The Daily Grind: Is MAG an MMO?

By that logic, WoW isn't an MMO either...

First DUST514 and now this one.
Why the hell are they making all the interesting MMOFPS console only.

by the strictest definition of the term, yes MAG is an MMORPG... course by that definition, Halo 3 is an MMORPG as well. Funny that the strictest definition lends itself to the widest interpretation.

MAG is Massive, it's Multiplayer, it's Online, and it's most certainly a Game, so the real question is the Role Player part. Does one play a role in MAG or do you just drop in and start shooting? Are these roles defined? Sniper, Medic, Grunt, Heavy Artillery Commander, etc? If these roles do indeed exist, and people must play within and support each other through the use of special abilities each role provides, then yes MAG is indeed an MMORPG.

Yes, it's most definitely an MMO. In fact, it was said quite a while ago, most multiplayer gaming will go MMO. People like having characters that build up, show their hardwork and skill having results and gains. They like for what they do to matter, and being able to have persistence in their game. It's a key ingredient for gaming addiction.

So the classic sense of MMO, in the EQ-WoW sense of things, is a very narrow view. MMO's are coming out in all shapes and sizes these days, and this is yet another example of that.

When did 256 players on a discrete map -- essentially a 'world'/server/shard/what have you -- become "massive"? Massive when compared to other FPSs, perhaps, but when did FPSs become the standard for MMOs?

You want to know if it's an MMO, compare it to other MMOs.

If a game like Champions Online is considered an MMO with under 100 people per map, then MAG should definitely be considered an MMO game.

Actually, MAG is persistent since it has changing warzones, which might be different when you log in again.

The term MMO, strictly speaking, can allow for a plethora of games to be applied to it and all of those people will be right in the strictest interpretation of MMO being "Massive, multiplayer and online."

The problem with this, at least for online web news outlets that revolve around the dissemination of information about MMOs, is that, other than starting flame wars and thereby being able to gain more advertising dollars based on the amount of web traffic, the discussion usually devolves into arguments that bounce between literal semantics and figurative interpretation.

So let's address some of the arguments made in this forum, since the author of this ridiculous article(?) doesn't seem to want to define what he thinks an MMO is.

1. Character Building - Often referred to as "character development" (it's not, character development happens in books) is a staple of RPGs. As such, most MMOs have some element of character building in their games. Character building is NOT an element of MMOs, It is an element of MMORPGs. CoD has character building, and yet the same people who argue for character building argue against CoD as an MMO.

2. Capping Players per Shard - Presumably, this argument is about shard caps per zone. Champions online has shard caps, certainly lower than 256, and multiple shards reiterating each zone. AoC does this as well. These are considered MMOs. APB and Global Agenda do this as well, people say these games are not. Certainly this is a flawed arguement, and games with population caps are not necessarily exempt from being MMOs.

3. Persistence - This is what makes an MMO an MMO in the sense that most people consider them. Not the persistance of the world, but the persistence of a character on that server. Champions has one server that everyone plays on. If you do something stupid, everyone in game is going to remember. The community is persistent. Other games with multiple servers have this to a lesser degree. Your actions with your character are lasting, and your only option is to delete your character or start on a new server. Any game that features a persistent community stuck on the same server is, in my opinion, an MMO. This is what makes games like CoD, Team Fortress, and other online games, despite there massive...ness(?) not actual MMOs.

When the term was coined, persistent world games were massive by other standards. This is not so much the case any longer, nor is it what defines them anymore. The term is about as meaningful a label as "video game" and should probably be changed. That Colin Brennan doesn't consider this in his article is lazy, or as above, intended to increase web traffic.

MMO

Massively meaning 100+ players at any one time in any one location or at least one location on a given server.

Guild Wars no, so not a MMO.
MAG yes, but does it pass the rest?

Multiplayer

Clearly everyone understands this aspect.

Online

Now this doesn't just mean you log on, not since the 90s. The meaning to online is much deeper with the advent of broadband. The meaning is to be persistent. Meaning it never ends. So MAG can not pass this criteria, each game eventually comes to an end. Where as MMO's tend to change with expansions and patches to update the content, hence persistent.

Guild War's passes this however it failed the Massive so it's still not an MMO.
MAG passes the Massive but fails this so it's not an MMO.

So to be an MMO in the genre, it would have to meet these

Massive = 100+ people playing simultaneously in one location (Zone/Instance), in the exact same area. AkA they can directly interact or effect each other beyond a chatroom interface.

Multiplayer = You know this.

Online = Persistent, meaning it must be continuous, and have a story that progresses with content.

Yes I know many people mislabel many games as MMOs one of the major ones is Guild Wars, it's right on the cusp but it's not in the actual category. The current age technology has blurred the lines alot confusing many people. However the definition has never faltered or changed.