Originally posted by Paradigm68
As has been demonstrated here, all it takes to be an mmo is for the company making the game to call it an mmo. But that's not what we here are about, is it?  No, we're about good mmorpgs. And what it takes to be a good mmorpg, well... that is an entirely different discussion in which 'world' and 'community' play much larger roles.

That is what you are about.

I am about good GAMES. "World" and "community" should not over-take fun. They are not always on the opposite side .. but some of the older notions of what "community" means does.

For example, some may think limiting a community to a server is a good thing. I think that is limiting. I would much rather have cross-server functionalities, so i can play with any friend, or any one i choose to.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

I was in GW2, last night, in Malchor's Leap with at least 50 other players doing a massive event. NOW THAT IS AN MMO. Myself and 3 other buddies in D3, that is NOT massive.

 3 players is not a lot.

But you can group with any of the millions that play D3. That is no difference than when i was in WOW, i group with 4 other players, though there are millions to group with.

And if 50 is good enough for a MMO, then Battlefield 3 is a MMO.

Your wrong. in Wow you can choose to play with a handfull of people but the other people are there in your face, they can look at you interact with you.

in d3 i can choose to interact with random people or i choose not too. those people are not in my face they are not around me

and Massivly does point towards a number (ALOT of people not 50) but it also point to a persistant world, because all those people are there not exactly next to you but are in your WORLD  not in your instance game until one wins and you create a new game.

Originally posted by botrytis

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

 

 Nothing in the acronym MMO implies a world.  That is just something that is commonly associated with it.  All you need is a lot of people playing in an online game to be an MMO.

Yeh. MMO should be more inclusive.

The first 'M' in MMO is massively - that doesn't mean 3 players - it means way more than that. My opinion is that it also means in one area, not different instances or games.

 

I was in GW2, last night, in Malchor's Leap with at least 50 other players doing a massive event. NOW THAT IS AN MMO. Myself and 3 other buddies in D3, that is NOT massive.

Originally posted by RoyalPhunk

 

To the OP: Super obvious troll thread I see it has already been reported.

That's too bad.

Regardless of the OP's intent, it has sparked a good discussion that higlights the utter absurdity of reductionist, super-inclusive ideas of what we mean when we say "MMORPG" ... personally, I've always had trouble including even D3 and PS2 in what I'm willing to call an MMORPG. But others (and we can easily see who they are in this thread) are willing to be much more inclusive...to an absurd degree. I still say Facebook fits their definition.

Originally posted by lizardbones

I'm not entirely sure that's what Quirhid is talking about. It seems like what they are saying is that you don't need a visual representation of a world, even if the world's existence is implied by the data or statistics you're being fed by the game.
 

I'm thinking that might be what he's saying, which I agree with, but he hasn't really been very clear on that front.

Originally posted by xeniar

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

I was in GW2, last night, in Malchor's Leap with at least 50 other players doing a massive event. NOW THAT IS AN MMO. Myself and 3 other buddies in D3, that is NOT massive.

 3 players is not a lot.

But you can group with any of the millions that play D3. That is no difference than when i was in WOW, i group with 4 other players, though there are millions to group with.

And if 50 is good enough for a MMO, then Battlefield 3 is a MMO.

Your wrong. in Wow you can choose to play with a handfull of people but the other people are there in your face, they can look at you interact with you.

in d3 i can choose to interact with random people or i choose not too. those people are not in my face they are not around me

and Massivly does point towards a number (ALOT of people not 50) but it also point to a persistant world, because all those people are there not exactly next to you but are in your WORLD  not in your instance game until one wins and you create a new game.

"in Wow you can choose to play with a handfull of people but the other people are there in your face, they can look at you interact with you."

Same as in D3. You can whisper them. You can in-their-face spam them. You can inspect them. That is interacting. True you cannot see their 3D model, but that is not the only kind of interaction.

"Massive does point towards a persistant world" .. nope .. it says "massive" .. not "massive with a persistent world". massive .. just mean "a lot". Nothin more .. nothing less.

