Paging Mr. Mihaly - Text MMO?

[schild]

Matt Mihaly writes "Iron Realms Entertainment's fourth text MMO, Lusternia: Age of Ascension, went out of open beta into full release this week. John Romero may not be looking to kick your ass anymore, but the-culture-that-Bartle-began is. Text lives on!"

When did MUDs pilfer the acronym MMO and become text MMOs? I liked MUDs as much as the next guy back in the day. Hell some of the best memories I have in gaming are from them. But can you even see the coattails from there?

[Viin]

Yah, it's unfortunante, but I know why Matt calls it an MMO. None of the "new crowd" know what a MUD is and probably don't equate it to one of those online dealies like EQ and WoW and all those.

Since MMO is the universal "market speak" for such games, I don't see why he can't use it. It fits. His games aren't any less massive than, say, EVE Online (player-wise).

Plus he has a really kick ass profit model!

[Trippy]

When did MUDs pilfer the acronym MMO and become text MMOs? I liked MUDs as much as the next guy back in the day. Hell some of the best memories I have in gaming are from them. But can you even see the coattails from there?

I looked at their Website and they are claiming over 250 simultaneous users. That does not to me qualify them as an MMO -- they are just a very large MUD.

[schild]

YOU ARE STANDING IN A STONE HALLWAY.

EXITS ARE: N, S, E, W, NE, DOWN, INSIDE-OUT

>

Player 1: Dude, which way to you want to go?

Player 2: Down?

Player 1: Whatever.

-

See, Text MMO.

[Margalis]

What is an MMO?

Massively Multiplayer Online? Online WHAT? Breadbox? Concentration Camp? Platypus? It seems to be missing a noun. I could go for a Massively Multiplayer Online Ham Sandwich about now.

Anyway, if someone doesn't know what a MUD is, I find it highly unlikely they would ever play one. I wonder how long the average MUD player has been playing MUDs. I would guess a really long time.

[Megrim]

MMOCC - Massively multiplayer online concentration camp. Pay to be PKed by Nazis! Grind the Sonderkommando and Dig Tunnel skill trees! Eng-game raid content includes surviving random Allied air-raids and the mustard dungeon!

sadf

[Alkiera]

I could go for a Massively Multiplayer Online Ham Sandwich about now.

The FDA would not approve it, something about the proximity of parts of the sandwich to large quantities of cat poop, which can cause some rather nasty diseases.

Alkiera

[Soukyan]

His games aren't any less massive than, say, EVE Online (player-wise).

Plus he has a really kick ass profit model!

There were over 7500 players on Eve last night. I don't think he's quite at that level. I would say his subscribers and simultaneous players are closer to AC2. But I pick nits. ;)

That aside, he does have a very good profit model going for himself.

[Aenovae]

I looked at their Website and they are claiming over 250 simultaneous users. That does not to me qualify them as an MMO -- they are just a very large MUD.

A very large MUD where you can get that l33t sword of uberness direct from the developers for the low low price of $600.  $1200 if you're a dual-wielder.

Fuck Achaea and all its incarnations.

[Viin]

As far as I know, you can get that same sword if you want to catass. Personally, I'd rather spend a few bucks than feel like I "have to" grind in order to keep up.

The beauty of it is that you don't have to pay if you don't want to! Much like MtG, you can play with the starter deck or you can shell out some dough for those extra cards or win them in games against other people.

[AOFanboi]

IIRC, the term "MUD" is still trademarked by whatever company sold the commercial code way back when. "You haven't lived until you have died in MUD" and all that. Century Communications? Whatever.

MMOs often rely so much on their chat system and combat message spams that they are intrinsically about the text anyway, the graphics are there to give a visual representation of that the text is saying.

[doubleplus]

Isn't the true definition for "massive" 64 people? It's antiquated now, but some FPS's can now be termed that without breaking cannon. I think we might need to up the number to set a standard for what exactly qualifies, but I say it has more to do with population density than one raw number.

[AcidCat]

YOU ARE STANDING IN A STONE HALLWAY.

EXITS ARE: N, S, E, W, NE, DOWN, INSIDE-OUT

>

Player 1: Dude, which way to you want to go?

Player 2: Down?

Player 1: Whatever.

-

See, Text MMO.

Ah, hehe, for some reason I found this very amusing.

[doubleplus]

I'm far more concerned with inside-out. Perhaps our adventurers are mad bombers?

[SirBruce]

My arbitrary cutoff for "massively" multiplayer is somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000.

Bruce

[AOFanboi]

My arbitrary cutoff for "massively" multiplayer is somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000.

But where? On a server? In a zone? In one region of a zone? You only "coexist" with the players relatively near you, the rest (in effect) don't matter.

