Trending Games | Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn | Rift | Guild Wars 2 | World of Warcraft
Network: Gamertube FPSguru RTSguru
| 175 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
12/18/12 11:58:58 AM#141
Interesting how lots of classic multiplayer games I played in the day have now retroactively become MMOs.
- vigilo confido - |
|
|
12/18/12 5:12:29 PM#142
Originally posted by nariusseldon This site actually calls it a MOBA. Had you bothered to read my earlier post you would see that for your one site I listed MANY MANY more that disagree with your ONE site. So yeah, its the 18th and the industry still doesn't call LoL or other multiplayer games MMO's. Sweet :) Its awesome to have an industry back you up, and to have a ridiculous amount of proof, only to have some disagree with you and point out ONE site put it under an MMO category for stats purposes (and still not call LoL an MMO). Stop trying to tell the players, developers, award givers, tournament organizers and reviewers we are all wrong. And again, this very website, as stated in my earlier post, does not call LoL an MMO. SO hAhAHaaaaAhAhahaHaHa. |
|
Originally posted by Axxar That is not necessarily a bad thing. |
|
|
12/18/12 5:18:02 PM#144
Originally posted by nariusseldon Yes it is. Because it is the butchering of the english language. MMO has a defined and clear meaning. People are trying to destroy that on some sort of weird holy crusade. Its VERY weird. Also, if MMORPG starts calling Diablo 3, LoL or DOTA 2 an MMO. I will NEVER come here again. |
|
|
12/18/12 5:31:49 PM#145
Depending on how loose the definition, the results are rather extreme.
It's online with a single server and thousands connected at once. It's an MMO.
|
|
|
12/18/12 5:58:17 PM#146
Originally posted by madazz They already have forums for D3 and LoL here so... just sayin'! But the words Massive Multiplayer Online has been compromised for a while now. There was that older thread about "Virtual Worlds" which was not too bad. Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure. |
|
|
12/18/12 6:04:59 PM#147
Originally posted by NaughtyP Go to mmorpg.com pages for those games. Does it say MMORPG at the top? NO. It says MOBA for LoL, and Action RPG for Diablo... just saying! Since you had troubles finding the pages obviously, here they are: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/436 http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/644 Those games just happen to target the same type of audience. That is why MMORPG includes them. If they called them an MMO I am pretty sure they would have called them an MMO. But they didn't. They clearly, and unarguably, called them an MOBA and Action RPG. |
|
|
12/18/12 6:10:23 PM#148
MMORPG is you are a character playing in an online world with other players. If you are online and playing a character with other people around you then it's a MMORPG.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is. |
|
|
12/18/12 6:14:39 PM#149
Originally posted by NaughtyP Right, but is this site officially classifying those games as MMOs? If I'm not mistaken, one of those games (maybe both) had to be voted on before mmorpg.com would even open those forums up. They are very popular video games that MMO players happen to have an interest in. That's it. If this site wants to start following the bizarre "lump 'em all in the mmo basket" mentality, I'll be joining Madazz on his way out. Some MMA sites cover big Boxing events as MMA fans tend to have an interest in other combat sports. This absolutely does not magically transform Boxing into MMA. This thread really is lacking in the logic department, and it's just plain odd. "I agree that "unimaginable complexity" is absurd, but so is comparing a single player game to an mmo. It's like comparing masturbation to sex, they are similar in some respects, but really are not comparable." -jimdandy26 |
|
|
12/18/12 6:56:04 PM#150
It was stated pretty clearly that those games aren't on this site because they are MMOs, those games are on this site because they are of interest to MMO players. Join the League For Gamers. |
|
|
12/18/12 7:00:27 PM#151
You're thinking of languages that aren't English. The English language does not have a governing body like other languages do so it doesn't have a clearly defined set of rules or defined words. Webster's doesn't add words to the English dictionary because they think the words are proper, they add words because people are using them. That's why English is the most commonly spoken non-native language. It can and does change based on how people are using it. The language can't be butchered. That's just how it works. ** edit ** Also, can I have your stuff? Join the League For Gamers. |
|
|
12/18/12 8:08:47 PM#152
Originally posted by lizardbones You don't say "Green Car" when you mean "Blue Car", as "Green" is the defined attribute of the "Car". Therefore how are you supposed to point out a Blue Car to someone if you are calling it Green? So why does "Massive" not mean anything when describing "Multiplayer". And don't try and tell me that "Multiplayer" isn't defined as people playing the game TOGETHER. So, as the rule works, when defining "Multiplayer" with "Massive" you have a game where it is no longer just "people playing a game together", it is now "a massive amount of people playing a game together". The english language does not have a governing body, true... but scholars have applied some rules to it. The argument here is about common sense. We all know the way it works, so why are people acting like they don't? And why is that no one is trying to call LORD (Legend of the red dragon) an MMO? Its a BBS game, and qualifies as an MMO more than D3. As does Battlefield 3... You guys have no logic AT ALL. You just choose a random game and say its an MMO. Answer me these questions: How is D3/LoL an MMO but Battlefiend 3 not? How is D3/LoL an MMO but LORD not? How is Team Fortress not an MMO? How is Freecell online not an MMO? How is Orcs Must Die 2 not an MMO? How is PayDay not an MMO? If you guys know what an MMO is, tell me exactly how those aren't MMO's under your definition. |
|
|
12/18/12 8:19:20 PM#153
The weird version of MMO that a few users are trying to define: Massive = Network Multiplayer = Multiple people playing a game (doesn't have to be together, as long as they are networked) Online = Online
The actual version of MMO that already exists and has for many years: Massive = Large Quantity or Size Multiplayer = Multiple people playing a game together Online = Online
And anyone who played a video game or board game growing up knows that multiplayer means we played together at the same time.
