"MMO" term dilution

[Dark_MadMax]

I thought about it before but recent experience with WoT beta just sparkled it again. What is it with this trend to call any multiplayer game of any kind a  MMORPG? - if it has lobby , some sort of stat progression and ability to pay online fee - it seems to count as MMO! - you probably saw ads of Combat Arms - which is nothing but straight up run of the mill fps with ability to get gun skins  with micro transactions

Another thing is WoT- it gets advertised as MMO, you all probably  saw trailers when it picks on WoW and EvE, and honestly I had impression it would  be some kind of MMO. But its not - its you run of the mill action shooter. It supposed to have some risk like map dynamics - it wont make it an MMO, global agenda isnt one either.

This is imho  what separates MMO  from anything else - one persistent world where all players can potentially interact with each other without instancing . Now most MMOs have a thing called "content " -  story line ,quests , stuff to do. Those are 2  the hard part of MMOs to make and hence why they separate itself from the rest of the games. Making  a multiplayer game (even a good one) and attaching micro transaction model to it does not an MMO make. It  could be great game all on its own but wont be mmo.   It is not about whether game has grind or not  ,whether it has fairies ,dragons and kill 10 foozles quests -all those are secondary, but the "massive" and persistent part in one world are primary. 

It seems like instancing (worst MMO idea ever BTW) made everyone really forget whats MMO are about, From what I hear WoW  doesnt play as an mmo anymore nowdays  - people  go into glorified lobby and queue up in " join game"  (dungeon  finder / BGs/arenas). You get a map (dungeon) and play it with preset (and vary limited amount- only up to 80 best case, usually just 5-10) amount of people.
They really nerfed and dumbed down the very core of what MMO is .

I am really starting to looking into  MMOs from the point of and majorly defining feature -NO INSTANCING. Hence why JG:Evolution  is probably only game I am cautiosly optimistic about


Cliffs: Can you guys  stop calling WoT an MMO and maybe even kick the threads about it out  of mmo section

[Mrbloodworth]

I personally do not feel that the use of instancing invalidates the MMO part. But it does depend on how its used. If its pure instances, I may not call it a MMO, if there is a larger "hub" world, and not simply a lobby list of servers, I would call it one if the max player count is high for the "shard/world/realm" capacity.Persistent world with a large number of players, instance copies or not, and the ability to advance or customize your player are the things that mean MMO to me.

I do think that the definition is expanding more and more titles are riding the edge of what was once considered the only definition. I just don't agree that seamless giant worlds are the only definition anymore, I don't think there are many of those left anymore anyway. I have always seen instances as a tool to add in a more controlled experiences, its a complement to the larger usually seamless world, not a detractor.

There are some titles though, that do not really need or deserve the title MMO though, I agree with that.

Just a note, JE:Evolution recently removed instancing, but that will likely impact the size of one single encounter (was something like 50 x 50 I think), where as before, the amount could be higher. Its all give and take.

In most traditionally defined MMO spaces, especially RPG with a seamless world, the chances of seeing more than 64 players in one area is small anyway, start getting around 100 or so, and the server gets testy. The massively part is about the potential to interact with millions of players, not the guarantee that you will. Instances don't change that.

[Malakili]

Yeah, pretty much.  Nothing you can do about it though, the games you call an MMO are going the way of the dodo and/or becoming exceedingly rare, there just isn't much of a market for it.

[kildorn]

All I got from this is that instancing, that thing that made MMOs able to not totally suck if you don't poopsock for rare mob spawns, makes something not an MMO.

I agree that the term is thrown around too much and that Global Agenda is only slightly more persistent than BF:BC2, but the core of this rant seems to be "fuck instancing, if I can't see every other player doing everything it's just a lobby!"

I mean really, you're trying to paint WoW as not an MMO. Which is.. hilariously trying to define an MMO as "everquest, and DAMN YOU IF YOU REMOVE ANY OF THE SUCK PARTS"

[Arthur_Parker]

A mmo doesn't have to be a mmorpg.  What's WoT anyway?, edit, oh world of tanks.

[kildorn]

I will agree that if your game is a lobby with no character interaction + instance queues, it's probably not very MMO. But that's also promptly kicking Guildwars out of being an MMO, which seems unfair.

Really, the only definition that seems fair (and lets a lot of grey area games in) is if the 'lobby' or general social area allows your character to interact with other characters, regardless of how the game world is integrated (instancing, LFG queues, whatever)

Can any of us imagine how much WoW would suck without instanced dungeons? Nobody would ever have done any of the dungeons with that level of population. Everything worth killing would be dead with a 48 hour waiting list.