(Aside: This is what the "instancing removes multiplayer" complainers forget: MMOGs already separate players "artificially" using zones. For games with large landmasses (AC1, AC2, AO) you can take 1,000 players and spread them out so that noone can see any other player.)

Also, putting 10,000 players on a text game server having chat channels (other than vicinity) would be murder without a more fancy client, because important messages would disappear in the flood of trivia. So they cannot be truly massive without either strict limits, or a more advanced interface. And in the latter case you're just a 3D model away from a MMORPG.

[schild]

And in the latter case you're just a 3D model away from a MMORPG.

And therein lies the crux of this: Text Based online RPGs are MUDs. A MUD where your avatar is fully realized in a graphical world is a MMORPG. Sort of. There's a deeper debate there that I'd rather not get into because it would be boring. But the important thing to realize is Iron Realms makes MUDs. Not Text MMOGs and calling them the latter is lying to your average gamer. It's bad juju.

[Murgos]

If rebranding thier software from MUD to MMOG gets them subscribers then good for them.

I'm all for the proper use of semantics and mean what you say/say what you mean - the words have a meaning for a reason - type thinking BUT sometimes you need to expand a definition or two over time.  I see no reason not to call a large MUD an MMOG.

[SirBruce]

My arbitrary cutoff for "massively" multiplayer is somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000.

But where? On a server? In a zone? In one region of a zone? You only "coexist" with the players relatively near you, the rest (in effect) don't matter.

Total, across all shards/instances.  While it's true that this could create, for example, 20 shards each with only 250 characters each on it, making each one effectively a small MUD, the game is still massive, because of the shared massive experience.  FurryMUCK regular gets over 250 players every night, but there aren't 19 copies of it running at the same time providing the same game to others.  (Which many of you are no doubt thankful for.)

Bruce

[eldaec]

My arbitrary cutoff for "massively" multiplayer is somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000.

But where? On a server? In a zone? In one region of a zone? You only "coexist" with the players relatively near you, the rest (in effect) don't matter.

Total, across all shards/instances.  While it's true that this could create, for example, 20 shards each with only 250 characters each on it, making each one effectively a small MUD, the game is still massive, because of the shared massive experience.  FurryMUCK regular gets over 250 players every night, but there aren't 19 copies of it running at the same time providing the same game to others.  (Which many of you are no doubt thankful for.)

Bruce

Counter strike is a MMOG then?

[SirBruce]

Counter strike is a MMOG then?

Of course not.  But it's not a MMOG for other reasons, not for popularity ones.  You do hit on an important question -- what's the "minimum" shard size -- but whatever that number is, it must be substantially larger than your number of concurrent users per shard.

Bruce

[eldaec]

For me, a MMOG is mae a MMOG by the number of players/characters that share the same game universe. And I reckon the barrier is about 500-1000.

Lobby areas and multiple instances count together only in cases where the wider game continues across multiple instances (by character or loot carryover for instance).

So, CS is not a MMOG. Because you don't have 1000 people in a rubber, and nothing carries over once a rubber is complete.

Diablo2 is a MMOG.  Because characters are carried over, making all instances (and the lobby) part of the same game.

Counting people across entirely separated instances (such as the traditional MMORPG shard) seems daft. This simply tells you the size of your community.

but whatever that number is, it must be substantially larger than your number of concurrent users per shard.

Concurrent vs total per shard doesn't seem relevant to whether something is massively multiplayer either. A large number of total players/characters compared with concurrent users in one game instance is evidence of a persistent game world, not a massively multiplayer one.

[SirBruce]

I agree that something like Diablo 2 qualifies as "Massively Multiplayer", as well as an "Online Game" but it's not a MMOG because of the unacronymed connotation of world persistence.  Characters are persistant but the game world is not.  Whether or not it's right to attach that to the idea of a MMOG is debateable, but it nevertheless is the current usage.

By this definition, M:tGO would also not qualify, since there's no "world" there.  It's just a graphical matchmaking front-end.

It does make one question how to classify games like Guild Wars and Tabula Rasa, which while they appear as though they are going to have a  persistant world on the front end, any adventure is going to be instantiated.    At what point does a 3D chat lobby become a "world"?  I don't know, but I think there needs to be some ability by the player to interact with objects or mobs in that world in a persistant manner.  For instance, if you can drop an item on the ground, or add a new structure or building, then it's a world.  Now, in a game like City of Heroes, you can't do this... but, you can at least kill mobs that roam around in those areas.  I just think you need to be able to do "something" that is shared by "others" that goes beyond changing your avatar appearance, chatting, etc.

Bruce

[Moroni]

Is this not why the term is slowly being phased out, letter by letter? It is losing its definition now that technology is allowing more people to connect in a massive sense to other games. I think PIG was used by Hedron, and I have seen MMOPU being used more and more.

