I would call this an mmo equivilent to tabula.

D3 shouldnt be on mmorpg.com because its not a true mmo you can play without being connected to a server (came to this conclusion after looking at some of the games listed if any of you find a game on this site that you can play "without" being connected online then i would take back what i just stated)

that being said i really am looking forword to d3

do you mean it isnt a rpg? because you sound like you dont know wtf you are talking about trying to nitt-pick the mmo part. i mean shit if diablo, phantasy star, hellgate ...list goes on and on are mmorpg's so is this.

has it never occured to anyone that most of the time if you are playing a game you are playing a role? in dig dug you are dig dug...in mega man, you guessed it you are mega man. massive has always been under speculation. multiplayer=MORE THAN 1. online=duh. game=check.

the whole acronym is completely retarded and always has been. whoever came up with it should be hung for promoting idiocy.

there is more to this game than just being a shooter btw.

be real the site gets shit from sony for covering the game, there is little to nothing else to it.

The Agency is gonna be a big fail for SoE.

Reading the various information around the net, this game is build like GW.
You can call it MMORPG if you like, and technically it is, but it doesn't feel like one, so for me it is not.

GW has been a success because it was free, the graphic is awesome a\nd it was a fantasy.
The Agency is not going to be free, graphic is average and it is a spy game, which is not for everyone.
So good luck SoE trying to break through the mainstream market.
I am of the advise that SoE should stick doing real MMORPGs, that's what they do best, but Mr Clueless (Smedley) wants to compete with the big boys, and outside of SoE confort zone.

It is going to be a bid fail, wait and see.

Originally posted by ste2000

The Agency is gonna be a big fail for SoE.
cant be werse then star wars.

Reading the various information around the net, this game is build like GW.
You can call it MMORPG if you like, and technically it is, but it doesn't feel like one, so for me it is not.

It is and your right but thats the way most game's are turning "economic way to prevent server lag and imho people/corporations are cheap"

GW has been a success because it was free, the graphic is awesome a\nd it was a fantasy.
The Agency is not going to be free, graphic is average and it is a spy game, which is not for everyone.

graphics look as good if not better then GW its not free but if your going with the station pass its as good as free + it has some nice eye candy as far as cutscean's go.

So good luck SoE trying to break through the mainstream market.

Its SoE from what i could tell they like to shotgun ideas out on the market and just keep what sells.

I am of the advise that SoE should stick doing real MMORPGs, that's what they do best, but Mr Clueless (Smedley) wants to compete with the big boys, and outside of SoE confort zone.

Well buisness why's if they stick with what they had its going to go stale (how meny versions of evercrack are out there?) any way since planet side is dwindling they need a new fps type of game.
It is going to be a bid fail, wait and see.

think you mean big and i hope not really i do but also its from SoE which has a spoty record at best.

 

 

MMO = massively multiplayer online

If it is that then it is a MMO... the success of this is seriously up for debate though.

Originally posted by Mike_L

MMO = massively multiplayer online

 

If it is that then it is a MMO... the success of this is seriously up for debate though.

But is a heavily instanced world where players can only play with a small group at a time an MMO?

Really, what is the difference between a forum and a graphical 'lobby'?

Simply having lots of players and being online does not make a game an MMO.

If it does then Yahoo Games is an MMO?

Originally posted by Gyrus

Originally posted by Mike_L

MMO = massively multiplayer online

 

If it is that then it is a MMO... the success of this is seriously up for debate though.

 

But is a heavily instanced world where players can only play with a small group at a time an MMO?

Really, what is the difference between a forum and a graphical 'lobby'?

Simply having lots of players and being online does not make a game an MMO.

 

If it does then Yahoo Games is an MMO?

I think you guys nitpick too much.

Your so stuck with the definition of what an mmo is that you can't see the forest from the trees.

Online games are always going to be evolving. It is very possible that what will pass as an mmo might not readily be recognized as one 20 or 30 years from now.

What is the common denominator is that you can assume a role and you can meet and play with a great amount of people.

