f13.net

source (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=174265)

How much does someone want to bet me that their usage of the word MMO is not the same as our usage of the word MMO?

I don't know, we've already muddied the waters quite a bit already with Guild Wars, The Sims Online, and Hellgate: London.  I can imagine something similar to TSO for this title. 

And what is our usage of the word MMO?

What is our usage of the word?

I hate you people so, so much.

I think we're just relatively certain that the schild dictionary has a completely different meaning of MMO from most other humans  :awesome_for_real:

Completely.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mmorpg&page=1 (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mmorpg&page=1)

I call everything online an MMO.  WoW, Guild Wars, Monkey Island, this board... everything.   :-)

But that's only because you list your occupation as "MMO player" and doing so makes everything a write-off for tax purposes.

Now this is cool.

MMO does not automatically mean MMORPG. And "massively multiplayer" does not automatically mean a bunch of virtualized players concurrently cohabiting a public space persistent environment. This isn't about GW or TSO. People consider XBLA and MTG:O something of massively-multiplayer environments, due to the persistent presence, long and short term rewards, interaction and co-op/competitive experiences to be had within.

That, to me, is why just slapping "MMO" in the same sentence as <title> means nothing.

I know that I've been out of gaming loop and all, but since when did people starting thinking XBLA was an MMO?

In support of your "this board' part, many people played the board version of Vanguard, you know.

 :rimshot:

This board counts as soft pvp.

doesn't really matter how it's framed -- Animal Crossing on the DS was very popular in its limited capacity.  With 3d and more tools and persistence it would be great. Make a good web game even.

No you don't.


I thought it was 3d, just at an isometric view.

(http://www.dreamstation.cc/reviews/gamecube/animal_crossing/images/animal_crossing_002.jpg)

Thats 3d, hell the original basically played like a MMO.

AC has always been 3d.

Thats what i be saying.






(green)

I loved Animal Crossing on the DS, the only thing missing was better multiplayer. I don't have a Wii, but do you need to do the whole friend thing for other games? That was a huge problem with the DS online capabilities.

MMO = Make Money Online

Depends on the game. The EA Sports stuff used EA's servers, so you only had to make an EA account. Super Mario Strikers Charged let you play with a friend if you had a friend code, but you could also play matches with anyone online.

/ding

Yeah, Animal Crossing on the DC is about as "MMO" as Guild Wars is, and about as "MMO" as I think it needs to be. I'm curious how much more they'd do to it.

I didn't play with AC on the DS all that much.  Can only one person visit at a time, or more than one person?

That whole friend thing is a big drag.  I hope the Wii version is not so restricted.

We're not allowed to call Animal Crossing "AC" in an MMO forum are we?

Maybe "AX" instead?

The only thing MMO means to me is that it is an game that is open to a lot of people, not within a specific group or given special privledges to the internet and those people can play the game together, in some fashion, at the same time.  You almost have to break it down backwards.

0= Online (Internet,) the means by which people connect to the game.  This is also the ONLY way you can play the game.  That is a big distinction between MMO and Multiplayer capable.

M = Multiplayer:  Obvious.

M = Massive:  While numbers are not specific for classification, my distinction includes a group of players that do not require permission to play with other players.  Meaning instances are not set up that lock out other players from interacting with you in at least some part of the game.  This may be limited to just the meeting areas before striking out on a quest (a la LoTRO DDO,) or every aspect of the game (a la UO.)  If all interaction between players is completely done through mutual agreement, it is just multiplayer.

Outside of that, I think this is a good idea.  If the kids are protected much like Toontown and/or Webkinz, it should do very well.  I'd imagine it will just allow people to go visit other towns and look around.  They could talk with your npcs and talk to you, but only with canned phrases from a list.  You won't be able to manipulate anything in other towns, just look.  At the most, you might be able to use things like fountains (see the pretty water,) radios, etc.  Anything you would do would not leave a lasting effect after you leave.

However, I do not believe it could be categorized as an MMO because it won't be massive.  You'll probably only be able to visit towns that you are invited to, not just wander around uninvited as much as you want.  That is pretty much how the original game was done, but it will just be easier now over the Internet.  DS pretty much has it right now.

Edit:  The other rule they will break is that it won't require you to be on the Internet to play the game.  Not an MMO.

Edit2: Confused LoTRO with DDO.

Is it time for me to clear things up?  Yes?

Wii Animal Crossing means Animal Crossing DS with waggle and Mii integration.  It's notable that AC4DS had better graphics than AC4GC.  Visiting other towns will require Friend Codes since that's how Nintendo does things, and there will be no patching since that's another Nintendo Decree.  Maybe they will change their minds about the patching, but it will be more like a ten-Wii-point shirt you can download.

Nintendo really needs to get over the friend code thing.

Friend codes are there for a reason.  If you're the #1 console aimed at a younger audience, and you opened it up to unrestricted access to anyone on that, well, some people who are also interested in a "younger audience" would have a field day with it.

Think of it like the restriction on chat in a game like Toontown Online.

yeah but a several-digit code as opposed to be able to give out a nickname, etc seems well... very back-asswards much like most of Nintendo's policy on anything to do with online. e.g. no patching in-games but they'll patch the channels when they want. err.. ok

I think the Wii would be a great platform for a much broader online version of Animal Crossing and I understand the need to protect the young'uns, but a several-digit friend code is not that way.

Meh. It's not Nintendo's job to protect shit. That's up to the parents.

Really though, it's not the kids that need protecting. It's the people playing with those kids. Fuck, I hate playing games with kids online.

Common sense does not apply to kids online. Parents demand that companies protect their kids for them and then scream bloody murder when they don't.

Common sense SHOULD apply to kids online, but it doesn't because the lazy douchebag parents fuck it up for the rest of us who actually raise our kids.

and also for those of us who purposely choose to raise them poorly.

Nintendo lost their lead in the video game market when they protected the children against Mortal Combat. The gaming world has only gotten more adult since then. Put in a switch to use kid codes or easy contact. But they need to stop crippling games.

I wish they'd just do what Toontown does.  No restrictions on interacting with anyone but you have to use the game's scripts, which make it entirely possible to play the game with other people.  Secret friend codes enable you to chat freely.

It's genius!

I don't think it's that parents demand that companies protect their kids for them.  It's that if a company doesn't put in some form of restricted communication, parents won't buy the game.

Club Penguin has two modes - restricted chat servers and non-restricted chat servers.  Parents choose which type of server to play.

Unless I'm sitting next to my 9 year old, she can't play on the unrestricted chat server.

Nintendo's problem isn't that they have restrictions, it's the model of restrictions they've gone with.  It totally sucks.  There are other, reasonable models to choose from.  (Club Penguin, Toontown, just for two examples).

Yeah they do.

It's both.

Parents are all properly feared-up now by CNN et al on the dangers of opening a web browser. So hot-button issues include a safe overly-contrived experience in which their kid is protected from everything, often including the fun.

Meanwhile, for fear of lawsuits alone, companies have been diligent in pushing those contrivances, because there's features there that can be advertised. You see this more from the consumer-good companies than you do from the dot.commers.

The funny part about protecting kids with friends' codes on the Wii is that there is no voice communication, and any type of in-game communication is barren if there at all. About the only way you can communicate is through messages outside the game. Predators have much easier time of it on AIM than on a fucking Wii.

Some do, not all. In a lot of cases, kids are just faster and more knowledgable about technology than their parents while still being more naive about the world in general. It isn't unfair for such parents to turn around and ask for some help.

Of course, some of the resulting measures are ridiculously draconian, but that's because the people / company who put a solution in place overdo it.

Look, parents are not any different from any other segment of the population in terms of how tech savvy they are or in terms of how intelligent they are or in any other terms. 

Parents require tools in order to protect their kids.  If a game doesn't provide those tools, parents won't buy the game.  That's called exercising their purchase power, not "demanding companies to protect their kids for them."

If you think that parents are bogeymen preventing you from having fun in your games, you're wrong. 

Game makers can provide decent mechanisms in games that allow parents to more easily monitor what their kids do.  Game makers don't have to cripple games, and if they do, then parents are not to blame, it's unimaginative, untalented game makers.

Honestly, I don't know why you're blaming parents for a poor design decision by Nintendo.  It's not the only design decision they could have made; they could have done a far better job.  Blame Nintendo, not the parents.

Because it's fun to blame your parents when you don't get want you want.

Is it wrong to suggest that I'd pay for a mature version of animal crossing where the neighbors get into terrible scandals that may (for example) result in my dig for fossils resulting in stumbling across the corpse of a long-lost neighbor? 

(I wonder how much Tom Nook would buy that for...)

I think this is the game you're looking for, Geldon. 


(http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2007/20071105.jpg)

Heh, trick arrow.

Ok, that was funny.