| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (6)

Posted: Jul 2nd 2009 1:51PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If persistence is all that is required to be considered an MMO, then nearly every multiplayer game that has come out in the past 2 years is an MMO. CoD4, TF2, Battlefield etc etc. Any game that includes achievements or unlocks could be considered an MMO under that definition.

An MMO involves an open, persistent world with a shared gameplay experience for for a large number of players (over 1000 if you want to be considered massive). That is not to say that MMOs can't have instances, but they must have an open-world environment where people live. Warhammer Online, World of Warcraft, EverQuest (1 and 2), PlanetSide, Aion, Lineage... These are MMOs. Everything else is simply naming itself an MMO to hop on the bandwagon and it's going to hurt the overall market as people get burned out of being lied to by marketing people selling something that they're not.
Reply

Posted: Jul 2nd 2009 3:11PM Greeen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Interesting article. I have had thoughts along the same lines.
Warhammer 40k Dawn of War would fall under that part imho. Or even Neverwinter Nights. RPG elements, online elements... just not persistent. Or ?

In terms of lobby, as mentioned, what about the playstation network or whatever it is called? Sounds like a 3d avatar chat room from where you go and play a game, just as the steam or xfire is without graphics. Second Life? Sims? Many more.
Reply

Posted: Jul 2nd 2009 3:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think the RPG part of the name may be dropped in favour of simply calling the genre MMOs. While Guild Wars is often brought up to challenge the definition of an MMORPG even the developers have strayed away from calling it such a title.

One could argue that with the more prolific implementation of instancing that what constitutes an MMO is being challenged however I don't think that further fractioning the game by adding suffixes like Space MMO or Fantasy MMO is the way to go or something we are going to see. After all we don't say a Sci-Fi RTS or Fantasy RTS and I don't see why we should do the same for the MMO genre.

The genre should be defined by a persistent on-line environment for a large number of players. I think that the developers and community should embrace what the genre signifies and while the genre itself has continued to evolve sometimes putting in question our predefined notion of what an MMO entails a game were I can no longer meet other people out in the wide world is no longer an MMO to me, because that is part of the allure to meet.

A large world were I can travel, explore and play while crossing paths with other players both friend and foe. Once that is taken away from me, I see no point in playing the MMO since the experience I am seeking has been taken away from me.
Reply

Posted: Jul 2nd 2009 9:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You sneaky sneaky people:)

I just sent in my latest article to Gamebunny, and came to your site about an hour later to see this.

My article is "Is Horizontal Game Play the Future For MMORPGs?" and discusses largely the evolutionary change taking place in the genre.

Look for it soon on
http://www.gamebunny.com
Reply

Posted: Jul 3rd 2009 7:17AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'll look out for your article, if you mean what I think you mean by "horizontal", then yes, here's hoping it's the way of the future!
Reply

Posted: Jul 3rd 2009 3:51AM SkuzBukit said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"The genre's depths have been thoroughly explored"

I'll disagree with you there, I think the genre's depths have barely been even scratched, a few games are hinting at developing deeper signifigance though, & it'll be a while yet before we even see the best that the genre will produce.

The WoW's & their clones are successful for many reasons but in terms of depth they took a huge backward step, because the playerbase that the game appeals to simply wasm't ready for something deeper, however it will move the industry forward as nopw the audience has been widely enlarged it can now be offered something of a deeper experience.

There are currently way too many MSO's "Massively Single-player Online" games with a raiding end game bolted onto the end, even one of the grandfather of MMO EverQuest went from being an MMO to a mix of MMO & MSO+EGR (end game raider).

I'm hoping games such as Heroes of Telara & SW:ToR re-open the doors to MMO gaming, repopularise the storyline running through a game & don't shy away from creating a game that has an inter-dependancy between players.

If I learnt 1 thing from EverQuest it was that communities will hold a game together longer than nearly any other factor, how those communities are fostered & built is an allegedly complex & tricky subject ....or is it?

Perhaps forcing players to group is a necessity, all this solo play is not building communities with anything like the connection that was found in EQ, maybe it is just that simple that as soon as you remove the NEED to co-operate that players will actively avoid it.

As far as the "terminology" of MMO gaming goes, it will be defined by the experiences & expectations of both the gaming community & the industry & I expect that it will expand & grow over time much as it has already.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

The Mog Log: Who mourns for Eorzea?

Posted on Feb 11th 2012 4:00PM

The Road to Mordor: Six wonders of the newbie world

Posted on Feb 11th 2012 12:00PM

Engadget

Joystiq

WoW

TUAW