Originally posted by Iselin

Originally posted by RoyalPhunk

 

To the OP: Super obvious troll thread I see it has already been reported.

That's too bad.

 

Regardless of the OP's intent, it has sparked a good discussion that higlights the utter absurdity of reductionist, super-inclusive ideas of what we mean when we say "MMORPG" ... personally, I've always had trouble including even D3 and PS2 in what I'm willing to call an MMORPG. But others (and we can easily see who they are in this thread) are willing to be much more inclusive...to an absurd degree. I still say Facebook fits their definition.

It shows how narrow minded some people here are. If you violate even their little sense of what a "proper" definition of MMO .. they will go all nasty. No wonder they can't deal with change and rant here about the MMO industry all day.

Personally, MMO is just a label to me, and i use it similar to common usage. it does not bother me whether D3 and PS2 are included.

But D3 and PS2 are obviously the kind of games being discussed here.

May be we should just use "MOG" .. and discuss as such. And my position is that a virtual world (3D representation, persistent) is not required for a good MOG.

Originally posted by xeniar

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

I was in GW2, last night, in Malchor's Leap with at least 50 other players doing a massive event. NOW THAT IS AN MMO. Myself and 3 other buddies in D3, that is NOT massive.

 3 players is not a lot.

But you can group with any of the millions that play D3. That is no difference than when i was in WOW, i group with 4 other players, though there are millions to group with.

And if 50 is good enough for a MMO, then Battlefield 3 is a MMO.

Your wrong. in Wow you can choose to play with a handfull of people but the other people are there in your face, they can look at you interact with you.

in d3 i can choose to interact with random people or i choose not too. those people are not in my face they are not around me

and Massivly does point towards a number (ALOT of people not 50) but it also point to a persistant world, because all those people are there not exactly next to you but are in your WORLD  not in your instance game until one wins and you create a new game.

 Massive doesn't imply a persistant world, that is your interpretation.  All massively implies is a lot.  You could argue that this means there is a lot of areas to associate with people in and you would have a good argument.  However that doesn't mean a world.  A chat room that can host 1000 people simultaneously where they tell stories could be an MMO, not a game but an MMO. 

A lobby room game does have an area with hundreds/thousands of people to interact with. 

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by xeniar

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

I was in GW2, last night, in Malchor's Leap with at least 50 other players doing a massive event. NOW THAT IS AN MMO. Myself and 3 other buddies in D3, that is NOT massive.

 3 players is not a lot.

But you can group with any of the millions that play D3. That is no difference than when i was in WOW, i group with 4 other players, though there are millions to group with.

And if 50 is good enough for a MMO, then Battlefield 3 is a MMO.

Your wrong. in Wow you can choose to play with a handfull of people but the other people are there in your face, they can look at you interact with you.

in d3 i can choose to interact with random people or i choose not too. those people are not in my face they are not around me

and Massivly does point towards a number (ALOT of people not 50) but it also point to a persistant world, because all those people are there not exactly next to you but are in your WORLD  not in your instance game until one wins and you create a new game.

"in Wow you can choose to play with a handfull of people but the other people are there in your face, they can look at you interact with you."

Same as in D3. You can whisper them. You can in-their-face spam them. You can inspect them. That is interacting. True you cannot see their 3D model, but that is not the only kind of interaction.

"Massive does point towards a persistant world" .. nope .. it says "massive" .. not "massive with a persistent world". massive .. just mean "a lot". Nothin more .. nothing less.

How many random people have you interacted with in diablo 3? id tell you my number. 1.  1 person wich i did not know beforehand and that was only because he was selling something i wanted.

How many in WoW? and im not talking instances but in your server. well i cant tell you a number . as ive interacted with many about alot of things. helping them with info, saving them from death etc etc the list goes on.  Hi player interaction on a much much bigger scale. Because i will run into these people in random places. not just in my little instance bubble i created. massive indeed does not havve the word world in it. it indeed points towards a large number. a large number of people playing YOUR game at the same time. Not the same game but Your game theres a diffrence.

thats why MMO's and online games are not the same thing. if you think it is... you people are just off in the head tbh.....