It is a shame MMOPU sounds so funny when you say it out loud.

[Matt]

Schild wrote:

When did MUDs pilfer the acronym MMO and become text MMOs? I liked MUDs as much as the next guy back in the day. Hell some of the best memories I have in gaming are from them. But can you even see the coattails from there?

*shrug* Mud, MMO, whatever. People use different terms. Everquest is a graphical MUD, it's an MMO, it's an MMORPG, etc. We're currently struggling to come up with an acceptable umbrella term on mud-dev that apply to everything from LambdaMoo to Achaea to Second Life to WoW. Raph, myself and a lot of the oldbies simply prefer 'MUD' to refer to all of these, but too many people seem to associate 'MUD' with a particular type of interface or even a particular style of game design. (For instance, I've heard some people in the text MUD community say that our games are not MUDs because the focus isn't on bashing monsters.)

Trippy wrote:

I looked at their Website and they are claiming over 250 simultaneous users. That does not to me qualify them as an MMO -- they are just a very large MUD.

Our largest game, Achaea, has done just under 700 simultaneous, but daily peaks are generally more like 450 simultaneous. I find most of these number-based delineations to be completely arbitrary. There's nothing fundamental about, say, 100 simultaneous users or 1000 simultaneous users. The only mark I tend to buy is 64 simultaneous users, just because this seems to be as high as most games where the # of simultaneous players is explicitly limited by the tech go.

I'd also have to ask what you consider something like Meridian 59 to be? Is it a MUD not an MMO because it doesn't hit X number of simultaneous players? What about, say, Wish? Is that not an MMO because it doesn't have 1000 (or whatever) simultaneous players during development?

Some amusingly disgruntled guy wrote:

A very large MUD where you can get that l33t sword of uberness direct from the developers for the low low price of $600. $1200 if you're a dual-wielder.

Fuck Achaea and all its incarnations.

Yes, fuck us right to hell! God knows there's such a massive difference between buying a sword from us for $600 or going to one of the third party sites and buying a sword for $600. Oh wait, there is a difference. For the games where you have to go to a third party site you're going to be paying $10-$15/month on top of that there sword.

Viin wrote:

As far as I know, you can get that same sword if you want to catass. Personally, I'd rather spend a few bucks than feel like I "have to" grind in order to keep up.

Yes, that's correct. There's nothing you can't obtain by just spending free time/effort in-game. On a personal "I'm a player too" perspective, I don't like games that seem to feel you have to be someone without a job to compete. Free time is a currency too. I would still be playing CoH if it had offered me the opportunity to cut down on my free time expenditure by replacing some of that with dollar expenditure.

Doubleplus wrote:

Isn't the true definition for "massive" 64 people?

That's the definition I use, but I wouldn't claim it's any more particularly 'true' than anyone else's definition.

Sir Bruce wrote:

Total, across all shards/instances. While it's true that this could create, for example, 20 shards each with only 250 characters each on it, making each one effectively a small MUD, the game is still massive, because of the shared massive experience. FurryMUCK regular gets over 250 players every night, but there aren't 19 copies of it running at the same time providing the same game to others. (Which many of you are no doubt thankful for.)

We differ here. I don't consider the simultaneous numbers for sharded worlds to mean much. I'm much more interested in how big each shard gets, since each shard is 'the game' by itself, without other shards. The community around the game may include players from other shards, but the virtual world itself is shard by shard.

--matt

[schild]

Schild wrote:

When did MUDs pilfer the acronym MMO and become text MMOs? I liked MUDs as much as the next guy back in the day. Hell some of the best memories I have in gaming are from them. But can you even see the coattails from there?

*shrug* Mud, MMO, whatever. People use different terms. Everquest is a graphical MUD, it's an MMO, it's an MMORPG, etc. We're currently struggling to come up with an acceptable umbrella term on mud-dev that apply to everything from LambdaMoo to Achaea to Second Life to WoW.

Please, please, please. Don't mince words. WoW and EQ are 160' Yachts. A MUD is a dingy. None of us walk around calling human beings neanderthals. Don't do the same for games. Evolution isn't kind to the weaker species. Even if the weaker species is still profitable.

Basically, I'd rather be at the top of the MUD ladder than at the bottom of the MMORPG ladder. But hey, if you want to be clumped in with Horizons, be my guest.

[Matt]

Schild wrote:

When did MUDs pilfer the acronym MMO and become text MMOs? I liked MUDs as much as the next guy back in the day. Hell some of the best memories I have in gaming are from them. But can you even see the coattails from there?

*shrug* Mud, MMO, whatever. People use different terms. Everquest is a graphical MUD, it's an MMO, it's an MMORPG, etc. We're currently struggling to come up with an acceptable umbrella term on mud-dev that apply to everything from LambdaMoo to Achaea to Second Life to WoW.

