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

Reader Comments (58)

Posted: Sep 8th 2010 9:05PM remover said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The term has been severely undermined by the culture exploding in the last few years.

When speaking of MMORPG as an acronym/term, it has ALWAYS (used to) talk about games with persistant worlds, where users actually effected the game world and change the shape of it. New content was added weekly. There was always something NEW to do. It implied that there was roleplaying involved... NOT just sitting around talking funny, but your character actually playing a role in the world. Not everyone was the same generic adventurer with some side jobs.


Now everything is just a big static theme park with new attractions being added every half a year. Everyone has the same goal in the game in most of them. Bad games thrive and inventive ones struggle as they go against the new grain of things.

Everyone seems to think "MMORPG" means a game with a server that can contain thousands of people where you can go and grind your way through stuff with a bunch of people or by yourself. It used to mean so much more.

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 1:41AM Rayko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
QFT
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2010 9:24PM TOYBOXX said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Most of us players, if not some, participate in MMO's to escape the common obstacles of life. It's easy to hit the power button and get sucked into a world that is far more interesting than what we see on a day-to-day basis. However, something is missing with the MMO's we play.

Most players treat they're favorite MMO as nothing more than a video game, disposable if you will, which ultimately diminishes the quality of these games resulting in just another World of Warcraft that provides quick and simple gratification if we treat them as such. Personally, I want to be shocked, awed and participate in epic battles. And that's where story comes in. Unfortunately that is the one thing that most MMO's lack. If you don't have a reason to play the game then why bother?

Wouldn't it be nice to explore epic locations like the Mines of Moria, for instance, or read about a legendary weapon that turned back the tides of darkness in one expansion pack, only for you to not only see or experience it, but to equip and use it as well in the next follow-up expansion? That is the one thing that is missing - RPG. Let's restore that and implement it into our games to give a reason to play them.

The same goes for role-playing. Spice up your character by adding a few details on your Bio Page. Describe where your character is from and why he/she is adventuring. You don't need to use a different voice while chatting. Just add those small background details into conversation. Ask one another why they do what they do within the MMO. Simple things like that add's a whole lot more to your games as well.

And that, to me, best describes an MMO.


Posted: Sep 8th 2010 9:34PM cray said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Dead horse walking.

Posted: Sep 8th 2010 9:40PM cic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The definition of MMORPG is pretty clear to me. I really don't see how the words Massive-Multiplayer-Online-Role Playing Game is challenging to understand or define. You just seem to want to blur the lines... game journalist need to do this due to the lack of real or quality MMO's out today. There really aren't enough out there to report daily on and warrant a paycheck for such a niche, this isn't celebrity gossip.

It's a gaming buzz word that puts dollar signs in they eyes of corporate suits. It has been becoming a journalistic umbrella term for online games or a slow news day.

You give the illusion of wanting to define what a MMO is but in reality if it was enforced you would be out of a job, no more reporting on CO or STO or GW, etc. every second day of the week. When I say 'you' I am not directing this directly just at you Beau but all MMO journalists. I'm not singling just you out.

Also, I think what confuses the issue is when people try to fit it to suit their own agenda, to comfort themselves for some silly reason and feel what they are playing is on the same block the mythical massive "Cool Kid" games are on. WoW, EverQuest, EVE, those games are truly massive at this point of time. It takes alot of time to make a game truly MASSIVE. You enter them and feel a certain freedom and persistence as if you can almost go anywhere in their created world. There really is a lot of interaction in those games that set them apart from so many that just don't have the right direction, appeal or quality.

By the way, GW, players chin up. Even though you might not be a MMO yet, you are definitely on the same block with the "cool kids". Can't wait for GW2!

Posted: Sep 8th 2010 9:57PM Beau Hindman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The oddest thing about your comment is that you are only adding to my point: the definition is not something you can put into specific words. You are using broad language, and neglecting entire sections of the MMO universe.