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Iselin

Originally posted by RoyalPhunk

 

To the OP: Super obvious troll thread I see it has already been reported.

That's too bad.

 

Regardless of the OP's intent, it has sparked a good discussion that higlights the utter absurdity of reductionist, super-inclusive ideas of what we mean when we say "MMORPG" ... personally, I've always had trouble including even D3 and PS2 in what I'm willing to call an MMORPG. But others (and we can easily see who they are in this thread) are willing to be much more inclusive...to an absurd degree. I still say Facebook fits their definition.

It shows how narrow minded some people here are. If you violate even their little sense of what a "proper" definition of MMO .. they will go all nasty. No wonder they can't deal with change and rant here about the MMO industry all day.

Personally, MMO is just a label to me, and i use it similar to common usage. it does not bother me whether D3 and PS2 are included.

But D3 and PS2 are obviously the kind of games being discussed here.

May be we should just use "MOG" .. and discuss as such. And my position is that a virtual world (3D representation, persistent) is not required for a good MOG.

It has nothing to do with narrow or broad minds. What it has to do is with the navel gazing silly debates (in this forum in poarticular) about what is meant by something that is simply a convenient acronym that we consensually use to describe a certain type of game.

We know where the name came from and what we used to mean by it when UO, EQ and AC were the only 3 to choose from. But now it seems that there are some here who want to change the meaning of the acronym to include whatever on-line pursuit they enjoy... neither single-player games with on-line components nor large scale RTS games are what I think of when I'm trying to discuss MMORPGs with others.

The absurd lengths to which you and others are willing to go to bring your pet games into the fold just serve to confuse the genre and lead ultimately to a definition that includes any and all online pursuits in your definition... like Facebook... really.

Originally posted by xeniar

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by xeniar

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

I was in GW2, last night, in Malchor's Leap with at least 50 other players doing a massive event. NOW THAT IS AN MMO. Myself and 3 other buddies in D3, that is NOT massive.

 3 players is not a lot.

But you can group with any of the millions that play D3. That is no difference than when i was in WOW, i group with 4 other players, though there are millions to group with.

And if 50 is good enough for a MMO, then Battlefield 3 is a MMO.

Your wrong. in Wow you can choose to play with a handfull of people but the other people are there in your face, they can look at you interact with you.

in d3 i can choose to interact with random people or i choose not too. those people are not in my face they are not around me

and Massivly does point towards a number (ALOT of people not 50) but it also point to a persistant world, because all those people are there not exactly next to you but are in your WORLD  not in your instance game until one wins and you create a new game.

"in Wow you can choose to play with a handfull of people but the other people are there in your face, they can look at you interact with you."

Same as in D3. You can whisper them. You can in-their-face spam them. You can inspect them. That is interacting. True you cannot see their 3D model, but that is not the only kind of interaction.

"Massive does point towards a persistant world" .. nope .. it says "massive" .. not "massive with a persistent world". massive .. just mean "a lot". Nothin more .. nothing less.

How many random people have you interacted with in diablo 3? id tell you my number. 1.  1 person wich i did not know beforehand and that was only because he was selling something i wanted.

How many in WoW? and im not talking instances but in your server. well i cant tell you a number . as ive interacted with many about alot of things. helping them with info, saving them from death etc etc the list goes on.  Hi player interaction on a much much bigger scale. Because i will run into these people in random places. not just in my little instance bubble i created. massive indeed does not havve the word world in it. it indeed points towards a large number. a large number of people playing YOUR game at the same time. Not the same game but Your game theres a diffrence.

thats why MMO's and online games are not the same thing. if you think it is... you people are just off in the head tbh.....

 Those are things you chose to do in Wow, you didn't need to but they were available as interactions.  You chose not to do the things d3 does that let you interact.

Originally posted by Iselin

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Iselin

Originally posted by RoyalPhunk

 

To the OP: Super obvious troll thread I see it has already been reported.

That's too bad.

 

Regardless of the OP's intent, it has sparked a good discussion that higlights the utter absurdity of reductionist, super-inclusive ideas of what we mean when we say "MMORPG" ... personally, I've always had trouble including even D3 and PS2 in what I'm willing to call an MMORPG. But others (and we can easily see who they are in this thread) are willing to be much more inclusive...to an absurd degree. I still say Facebook fits their definition.

It shows how narrow minded some people here are. If you violate even their little sense of what a "proper" definition of MMO .. they will go all nasty. No wonder they can't deal with change and rant here about the MMO industry all day.

Personally, MMO is just a label to me, and i use it similar to common usage. it does not bother me whether D3 and PS2 are included.

But D3 and PS2 are obviously the kind of games being discussed here.

May be we should just use "MOG" .. and discuss as such. And my position is that a virtual world (3D representation, persistent) is not required for a good MOG.

It has nothing to do with narrow or broad minds. What it has to do is with the navel gazing silly debates (in this forum in poarticular) about what is meant by something that is simply a convenient acronym that we consensually use to describe a certain type of game.

 

We know where the name came from and what we used to mean by it when UO, EQ and AC were the only 3 to choose from. But now it seems that there are some here who want to change the meaning of the acronym to include whatever on-line pursuit they enjoy... neither single-player games with on-line components nor large scale RTS games are what I think of when I'm trying to discuss MMORPGs with others.

 

The absurd lengths to which you and others are willing to go to bring your pet games into the fold just serve to confuse the genre and lead ultimately to a definition that includes any and all online pursuits in your definition... like Facebook... really.

Facebook isn't a game, although it is definitely a virtual community.

Originally posted by xeniar

 

How many random people have you interacted with in diablo 3? id tell you my number. 1.  1 person wich i did not know beforehand and that was only because he was selling something i wanted.

That is just you. I interact as many as when i play WOW when i go into random groups, and that does nto even count the number of trades i have done on AH .. which far exceed that i did in WOW in teh same amount of time.

How many in WoW? and im not talking instances but in your server. well i cant tell you a number . as ive interacted with many about alot of things. helping them with info, saving them from death etc etc the list goes on.  Hi player interaction on a much much bigger scale. Because i will run into these people in random places. not just in my little instance bubble i created. massive indeed does not havve the word world in it. it indeed points towards a large number. a large number of people playing YOUR game at the same time. Not the same game but Your game theres a diffrence.

Hmm .. you are wrong. There are 5 people, including me, playing my game in WOW when i run a dungeon. There are 25 when i run a raids. And many have most of the time in dungeons or raid.

thats why MMO's and online games are not the same thing. if you think it is... you people are just off in the head tbh.....

Sure there are some minor different. But the playstyle is close enough. And i found this minor differences are not that important at all. I am playing PS2 now .. if the battles are massive, will it make a gameplay difference to me if the battle are instanced? No.

I am also playing D3. If indeed they put in a world lobby (say you can see 100 people in trisham) .. will that makes a gameplay difference to me? No.

 

Originally posted by Iselin

 

It has nothing to do with narrow or broad minds. What it has to do is with the navel gazing silly debates (in this forum in poarticular) about what is meant by something that is simply a convenient acronym that we consensually use to describe a certain type of game.

 haha .. i agree. MMORPG is just label to me. Whether a certain is included, or not .. don't bug me.

We know where the name came from and what we used to mean by it when UO, EQ and AC were the only 3 to choose from. But now it seems that there are some here who want to change the meaning of the acronym to include whatever on-line pursuit they enjoy... neither single-player games with on-line components nor large scale RTS games are what I think of when I'm trying to discuss MMORPGs with others.

But wouldn't you agree that we should stick by the common usage that the industry use? Hence, D3 is not a MMO, and WOW is. 

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Iselin

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Iselin

Originally posted by RoyalPhunk

 

To the OP: Super obvious troll thread I see it has already been reported.

That's too bad.

 

Regardless of the OP's intent, it has sparked a good discussion that higlights the utter absurdity of reductionist, super-inclusive ideas of what we mean when we say "MMORPG" ... personally, I've always had trouble including even D3 and PS2 in what I'm willing to call an MMORPG. But others (and we can easily see who they are in this thread) are willing to be much more inclusive...to an absurd degree. I still say Facebook fits their definition.

It shows how narrow minded some people here are. If you violate even their little sense of what a "proper" definition of MMO .. they will go all nasty. No wonder they can't deal with change and rant here about the MMO industry all day.

Personally, MMO is just a label to me, and i use it similar to common usage. it does not bother me whether D3 and PS2 are included.

But D3 and PS2 are obviously the kind of games being discussed here.

May be we should just use "MOG" .. and discuss as such. And my position is that a virtual world (3D representation, persistent) is not required for a good MOG.

It has nothing to do with narrow or broad minds. What it has to do is with the navel gazing silly debates (in this forum in poarticular) about what is meant by something that is simply a convenient acronym that we consensually use to describe a certain type of game.

 

We know where the name came from and what we used to mean by it when UO, EQ and AC were the only 3 to choose from. But now it seems that there are some here who want to change the meaning of the acronym to include whatever on-line pursuit they enjoy... neither single-player games with on-line components nor large scale RTS games are what I think of when I'm trying to discuss MMORPGs with others.

 

The absurd lengths to which you and others are willing to go to bring your pet games into the fold just serve to confuse the genre and lead ultimately to a definition that includes any and all online pursuits in your definition... like Facebook... really.

Facebook isn't a game, although it is definitely a virtual community.

 Facebook is an online community where many people play the game of pretending to be something that they're not... if that's not a role playing game, I don't know what is.

Originally posted by Quirhid

As demonstrated by Planetarion (wikipedia link), Dominion and various other similar games where your planet, kingdom etc. is represented by a webpage(s) of numbers and stats. These games have everything they need to be called an MMO and the ones which have player characters in them (instead of planets or dominions) are fully fledged MMORPGs.

A lack of a world does not unmake an MMORPG and a "true MMORPG" (if you insist such a thing exists) does not need a world nor does it need to be a world simulation.

You are absolutely right for a MMO you don't need a world.

Your example Planetarionsee your own link "Planetarion (commonly referred to as PA) is a browser-based massively multiplayer online game."

I don't feel a MMO should feel like a World, I do feel a MMORPG needs to feel like a world, but you need to understand these are my personaly preferences and not something I state as fact.

I do agree that there aint "true mmorpg's" it's just all just based on opinions, needs and wants out of a certain game genre, expectations. And while I might feel that SWG was for me the greatest MMORPG experiance ever doesn't mean it was the greatest MMORPG ever made. To me yes, but definitly not for the masses.........

Originally posted by Iselin

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Iselin

The absurd lengths to which you and others are willing to go to bring your pet games into the fold just serve to confuse the genre and lead ultimately to a definition that includes any and all online pursuits in your definition... like Facebook... really.

Facebook isn't a game, although it is definitely a virtual community.

 Facebook is an online community where many people play the game of pretending to be something that they're not... if that's not a role playing game, I don't know what is.

I'm sorry. I thought you genuinely wanted to have an intelligent discussion. My mistake.

It helps to just think of MMO as exactly what the word implies, lots of people online on the same game/platform/application.  Hopefully with some level of interaction.

It's an umbrella term.  RPG is a subgenre, lobby is a sub-genre, social games/platforms are a subgenra, fps, rts, muds...

 edit - they are suffixes.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

It helps to just think of MMO as exactly what the word implies, lots of people online on the same game/platform/application.  Hopefully with some level of interaction.

It's an umbrella term.  RPG is a subgenre, lobby is a sub-genre, social games/platforms are a subgenra, fps, rts, muds...

Well said.