Sorry, you got hacked. How ever,  you run games add-on EXE file. Huge mistake

Article was nice to read, but one thing needs to be correction.

Article seem to mix multiplayer online games and massive multiplayer online games. Yes, many new game design seem to go more direction of multiplayer online game. How ever, MOG's and MMOG's are two very different genre. MMO is where huge amount of players can do actions togather in online so that they can see others actions. Multiplayer online game is just game where group of players play togather.

In MMO's there is possibility that server population create community, as doing togather something as community. Not just as group of player playing togather. Multiplayer online games are just games where you can play with frieds. That is the difference. Now because some player may think that MMO's feel like the multiplayer game, doens't mean they are. So, are MMO's going to direction of MOG's? Yes and no. MMO's are still MMO's, but some people seem to think MMO(RP)G's are same as MOG's. They are mistaken, because they don't understand the difference.

Best community: Saga of Ryzom, people where very friedly and game had situation where they invided hole community to do something. Helping new players to travel around the worlds.

Worst community: World of Warcraft, spamming of duels in PvE server in beging of the game.

Originally posted by Manchine

Ignoring all the haters.  This game is still one of the best games out there.  IF not the best.

First best is very wide opinion. It's just opinion of someone " Best game for me" is the correct term here.

Comment about the customer base, what some did in this thread.

How big the customer base is, isn't allways linear to "how good the game is", because some games can be designed for very narrow customer base. I consider my self this mmorpg more like narrow customer base game. What means, "Best game for narrow target customer base".

The list isn't that good. There are stuff in it, what I definetly don't want.

5. NEW WAYS TO PAY

- I do not want this, the current mountly based pay system is best for me.

- Some MT and CS destroys hole game for me, as not been fun anymore.

4. STABLE LAUNCHES

- Yeah, this would be nice. Games come out today way too soon, they don't have content enough or they have too many bugs.

3. INNOVATION

- I think this is very important, todays mmorpgs starts to be way too similar

- We don't need more same copied design, make you own damm game

2. MORE DIVERSITY

- Yes, if it makes players gameplay better, but not so that it make others gameplay worst.

1. LESS HYPE

- This has no meaning at all, it's players own fault if they belieave the hype.

In my opinion one of most important is the games atmosphere. I want to feel to be in that invented world as it would be real, not play some technical number toy.

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by Liliane

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr 

Facebook games are MMOs, yup.

If only one player can play and be in the same game, but many people can start they own game, it's single player online game.

If more than one player can play and be in same game same time it's multiplayer online game.

So Facebook games are not massive multiplayer online games.

If the actions of one player can affect another player, it's a multiplayer game.
If the actions of a massive number of players can affect another player, it's an MMO.

So ya, Facebook games meet the requirements to be classifed as MMOs for me.

It's not actions what defines it, it's ability see those actions in realtime and be with the other players. Other ways this forum is MMOG, because we play word games here and they affect others.  Can in facebook 100's of players play SAME game where everyone who playes that game can see what others are doing in realtime. I'm not talking about the result of the players actions, but actual playing.

Tetris where You compete with others results is single player online game.

Chess where two players are competing realtime as they see others actions, it's multiplayer online game.

PS: Realtime means in this case that players are connected to the same game same time.

Originally posted by UknownAspect

I don't really care if I come across a part that I have to group up to continue, let alone just get the best gear.  But  if there was a point in your character development that you couldn't even advance any further, unless you did a short scripted encounter with 1 other person (yes a 2 man team) where class didn't matter, would you quit right there?

No I would not quit because I would need to group, I would quit if I never would have to group in MMOG.

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr 

Facebook games are MMOs, yup.

If only one player can play and be in the same game, but many people can start they own game, it's single player online game.

If more than one player can play and be in same game same time it's multiplayer online game.

So Facebook games are not massive multiplayer online games.

MMORPG , MMO part is about when over 1000 player can play same game and there is possibility that they all can be in same place and see all other players characters inside the game. The RPG part means roleplaying game as taking role of character.

I don't my self like cartoon looking graphics. I do like animated movies, but not cartoons.

That's one reasons why I don't play Champions online or WoW.

So, every aspect of the game is important, that includes graphics.

Originally posted by Amstrup

wow is the reason mmo's exists the day today.

 

You all sound like old men hate changes. It's called progress, and you should be happy blizzard sat up new standards for mmo's.

Wow did not set any new standards. People don't seem to understand what WoW did the mmoprgs. Blizzard is good game company who knows how to make good games. They are famous about it. They also had good market with single player games with Warcraft series.

Now, Blizard did two things good.

1. They know how to make good games.

2. They know how to lure players to play they games.

It mean when WoW was created, WoW had not even single idea in it what had not been done before in other mmorpgs. They just gather some good old ideas from other mmorpgs and made them work well in they own theme. So, WoW did not create anyting new.

What they then did?

They lured alot of new single players from Warcraft to play they new mmorpg. This changed the hole mmorpg community, because there where so many new players.

Here is picture about it.

As you can see there  was about 6 millon mmorpg player before WoW. After WoW there was 16 million. So, over half the mmorpg player base was changed. Most of them where single players. So, of cause hole mmorpg game industry changed because of it.

So, it's not the game design that changed anything, it was the new players who did come to mmorpgs what changed everyting.

In some way OP is right and some way not.

Yes, old UO open PvP hardcore time, before Trammel situation is dead and will never happen again. This is because PvE players where that time forced to play UO, because there was no other good options for them. So, that type of situation is dead, will never happen again.  That's why EQ did come so popular in the first place, because PvE players jumping from UO to EQ. That's why Trammel killed the old Felusia (Open PvP side). Too many people just don't want open PvP.

Also one other old thing is dead, what makes me even more sad. It's the old mmorpg player base, not that it doesn't exist, but because it's now inside this bigger different kind of mmorpg player base. In old days when we played mmorpgs, we where more social polite group kind of players. Now when there is so many mmorpgs what can be soloed, we have alot of solo players, who play mmorpgs like they would be single player games. So the mmorpgs player community has changed. When you talk about how PUG's has died and so on. It's because these new kind of mmorpg players. They PuG because they have to, not because they like to.

How ever,  current mmorpg development is trying to get back to some older design, because new design is become booring. Have anyone notice how many "skill system" mmoprgs is comming. Also sandox just mean freedom to do what you want and not some linear guided content, it doens't mean open PvP.

What I'm trying to say, old times aren't dying because the game design was bad, it's dying because todays new mmorpg players don't like the old design. They like it easy, fast, pretty, guided, linear and have able to do everyting alone, like in single player games. Because that kind of players they are.  The old players are now minority, trying to say what mmorpgs really are, but they voice is drowing in this bigger new mmorpg community.

Try Lotro, I did play it long time ago, they community where not that rude.

I do also agree with OP, I would also like to have good PvE mmorpg.

I don't my self mind that there is PvP as long it's separated. As for balancing, sure it happens mostly because PvP, but it do also happen because PvE. So, as long both styles are seperated, then it's fine.

PS: WoW is not balanced and not PvE game. I'm pure PvE player and stop playing WoW in PvE server, because there was no PvE server. PvP flag system doesn't work in PvE server if it's done in priority of PvP first attitude.

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by Mannish

Dont blame it on playing alts. If you are not enjoying the game anymore its because of the game it self.

 

Nay, altoholism is a major part to why players quit before maxlvl, and it's widespread, well-documented by players and so-called 'experts', and worst of all - self-inflicted.

First it's not "just" about alt's, it's about time you have played the game. Of course you don't get max levels if you play alot of alts, but that's not alts fault. People just get tired after sertain amount of time they have played.

I have played both ways. Many alts same time and max one character, then next and so on.. The result is the same.

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

There are a ton of posters on here that are complaining that companies design something that will make money and how wrong that is.

 

Talk about completely missing the point, if a game makes money then it was designed correctly becaues enough people found it fun for it to be profitable. It's that simple.

I don't think they are missing the point. What You talk is that when game is good and players like it, it will make profit and company makes money. What others talk is that when game is design ONLY to make money, not to make good game, that's when it goes wrong. Also just because game doesn't make big money, doesn't mean it's bad game, it could just have very narrow customer base. People should not mix up big business and good game, because they aren't the same thing.

In my opinion it's business side affecting the game design and development where it does go wrong. Pushing games out too early. Cuting content to get game done faster. Design features inside the game so that they exist only to make money (Cash Shops). All these problems are related, business side, we need money, we need faster, we needed it now, this cost too much and so on.

Good game is design only to make they target customers happy, not about how much profit company can make with the game. If they customers are happy, the company makes money too as long they customer base was bigger enough. Just remember, too big customer base can also be problem, because trying to please too wide group of different kind of players, what can lead mediocre game in general.

Many people use "WoW clone" because it was they first mmorpg to play, so they don't know any better. Of course it's little annoying for people who have played mmorpgs before WoW. Saying that "WoW clone" is some kind of general term, isn't really good, because it makes assumption than people know that it is so or have played WoW. Even if WoW had alot of players, it is not center of  the world, just because it was YOUR first mmorpg.

Only WoW clone what I know so far is RoM.

Like OP sayed, most todays mmorpgs are based to EQ, even if it was not first graphical mmorpg.

I did vote no.

Not because lifetime subscription would not be fine option. How ever, this game isn't worth of it. I smell that this games developers motivation is more like money making, than good game for customers. I don't know what happen between CoX and CO, but something is changed in the company. Example this microtransaction system (Cash shops).

Originally posted by AntonV

200 people online is not Mass Multiplayer?

Yes and No.  If there is 1000 people online in forum that doens't make it mmorpg.

Usually mmorpg is define to have possibility have over 1000 player in same game server. I don't know anything about your game, but game isn't just mmorpg, because it has alot of people online.

As for roleplaying mmorpgs, you need to look mmorpgs with good lore or little less popular mmorpgs. Example Lotro, Ryzom or something like that. As for powerplayers, You can't avoid them, every mmorpg will be filled with powerplayers who has no clue about what lore or RP is. The mmorpg community has changed from lore, adventure and challenge to powerplaying, farming and snack food easy games.