Trending Games | Neverwinter | Guild Wars 2 | Star Trek Online | WildStar
Network: Gamertube FPSguru RTSguru
| 68 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
1/05/12 9:27:33 PM#21
Originally posted by Axehilt Dynasty Warrior and VINTICUS and Guikd Wars are MMO?
|
|
|
1/05/12 9:32:22 PM#22
Originally posted by dannydeuce Not everyone. You shouldn't criticize someone in the same sentence that you toss out a huge blanket statement that isn't even true. I've given specific reasons why I feel SWTOR doesn't feel massively multiplayer, but rather an Online Cooperate RPG. And you don't have to trust me, but don't claim "everyone" does the same thing. Later on in your post, you say how the game is massive. The first M in MMORPG does not stand for massive, and this is where the problems start. In GW2, and in Rift, I see massive amounts of people in one area playing together. I don't see anyone talking about such huge groups in SWTOR. The game is largely instanced or zoned, much of the RPG elements of which can be solo'd, and lastly, I don't consider raids a massive amount of people. no GW2 won't kill WoW, but it's time to move on and quit worrying about those people still playing it. - eyelolled |
|
|
1/05/12 9:33:43 PM#23
Originally posted by MMOExposed Nope, at least not in my book. I consider them all COORPGs, like SWTOR, only SWTOR goes a bit further, but not much. It's still in COORPG territory to me, but people on this site seem to think Diablo 3 classifies as an MMO, so it's no sense splitting hairs in the end.. no GW2 won't kill WoW, but it's time to move on and quit worrying about those people still playing it. - eyelolled |
|
|
1/05/12 9:35:53 PM#24
Originally posted by Axehilt Pretty much, that is the definition of an MMORPG. It's just an RPG with a persistent world and lots of players that share that world. So if a game has the three things Axehilt mentioned then it technically in an MMORPG. Now let me get to why we have these debates. Imagine you have a game which has a persistent world, lots of players, and RPG mechanics. Now imagine that players in that game spend almost all their time solo-questing, in 5-man dungeon instances, or warfront PvP. The game is technically an MMORPG, but the activities the players are doing are not MMORPG activities. In fact, you can do ALL of those activities in non-MMORPG games. The persistent world is not necessary at all for those. This is where you get the "it's not an MMORPG argument." This argument is basically just hyperbole used to make a reasonable point. The point is that if you create a game with all of the components of an MMORPG (as Axehilt mentioned) but then proceed to design the game to IGNORE or HIDE those components in favor of traditional multiplayer RPG mechanics, then you have defeated the purpose of making an MMORPG. You have basically created an MMORPG that tries its very best not to be an MMORPG...which is ridiculous. Arena Net actually understood this principal when they made Guild Wars. They basically made Guild Wars because they didn't like all of the annoyances associated with the MMORPGs of the time, and wanted to make a game that eliminated them and felt more like an actual RPG. So they just decided to make it a completely instanced CORPG instead. They knew a persistent world would make no sense for what they were trying to do. All it would do is get in the way. I seriously don't understand why some developers feel like they need a persistent world. If your game is going to be extremely linear and emulate an SPRPG as much as possible...then I don't see the purpose of a persistent world. It just gets in the way. Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob? |
|
|
1/05/12 9:37:52 PM#25
Originally posted by MMOExposed I have no clue about those first two, but the vast majority of Guild Wars is not persistent. It is all instances. The only persistent part are the towns...and this is a minor part of the game. Calling GW an MMORPG would be like calling Diablo an MMORPG because it had a persistent lobby. Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob? |
|
|
1/05/12 9:50:02 PM#26
To me so long as a game has a persistent setting that that supports a massive amount of players to interact together in that area it is a mmo. To me a persistent world is a world that is not randomly generated, such as that when you walk into an area the enviroment as well as people in that area are the same overall, and not having completely different land masses or creatures in the area each time you go there. To me interaction is merely having your actions effect other players in the area around you, which range from being able to help kill a creature with a players to gathering things that now another character can not now or killing other characters in the area as well. Yet this does not mean that you have to group, fight, or work couperatively with other players around you, but merely have an effect on those players around you. |
|
|
1/05/12 11:16:07 PM#27
