---

Originally posted by CDCosta
No there are NOT an MMORPG.
Not role playing, because you play yourself.
Not Massive because its 8 people to a table.
It's a Multiplayer Online Game.

---

I usually play with 10 people at a table with as many as 100+ tables in a single tournament. Given the sharding in CO and instancing in AoC it's not much of a stretch to include these poker tournys as being 'Massive'.

A wise reed bends in the wind. You can't nail down terminology that's as vague as MMO or RPG, trying to just makes you look ignorant.

---

Originally posted by ferdie4

Isn't that just because there have been  little or no mmorpg's with no levels? A character in a mmorpg doesn't need to be able to progress, it's just that it's more fun I think....

---

Well, level progression is only one kind of progression. There's skill progression too, where as your character doesn't gain anything specific after they get a certain amount of xp, rather they can use their xp as they see fit to boost stats and skills at any time.

This is the old Level/Skill debate, which changed into the Class/Skill debate after a while as Class based games are generally level based as well and it was easier to explain. People began to mistake Level vs Skill as being about whether character advancement or personal skill made the difference in PvP, but in truth in order for personal skill to be the deciding factor character advancement has to be so minute as to be irrelevant and then you've taken the RPG out of the game pretty much entirely.

But I digress.

One could say that getting better equipment is a form of progression, but that opens the door to saying that most FPSs are in fact RPGs, so, as not to muddy the already convoluted understanding of the term RPG, it's an unwritten law that the character itself must change in some positive manner due to experience.

That's why it's so hard to nail down terms like MMO and RPG, and why I say it's 'widely accepted' that your character must progress to be an RPG. If you got 100 PnP gamers together and asked them what makes a game an RPG at least 70% of them are going to agree.

---

Originally posted by alecbr
 I don't think these are details what the we are discussing here and in other forums.
 
Take for example first person shooter games (FPS). There is a very clear definition what they are: they are first person games and shooter games. Now let's imagine that these games would be extremely popular and they would make huge revenues. A lot of game companies would for marketing purposes put the label FPS on their games even if it weren't exactly FPS games by definition. So you would get third person shooters or fighting games sold as FPS. The genre FPS would be diluted and there would be heavy discussions on the forums what FPS genre is and what it is not. And you would say then that because genres are a loose set of criteria for a category of composition that we shouldn't discuss such unimportant details as if third person shooters are FPS or if sword fighting is FPS.
 
The same happened with MMORPG genre.

---

Yes, but FPS is much more of a descriptive term than RPG. FPS: First Person Shooter, so it has to be in first person and it has to have ranged weapons. RPG: Role Playing Game isn't nearly as defined and actually can be filled by just about any game where a icon represents you, though it's widely accepted that to be a true RPG your character must progress in some way through play.

---

Originally posted by Wolfenpride
Honestly in the heat of a fight, I don't see sex appeal giving a women an advantage at all. I would love to see an mmo were they actually penalized such armor personally.
This is not going to protect you. Honestly i would probably gut this person, and then probably rape her.#1

 
This is going to keep you alive. I would probably turn tail if I saw someone running at me in this.

 
Im all for realistic armor, personally I think a woman decked out in Plate#2 is pretty damn badass.

---

#1: You say the sex appeal doesn't give an advantage, but then you talk about rape which means you'd be aroused and thus at a disadvantage whether you realize it or not. Also, that's just sick, you need help. ;)

#2: In all likelihood a woman wouldn't be able to carry around a set of full plate as well as a man, which I imagine is where the idea of a girl wearing just enough pieces to cover her vital areas comes from.

I found it! The ultimate sandbox!

---

Originally posted by SvenDryden
 

---

Originally posted by xaldraxius
If your 20 man raid party wipes at the raid boss he should get to keep their stuff and it should add to his treasure pile, or, if it's better than what he has, he could use it himself.

