Originally posted by Ramonski7
I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.

You know, that's what I thought an MMO was too... but apparently it isn't. Apparently an MMO is the exact same thing as a regular multiplayer game:

"any game or network that has thousands of players online regardless of being in a single world" -Drevar

So as you can see we have been doing it wrong. We now need to come up with a new name for our classification of games. The new guys say so!

Originally posted by lizardbones

More from the internet, and history.

The term MMO/MMOG started with games like Ultima Online and Meridian 59. The key, defining feature of the terms was having a persistent, shared virtual world. When more games were produced and the ideas for more games started to be discussed, the terms MMORPG, MMOFPS and MMORTS started being used. For a game to be an MMORPG, MMOFPS or MMORTS, it must first be an MMO. Sometimes the terms MMO and MMORPG are used to mean the same thing, which makes sense since they were both used to reference games the games Ultima Online and Meridian 59.

So...a virtual world is a key, defining feature of an MMO. Without a virtual world, it's not an MMO. This isn't arbitrary though, because that virtual world has to be shared, and it has to be persistent.

What is a virtual world? It's a space where the player's frame of reference exists. The player interacts with the virtual world to play the game. A player is "in" a virtual world. A game's lobby is probably the simplest virtual world possible.

What does persistent mean? When the player leaves the virtual world, the world does not cease to exist and the virtual world is not put on hold. Things can continue to happen that virtual world. In Farmville, crops continue to grow when a player logs out. Farmville's world is persistent. In D3 and other lobby games, the lobby is not persistent. When the player logs out of their lobby, that lobby ceases to exist. The state of the lobby is saved for later, when the player logs back in.

What does shared mean? Other players can visit the space in the virtual world that a player occupies or occupied. This is partly possible because of persistence. If a player logs out of Farmville, another player can visit their farm. The player's farm is shared. In WoW, another player B can visit the same vendor and player A, whether player A is logged in or not. The lobby in D3 is not shared, even when a player is logged in. Nobody can see player A's lobby except player A.

So there you have it. Anyone who wishes to change the definition, or use their own, feel free. However, you must now do it with the full knowledge that the rest of the planet has already settled on a definition, and applied it consistently. You may also feel free to call out MMORPG.com when they misapply the term "MMO" or "MMOG" to a game where it does not actually apply.

Quirhid is just wrong. To be an MMO, a game has to have a shared, persistent virtual world. It is the key defining feature of the term. That is, until such time as the commonly accepted definition gets changed.

As near as I can tell, the word "massively" is just a marketing term. It sounded good or it started with a the letter M, so they used it.

If you read all this, I am sorry. Blame Quirhid. It's their fault I even bothered looking this cr@p up.

** edit **
Also, none of this is what I thought when I started reading this thread.

thank you...

This same/simlar argument gets played out every day here. Same argument, different title.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the recent history of bad themeparks, and the backlash because of, the anti-sandbox crowd is getting concerned. More and more gamers are now realizing how limiting, boring and stale the themepark style (no-world, whatever term you want to use for the sake of arguing) really is.

The momentum is shifting my friends. One by one, one by one... 

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Scot

We have already lost the RPG, for most this just now implies a leveling sytem. Lets not loose the massive or the multiplayer, they are a standard to determine what kind of MMO we are talking about. Find new names for new types of games, that is what gaming has always done in the past.

That is the classical mindset to hold onto old ideas. So what if we lose some of the old features. The question should be .. if that gives a better gaming experience. Nothing should be sacred.

And you are not losing the word "massive" .. a persistent world is not the only way to involve large number of people. A chat room can. A AH can. Heck, even D3 can .. you just refuse to see new ideas.

 

So what if they are new ideas? How are they any better? They are simply different ideas. Better and worse are arbitrary. The point is that there are already bazillions of games, both in the MMO genre and other genres, that do not want anything to do with a persistent world. Go play those. Games with persistent worlds never threatened those without persistent worlds. So why are games without persistent worlds threatening games with persistent worlds?