Originally posted by MMOExposed Did Dynasty Warrior become massive at some point? When I played it there were no shared worldspace -- heck there wasn't even multiplayer (splitscreen at most.) Guild Wars is pretty damn close to a MMORPG, I'd say. For a long time, I insisted it was an MMORPG actually. But it's realistically in a grey area due to how fragmented the world spaces are and how little RPG there is (very little vertical progression.) (Although oddly less fragmented world spaces than many MMORPGs. If I'm in a city in GW I can always join a friend. But if I'm in Org in WOW and my friend is in another realm (another instance, effectively), I'm prevented from joining them without a fee and a long wait. Only games like EVE (of which there are extremely few) have a truly singular shared world space, and we're certainly not going to pretend EVE is the only "one true MMORPG".) No clue what Vindictus (Vinticus?) is. |
|
|
1/05/12 11:17:46 PM#28
Originally posted by Creslin321 Actually yeah this is probably the main reason it's not considered a MMORPG. Just like a game which is predominantly about FPS-aiming but has RPG elements is called a MMOFPS (Planetside), but a game which has strong RPG elements and happens to have FPS-aiming is called an RPG (Skyrim). |
|
|
1/06/12 12:32:01 AM#29
Originally posted by MMOExposed All of those are close enough. So is DDO. Close enough that they don't need a genre of their own. Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. -Author unknown, attributed to Mark Twain |
|
|
1/06/12 1:09:40 AM#30
Originally posted by Quirhid I can't comment on Dynasty Warriors because I have not played it, but Vindictus and Guild Wars ARE NOT MMORPGs. This is coming from someone who's bought every single expansion for GW and is currently playing Vindictus. The fact that they are both 100% instanced pretty much prevents them from fulfilling the 'massively' part of the MMORPG acronym. The towns where you can see more than 8 people are basically nothing more than glorified lobbies given a 3D space. There's a huge difference between the towns in WoW where they are seamnlessly integrated with the game world and the towns in GW/Vindictus where the only thing you can do is walk around. They are at most MORPGS, although A-net decided to call GW a CORPG. |
|
|
1/06/12 2:38:14 AM#31
Originally posted by EvilestTwinOriginally posted by Quirhid Yeah Anet may call it a MMO, but other developers and producers do call these games MMO. How is Guild Wars not a MMO, but Dynasty Warrior Online is? Makes no sense. Its all marketing scams. This is why I have issues with this discussion, and make such a big deal out of which games are/aren't MMO, because these people are milking off people
|
|
|
1/06/12 2:42:08 AM#32
Originally posted by MMOExposed It's true. A-net proved with Guild Wars that instanced CORPGs can do fine without having a monthly fee. Hence why all the recent heavily instanced MORPGs released are going free2play, because people realized there's no point in paying a monthly fee for co-op rpgs.
|
|
|
1/06/12 3:28:59 AM#33
A Real MMORPG should be Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. If it loses one part then it stops being an MMORPG. WoW style Intanced Dungeons or instanced "BattleGrounds" contradicts the Massively Multiplayer part. If the game is infested with instances then it is not a Massively Multiplayer. Auction Houses also hurt the Massively part; you will ask "why?" and I will answer you.... Auction House eliminated a big part of MMORPGs. It is when you communicate with other players to set a deal. Player-to-Player communication is a key in what a Massively Multiplayer is all about. Not only Combat should be Massive but the Player Interaction in Economics should be massive. If you get what you want communicating with a Program called the Auction House and you get the best prices of a specific piece of armor in a split of a second then why the heck do you want to interact with other players to look for a good deal? That auction house destroyed what was available in Massive games before. Quest Driven Solo Content: Having 90% of the game Solo Friendly forces it to be a Single Player game and there's nothing Massive about a game you can solo all the way. Dangerous World: Being in a dangerous world not only improve the massive part because you have to band together to survive (hence massive multiplayer) but it also improves the Role Playing part as well. No Insta Traveling: Insta Traveling makes the worlds small. If a player can jump from part of the world to another far away part in a split of a second... the world is trivialized and is never a mssive world. Also, you lose the player-based traveling skill which were available on EverQuest... by making players, and only players, being able to boost your traveling you create a player-to-player interaction which, again, makes the game leans towards the Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing game because You're Interaction with players. Immersion: Immersion improves on Role Playing and if you don't improve on immersion and just make a gamish-game then you lose the RP part.