---

 
You know xaldraxius, this would be great!  I've only seen this done somewhat similarly once. 
If any of you played Asheron's Call back in the day (or now, but who does that!)  Then you might remember that with every mob, not just bosses, if they kill a player or another mob (that happened) then they would get XP. 
In the open world, some mobs would level quite a bit and continually be tougher to kill by players, but when killed would give a bigger XP reward than the original and I think likewise the loot table would deliver better rewards because of the increased level of the threat.
 
So it wouldn't actually have to be that the boss keeps all the loot, but that it levels up and gives greater rewards to the next adventurers.

My 2 pyreals,
-Sven
 

---

Yeah, I played AC back in the day, and to me it's the pinnacle of MMOs, or at least the model by which others should be based. It had the three things I find most lacking in games today:

#1: GM controlled "Epic" characters. Asheron, Bael'Zharon, Martine...

#2: Large open world with no 'zones'.

#3: Corpse runs... Ah the nostalgia... I had to call and wake my friend up at 2am one night to help me because I kept getting killed trying to retrieve my corpse from that olthoi spawn in the Arwic mountains. Luckily my friend only bitched about it for a few minutes before logging in to help.

But yeah I know what you are saying about leveling the boss monsters, that would be cool too. It would make them feel more alive, and make them more of a threat too.

http://www.onelastcontinue.com/10953/gamescom-2009-dc-universe-online-impressions/

"In a surprising move, Wes confirmed that not only will there be no subscription fee for DC Universe Online, but that the game will feature completely platform-open servers; this means the servers will be cross-compatible between the PS3 and PC versions, no matter where you play."

Say goodbye to Champions Online once this game launches. It's no wonder why Atari rushed it out and offered lifetime subs now, they had to get whatever money they could before making the switch to being F2P as well.

I usually don't like the F2P model as it invariably means that there will be a cash shop, but hey, no sub + cash shop is better than a monthly sub + cash shop.

---

Originally posted by trapdoor
From a pure combat point of view... Yes i know, sex sells. But if giving women fully clothed armor keeps the kiddies away, I'm all for it. But that's not the focus of why I posted.

Exceptions? When a game takes place in an age where there is little armor coverage such as Conan. I have no idea about the game, but at least Arnold sported only a rag about his twig and berries. It would be believable then that a women in armor would be dressed similarly.

But mainly, if as a male, I am dressed in full plate armor and you can't even see my face let alone any skin, then why would a female have Plate Boots, a plate thong and bikini, and Plate gloves? ... more importantly, offer the same protection rating as the full on plate guy?

Again, the sex sells thing?... it's not a good enough excuse. Not as long as the rational part of my brain exists. And since I gave WoW up a long time ago, I still have a rational brain cell somewhere.

---

If that bone crunching ogre is busy staring at your bouncing and barely covered jubblies then he's more vulnerable to attack. It's simply a sign that women in games use their brains to gain the advantage.

---

Originally posted by zaran
I would like a key please

---

I'll PM it to you. Have fun!

I have a key. The next one to post, please no PMs, will get it.

AI enemies that actually have an agenda that they work towards. Whether that is the bandit king and his crew coming into town every couple weeks and wrecking up the joint or Sadistitron building up his evil horde to go to war with the peace loving folks of Takeitinthebackside. I'm sick of static encounters. Things should change. Enemies shouldn't always hold out in the same cave or ruined castle, they should be more dynamic. If your 20 man raid party wipes at the raid boss he should get to keep their stuff and it should add to his treasure pile, or, if it's better than what he has, he could use it himself.

1: Yes, primarily, the PvP is tacked on and optional.

2: Yes.

3: You gather things yes, and you can also 'break down' items you get from drops.

4: No, you are very non-uber at the start.

5: Ah, well there are quests, but in general I'd say you're pretty much just flying around killing stuff. There's not a lot in the way of compelling story.

6: It's not rocket science that's for sure.

7: Only played WoW for a week in beta, so I can't say for certain, but there's not a whole lot of reason for doing any gathering, it's pretty much just quest grinding and flying around killing things.