Generally, I write about FTP games, indie games and the games that many readers would not consider "true" MMOs, despite the fact that they fit the exact description used to qualify. If you take WoW out of the picture, EVE and other MMOs are easily dwarfed in player base and often profit. The only game or games that come near the size and profit of WoW are FTP games.

Yet, you do not even mention any of them. But, the games filling up the gap between WoW and the next-in-line game are these games that are not the "normal" definition of an MMO.

Consider this: I would be the last one out of a job, because I recognize how truly diverse the market is. Luckily for us, all players are not such fans of the normal line-up of the same 7 games as, it seems, you are. You are neglecting to mention the heavy zoning in EQ, the massively populated instanced arenas of WoW, and the fact that many poo-poo EVE for it's simple lack of an MMO staple: the avatar.

Beau
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2010 11:10PM cic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Comment system is fubar, my reply is located on the second page. Sorry.
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 1:51AM Rayko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
QFT
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2010 9:59PM Panicbutton said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Labels are bad and lead to misconceptions and arguments over definition.

In the end what MMORPG or any other label used to describe a game actually mean is fairly irrelevant.

There are simply games that you enjoy playing and games that you do not enjoy, that's all you or anyone else needs to know.

:p

Posted: Sep 8th 2010 10:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Not difficult at all, use game taxonomy:

RPG = Role Playing Game. Which means pretty much levels, skill ratings, a means to improve your character / mech / weapon / spells / abilities through grinding / experience points. Item collection (another staple of the genre) and whatnot, pretty much all conventions of the RPG genre. But leveling is pretty much the most important one in computer RPGs (unlike pen and paper where actual role-playing takes place).

MM = Massively Multiplayer which just is a gimmicky marketing term used to denote the possibility of teaming with lots and lots of people, even if, like you said you only quest and do things with the same ten or so at a time.

O = Online. Uses the internet as a means of communication.

Pretty simple huh?

Posted: Sep 8th 2010 10:57PM cic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Beau, sorry I don't really consider or care about profit when it comes to defining what a MMO is. I don't know what player gives a damn on how much a MMO generates for it's publisher, developer or shareholders each time they login, but it isn't me. Unless the game(s) I'm currently enjoying are having financial problems that is, then it most definitely would be on my mind here and there. I feel you are throwing this 'profit' aspect into the conversation to further a reason to bring up f2p.

When it comes to size are we talking about active accounts, total accounts or actual player base online at a given time? You never really clarify, like most proponents of f2p.

"Generally, I write about FTP games, indie games and the games that many readers would not consider "true" MMOs, despite the fact that they fit the exact description used to qualify"

Yes, I know your articles. I don't think it's that people don't consider them MMOs but in reality, more less, worth their time. You deal with games that are lowkey, and under people radars and they are under peoples radars for a reason. If they weren't you would not be doing the articles that you do. Although I, or the vocal majority(?) of people that post on Massively don't care for the plethora of f2p games, I'm glad that there is someone like you to take up such a duty for those that are interested in some information on the subject.

"Yet, you do not even mention any of them."

Is it some unwritten rule that everyone must mention a f2p game when discussing MMO's? If I don't play them much because nothing has caught me yet, why should I bring them up? Would you like me to discuss my experiences with f2p/mts's? Would you want to hear my Allods rant?


"But, the games filling up the gap between WoW and the next-in-line game are these games that are not the "normal" definition of an MMO."

Ok, now please help me understand what is not normal and how they deviate from the 'normal' definition of a MMO. I'm quite interested on your thoughts, and please no rants on the stigma of f2p.


"Luckily for us, all players are not such fans of the normal line-up of the same 7 games as, it seems, you are"

WOW! And I don't mean world of warcraft! I never said I was a fan of the 3 games I mentioned, where do you get the number 7 btw? I just brought them up because they seem to be easily relatable when discussing MMO's and most people have experience with them. Also they are the 'cool kids' on the block, been around for quite some time and known for their quality (except EQ).

