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

Reader Comments (20)

Posted: Sep 21st 2011 5:05PM kaelidancer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I dunno. The so-called "multiplayer" options available with the Wii and the DS family of handhelds is obtuse and frustrating, and has made me think that the good folks at nintendo are more interested in KEEPING players from connecting in realtime than encouraging it.

It's really a shame, too. I would LOVE a Nintendo MMO, mostly because I just want to run around as a Koopa and thwart plumbers (and others) :)

Dear Ninetendo.

Please make a Mushroom Kingdom MMO.

Love, K

Posted: Sep 21st 2011 5:29PM hami83 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@kaelidancer Animal Crossing deserves to be the MMO it deserves to be.
It's a shame it wasn't made by ANY company other than Nintendo.
Reply

Posted: Sep 21st 2011 5:33PM kaelidancer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@hami83 Oh, a thousand times yes.
Reply

Posted: Sep 21st 2011 5:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
SWTOR

Posted: Sep 21st 2011 5:35PM NeoWolfen said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Massively = many
Multiplayer = undeterminate amount of people in the same same game at the same time.
Online = self explanatory
Role = Persona other than the players own
Playing = Entertainment (specifically interactive entertainment)
Game = FUN!

MMO's are by definition Social games but social does not equate to GROUPED and therefore is totally inclusive of a solo play style.

Heck look at MMO design the vast majority constitutes the levelling content almost all of which is soloable, meaning the vast majority of content is soloable. the only place MMOs have not traditionally been solo friendly is endgame and even that is changing.

The notion that MMOs are not intended for singleplayers as well as those who group not only has no basis in fact it also totally ignores the fact that more solo players tend to play MMO's these days than those who prefer to group.

MMO's in spirit and intent are about providing choice so why limit it by forcing a specific playstyle on people? that wouldnt only be bad design it would be bad business.

So YES singleplayer DOEs an MMO make so long as singleplayer is not ALL it is.

Posted: Sep 21st 2011 6:11PM Resurge said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@NeoWolfen I'm not sure what you're on about, that's pretty much what he said ..nowhere did he say GROUPING=MMO!!11!!!

actually, here's the quote: "The difference between those players who maintain a very limited social circle in an MMO and those players of games like The Sims Social is that the MMO players are existing in a world that presents the option to branch out and explore new relationships in real time." (with "option" emphasized in italics, which apparently do not copy/paste properly)

..soooo, uh yea, i think you are arguing a point that wasn't made.

Reply

Posted: Sep 21st 2011 6:19PM NeoWolfen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Resurge

Actually I wasnt arguing at all, nowhere in my post did I say Beau your wrong. Im was actually agreeing with him by reinforcing his argument.

though I obviously didn't do that very clearly as you seem to have taken it entirely the opposite way hah
Reply

Posted: Sep 22nd 2011 9:14AM Malagarr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@NeoWolfen

Agreed completely. Solo play in MMOs is not only acceptable, it will continue to grow in popularity to the point where, eventually, game designers will realize that they can not afford to give better rewards to players who would rather group/raid. More than likely, the result will be that groups/raiders will get their gear more quickly or more easily than solo players, but the quality of rewards will not differ.

Of course, the article was largely discussing Nintendon's newly created term and how social network games don't really qualify as MMOs. In said games, interaction is not real time. Bob visits your farm and does some chores for you. You log on an hour later and see Bob's avater doing those chores. You can't chat with him, or interact with him. He's not there. Hence, it's not an MMO.
Reply

Posted: Sep 22nd 2011 3:30PM OutThere said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@NeoWolfen

Yes. Exactly. And the sooner devs start designing end game content for solo players, the happier, overall, the player base is going to be. Rift is moving slowly in that direction. LOTRO keeps saying they are making end-game group gear available to soloers and then makes the grind so enormous that you can tell they are not serious.

So, whoever gets there first, wins the MMO pot. However, I think devs are terrified of losing their guiding light, group dungeons and raids, for their game designs and narratives. Real, true parity for solo end-game content is probably years away. Devs still need their teddy bears and blankies.
Reply

Posted: Sep 21st 2011 5:53PM aaradun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Pretty much anytyhing on facebook that calls itself a MMO is not an MMO, well it's not true there's been a couple lately that are actually mmo in my book (forget the name).

Basically if i see someone else random pixel moving on my screen and i'm not controlling it nor the AI then it's a MMO. Everything else that limtied to text or sending gift to someone else (IE: pretty much all crapville type of games) are not.

Hell they don't even even fall in the multiplayer category as everything is static and your or limited to live chat. Everything else basically a big mailbox world where the multiplayer aspect is delivered by sending stuff to other people or receiving it.

Posted: Sep 21st 2011 6:01PM nimzy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So what about the massive amount of MMO players that only play solo?

The fact that TOR's class storylines are singleplayer-oriented?

I think the idea is that when you play a MMO you experience a game along with everyone else, simultaneously. The emergent gameplay that results (economies, PvP and groups, 'natch) are the fruits of having the option to interact with others. It's when MMO overstep this "optional" line things get ugly.

Posted: Sep 21st 2011 10:32PM Graill440 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@nimzy

+1

Well stated.
Reply

Posted: Sep 21st 2011 6:01PM ScottishViking said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm so happy BethSoft has come right out and said that the Elder Scrolls is NOT being considered for MMO property status.

Posted: Sep 21st 2011 11:38PM Delvie said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Basically I look at it like this:
1. Does my character persist?
2. Can I chat with others (as in multiples at one time) if desired?
3. Can I do stuff with others where we are both in the same place at the same time?
4. Do I have inventory problems?

Those are the things that I notice all MMORPGs have in common. Yes I'm counting GW1 even though it's instanced - but at least it's closer to an MMO than The Sims Social.

What the social games are doing is taking the persistent character and the levelling mechanics and going to town with just those elements. The Sims Social is a very interesting game - there used to be an MMO The Sims Online - from my experience The Sims Social is better in some respects than the MMO was and worse. It all depends on what aspect of The Sims you enjoy. Neither one can touch the single player The Sims experience yet.

Basically, what I've noticed all of the Social Games have in common is having stuff, lots of clicking, and spamming. Some of them include puzzle solving which can be fun but most don't even bother with that. Surprisingly considering their game type name they are really not very social. When you can chat and spend time with friends in the same spot then we can start thinking about labellign them as MMOs.

Posted: Sep 22nd 2011 2:30PM hobnob said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Delvie
4. Do I have inventory problems?

Not sure I understand that point?
Reply

Posted: Sep 22nd 2011 3:14AM bobfish said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think the term MMO needs to be abolished.

Too many different types of games fall under the same "MMO" genre heading that it is just confusing and misleading now.

It would be like calling all strategy games RTS, whether they were real-time or not.

Posted: Sep 22nd 2011 5:34AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wasn't the term "Massively Singleplayer" first used YEARS ago to promote Spore?
I have no idea why people are crediting Nintendo with this.

Posted: Sep 22nd 2011 11:53AM StClair said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)
Yes, and me either (short memories, maybe?)
Reply

Posted: Sep 22nd 2011 7:51PM Jenks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) \

Nintendo recently patented it
Reply

Posted: Sep 22nd 2011 12:00PM Palebane said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's like watching 30 guys in batting cages instead of a baseball game.

Featured Stories

Perfect Ten: My World of Warcraft launch memories

Posted on Oct 25th 2014 12:00PM

WRUP: WildStar's sadface

Posted on Oct 25th 2014 10:00AM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW