---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

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.  

---

It is a matter of definitions. The "usual" definition of a virtual world is a 3D representation of PCs and NPCs in a physical space (terrain).

However, if you want to redefine a vritual world as a common set of data (world state) that players can interact with, i have no objection. But note that under that definition, a AH qualifies as a world, so that will make D3 a virtual world game.

 

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

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.

jeej replying your replys, What im trying to say is that wheter i want it or not in wow (not an instance) i interact with other people by whatever action i take wich issnt even directed towards those people.

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.

yes those people are playing YOUR game im talking about THE game not instances, you choose to interact with those 5-25 people. you do not choose to interact with the hundreds of people in your WORLD your server but it happends spontainiously. That was always and have ever been the core of a MMO.

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.

if you can play with those 100 people in trisham so all go out into the game and play together ? hell yeah does that make your gameplay diffrent. your game would be persistant your actions will have an impact on people wheter you want it or not. That is a big diffrence. you go out into the world to kill stuff you might find only yourself doing that at that point but you could also find yourself doing the same thing with 50 other people. wich brings in the MMO and persistant world. 

 

 

The OP is kind of mistaken. For one, there is a world for all those games. Just because it is not represented by a graphic/visual does not mean it isn't there. While worlds as we know it may not need to be present for an MMO, it would seem to me a world of some type needs to be.

While we are at it, here is some exceptionally basic logic to educate those who don't understand what an MMO is (and probably belong on a regular PC game forum):

Massive.

Multiplayer.

Online.

Which when put together means you get a massive amount of people playing a game in the same instance at the same time online. If there isn't a massive amount of people playing online ALL TOGETHER then it isn't an MMO. Diablo is an excellent example of an online game that millions have access too, yet it is not massive as only 4 people can play together at one time! What don't people get about this? Planetarion is an MMO (of a different nature), but an MMO none the less as everyone is in the same world (yes there is a world OP), and can interact with each other.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

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.  

---

It is a matter of definitions. The "usual" definition of a virtual world is a 3D representation of PCs and NPCs in a physical space (terrain).

 

However, if you want to redefine a vritual world as a common set of data (world state) that players can interact with, i have no objection. But note that under that definition, a AH qualifies as a world, so that will make D3 a virtual world game.

---

Are we talking about MMORPGs or MMOs? MMOs cover a lot more ground and really can include games like D3, because a shared world isn't part of the expectation. If we're talking about MMORPG, a shared world is part of the expectation, whether that shared world is represented through 2D graphics, 3D graphics or text.
 

It's very clear we are all using the term "world" differently. Now, before someone copy-pastas the dictionary definition. In game design, the gamespace that the players exist in is the game world. As an MMO is a virtual environment for player interaction, that environment - be it text, 2d, or 3d - is the game world. So an MMO does not require a visual representation of the world but it most certainly requires a world for the game to take place in.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

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.  

---

It is a matter of definitions. The "usual" definition of a virtual world is a 3D representation of PCs and NPCs in a physical space (terrain).

 

However, if you want to redefine a vritual world as a common set of data (world state) that players can interact with, i have no objection. But note that under that definition, a AH qualifies as a world, so that will make D3 a virtual world game.

 

---

Are we talking about MMORPGs or MMOs? MMOs cover a lot more ground and really can include games like D3, because a shared world isn't part of the expectation. If we're talking about MMORPG, a shared world is part of the expectation, whether that shared world is represented through 2D graphics, 3D graphics or text.

In the case of MMORPG, it's important that the shared world actually be a 'world'. This could be a space, a single city block, the interior of a huge spaceship, whatever. But it's a space where the players exist and occupy space. D3's auction house doesn't really fit this description. It's never been described or represented as a building that players are standing in, it's always been a control panel that players use. The OP's example on the other hand gives the players a control panel, but that control panel represents a physical space wherein they get to do things.

One way to distinguish between a world and a control panel is whether or not players can perform the primary function of the world with each other directly. With D3's auction house, players cannot trade with each other directly. They would need to leave that space to trade. While in that space, players cannot engage in combat, which is another primary function of the game.

 

Actually, Diablo 3 can't be called an MMO because it doesn't have a massive amount of people playing the same game in the same instance at the same time. We already have subgenres that existed BEFORE MMO's that totally and 100% cover what Diablo is. Diablo is a multiplayer game. Not an MMO.

---

Originally posted by Loktofeit

---

Originally posted by lizardbones  

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

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.  