Originally posted by Magiknight

 

So what if they are new ideas? How are they any better? They are simply different ideas. Better and worse are arbitrary. The point is that there are already bazillions of games, both in the MMO genre and other genres, that do not want anything to do with a persistent world. Go play those. Games with persistent worlds never threatened those without persistent worlds. So why are games without persistent worlds threatening games with persistent worlds?

Of course i play games with no persistent world. Most gamers do. The point is not be threaten. But discuss if a persisent world is fun, and why and why not.

---

Originally posted by madazz

---

Originally posted by Ramonski7 I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.

---

You know, that's what I thought an MMO was too... but apparently it isn't. Apparently an MMO is the exact same thing as a regular multiplayer game:

"any game or network that has thousands of players online regardless of being in a single world" -Drevar

So as you can see we have been doing it wrong. We now need to come up with a new name for our classification of games. The new guys say so!

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Magiknight

 

So what if they are new ideas? How are they any better? They are simply different ideas. Better and worse are arbitrary. The point is that there are already bazillions of games, both in the MMO genre and other genres, that do not want anything to do with a persistent world. Go play those. Games with persistent worlds never threatened those without persistent worlds. So why are games without persistent worlds threatening games with persistent worlds?

Of course i play games with no persistent world. Most gamers do. The point is not be threaten. But discuss if a persisent world is fun, and why and why not.

a persistant world is fun, if you roam around the forums youl see that it really can be fun. but you have to remove things such as queuing for dungeons and pvp, portals to instances flying mounts and alot of those quick travel mechanisms.

if you have a persistant world with open dungeons (not instanced), world bosses on random timers, a good looking world in general. players themself will make their own fun. your options in doing things are limetless. Soutshore-hilsbradd battle. who would ever expect that? we created our own little batle enviroment it was fun. we had a blast. and we created it ourselfs.

instead we are forced to que for a dungeon or pvp (basicly evrything we do is on rails there is no need to venture out into the open anymore). granted both are fun. but it is not what an MMO is for. you can spare alot of time creating a lobby game with a dungeon format instead of creating that masive open world. and then locking evrything usefull into tiny spaces

edit: But that is not what a MMO-player prefers. so we can only wait for the sanboxes now.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by madazz

---

Originally posted by Ramonski7 I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.

---

You know, that's what I thought an MMO was too... but apparently it isn't. Apparently an MMO is the exact same thing as a regular multiplayer game:

 

"any game or network that has thousands of players online regardless of being in a single world" -Drevar

So as you can see we have been doing it wrong. We now need to come up with a new name for our classification of games. The new guys say so!

---

As long as the game has a virtual world that is persistent and shared, it's an MMO.

The difference between an MMO and a multiplayer game is the persistence of the world. When a player logs out of their lobby, the lobby ceases to exist. When players log out of the shared, virtual world, it ends. So, multiplayer games aren't MMOs.

 

Are you sure about that? When i log out of the lobby in D3, i am sure it still exists because my kid is chatting on it.

And i am also pretty sure that the AH is pretty persistent without a world.

Originally posted by xeniar

 

a persistant world is fun, if you roam around the forums youl see that it really can be fun. but you have to remove things such as queuing for dungeons and pvp, portals to instances flying mounts and alot of those quick travel mechanisms.

I don't that is fun for many. Sure fun is subjective and it may be fun for you .. but no flying, no portal, have to walk 20 min is not fun for me.

if you have a persistant world with open dungeons (not instanced), world bosses on random timers, a good looking world in general. players themself will make their own fun. your options in doing things are limetless. Soutshore-hilsbradd battle. who would ever expect that? we created our own little batle enviroment it was fun. we had a blast. and we created it ourselfs.

