Originally posted by nariusseldon

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.

No, I'm simply stating that D3's AH and chat are MMO and it's server world is Multiplayer Online RPG. The massive part doesn't include the world.

 

** The auction house is equivalent to eBay. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever considered eBay a virtual world.

lol pretty much. This whole conversation it absurd. MMOS have big worlds thats why people play them vs single player games. Yes socializing is part of it whether loners like it or not.

In Fact there is a whole bunch of sandboxes on the horizon where socializing will become even more important. Uh Oh.

Originally posted by RoyalPhunk

 

** The auction house is equivalent to eBay. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever considered eBay a virtual world.

lol pretty much. This whole conversation it absurd. MMOS have big worlds thats why people play them vs single player games. Yes socializing is part of it whether loners like it or not.

In Fact there is a whole bunch of sandboxes on the horizon where socializing will become even more important. Uh Oh.

 

I'm that guy who doesn't join to socialize at all. I kind of just end up making friends in game. When it's forced its okay if done right. I don't like the kind of grouping you get with modern raids/dungeons. They are just temporary people you'll probably never see again.

Back to the topic, I am glad other people are seeing the truth of what an MMO is. I don't even know how people started mixing it up. I honestly do not understand how the words massive multiplayer online don't come across more clearer. It makes me feel like the DJ that had to talk to the woman who thought that we should move deer crossing signs away from the highways lol. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFCrJleggrI

"why are we encouraging deer to cross the interstate" LOL! 

I wish we could just go back to arguing whether people like sandparks or themeparks better... or instances within MMO's, or dungeon group finders... I miss those days now. 

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.

I have never heard of those games but my guess, they would be similar to Astro Empires. It's really a numbers type game too.

This site is not called MMO.com though. It's called MMORPG.com and for an MMO to be an RPG you need a world, one that should be persistent.

I'm sure I will get some push back on this one but I'd like to see a world that has no mounts, no easy button travel tools and is a week real time to get through. Better, a month of real time. All a horse allows you to do is carry more stuff. If it has cars or other automotive travel, the week to a month design starts with that even if you don't. I'd love to return to exploring worlds and have it take me 6 months of subs to do it. More and more, games are not PvE. The environment consists of a bunch of weak and under powered mobs that you farm for various items used in a gear grinding quest. This is the failing of all MMO's on the market today. There is no PvE. Not real PvE. There are no worlds.

Originally posted by free2play

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.

I have never heard of those games but my guess, they would be similar to Astro Empires. It's really a numbers type game too.

This site is not called MMO.com though. It's called MMORPG.com and for an MMO to be an RPG you need a world, one that should be persistent.

I'm sure I will get some push back on this one but I'd like to see a world that has no mounts, no easy button travel tools and is a week real time to get through. Better, a month of real time. All a horse allows you to do is carry more stuff. If it has cars or other automotive travel, the week to a month design starts with that even if you don't. I'd love to return to exploring worlds and have it take me 6 months of subs to do it. More and more, games are not PvE. The environment consists of a bunch of weak and under powered mobs that you farm for various items used in a gear grinding quest. This is the failing of all MMO's on the market today. There is no PvE. Not real PvE. There are no worlds.

True that. PVE is dead. Even if games have a persistent world it's a shadow of what it used to be.

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.

 

That's right... it doesn't have to have the massive multiplayer part to be an MMO! It just needs a persistent world... that makes TOTAL sense. Why didn't we call it PWRPG instead of MMO? DAMN! All these years I've been so wrong...

This is becoming an episode from Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. As much as our easyMMO apologists want to rewrite the English language, it is not going to happen. The new MMO’s are built on very different principles to the old. Find a new name for them, Mini MMO’s, Theme MMO’s, whatever.

Those who think the design values of old school MMO’s are redundant are the only ones who call for all MMO’s to come under one banner. Don’t fall in with gaming companies advertising, every MMO is not built to the same standards.

Wanting instant access is wanting a lobby, wanting instant travel is wanting a lobby, if you like that, then its for you. But call them what they would be, Lobby MMO’s, and don’t expect everyone to want what you want.

I think there is room (hopefully a Massive room) for both types of MMO’s. Open world and Themepark, call them what you will. If you only want one type you are being narrow minded and destructive to gaming. Variety in gameplay is the life blood of the industry, without it, it can but wither long term.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

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. 

so if EA add a chat window and a AH to BF3 we have a MMO and its even a MMORPG acording to this because it also have 4 classes

---

Originally posted by madazz

---

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.  