---

It is a matter of definitions. The "usual" definition of a virtual world is a 3D representation of PCs and NPCs in a physical space (terrain).   However, if you want to redefine a vritual world as a common set of data (world state) that players can interact with, i have no objection. But note that under that definition, a AH qualifies as a world, so that will make D3 a virtual world game.

---

Are we talking about MMORPGs or MMOs? MMOs cover a lot more ground and really can include games like D3, because a shared world isn't part of the expectation. If we're talking about MMORPG, a shared world is part of the expectation, whether that shared world is represented through 2D graphics, 3D graphics or text.  

---

It's very clear we are all using the term "world" differently. Now, before someone copy-pastas the dictionary definition. In game design, the gamespace that the players exist in is the game world. As an MMO is a virtual environment for player interaction, that environment - be it text, 2d, or 3d - is the game world. So an MMO does not require a visual representation of the world but it most certainly requires a world for the game to take place in.

 

 

---

---

Originally posted by madazz

---

Originally posted by lizardbones  

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

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.  

---

It is a matter of definitions. The "usual" definition of a virtual world is a 3D representation of PCs and NPCs in a physical space (terrain).   However, if you want to redefine a vritual world as a common set of data (world state) that players can interact with, i have no objection. But note that under that definition, a AH qualifies as a world, so that will make D3 a virtual world game.  

---

Are we talking about MMORPGs or MMOs? MMOs cover a lot more ground and really can include games like D3, because a shared world isn't part of the expectation. If we're talking about MMORPG, a shared world is part of the expectation, whether that shared world is represented through 2D graphics, 3D graphics or text. In the case of MMORPG, it's important that the shared world actually be a 'world'. This could be a space, a single city block, the interior of a huge spaceship, whatever. But it's a space where the players exist and occupy space. D3's auction house doesn't really fit this description. It's never been described or represented as a building that players are standing in, it's always been a control panel that players use. The OP's example on the other hand gives the players a control panel, but that control panel represents a physical space wherein they get to do things. One way to distinguish between a world and a control panel is whether or not players can perform the primary function of the world with each other directly. With D3's auction house, players cannot trade with each other directly. They would need to leave that space to trade. While in that space, players cannot engage in combat, which is another primary function of the game.  

---

Actually, Diablo 3 can't be called an MMO because it doesn't have a massive amount of people playing the same game in the same instance at the same time. We already have subgenres that existed BEFORE MMO's that totally and 100% cover what Diablo is. Diablo is a multiplayer game. Not an MMO.

---

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by madazz

---

Originally posted by lizardbones  

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

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.  

---

It is a matter of definitions. The "usual" definition of a virtual world is a 3D representation of PCs and NPCs in a physical space (terrain).   However, if you want to redefine a vritual world as a common set of data (world state) that players can interact with, i have no objection. But note that under that definition, a AH qualifies as a world, so that will make D3 a virtual world game.  

---

Are we talking about MMORPGs or MMOs? MMOs cover a lot more ground and really can include games like D3, because a shared world isn't part of the expectation. If we're talking about MMORPG, a shared world is part of the expectation, whether that shared world is represented through 2D graphics, 3D graphics or text. In the case of MMORPG, it's important that the shared world actually be a 'world'. This could be a space, a single city block, the interior of a huge spaceship, whatever. But it's a space where the players exist and occupy space. D3's auction house doesn't really fit this description. It's never been described or represented as a building that players are standing in, it's always been a control panel that players use. The OP's example on the other hand gives the players a control panel, but that control panel represents a physical space wherein they get to do things. One way to distinguish between a world and a control panel is whether or not players can perform the primary function of the world with each other directly. With D3's auction house, players cannot trade with each other directly. They would need to leave that space to trade. While in that space, players cannot engage in combat, which is another primary function of the game.  

---

Actually, Diablo 3 can't be called an MMO because it doesn't have a massive amount of people playing the same game in the same instance at the same time. We already have subgenres that existed BEFORE MMO's that totally and 100% cover what Diablo is. Diablo is a multiplayer game. Not an MMO.

---

An MMO doesn't require a massive number of people in the same space. It just needs a massive number of people playing the same game, at the same time, online. D3 has the added element of allowing all those people to interact through the auction houses. More so than other lobby games, D3 has an element of player interaction that doesn't exist in other MMO games.

MMORPGs have an element of a shared space, which is considered the game's world where players interact. D3 doesn't have this. The D3 auction houses are not shared worlds, or even shared spaces. They are shared control panels.

So, D3 can be considered an MMO, but I don't see it being considered an MMORPG.

