tizing in music these days, now we need to clarify our MMOs or else our precious classics will be belittled by such despicable claims! how dare they!

Originally posted by Yauchy

 Massive, Multiplayer, Online - it really has to be more complicated or else they wouldn't be so great, right?

Really take it at the minimum...but knowing that would include too many and god forbid to use simple logic to explain an acronym, its great to nit pick & point at games going "thats no mmo, no sir!" - "instancing is makes it not/less an mmo" - etc, etc.  The topic is dull & utterly useless to even ask the question, a better one for you:  

Why shouldn't MMORPG list more games as MMORPGs?  Its their site & it opens the flood gates for this inane discussion.  Oh wait, maybe thats why they don't then...

"Its an online RPG or a co-op RPG, its not an MMO" ....they never will be 'massive' enough for you, or have enough "immersion"...so really just let it go.  Its as bad as genre-tizing in music these days, now we need to clarify our MMOs or else our precious classics will be belittled by such despicable claims! how dare they!

No no, the main point of this thread isn't questioning listed games like GuildWars. It's question the recant addition of F2P FirstPersonShooter games. These games are neither MMO or RPG. They're FPS with a limited number of players (16 in SuddenAttack), so why are they here, listed as MMORPGs? See what I'm saying.
These games have existed for ages, for about 4 or 5 years. But only just recantly they've been put on the list, so obviously it's a decision they've made recantly that classifies FPS games as MMORPGs.

Oh, and arenasb: Maybe you should look into GuildWars a little more. The developers themselves say: "Rather than labeling Guild Wars an MMORPG, we prefer to call it a CORPG (Competitive Online Role-Playing Game)." (Source: GuildWars FAQ). Or by your standards, is that only their opinion?
They explain its differences from a typical MMORPG, and prefer to call it a CORPG. Like I said, the only MMO part is the towns. It's a good game, I'm not bashing the game at all so don't get me wrong. But it's not an MMO (once you get outside the towns and play the game), though.
 

Originally posted by Adam1902

Oh yes, GuildWars etc is definately more MMO (and it's an RPG!) than FPS games. These generic FPS games are not MMO at all (Planetside is however, see the difference?).

A couple of posts irritated me a little (sorry, just being honest :D, don't take me personal), those were "Why do I care about a genre classification so much?", and "the genre is evolving".

Well... I can tell you that the MMO genre is definately not evolving (yet), but rather, it is de-evolving. The only thing that's evolving is graphics and effects.
Look at this for instance, Ultima Online. One of the first MMOs in the west, the one that started it all pretty much, I like to think that this game almost defines what MMO really means. Some people won't understand where I'm going with this, but let me say this: Ultima was an completely open world with no instancing, it had player housing, and each player had a totally different aim from the next. For example, one players aim would to be a popular trader and crafter. The next persons aim might of been to build a village. Someone else might want to put an end to PKing, whilst the other guy would want to be a criminal who lives by killing and robbing other players. The game may not have had spectacular graphics, but that was because of the date it was made.

Now, we've gone from this game, to WoW. In WoW, every player has the same objective. You are limited to your class by what you choose at the character screen, your enemes are pre-chosen for you at the character screen. Every player has the same goal, get to lv.80, then raid (or PvP for gear, I suppose you have the "PvEers" and "PvPers". Even this is bad point in my eyes, in WoW PvE is totally seperate from PvP, like they're different games almost. In Ultima, PvP tied in with everything). You might want to punch me in my whiney ranting face, and say "HEY! You can craft and trade in WoW, what the f*** are you talking about?". Ahh, yes you can indeed. However, your chaaracter cannot live his "life" in the game, being a crafter and trader. Unless ofcourse you don't want to get anywhere in the game. It's actually quite hard to explain.

Anyway, I'm not trying to say WoW isn't an MMO, because yes. WoW is an MMORPG, wether I like it or not. I'm just explaining how the genre, in general has been dumbed down. There is less diversity, every player does the same thing with the same objective. The genre has de-evolved rather than evolved in my eyes.

This whole post is off-topic by the way, I wanted to answer the question "Why I care so much", and exlain to the other poster why I think MMORPGs haven't evolved.

 

Anyway, back on topic. They're listing non-persistant (except for items), room based generic online FPS games on MMORPG.com now. These are NOT MMOs, in any way, shape or form. They are not RPGs either. They have no place on this website, so what are they doing here? I've seen answers such as "because they can", "it's their site", etc. Yes, that is quite obvious, it's their site and they can do whatever they want with it. But my question of "WHY do they list those games here?" still stands.

Whew! Wall of text, eh?
Seen a few intresting replies anyway, cheers.

They get money from advertising. Maybe they want to get as much traffic as at all possible to this site - including the players of obscure asian FPS'es falsely labeling themselves MMO?

I can't see any other reason.