And as games such as guild wars fall a bit outside of the definition of what a tradtional mmo is, it stands to reason that it's not going to have it's own site for corpg's but might be of interest for pepole who play online games.

From my time with Guild Wars I have to say that it felt very much like an mmo. Oh sure, you didn't meet people whe you were outside but quite frankly, in some cases that was a blessing in disguise. When we were involved in a mission it felt very much like an mmo. And I was able to play with a large variety of people when I wanted to group.

Originally posted by Sovrath
...

 

I think you guys nitpick too much.

Your so stuck with the definition of what an mmo is that you can't see the forest from the trees.

Online games are always going to be evolving. It is very possible that what will pass as an mmo might not readily be recognized as one 20 or 30 years from now.

What is the common denominator is that you can assume a role and you can meet and play with a great amount of people.

...

Actually - that's my point.

Lately there has been a definate trend toward MMOs that are more like Single Player games with multiplayer content.
So, when does a game stop being an MMO and just become a game with multiplayer content?

And most importantly to this site - when does a game stop being an MMORPG?

Originally posted by Gyrus

Originally posted by Sovrath
...

 

I think you guys nitpick too much.

Your so stuck with the definition of what an mmo is that you can't see the forest from the trees.

Online games are always going to be evolving. It is very possible that what will pass as an mmo might not readily be recognized as one 20 or 30 years from now.

What is the common denominator is that you can assume a role and you can meet and play with a great amount of people.

...

Actually - that's my point.

Lately there has been a definate trend toward MMOs that are more like Single Player games with multiplayer content.
So, when does a game stop being an MMO and just become a game with multiplayer content?

And most importantly to this site - when does a game stop being an MMORPG?

Well that's really opinion now isn't it?

you ask when does it stop being an mmo and just become a game with multiplayer content. I would think that's subjective.

I have no problems with games allowing people to either solo or group. I do actually think a game can have both. they could even have different rewards for both types of play, though in the end the players who group more can also do the solo content and the players who don't have the time or inclination to group will miss out. but that's ok I think.

I think MMORPG's cease to become role play games when the player refuses to take on a role.

Let's look at what MMORPG means.

Well, we have massive. I know that many players think that means one large world but I would posit that "large world" can actually mean many things. Doesn't have to just be a large oblivionesque world in my opinion. It can just be many different dungeons that players can access.

Then we have multiplayer. Again, I don't feel that being able to run into anyone at anytime encompasses the massive or multiplayer part. As long as you can meet people at some point then you will have the ability to meet many types of people. There have been too many times to count that when I was in an open world I onliy ran into 4 or 5 people.

What I think is that the first mmo's were made in the only way that the dev's could make them. Players then got used to that, the term mmo was born and forevermore they thought of those games as "mmo's"

But if the first games were heavily instanced with large hubs for meeting people then it is more than believable that those games would have been called mmo's.

 Online.. well, they are online.

And RPG means that the player takes on some sort of role. This is a hard one because does that mean all the first players role played? Or were their characters such that they fulfilled a real and believable role within the game world?

I have personall found that what many people desire in a mmorpg is actually the antithesis of any type of immersive world. Having large regional chats where players can shoot the shit is not conducive to immersive playing in my opinion. I've had to shut all that off in any game I've played just so i didn't have to see "every day" conversations.

To me an immersive world is one where the outside world is mitigated and the players can concentrate on the ingame activities. Doesn't mean that once you know people you aren't going to start speaking about day to day things. But to be in the countryside in a world (or wherever) and hear the most inane talk, especially the comparison talks about "it's like WoW", "no, WoW is better because of x", etc, well it's just beyond the pale.

Originally posted by Waterlily

I saw the E3 trailer of this game. This is just a CO-OP action fps.

 

This isn't an MMO.

By my standards it doesn't count either.  This is pointless to have on here.

It is going to be Massively Multiplayer.

It's going to be Online.

It has persistent world locations.

It is full of instances.

It allows you to build your own avatar how you want and "level" them up.

What does it need to be an MMO, elves and dwarves? Sorry, we have enough games like that.

Surprised it took Waterlilly until the 7th post to bring up SOE.

Would it be possible to get an SOE Hate forum going where all the SOE bash posts could go to die?

Maybe put it right along side the SWG "Vets" forum?

"Right, in essence you can give any definition you want to MMO. It's not like the semantics are so important in games, it's not science.

HOWEVER, what bothers me here is that SoE is trying to sell and promote this game as an MMO. And this game really has far too little to do with an MMO to use that trick as a selling point, that's dishonest."

And in your previous post you talked about games that kept track of your stats and such, as this game will do.                                                                                                                                                                                                             And then in the second sentence the truth comes out.

Originally posted by Waterlily

There is nothing Massive Multiplayer in this game, nothing. And as far as I could tell, it's not a role playing game either. You're just a spy in an instance.

Great. So finally there is something different on the market. MP stealth/action/disguise gameplay sounds interesting.

Originally posted by Waterlily

I saw the E3 trailer of this game. This is just a CO-OP action fps.

 

This isn't an MMO.

If game can hold over 1000 players in same server and there is possibility that these player are in same place inside the game. Then game is MMOG (Massive multiplayer online game). If players can't how ever meet anywhere, except having groups or grouping in group search features, then it's just multiplayer game. Example Guildwar is MMOG, because players can meet in town, even if "hunting" is group based activity.

As for RPG, it only means player is taking role of character. How ever, RPG is often related ability have character development, what player control.

Perhaps it is following the Guild Wars model rather than the stabndard MMORPG

 This is nothing new, Phantasy Star Online called itself an MMO. We just need a new term, uh SRMOG, Server Room Multiplayer Online Game, but that's TF2 too. LMOG, Limited Multiplayer Online Game, but again, too broad. Ok I got it, WRWMMMOBMT, We Really Wanted to Make an MMO But Made This. That work for everyone?

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Waterlily

Originally posted by Edroe

well actually it is an MMO. It looks like its just not an MMORPG. They did say it was set in a persistant world so its not exaclty CounterStrike

 

Ok, a game keeping track does not make it an MMO.

BG / Diablo / NN all keep track of your ranking and stats and gear, they are not MMO however.

 

It's all instanced as far as I can tell, you just co-op with another person, and the game keeps track of your gear.

There is nothing Massive Multiplayer in this game, nothing. And as far as I could tell, it's not a role playing game either. You're just a spy in an instance.

 

I think people need to realize that as time goes by the definition of what an MMO is will change.

It's only natural that it will evolve into something that is different from the very first games.

Of course one could come up with a different name for every change that an online game incorporates into its design but it probably is easier to think of any online game that allows access by multitudes of people as an MMO or at least a flavor of MMO.

In the end it will all come under the moniker of MMO.

Screw the semantics.  A FPS that has a lobby system (CrimeCraft) and perhaps this?, , ,are not mmo's, but FPS's. 

Another stupid thread about definitions...

Terms like FPS, RPG, MMO and RTS do not have a singular meaning. They are terms that host multitude of different type of games underneath the same umbrella. Suck it up and get used to it.

Te only reason why terms shift meaning, well at least certain groups of ppl TRYING to make it shift, is:
Because of the noob advertisement person not understanding the term in the first place, or more frequently is just knowingly misusing the term because being honest about a product and making advertisements for it does not seem to go well together this millennium.

Just face it people, PR-people are dishonest by profession.
They live by the words: "Bad publicity is better as no publicity at all" (think about this)
And don't try to talk sense into them because they DON'T WANT to listen to sense...

Just do like you do with everyday products you see all around you:
Laugh at the try, and skip the product.
You know self best what a term means to you and the public in general, and that's the only thing that matters.

whatever you want to call it it's an SOE product. Does any more really need to be said?

If you answered 'yes' - please stay on the line.

if you answered 'no' - thank you for your time.