The OP's example, Planetarion is an MMORPG because the players have a shared world, regardless of how it's presented to the player.

 

If diablo is an MMO then i will now call evry game with an online function an mmo.Cod  is as much an mmo as diablo3 is

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by madazz

---

Originally posted by lizardbones  

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

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.  

---

It is a matter of definitions. The "usual" definition of a virtual world is a 3D representation of PCs and NPCs in a physical space (terrain).   However, if you want to redefine a vritual world as a common set of data (world state) that players can interact with, i have no objection. But note that under that definition, a AH qualifies as a world, so that will make D3 a virtual world game.  

---

Are we talking about MMORPGs or MMOs? MMOs cover a lot more ground and really can include games like D3, because a shared world isn't part of the expectation. If we're talking about MMORPG, a shared world is part of the expectation, whether that shared world is represented through 2D graphics, 3D graphics or text. In the case of MMORPG, it's important that the shared world actually be a 'world'. This could be a space, a single city block, the interior of a huge spaceship, whatever. But it's a space where the players exist and occupy space. D3's auction house doesn't really fit this description. It's never been described or represented as a building that players are standing in, it's always been a control panel that players use. The OP's example on the other hand gives the players a control panel, but that control panel represents a physical space wherein they get to do things. One way to distinguish between a world and a control panel is whether or not players can perform the primary function of the world with each other directly. With D3's auction house, players cannot trade with each other directly. They would need to leave that space to trade. While in that space, players cannot engage in combat, which is another primary function of the game.  

---

Actually, Diablo 3 can't be called an MMO because it doesn't have a massive amount of people playing the same game in the same instance at the same time. We already have subgenres that existed BEFORE MMO's that totally and 100% cover what Diablo is. Diablo is a multiplayer game. Not an MMO.

---

An MMO doesn't require a massive number of people in the same space. It just needs a massive number of people playing the same game, at the same time, online. D3 has the added element of allowing all those people to interact through the auction houses. More so than other lobby games, D3 has an element of player interaction that doesn't exist in other MMO games.

MMORPGs have an element of a shared space, which is considered the game's world where players interact. D3 doesn't have this. The D3 auction houses are not shared worlds, or even shared spaces. They are shared control panels.

So, D3 can be considered an MMO, but I don't see it being considered an MMORPG.

The OP's example, Planetarion is an MMORPG because the players have a shared world, regardless of how it's presented to the player.

 

WOW!!!! I am just astounded by how... well... man.. I am holding back so many insults.

COUNTERSTRIKE IS NOT AN MMO! IT ISN'T!!! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

How slow can people be? We already have classifation for the games you are talking about. THEY ARE CALLED MULTI-PLAYER!!!!!! We add the massive part on to describe MASSIVE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE PLAYING TOGETHER IN ONE INSTANCE. If you remove that MASSIVE part is is not MMO. Quake, Team Fortress, COD and many other games are MULTIPLAYER.

You saying what you just said completely IGNORES the developers, producers and fans of this genre. This forum used to be about people who liked MMO's, not we get a bunch of mensa canidates who think they can just shit all over what an MMO actually means and call any multiplayer game massive.

By definition you are wrong. 

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by madazz

---

Originally posted by lizardbones  

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

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.  

---

It is a matter of definitions. The "usual" definition of a virtual world is a 3D representation of PCs and NPCs in a physical space (terrain).   However, if you want to redefine a vritual world as a common set of data (world state) that players can interact with, i have no objection. But note that under that definition, a AH qualifies as a world, so that will make D3 a virtual world game.  

---

Are we talking about MMORPGs or MMOs? MMOs cover a lot more ground and really can include games like D3, because a shared world isn't part of the expectation. If we're talking about MMORPG, a shared world is part of the expectation, whether that shared world is represented through 2D graphics, 3D graphics or text. In the case of MMORPG, it's important that the shared world actually be a 'world'. This could be a space, a single city block, the interior of a huge spaceship, whatever. But it's a space where the players exist and occupy space. D3's auction house doesn't really fit this description. It's never been described or represented as a building that players are standing in, it's always been a control panel that players use. The OP's example on the other hand gives the players a control panel, but that control panel represents a physical space wherein they get to do things. One way to distinguish between a world and a control panel is whether or not players can perform the primary function of the world with each other directly. With D3's auction house, players cannot trade with each other directly. They would need to leave that space to trade. While in that space, players cannot engage in combat, which is another primary function of the game.  

---

Actually, Diablo 3 can't be called an MMO because it doesn't have a massive amount of people playing the same game in the same instance at the same time. We already have subgenres that existed BEFORE MMO's that totally and 100% cover what Diablo is. Diablo is a multiplayer game. Not an MMO.