"Who would ever expect that" .. that is the point. Unexpected event is not always fun. In fact, if i am going to some place to meet a friend, i don't want unexpected pvp. All these stuff, open world pvp, and world boss are taken out for a reason.

instead we are forced to que for a dungeon or pvp (basicly evrything we do is on rails there is no need to venture out into the open anymore). granted both are fun. but it is not what an MMO is for. you can spare alot of time creating a lobby game with a dungeon format instead of creating that masive open world. and then locking evrything usefull into tiny spaces

Forced? You can always not do dungeons. In fact, that is the beauty of instances and arenas, you choose to do them, or not do them at any time you want.

There is no need to venture into the open .. exactly .. more direct to the source of fun .. dungeoning.

i suppose it boils down to preference and playstyle but in today's mmo .. lobby co-op dungeoning and arena pvp are obviously a big playstyle. Don't tell me no one play like that.

Originally posted by xeniar

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Magiknight

 

So what if they are new ideas? How are they any better? They are simply different ideas. Better and worse are arbitrary. The point is that there are already bazillions of games, both in the MMO genre and other genres, that do not want anything to do with a persistent world. Go play those. Games with persistent worlds never threatened those without persistent worlds. So why are games without persistent worlds threatening games with persistent worlds?

Of course i play games with no persistent world. Most gamers do. The point is not be threaten. But discuss if a persisent world is fun, and why and why not.

a persistant world is fun, if you roam around the forums youl see that it really can be fun. but you have to remove things such as queuing for dungeons and pvp, portals to instances flying mounts and alot of those quick travel mechanisms.

if you have a persistant world with open dungeons (not instanced), world bosses on random timers, a good looking world in general. players themself will make their own fun. your options in doing things are limetless. Soutshore-hilsbradd battle. who would ever expect that? we created our own little batle enviroment it was fun. we had a blast. and we created it ourselfs.

instead we are given the option to que for a dungeon or pvp (basicly evrything we do is on rails there is no need to venture out into the open anymore). granted both are fun. but it is not what an MMO is for. you can spare alot of time creating a lobby game with a dungeon format instead of creating that masive open world. and then locking evrything usefull into tiny spaces

 

edit: But that is not what a MMO-player prefers. so we can only wait for the sanboxes now.

You're talking sub genre of a sub genre vs sub genre of a sub genre. In your case mmorpg/graphical/non instance vs. mmorpg/graphical/instance also known as sandbox vs. themepark. I didn't think we were discussing that topic. I thought we were discussion how all of a sudden mmorpg by default = graphical non instance world. For which I do not agree with. As I don't think a mmorpg needs graphic per se nor a seamless world void of instances. Would it be nice? Sure. But a mmorpg in my book doesn't get disqualified because those two criteria are lacking.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by xeniar

 

a persistant world is fun, if you roam around the forums youl see that it really can be fun. but you have to remove things such as queuing for dungeons and pvp, portals to instances flying mounts and alot of those quick travel mechanisms.

I don't that is fun for many. Sure fun is subjective and it may be fun for you .. but no flying, no portal, have to walk 20 min is not fun for me.

if you have a persistant world with open dungeons (not instanced), world bosses on random timers, a good looking world in general. players themself will make their own fun. your options in doing things are limetless. Soutshore-hilsbradd battle. who would ever expect that? we created our own little batle enviroment it was fun. we had a blast. and we created it ourselfs.

"Who would ever expect that" .. that is the point. Unexpected event is not always fun. In fact, if i am going to some place to meet a friend, i don't want unexpected pvp. All these stuff, open world pvp, and world boss are taken out for a reason.

instead we are forced to que for a dungeon or pvp (basicly evrything we do is on rails there is no need to venture out into the open anymore). granted both are fun. but it is not what an MMO is for. you can spare alot of time creating a lobby game with a dungeon format instead of creating that masive open world. and then locking evrything usefull into tiny spaces

Forced? You can always not do dungeons. In fact, that is the beauty of instances and arenas, you choose to do them, or not do them at any time you want.