Please, please, please. Don't mince words. WoW and EQ are 160' Yachts. A MUD is a dingy. None of us walk around calling human beings neanderthals. Don't do the same for games. Evolution isn't kind to the weaker species. Even if the weaker species is still profitable.

Basically, I'd rather be at the top of the MUD ladder than at the bottom of the MMORPG ladder. But hey, if you want to be clumped in with Horizons, be my guest.

WoW and EQ are MUDs with a crapload of players, or, if you prefer, our games are MMOs with not a lot of players. A yacht is a big boat whereas a dingy is a small boat.

Where we are on the 'ladder' is basically irrelevant insofar as it doesn't affect my life, or the life of anyone that works for my company. Whether you want to consider us "at the bottom" of one ladder or "at the top" of another ladder is not going to have an effect on our success or failure.

--matt

[SirBruce]

Careful Matt.  Talk like that will cost you your red name.

Bruce

[schild]

Careful Bruce, talk like that will get you nowhere.

[WonderBrick]

Where we are on the 'ladder' is basically irrelevant insofar as it doesn't affect my life, or the life of anyone that works for my company. Whether you want to consider us "at the bottom" of one ladder or "at the top" of another ladder is not going to have an effect on our success or failure.

I like this.  I wish more companies had this attitude.  Maybe then UO would not have felt the overwhelming need to re-invent itself into a steaming pile of follow-the-leader crap.

[HaemishM]

Text MUD's are not mass-market. Never have been, never will be. Text isn't sexy; until it is. In computer gaming terms, though, text will never be sexy. Yes, please tell me the success stories of Achaea and Gemstone or whatever other text MUD you have out there. Yes, text MUD's can be profitable, and successful, and have lots of concurrent users. Yes, it can do things graphical games never will. Text will not ever supplant graphical interactive games anymore, because no one is slamming millions of dollars into research and development to determine a more realistic method of displaying... text. The most hopeful innovation text can ever wish for is "digital paper" e-books.

And I say this as someone who wishes to make a living on reams of text wrapped up on dead trees.

They are not, however, MMOG's, MMO's or whatever the new term is. Massively-Multiplayer Online Games are Mass Market games. Text MUD's will never be mass market games. They just won't. I think that in order to be considered for the silly term of MMOG, you should be a mass market game, which means graphics. ATITD is an MMOG. Text MUD's are not.

[Raph]

It's interesting how different people want to define the terms based on different criteria. Haemish, you're saying you want to define it in terms of market. I think most designers would prefer to define it in terms of functionality. A VCR and a DVD burner and a DVR are all "mass market ways to record video" but the terms arise from the design of the technology, not the market.

I'd be ecstatic to call everything "MUDs" because, well, they are all MUDs from a design perspective. There were muds with graphics and there are MMORPGs played mostly in the text box. The interface you interact with is both critically important to the experience, and not really relevant to what the functionality of the technology is...

The REAL gap has always been between the limited multiplayer or session-based games, and the persistent worlds. Alas, persistent world has not caught on as a term either (I don't favor the variant "persistent state world" that much, because many of the worlds do not have persistent states). An umbrella term that made clear that divide would be far more helpful to the field than yet more terms to chop the field up with.

[schild]

One of the problems I have is the schism between what developers call things and what the players call things. From a developer standpoint you can call things whatever you want. Once they hit store shelves the players will walk into EB or wherever and ask a guy what the best game from a Genre is. I would wager to bet 99.999999% (give or take a .000000001 margin of error) of the time that the employee of said store will never consider a MUD an MMORPG.

The people who spend the money come up with the games. Developers are, after all, servants to their fans.

[SirBruce]

Sure, but then you run smack into the schism between what player/critics call things and what the rest of the players call things.  You get the same sort of thing you do in other artistic fields, where a critic may refuse to recognize X as legitimate even though a good portoin of the public does.  "That's not art."  "He's not an important director."  "This album is unimaginative and contrived."  "Reality TV isn't real TV."  Etc.

At least by letting the people actually involved on the creative side of the field define terms and priorities, you get a more consistent and informed context.  You may disagree with the quality of one point or another, but then your opinion is reduced to simply that - an opinion of quality - and looks silly if delivered as an ultimatum of truth written on a stone tablet by the finger of God.

Bruce

[schild]

Bruce, you missed my point. Developers shouldn't care what games are called. The people who buy the games - the ones that PAY the developers should make those decisions. Hence the reason almost all genres of cinema were created by critics. Calling a MUD a text MMOG is near an insult to the MMOG genre. As a gamer, consumer, and critic the term they've created is merely a way to ride the coattails of something bigger. That kind of shit just doesn't fly.