Quite an assumption from someone that is a 'professional' game journalist. Your bias and rhetoric is just sooo over whelming when it comes to MMO's it hangs around your posts and columns like a fog of pea soup in a scooby doo cartoon.

"You are neglecting to mention the heavy zoning in EQ, the massively populated instanced arenas of WoW, and the fact that many poo-poo EVE for it's simple lack of an MMO staple: the avatar."

Getting kinda desperate there... OH NOEZ a game that is massive in scale with world PVP has instanced arenas too!!! Also, better brush up on your definition of avatar, it's quite 'new school'. Not all avatars have to be 3D

"An avatar is a computer user's representation of himself/herself or alter ego whether in the form of a three-dimensional model used in computer games,[1] a two-dimensional icon (picture) or a one-dimensional username used on Internet forums and other communities,[2][3] or a text construct found on early systems such as MUDs."

Posted: Sep 8th 2010 11:09PM Beau Hindman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You are missing my very basic point: you are setting *your own* definitions, and standards, of what MMORPG means. That is the point of my article.

I mention FTP, indie or "odd" games because you *did not* mention them. I did not express a rule that they always need mentioning, but instead responded to the fact that you left them out.

And no, profit does not "define" what an MMO is -- but I am using the fact that profits (meaning actual profits, as we have shown here on Massively, that companies like Nexon have made. There are other sources as well) can *help* (man, we need italics! lol) to prove popularity and success.

You used examples of games that are dwarfed in not only popularity (number of players) but in profit. I found that ironic being that such larger examples of "true" MMOs are out there, and you mentioned none of them. In fact, most of the market is made up of non-instanced, open-world, "true" MMOs. (That happened to be free-to-play.) You seemed to indicate that we here at Massively would have nothing to do if not for these few smaller "true" MMOs that you named, like EVE or EQ.

Odd, that's all. :)

Beau
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 12:00AM cic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"You are missing my very basic point: you are setting *your own* definitions, and standards, of what MMORPG means. That is the point of my article."

Oh, one minute I was too broad, the next I'm setting the standard without actually saying anything. I guess stating a game is relatable and popular is a definition to you. You obviously didn't read my first post because I never clearly defined what a MMORPG was, I assumed there was no need for it because most people understand such a basic concept. I understand we are dealing with semantics here but really, it's not that complicated as you/them/people with no experience with games for the last 10 years want you to believe.

I can't believe this actually is up for debate. I know I'm shoe horning myself into having to explain what a MMORPG is technically because of such daftness of current players that think a 3d representation of ones character is the ONLY definition of an avatar. But I really don't feel this has any merit because we all should know the difference between a MMORPG, CO-RPG, MMOFPS, MMORTS, etc. The definition is not as cryptic and blurry as many want you to believe.

"I mention FTP, indie or "odd" games because you *did not* mention them. I did not express a rule that they always need mentioning, but instead responded to the fact that you left them out."

But you felt it was necessary to point out that I left out any f2ps, why? I didn't mention a lot of things in my last post. Why are f2p so special that me not playing any at the moment warrants their mention in this discussion on definition? Oh, I see... maybe you wanted me to bring up how the game immersion is broken via MTS? and how they effect the aspect of RPG in a MMORPG. Thanks, I forgot about that being a common players irritation.


"- but I am using the fact that profits (meaning actual profits, as we have shown here on Massively, that companies like Nexon have made. There are other sources as well) can *help* (man, we need italics! lol) to prove popularity and success."

Also, they can prove how addictive asian grinders are overseas. And...? Oh yeah, people like free stuff. When things are free people will flock to them, doesn;'t mean they are gold. Farmville anyone?

"You used examples of games that are dwarfed in not only popularity (number of players) but in profit. I found that ironic being that such larger examples of "true" MMOs are out there, and you mentioned none of them."