Holy CRAP. I just solved it... your games should be called NOG and ours should be called MMO! You guys can go play your Networked Online Games (NOG) and we will stay back and enjoy our MMO's thank you very much :) This way, your broad term can cover EVERY game that is networked online! SWEET! Solved. Nogheads ;) |
|
|
12/18/12 8:43:58 PM#154
Originally posted by Cecropia I wasn't actually serious about them BEING MMOs lol. Just pointing out that they are on this site... anywho, you won't find me disagreeing with you guys on this one. Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure. |
|
|
12/18/12 9:06:49 PM#155
You're mixing your concrete things up with your abstract ideas. A green car will always be a green car, no matter how you define it or what you call it. "MMO" on the other hand, is an abstract idea. It's nothing but a definition. If you change the definition, you change the thing. That is how human language works. There aren't any rules for changing the definition of an abstract idea. It just happens over time. There's a branch of study dedicated to this called Etymology. If languages didn't change and the definitions didn't change, then Etymology wouldn't exist. Our culture probably wouldn't exist either, but that's a whole different discussion. It's just how languages work and English is more prone to change than other languages. For what it's worth, neither definition depends on having a certain number of players. Games with 64 players online at the same time can be MMOs just as games with thousands of players online at the same time. This is true for both the legacy and new definitions of the term. It's all about shared virtual worlds and the way the game has persistence. It's the player interactions that are massive, not the number of players. If you'll make the effort to look back through some posts, you'll see that I've provided the legacy and the new definitions, and then applied them both, showing how some games are not MMOs by the legacy definition, and how those same games are MMOs according to the new definition being used by the industry and by groups that study the industry. There is a logic to it, you're just not following it. ** edit ** Depending on where you look, and who was the last person who edited the entry, MMO requires "many" players or at least "hundreds" of players in a virtual world. Like many things, there is not a consensus on this. Join the League For Gamers. |
|
|
12/18/12 10:19:38 PM#156
The words are crystal clear.
|
|
Originally posted by madazz Obviously not .. otherwise how would this thread have so many posts argument from all angles? |
|
|
12/18/12 11:19:09 PM#158
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Because people like to argue and win arguments. There is no better way to get 100 shades of gray then to come here and argue the simplist of subjects. I, of course, am not above this.
This thread imparticular is so easily answered it hurts the head. That doesn't mean other spinoffs haven't caused some great discussion even if it's just for the sake of TvT (Theory vs. Theory). Dear developers, In my humble and inexperienced opinion if I can get through all the content you spent the last 5+ years working on within 6 months you have not done your work justice. Please give me, and everyone else, some tools to create our own content from what you have made so I can stay in your world and appreciate it longer than three weeks before I say "meh". It's a shame and I'd rather not do that to something you put so much of yourself in to. |
|
|
corpusc
Hard Core Member
Joined: 7/25/03
CHATTANOOGAN contact me if you are seriously interested in |
12/28/12 12:59:19 AM#159
Originally posted by Axxar
yup.
Quake 1 is now considered the first MMO, because many thousands of people played it online at the same time. we'll just overlook the fact that they were all segregated by 16 player instances (servers), cuz that little distinction is now unimportant as narius says.
hahaha, the lack of perspective/context on the modern usage of the term is pretty hilarious The End |
|
corpusc
Hard Core Member
Joined: 7/25/03
CHATTANOOGAN contact me if you are seriously interested in |
12/28/12 1:04:42 AM#160
Originally posted by Cecropia
well according to narius, logic and reason should have nothing to do with our language. 8) The End |
Friends: vgchartz.com
Not a member? You can still subscribe to our newsletters and daily updates here!
May 20, 2013 11:56 PM
- Page Created in 0.749 seconds -