---

An MMO doesn't require a massive number of people in the same space. It just needs a massive number of people playing the same game, at the same time, online. D3 has the added element of allowing all those people to interact through the auction houses. More so than other lobby games, D3 has an element of player interaction that doesn't exist in other MMO games.

MMORPGs have an element of a shared space, which is considered the game's world where players interact. D3 doesn't have this. The D3 auction houses are not shared worlds, or even shared spaces. They are shared control panels.

So, D3 can be considered an MMO, but I don't see it being considered an MMORPG.

The OP's example, Planetarion is an MMORPG because the players have a shared world, regardless of how it's presented to the player.

 

WOW!!!! I am just astounded by how... well... man.. I am holding back so many insults.

COUNTERSTRIKE IS NOT AN MMO! IT ISN'T!!! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

How slow can people be? We already have classifation for the games you are talking about. THEY ARE CALLED MULTI-PLAYER!!!!!! We add the massive part on to describe MASSIVE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE PLAYING TOGETHER IN ONE INSTANCE. If you remove that MASSIVE part is is not MMO. Quake, Team Fortress, COD and many other games are MULTIPLAYER.

You saying what you just said completely IGNORES the developers, producers and fans of this genre. This forum used to be about people who liked MMO's, not we get a bunch of mensa canidates who think they can just shit all over what an MMO actually means and call any multiplayer game massive.

By definition you are wrong. 

 If a game allows people to interact with more people than a traditional multiplayer (is it 64 now?) even if that is through an auction house, than because it is more than multiplayer it is by definition massively multiplayer, then it is an MMO. 

Whether it is an MMORPG is a different argument. 

I've never played counterstrike, I don't know how many people you can interact with. 

Originally posted by Aelious
The catagory you place an online game into whether it be XBox Live or PC should be IMO...

How many people are you actually able to play with at one time in the same space.

An "MMO" should be at least a hundred if not thousands. 2cp.

 Define what you mean by "play with"  In EQ I could only be grouped with 6, but hundreds through trades/chat.

In d3 as I understand, you can interact with hundreds through trade/chat but group with 5-25.

Originally posted by xeniar

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.

if you can play with those 100 people in trisham so all go out into the game and play together ? hell yeah does that make your gameplay diffrent. your game would be persistant your actions will have an impact on people wheter you want it or not. That is a big diffrence. you go out into the world to kill stuff you might find only yourself doing that at that point but you could also find yourself doing the same thing with 50 other people. wich brings in the MMO and persistant world. 

 

 

 

I disagree. There is little difference between D3 and WOW if you focus on dungeoning. The persistent world ... matters very little to me. Surely you can see people running around in their gear. That is the ONLY impact on you, if you stay in Orgrimmar, which you can get in D3 (inspecting others).

When you are killing stuff in a dungeon, there is little difference .. you saw only 3 or 4 other players, and all others are NPCs. When you are in the auction interface, there is little difference.

So 90% of my time, i won't be in the persistent world anyway .. and when i am there, aside from looking (and yes, you can chat with others, but that is cover in chat channels in almost all non-MMO online games), how else can i impact the other players?

LOL .. we are still at it debating a DEFINITION?

Would you really stop to play a game you enjoy if it changes its label? Would you really start playing a game you don't like if it changes its label?

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Aelious
The catagory you place an online game into whether it be XBox Live or PC should be IMO...

How many people are you actually able to play with at one time in the same space.

An "MMO" should be at least a hundred if not thousands. 2cp.

 Define what you mean by "play with"  In EQ I could only be grouped with 6, but hundreds through trades/chat.

In d3 as I understand, you can interact with hundreds through trade/chat but group with 5-25.

IN EQ, been raid grouped with the 72 max, and been in dungeons with over 200 people in the same dungeon....Dungeons with 100 people from the same guild...Call whatever you want a mmo, but I tend to stay away from the smaller lobby group mmos...Even the 'big' mmos are crap now imo, too much instancing, player story areas, phasing, and rails....They are about lobby and larger world mmo hybrids anymore for the most part.

I am not caught up on definition though, a steaming turd stinks, don't need a name for it.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
Salt is required to live though.

Yes but you get that naturally from food. You dont need to add anything additional. However you do because without it most food would be tasteless.

Also you dont need a plate to eat food, you can do it straight from the floor. So basically my point is that you can remove alot of fundamental components and still do it. Would not be very fun, or pleasant, though.