No I just used examples of games people probably can relate to. You just assumed this was some f2p vs. p2p debate. Here you are again on this f2p makes profit so they are up there with AAA p2p games kick. Please, I implore tell me about the great games you think I have missed out on by never trying them because I never heard of them. And please tell my what a "true" MMO is, seems "you are setting *your own* definitions, and standards, of what MMORPG means".

Oh and please when you have the time counter my rebuttals in my previous post that you just, oh so gosh seemed to skip over.

Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 12:14AM cic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Disregard that I suck roosters.

Bleh, I'm over it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqB5m_XHyQQ
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 2:14AM cic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is kinda bothering me because when I think back on it I never got an answer (like every other question I've asked you so far, but what ever. Such is typical nowadays). What bothers me is that I've seen the f2p LOOK at me numbers thrown about willy nilly, but never really seen any real data on it. If you can provide a link to such data I would be grateful. The question I wanted answered was...

"When it comes to size are we talking about active accounts, total accounts or actual player base online at a given time? You never really clarify, like most proponents of f2p."


Thanks,

cic.
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2010 11:46PM Zerogrifter said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game - means two separate things. One MMO and the other RPG too many people combine these terms when describing the MMO genre but fortunately the genre is thriving and evolving. Would you call the infamous Planetside an MMORPG? No, its an MMOFPS - Would you call Huxley an MMOFPS? No, it has a player hub and then instanced based fps giving a player a town instead of a lobby. Huxley is bascially what Guild Wars 1 is to MMO.

The real question should be what is an MMO? Because an MMORPG is the combination of MMO and the already pre-defined genre of RPG so lets get of RPG here.

An MMO is a game designed on a massive scale with a persistent world, this world then needs to have the capability of putting a good majority of all those players in the server on the same map at the same time.

here comes the most important part, what is the number of players that makes a game "massive" and i thought (ever since my days in ultima online) that the singular world needed to support thousands (1,000-10,000) simultaneously.

Personally i believe instansing a game takes away from its MMOG credentials because it is no longer a singular persistent world.

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 4:27AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You are in on the wrong path again, as many others. Read what the abbreviation stands for. It only says "massive"...it doesn't give a number....

It is like einstein said....it is relative...

Can you get that?
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 12:33AM Valdur said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Every single game which claims to be a MMORPG are nothing more than Cooperative multiplayer online.We progress through a funnel type world instead of an open world and end up into the most segregated part of the game known as Raiding.There's nothing Massive to end up doing the same thing over and over in the same virtual confined space(not world) with almost the same players after 30-90 days of progression.

Defining what MMOrpg is in today's term is as controversial as stating that a DJ is a musician.He gives you the impression that he's playing music and yet he is not.

The day a game gives me a reverse funnel type journey and any single soul in this realm can change the outcome of anything happening in this virtual world,I'll consider it an MMOrpg. Forget the name of the game in these trailers and focus only on the interactivity between the players and the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq2oxt7Nrxo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGplrpWvz0I

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 1:02AM cic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
THIS. I really LOVE the 'idea'(s) behind EVE, but I don't think the game play is totally fleshed out to make it as visceral as this ME generation really wants and I don't think it really can be or will be. It's really more in the way of a game of chess and I wouldn't want to change that. I can only wish that MMO's can feed that insatiable ME ME ME ego, superhero trip while retaining balance, fun and catering to most aspects of all denominations. Pretty much I think we are all looking for this one Utopian game that will all unite us in a massive world that "nothing is true all is permitted" the ultimate simulation of real life but with 'non destructible' consequences... VR, which was a concept is over 90 years old in culture.

Then again, maybe I am speaking for myself.
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 2:47AM reech said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wasn't it
Mostly
Men
Online
Roleplaying as
Girls?

Featured Stories

MMO Week in Review: Happy New Year!

Posted on Dec 28th 2014 8:00PM

The Stream Team: Warlords of Draenor dungeon fun

Posted on Dec 28th 2014 7:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW