To answer that question I think you need to define, at a rudimentary level, what is an MMO?

I would say that the one most important aspect of an MMO is that the world is persistant. I.e. you log of but the "world lives on".

In STO the only thing that is persistant is your character and equipment (including ships). Everything else in the "world" is static and instanced. Starbases, planets, PvP maps, missions, EVERYTHING else is static, instanced and unchangeable. If you log of and then log back in, the ONLY thing that may have changed are other characters, nothing else. There are no variables that decide how well the war is going, or how a planet is faring, they are all static and unchangeable.

In this sense is the game really different from say Diablo 2, played on BNET? There the only thing that was persistant was also your character and your equipment and everything else was static and instanced. Sure, here you are constantly connected to a graphical world when playing but that is just cosmetical as in Diablo 2 you were connected to a chat lobby.

So really, is this game an MMO? I would say no.

EDIT: Just want to clarify that I am talking about the definition of the term MMORPG. Obiously this site considers the game to be an MMO or it would not be listed here so I am not challenging their definition.

Well, it is possible that it is closer to what Guildwars is than most other MMOs.

But let's face it, few MMOs are actually persistent.  If you log on to Wow things will be the same as things were yesterday too (well, a few different mobs might be up but that is it). A few games like Eve are different but right now is it only in sandbox games that what you do affects the game (well some games like AoC have a small persistent part, in AoCs case the guildcity).

Some games that are either regular themparks or themeparks with sandbox parts where the world do changes are in production, Guildwars 2 is probably the one you have heard most about. We will hear a lot more about games like that in the future.

So I would still say that STO is a MMO even if it is an instanced one in style with Guildwars and DDO. There should really be many sub classes to MMO because they differs a lot.

 this game is as much an mmo as Guild Wars is, the only difference is the monthly fee AND an item mall with more then just cosmetic stuff

Like mister said if this is an mmo so is guild wars, global agenda and games like that.

Is this game really an MMO? Yes. Is it YOUR kind of MMO? Clearly not... which is certainly no fault on your part...

...starting several diffrent threads to make the same point over and over on the other hand...

 In my definition no its not a MMO. But its no different than guild wars. Global Agenda is more a team fortress 2 type of game and shouldnt be on this site but thats another forum. These days to be an MMO you just need to have a chat feature it seems but its a direction that the dollar menu part of the industry has went down.

 It's an MMO due to the player base. Unfortunately a heavily exploited player base.

Originally posted by nikoliath  . . . if it wasn't an MMORPG it would not be listed here. End of story.

You obviously haven't explored the site's extensive game list very thoroughly. I suggest you start with Shot Online, a golf simulator in which you can choose to play one of five characters (not classes, characters, already named for you). Even the OFFICIAL review says, "This is not an MMORPG."

But it's listed here!

Originally posted by TheAesthete

Originally posted by nikoliath  . . . if it wasn't an MMORPG it would not be listed here. End of story.

 

You obviously haven't explored the site's extensive game list very thoroughly. I suggest you start with Shot Online, a golf simulator in which you can choose to play one of five characters (not classes, characters, already named for you). Even the OFFICIAL review says, "This is not an MMORPG."

But it's listed here!

 

Take it up with mmorpg.com, and are you supporting the myth that STO is NOT an mmorpg?

""Does it meet our requirements?
Make sure that the game isn't already on our list. We know that this sounds simple, but there are a lot of them and sometimes they get overlooked.
The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology.
The game must include some form of common area where players can interact with one another inside of the persistent game world. This excludes lobby and chat room based interaction. Exceptions are made where logical (such as sports MMOs) that still fit within the spirit of what an MMO is.
The game must make use of persistent characters. This means that you should be able to log in after logging out and find your character as advanced as you left them (or more).
The game must contain some form of advancement.""

Originally posted by nikoliath

Take it up with mmorpg.com, and are you supporting the myth that STO is NOT an mmorpg?

 

Nope, not at all. I don't care for the game, but I think any suggestion that it's not a MMORPG has to rely on an impossibly narrow definition of the term.

But you made an incredibly rude post (you must not understand the term "psychosis" if you think it wasn't), and then you made a point that hinged on the mistaken belief that every game this site lists qualifies as an MMORPG.

Guild wars is on the list. Does that make it an MMORPG?

On a more serious note though, charging a fee doesn't make a game an MMO, I am pretty sure the list of failed games mentions a game that tried that trick and, well failed because it wasn't an mmo. I am not sure if Monster Hunter Tri "western" version will have a fee or not, but I was under the impression that the monster hunter games are not considered MMOs, or maybe they are and just not covered much outside of Japan.

You would have to use a narrow definition of the word to exclude STO from an MMO. I guess my general rule of the thumb is that the game didn't turn on when i started the game in OB... it was always on, so to speak, and people playing it when I wasn't. The problem is, that by iteself doesnt' define an MMO well either because most of the Facebook games are always on too and those aren't really MMOs.