There is no need to venture into the open .. exactly .. more direct to the source of fun .. dungeoning.

i suppose it boils down to preference and playstyle but in today's mmo .. lobby co-op dungeoning and arena pvp are obviously a big playstyle. Don't tell me no one play like that.

 

no yet again you don't see my point.

in that 20 mins of walking you will socialize with those people you talk about random things. get to know eachother wow hey you know what? that is considrered fun. instead of my qeue up get a dungeon in 2 secs (i always playa  tank) and be outside of it in 10 mins without eve have spoken a word. wow fun man dungeon grindign with a group. but also not with a group. these 4 people might have been puppets and i would not even know the diffrence if the AI is good enough. Hi single player game.

Are you serious about the hilsbrad thing? im talking about who in the world would have expected that there would be a 24/7 ongoing battle at that location? nobody. evryone knew it was there once it started. but nobody could have expected it. you could easily move around it because it was always in that same location not unexpected whatsoever. And open world PvP is fun. why do you think alot of peole are waiting for archage? Open world pvp is fun you might come accros 1 guy and you might come accros a entire group of people. when your out looking for a fight that is fun. random encounters instead of your arenas where you already have strategized who goes down first in whatever situation you come accros.

i am not choosing to do arena or que up for a dungeon. im forced to do it that way.

There is no way i can get a group together in a game wich i can que for a dungeon so im forced to que for it making my world useless. i cannot choose to do them i HAVE to do them because the open world hols nothing anymore. execpt ganking low levels. wow fun man seriously fun..... 

if you think grinding a dungeon without speaking a word to anyone in the dungeon. is fun then i pity you really.

Originally posted by xeniar

in that 20 mins of walking you will socialize with those people you talk about random things. get to know eachother wow hey you know what? that is considrered fun. instead of my qeue up get a dungeon in 2 secs (i always playa  tank) and be outside of it in 10 mins without eve have spoken a word. wow fun man dungeon grindign with a group. but also not with a group. these 4 people might have been puppets and i would not even know the diffrence if the AI is good enough. Hi single player game.

I don't play games to socialize with people. If i want to socialize there is something called a chat-room, and it is silly to force to socialize 20 min because i have to walk. If i want to socialize, i do it on my own time table, and not forced by some game.

Fun for you .. obviouly isnot fun for me .. and obviously is not fun for many.

The fact that LFD is popular ... mean that people consider that fun. I get it that you like to wait .. you like to socialize and stuff .. you totally not get it that it is not fun for others.

That is why you are always ranting.

And what is wrong with SP games? Lots of those are more fun than many MMOs. I pity those who miss out because it stuck in their head that they can only play one genre of game.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by xeniar

in that 20 mins of walking you will socialize with those people you talk about random things. get to know eachother wow hey you know what? that is considrered fun. instead of my qeue up get a dungeon in 2 secs (i always playa  tank) and be outside of it in 10 mins without eve have spoken a word. wow fun man dungeon grindign with a group. but also not with a group. these 4 people might have been puppets and i would not even know the diffrence if the AI is good enough. Hi single player game.

I don't play games to socialize with people. If i want to socialize there is something called a chat-room, and it is silly to force to socialize 20 min because i have to walk. If i want to socialize, i do it on my own time table, and not forced by some game.

Fun for you .. obviouly isnot fun for me .. and obviously is not fun for many.

The fact that LFD is popular ... mean that people consider that fun. I get it that you like to wait .. you like to socialize and stuff .. you totally not get it that it is not fun for others.

That is why you are always ranting.

And what is wrong with SP games? Lots of those are more fun than many MMOs. I pity those who miss out because it stuck in their head that they can only play one genre of game.

What you want to do your instant fun. goes against evrything a MMO used to be and there is a TON of games wich provide your instant fun already. Developers think dont think LFD is fun they can only see quick money. and have you not noticed the decline of all those themeparks around you wich you call fun? most of them are failing pretty badly and have to resort to a f2p model in order to keep the game alive.

there is nothing wrong with a SP game ive never said that. but a single player game is not a MMO don't try to turn it into one.

you know what im done with you. you don't seem to understand that there are alot of people who want immersion instead of your quick fun. cauz immersion is fun asswell.  Goodbye

oops double post.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by madazz

---

Originally posted by Ramonski7 I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.