---

That's right... it doesn't have to have the massive multiplayer part to be an MMO! It just needs a persistent world... that makes TOTAL sense. Why didn't we call it PWRPG instead of MMO? DAMN! All these years I've been so wrong...

---

---

Originally posted by shimiku

---

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

---

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. 

---

so if EA add a chat window and a AH to BF3 we have a MMO and its even a MMORPG acording to this because it also have 4 classes

 

---

---

Originally posted by Scot
This is becoming an episode from Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. As much as our easyMMO apologists want to rewrite the English language, it is not going to happen. The new MMO’s are built on very different principles to the old. Find a new name for them, Mini MMO’s, Theme MMO’s, whatever.

Those who think the design values of old school MMO’s are redundant are the only ones who call for all MMO’s to come under one banner. Don’t fall in with gaming companies advertising, every MMO is not built to the same standards.

Wanting instant access is wanting a lobby, wanting instant travel is wanting a lobby, if you like that, then its for you. But call them what they would be, Lobby MMO’s, and don’t expect everyone to want what you want.

I think there is room (hopefully a Massive room) for both types of MMO’s. Open world and Themepark, call them what you will. If you only want one type you are being narrow minded and destructive to gaming. Variety in gameplay is the life blood of the industry, without it, it can but wither long term.

---

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.

Never gunna happen, they are not even on the same page, two different games.

This post is not even interesting, the idea is silly and I wonder if the OP was just really bored.

Originally posted by RoyalPhunk

 

** The auction house is equivalent to eBay. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever considered eBay a virtual world.

lol pretty much.

Does it make a difference whether eBay is a virtual world or not? It's not a game (yes, yes, Mr Troll, like anything else it can be treated as one), so it's irrelevant when discussing the criteria for a game.

---

Originally posted by Loktofeit

---

Originally posted by RoyalPhunk

---

  ** The auction house is equivalent to eBay. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever considered eBay a virtual world.

---

lol pretty much.

---

Does it make a difference whether eBay is a virtual world or not? It's not a game (yes, yes, Mr Troll, like anything else it can be treated as one), so it's irrelevant when discussing the criteria for a game.

 

---

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Loktofeit

---

Originally posted by RoyalPhunk

---

  ** The auction house is equivalent to eBay. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever considered eBay a virtual world.

---

lol pretty much.

---

Does it make a difference whether eBay is a virtual world or not? It's not a game (yes, yes, Mr Troll, like anything else it can be treated as one), so it's irrelevant when discussing the criteria for a game.

---

If we're going to define and apply the term "MMO", it needs to be definitive. It also needs to be something that can be applied consistently. If it can't stand up to the challenges put forth, then it's really not a good definition.

MMOs must have a virtual world that is persistent and shared.

Are auction houses virtual worlds? I think I explained why the Auction House in D3 is not a virtual world, so the AH being persistent and shared is irrelevant. Looking outside of D3, I thought eBay was an example of how Auction Houses in general are not considered virtual worlds, even if they are considered games. Auction houses can be games, and they can exist inside virtual worlds, but they are not virtual worlds in themselves. Which leads me to think D3's auction house isn't something that can be used to argue that it is an MMO.
 

Agreed.

Let's just be friends.

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.

LOL!! Hell yeah!! So you're saying that Travian , a sorry excuse of a game , is a MMO?   Sorry , where I stand, browser games such as Travian are garbage. I don't even consider them as games , wtf is the joy in starting a new game with a 1 week protection and once that protection is done you're farmed by players that have been playing for 2-3 months?  And then people cry about EVE's Online skill/leveling system ... please...  ROFL.

Originally posted by Scot

Wanting instant access is wanting a lobby, wanting instant travel is wanting a lobby, if you like that, then its for you. But call them what they would be, Lobby MMO’s, and don’t expect everyone to want what you want.

 

You should heed your own advice.

It is also silly to assume you get to define common english usage. So now the gaming press, and almost every developer is calling DDO, and GW1 MMOs. And many MMOs are more and more like lobby gaming style (like WOW LFD, or take your pick). They are still commony referred to as MMOs.

Do you really think you have the power to change common usage across the whole internet? You probably can't even dictate how the term is used in a gamestop.