When they added GW and DDO to the site, I knew that it was going downhill - this is just the next step.

Originally posted by MursaJr

acronym nazis, is it really that bad to have a forum for a game? they dont force you to go to it. All it does is give people another place to talk about that game. Do people really just whine about pointless stuff like this?

What if a music site began reviewing movies and games because they have music in them? Or if they began reviewing supermarkets because they play muzak?

This is an MMO site, a site specialized for one genre of gaming, not a site for random, mis-labeled games, that have nothing to do with the genre.

 I think we need to straighten out the definitions and terminology. I suggest the following definitions:

SP - single-player: we all know what that is

MO - multiplayer online: you have a text-chat lobby and instances

MMO - massive multiplayer online: the same as MO but with an extended lobby:
- 3D lobby with avatars
- persistent lobby and avatars
- you can develop avatars (levels, XP points, honor points, achievements ...)
- marketplace
- classes
- professions
- quests (simple and large story driven quests)
- static environment (whatever the players do the world is still the same)

SMMO - sandbox massive multiplayer online:
- one unified and persistent virtual world (not divided into lobby and instances)
- no levels, XP points, honor points, achievements ...
- no classes
- no proffessions
- just skills which you can develop only with using them and it is impossible to develop all of the skills in a reasonable time for example in 100 years
- no quests
- players can influence the environment (building and destroying cities, roads, dams ...)
- players can permanently influence the behavior of the NPC (humanoids and animals)
- no stories, just a historical background until the moment the game starts and from that moment on the players create the stories and the contemporary history

Originally posted by alecbr

 I think we need to straighten out the definitions and terminology. I suggest the following definitions:

SP - single-player: we all know what that is

MO - multiplayer online: you have a text-chat lobby and instances

MMO - massive multiplayer online: the same as MO but with an extended lobby:
- 3D lobby with avatars
- persistent lobby and avatars
- you can develop avatars (levels, XP points, honor points, achievements ...)
- marketplace
- classes
- professions
- quests (simple and large story driven quests)
- static environment (whatever the players do the world is still the same)

SMMO - sandbox massive multiplayer online:
- one unified and persistent virtual world (not divided into lobby and instances)
- no levels, XP points, honor points, achievements ...
- no classes
- no proffessions
- just skills which you can develop only with using them and it is impossible to develop all of the skills in a reasonable time for example in 100 years
- no quests
- players can influence the environment (building and destroying cities, roads, dams ...)
- players can permanently influence the behavior of the NPC (humanoids and animals)
- no stories, just a historical background until the moment the game starts and from that moment on the players create the stories and the contemporary history

Your SMMO definition (well, part of it) is what MMO should be. But since it has now been diluted beyond recognition, I would go with any other agreed-upon definition. IMO we need a definition that excludes both instance and lobby as part of the game - just one, unified world, where you can potentially meet everyone in the game.

I wouldn't make any limits regarding classes, levels, XP etc. That is too restricting on game design. Although I do recognize the problems with levels, as they in many games segregate the players (players can't play with other just 5-6 levels above or below them), however there are some games with levels, that allow everyone to play together (Planetside).

Your SMMO definition is too narrow, it will restrict game design.

This website has a none-mmorpg section so isn't it obvious they list none-mmorpg games in the games list.

They not in the released games list on the MMORPG section of the website. Of course one can argue if games like GuildWars should be on the released MMORPG games list. But the main point is answerd as to why there are none-mmorpg games listed in the games list section.

Not sure why there is a whole discussion about something that small.

I could imagine and understand this whole discussion if the website did not have a none-mmorpg game section, but it has a section for none-mmorpg's

it does make me sad to see these glorified team combat games making it on the site.

the quicker people accept counterstrike and its spawn as mmo's for whatever stupid reason the quicker you will find yourself paying monthly fees or MT's to play them.

I have alot of respect for the GW's devs.  They on their site clearly show the similarities and differances between a true mmo and what they are. They are much closer to being an mmo than some of the fps crap thats making it on the list nowadays, but they arnt a true mmo.

GW2 is a different dragon, its actually bringing a persistant playable world to the field and i think really deserves its spot on this site.

seriously: to be considered an mmo nowadays all you need to do is let everyone create a 8x8 pixle box place it on a large green field and have it attached to an irc channel.  So long as 500 people have the option of placing their box on the green field (not saying they can move it afterwards.. but its their "avatar" ) you have a new mmo called boxy, an mmotpcg.   (massive multiplayer online third person chat game!)

this site needs to stick to its guns a bit more, or as soon as someone getsa  better purist site up and going this site will see a massive exodus.

Im not calling DOOOOM! but I and many others come to this site to read about mmo's, their are plenty of other sites that cover all the genres half assed.

Just want to say, that 'alecbr''s definitions which are then slightly adjusted by 'Rasputin' is exactly the way I see things.

and I agree 100% with 'steamtank''s post.