---

You know, that's what I thought an MMO was too... but apparently it isn't. Apparently an MMO is the exact same thing as a regular multiplayer game:

 

"any game or network that has thousands of players online regardless of being in a single world" -Drevar

So as you can see we have been doing it wrong. We now need to come up with a new name for our classification of games. The new guys say so!

---

As long as the game has a virtual world that is persistent and shared, it's an MMO.

The difference between an MMO and a multiplayer game is the persistence of the world. When a player logs out of their lobby, the lobby ceases to exist. When players log out of the shared, virtual world, it ends. So, multiplayer games aren't MMOs.

 

Are you sure about that? When i log out of the lobby in D3, i am sure it still exists because my kid is chatting on it.

And i am also pretty sure that the AH is pretty persistent without a world.

Although both of those features exist on a server for D3, they get disqualified because they don't actually exist within the world created when players decide to login and actually play. Why you say? Because D3's main mode of interaction between the players and it's world is based on the use of graphics. But in this case I can chat and use the AH without ever engaging in D3's graphical world. Arguably both the server and chat are both MMO but because the graphical interface (namely the world the player characters themselves reside in) is not, D3 is disqualified from being a mmoRPG.

Originally posted by Ramonski7

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by madazz

---

Originally posted by Ramonski7 I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.

---

You know, that's what I thought an MMO was too... but apparently it isn't. Apparently an MMO is the exact same thing as a regular multiplayer game:

 

"any game or network that has thousands of players online regardless of being in a single world" -Drevar

So as you can see we have been doing it wrong. We now need to come up with a new name for our classification of games. The new guys say so!

---

As long as the game has a virtual world that is persistent and shared, it's an MMO.

The difference between an MMO and a multiplayer game is the persistence of the world. When a player logs out of their lobby, the lobby ceases to exist. When players log out of the shared, virtual world, it ends. So, multiplayer games aren't MMOs.

 

Are you sure about that? When i log out of the lobby in D3, i am sure it still exists because my kid is chatting on it.

And i am also pretty sure that the AH is pretty persistent without a world.

Although both of those features exist on a server for D3, they get disqualified because they don't actually exist within the world created when players decide to login and actually play. Why you say? Because D3's main mode of interaction between the players and it's world is based on the use of graphics. But in this case I can chat and use the AH without ever engaging in D3's graphical world. Arguably both the server and chat are both MMO but because the graphical interface (namely the world the player characters themselves reside in) is not, D3 is disqualified from being a mmoRPG.

well .. you are disqualifying D3 based on some other criterion. My early point still stands. It is wrong to say the lobby ceases to exist.

You can always define a MMO anyway you want to exclude or include a game. I am not interested in definitions. I am pointing out a reasoning error. Whether you classify D3 as a MMO or not, the lobby (including the AH) does not cease to exist when i log out.

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

Originally posted by lizardbones  

---

Originally posted by madazz

---

Originally posted by Ramonski7 I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.

---

You know, that's what I thought an MMO was too... but apparently it isn't. Apparently an MMO is the exact same thing as a regular multiplayer game:   "any game or network that has thousands of players online regardless of being in a single world" -Drevar So as you can see we have been doing it wrong. We now need to come up with a new name for our classification of games. The new guys say so!

---

As long as the game has a virtual world that is persistent and shared, it's an MMO. The difference between an MMO and a multiplayer game is the persistence of the world. When a player logs out of their lobby, the lobby ceases to exist. When players log out of the shared, virtual world, it ends. So, multiplayer games aren't MMOs.  

---

Are you sure about that? When i log out of the lobby in D3, i am sure it still exists because my kid is chatting on it.

And i am also pretty sure that the AH is pretty persistent without a world.

---