These are just some of the points of what I believe makes an MMROPG an MMORPG. I don't consider a lot of MMORPGs MMORPGs... But I don't give a rats ass what you think. I know for sure I don't like these games and I stopped waiting for a decent one because I know the good old days are gone and are not coming back. Today is for today's kids just enjoy it because it's not going to last. But your MMORPGs now adays are a piece of shit.
|
|
|
1/06/12 8:42:30 AM#34
Originally posted by MMOExposed It really isn't that complicated... If the significant majority of the world is persistent and shared between lots of people, then it is an MMO. If this game has RPG mechanics, then it is an MMORPG. You can apply this litmus test to anything and it's easy to see what isn't and is an MMORPG. Is the majority of Guild Wars persistent and shared? NO. It's not an MMORPG. It really doesn't matter if some company "chooses" to call their game an MMORPG for marketing purposes. The definition that has pretty much been agreed upon since UO is that an MMORPG has to have a persistent shared world with lots of people. Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob? |
|
|
1/06/12 8:54:29 AM#35
Originally posted by Teala Dont really care if Edison was a crack or not, but he was very influential in the latter part of the Industrial Revolution so he gets a pass in my book. Tesla on the other hand was an idiot savant and jis AC electical ideas were not only stupid but byond unsafe its the reason why his inventions never gained traction, not to mention he was an eccentric and considered a mad scientist. Theres a reason why people like him and Howard Huges never went mainstream.
With that being said SWTOR is an MMO regardless if you hate the game or not and its pretty obvious you hate the game so theres no reason to to undo what it obviously is. |
|
|
1/06/12 8:54:40 AM#36
If you have any question about what mmorpg means, you might want to review the "Development of EQ". The redefinition game is ultimately futile when dealing with a field as varied as this one. WoW style Intanced Dungeons or instanced "BattleGrounds" contradicts the Massively Multiplayer part. If the game is infested with instances then it is not a Massively Multiplayer. If you've ever found yourself seriously proposing that WoW is not an MMO, for example, you might need to just stop treating abstract concepts as concretes. You're splitting hairs and indulging your pedantry. |
|
|
1/06/12 9:00:45 AM#37
Originally posted by Teala ~QFE
Examples of REAL MMOs previously done: ~DAOC ~EQ pre-Planes of Power ~SWG Pre-NGE, maybe even Pre-CU ~Shadowbane ~UO
Instances detracts from the "open world" of what an MMO is. ZERO instancing is EVER allowed! Hand-Holding linear questing destroys immersion, and eventually turns into a grind of Exp per hour (EPH). Uninteresting generic itemization destroys any sort of uniqueness to character customization.
Enjoy your hand-holding SWTOR, it won't last long. People don't want that old Wow-Clone model anymore. The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity: |
|
|
1/06/12 9:06:39 AM#38
Originally posted by Squal'Zell Great. You can pretty much quit the genre now.
|
|
|
Adamantine
Elite Member
Joined: 1/07/08
War is not the ultima ratio, but the ultima irratio - Willy Brandt |
1/06/12 9:07:50 AM#39
A MMORPG is a "Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game". Thus it would have to be: - Massively Multiplayer : Not just multiplayer, but massively multiplayer, i.e. there have to be at least hundreds, if not thousands of other players in the same world with you. - Online : The game is played in the internet - Role-Playing : The game is based on character properties and statistics, rather than on the reflexes etc of the gamer. Unlike a shooter, where the power of the game character depends mostly upon the amount of physical skills with the game controls the gamer possesses. Using a roleplaying rather than a shooter control allows for better tolerance in respect to ping. - Game : There is no actual gain from the program; it is art and entertainment. |
|
1/06/12 9:10:13 AM#40
Originally posted by Icewhite WoW is still an MMOrpg ,but almost everything Blizz did with this game since Vanilla - like prioritizing instance gameplay, making Arenas , making cross-server LFG tools with auto-teleportation, phasing , redesinging game so players spent 90% in instances ,etc - all of this imho is pushing WoW outside of MMOrpg sphere. Don't get me wrong WoW is still mmorpg ,but imo barely.
That does NOT change the fact that this is kind of gameplay ALOT of people like and even prefer. They just (propably cause many not even tried) not like original mmorpg concept.
10 or 20 years from now , there will be clear distinction between diffrent types of mmorpg's.
Same was with strategies and rts.
Firstly RTS games were just thrown into same genre as strategies, but after some years it evolved into whole diffrent genre.
Same will happen in mmorpg , genre is too big , playerbase and it's expectations vary too much , cause of WoW whole genre was in 'freezer' - it will start evolving faster and laungague and acronyms will come later :)
After all EvE Online and for example Vindictus are totally diffrent kind of games, almost nothing in common.
MMORPG - seamless ,persistant world, players are playing a chosen role in fictional "community" (actually it does not need to have levels and things like that to be RPG - common misconception , same game can have levels but not be rpg at all - see BF3 , CoD ,etc)
|
|
.jpg){kind=avatar}
Friends: vgchartz.com
Not a member? You can still subscribe to our newsletters and daily updates here!
May 25, 2013 10:08 AM
- Page Created in 0.796 seconds -