---

Originally posted by tbox
 Zultan a guy who some how got into alpha and now this poster who went to their studios.  Lol.  Sorry but there seems to be a lot of bias. I mean who is going to get invited to their studio or play an alpha which are typicall friends and family of devs and then say negiative stuff on a public forum.  

---

That's why it's called an 'opinion' and not a review.

The game looks pretty good, but I worry that it'll end up being another Crime Craft.

---

Originally posted by Emeraq

---

Originally posted by xaldraxius

Atari is already suffering financially, this could very well crush them, leaving CO, STO and the Neverwinter Nights project that Cryptic is working on dead in the water. Has CO done well enough to keep Atari afloat long enough to weather the storm? Is Turbine's case strong enough to win, or is it really a trumped up suit by Turbine to hit Atari when it's weak and collapse them before they have a chance to release NwNO?
Either way it's interesting, and bad for Atari. I think Cryptic hitched their cart to the wrong horse.

---

 
Has the NWN project by cryptic been confirmed?
If so, and it's an MMO as speculated, maybe Turbine is right, maybe Atari left the DDO Unlimited project high and dry because they're banking on NwN MMO.

---

It hasn't been confirmed as far as I know, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that it's true. Neither Atari nor Cryptic has confirmed nor denied the rumor, and we already knew that Cryptic was working on a mysterious third MMO that they weren't willing to talk about before the rumor started. It's pretty hard to keep anything under wraps in this day and age, just look at SW:TOR, everyone knew what Bioware was doing long before the official announcement.

"God gave men brains larger than dogs' so they wouldn't hump women's legs at cocktail parties."

That's probably what my character would do if it had a will of it's own.

---

Originally posted by alecbr

---

Originally posted by xaldraxius

 

---

Originally posted by alecbr

---

Originally posted by xaldraxius
 
They are not MMORPGS, but they are MMOGs.
I for one play PKR more than any other online game.

---

 
And why is WOW MMORPG and not MMOG?

---

 
Because you have a character that progresses in skill. In a poker game you can play a 'role' if you want, a lot of people do, but any progression you make in skill is your own and not the character's.

---

 
So the only difference between a MMORPG and a MMOG is that your character must have skills that you can develop and that are independent of your skills as a player.
 
So if you would implement in an online poker game for example a poker skill. Your character would develop this skill with playing poker. Higher poker skill would mean that the character would have better chances of getting better cards. So characters that played poker for a long time would have more chances of winning a game than new characters. Then this kind of online poker game would be a MMORPG.

---

Yeah, I suppose that would work. Of course you shouldn't be able to see what skill level your opponents were at, but you'd have to be at least at a certain level before you could enter different tournaments. To get deeper you could use your winnings to buy clothes for your avatar, you could have player housing where players could sponsor their own tournaments, you could buy a wife/husband/butler to serve virtual drinks and be eye candy like a trophy sort of thing, furniture... etc

It'd be a pretty cool game.

---

Originally posted by alecbr

---

Originally posted by xaldraxius

They are not MMORPGS, but they are MMOGs.
I for one play PKR more than any other online game.

---

 
And why is WOW MMORPG and not MMOG?

---

Because you have a character that progresses in skill. In a poker game you can play a 'role' if you want, a lot of people do, but any progression you make in skill is your own and not the character's.

They are not MMORPGS, but they are MMOGs.

I for one play PKR more than any other online game.

Atari is already suffering financially, this could very well crush them, leaving CO, STO and the Neverwinter Nights project that Cryptic is working on dead in the water. Has CO done well enough to keep Atari afloat long enough to weather the storm? Is Turbine's case strong enough to win, or is it really a trumped up suit by Turbine to hit Atari when it's weak and collapse them before they have a chance to release NwNO?

Either way it's interesting, and bad for Atari. I think Cryptic hitched their cart to the wrong horse.