I think defining an MMO would be an interested article, but it would seem strange to me, as someone who did not like STO enough to pay for it, although I did like it on some level, that STO would be excluded from MMOs.

can i point out to all referencing guild wars, that guild wars isn't an mmo and has never claimed to be such, but then they never charged the monthly sub

 Nah, STO isn't an MMORPG it's a MOG. It falls inline with Guildwars, just with a monthly fee tacked on and less content. 

Please stay on topic and refrain from personal attacks. 

I think there is a difference between an MMO and an MMORPG. It's the RPG part.

MMO = massively multiple online game -- what qualifies as "massive"? 50 players? 100? surely a 1000? What is the most that can inhabit the same instance or "land" in STO? Is that massive?

RPG = Role Playing Game -- these almost always have persistent worlds, and the game is you playing the "role" you want to play in that environment. Typically these provide multiple types of characters, and multiple activities to choose from. So my "role" could be an archer character that also bakes pies, or some such.

I was disappointed in STO as an RPG because there is no choosing what "role" you can be, and also there is not really a persistent world that you can "live" in; unless you are satisfied that you want to play the role of a ship captain in a war, with combat being the main or only activity. In that sense, any single person shooter is also an RPG.

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

 Nah, STO isn't an MMORPG it's a MOG. It falls inline with Guildwars, just with a monthly fee tacked on and less content. 

Yes I would agree with that. Multiplayer Online Game is a much more fitting description as the "massive" element really never materialises more than it does in games like Diablo or other multiplayer online games.

Also the "persistant world" element also does not materialse. E.g. there is a war between Klingons and Federation but is that war persistant? Can it be affected in any way by the players? Are there territories that can be won and lost? No.

I define games like PotBS as "Graphical Lobby Games" where the 'Lobby' is the Travel Map.
You wait there to go to an instance to actually play the game.
Really, they are not much different to a Forum and the way you see the main forum before going to a sub forum an then a thread.

Games like Champions Online are "Managed Instance Directors".  Essentually, the engine simply manages hundreds of different instances and automatically assigns players to them.  Players also have the option to manually over-ride this system if they need to.
It is the same as a lobby for a game like Battlefield or Counter Strike but has been automated.

Should it be classed as an MMO?

I would say this depends on how many players are allowed per instance?

MMORPG.com rules say 500 players per server...which is a loophole allowing these games to be listed as MMOs.

Originally posted by Karahandras

can i point out to all referencing guild wars, that guild wars isn't an mmo and has never claimed to be such, but then they never charged the monthly sub

I didn't think they did either but someone further back said if its on the site, its an MMO except Guild Wars is on this site. However, Guild Wars was presented, clearly so I think, as an alternative to fee based MMOs so they were definitely out to compete with those games.

As for the loophole, well if they throw everyone on one server, but the most people you see in one place is maybe 20 people... but you know there are 100s, maybe thousands playing hard to say.

Some people here need to realize that what an MMO is to them does not define the term, it only highlights their expectations out of the genre. The term MMO means "massive multiplayer online". All of these games are online multiplayer games. The term 'massive' is HIGHLY subjective. Some people seem to think that the term only applies to having thousands of players all in one area. However I cannot think of a single MMO that can handle such a feat atm.

As was pointed out, even the expectation of a persistent world is a rare feature amongst most MMOs. The more successful ones are just better at distracting players from that fact.

The game is an MMO. There shouldn't really be any debate over this. The more important questions would be "is it a good one?" or "is this one worth playing?".

Originally posted by aesperus

Some people here need to realize that what an MMO is to them does not define the term, it only highlights their expectations out of the genre. The term MMO means "massive multiplayer online". All of these games are online multiplayer games. The term 'massive' is HIGHLY subjective. Some people seem to think that the term only applies to having thousands of players all in one area. However I cannot think of a single MMO that can handle such a feat atm.

As was pointed out, even the expectation of a persistent world is a rare feature amongst most MMOs. The more successful ones are just better at distracting players from that fact.

The highlighted sentences sums up this argument perfectly.  There is no quantitative ideal that breaks down whether a game is a multiplayer or a MMO.  The only true quantitative requirement is that at least more than 1 person must be playing at a time. That is what separates Multiplayer games from single player games.  And, MMO's are a form of multiplayer game.

Now, as you stated, "'massive' is HIGHLY subjective."  That is so true.  This is why there is no true requirement for an MMO except, again, that it requires at least more than one player playing at a time.  Yet, individuals go about and try to use their own definitions of what an MMO is to attempt to deface specific MMO's, which fits with their ulterior motives.  Those motives usually revolve around attempting to prop up their current MMO through defacing another.