[Mrbloodworth]

I will agree that if your game is a lobby with no character interaction + instance queues, it's probably not very MMO. But that's also promptly kicking Guildwars out of being an MMO, which seems unfair.

Well, GW is not considered a MMO by its creators, but I disagree with them about that. We all know it is, because we have the potential to interact with a huge number of players, just not all at once, like any MMO definition.

[DLRiley]

Persistence is overrated check please.

World Of Tanks, pretty fun actually(after 3 days).

[Malakili]

because we have the potential to interact with a huge number of players, just not all at once, like any MMO definition.

Then so is TF2.

[DLRiley]

because we have the potential to interact with a huge number of players, just not all at once, like any MMO definition.

Then so is TF2.

No fair, if most people compared mmo's to tf2 there wouldn't be an mmo with a playerbase higher than 100k .Wait that's a good thing 

[Mrbloodworth]

because we have the potential to interact with a huge number of players, just not all at once, like any MMO definition.

Then so is TF2.

No hub world. Its an experience thing I think, lobbies and server lists break you out of a "world". On this aspect, it is somewhat required that from the moment you log in, you are running around as your avatar in something.

[kildorn]

because we have the potential to interact with a huge number of players, just not all at once, like any MMO definition.

Then so is TF2.

Hmm, never any tanks, no healers, everyone plays some form of dps class and screams at other people to play the support, about 80% of your group will be complete idiots at any given time..

I'll give TF2 the label for that alone! ;)

[Lantyssa]

I thought about it before but recent experience with WoT beta just sparkled it again. What is it with this trend to call any multiplayer game of any kind a  MMORPG? - if it has lobby , some sort of stat progression and ability to pay online fee - it seems to count as MMO! - you probably saw ads of Combat Arms - which is nothing but straight up run of the mill fps with ability to get gun skins  with micro transactions

The concept of MMO was coined back when having 64 people online was considered MASSIVE, and not for RPGs.  It may not be massive to your way of thinking, but the origin of the term predates what is fairly common nowadays.

The concept didn't even require a dedicated server or persistence! <gasp>

[Sky]

It seems like instancing (worst MMO idea ever BTW) made everyone really forget whats MMO are about

Camp check in LGuk was so much fun. People really have forgotten that mmo is all about making sure thousands of people all need to compete over a single mob for their quest, not making sure people have fun playing a game together. Really need to bring back placeholder mobs and rare quest drops, too. And corpse runs and level loss due to experience, people have totally forgotten what makes mmo fun.

Then so is TF2.

Hah, good one. Where is the town in TF2? That broker/auction house? The global chat channel and matchmaking tools? You might get guildchat if you meta the game enough to get into a clan, but you have to spend time out of the game to do so. One of the things I dislike most about shooters is dicking around with the server browser. One of the things I like about mmo is that I just hit login and can do other things if person-dependent activities are limited.

[Rasix]

Heh.  All I got out of this is that the OP has a bone to pick with instancing.  "MMO" right now merely concides with persitent character progression in a multiplayer online space.  It's a catch all phrase that like most, means almost nothing without other identifiers attached.

Aside: COMMA SPACE

[Morfiend]

It seems like instancing (worst MMO idea ever BTW) made everyone really forget whats MMO are about

Camp check in LGuk was so much fun. People really have forgotten that mmo is all about making sure thousands of people all need to compete over a single mob for their quest, not making sure people have fun playing a game together. Really need to bring back placeholder mobs and rare quest drops, too. And corpse runs and level loss due to experience, people have totally forgotten what makes mmo fun.

[/quote]

I will agree with Sky, and go one step further. I would say instancing is what "saved" MMOs. Or maybe more accurately is what boosted it from niche to mainstream. Joe public doesnt want to camp a spawn for hours and hours and hour. They want their fun to be handed them on a plate, and who cane blame them.

*Edit*

Heh.  All I got out of this is that the OP has a bone to pick with instancing.  "MMO" right now merely concides with persitent character progression in a multiplayer online space.  It's a catch all phrase that like most, means almost nothing without other identifiers attached.

I would amend that to say you also never have to "leave" your character. IE TF2 vs Global Agenda. I would put GA right on the edge of what could be considered a MMO.

[Malakili]

I would amend that to say you also never have to "leave" your character. IE TF2 vs Global Agenda. I would put GA right on the edge of what could be considered a MMO.

Thats a fairly meaningless distinction to me to be honest. Whether my lobby is a 3d environment or a server list doesn't really make much of a difference to me to be honest.  Frankly, I've realized that the kinds of games I actually want have nothing to do with the label MMO anyway though.   Instead of complaining about the term MMO, I think we should just think of a new name to call games like EVE Online, let all these crap games coming out have the MMO title for all I care.

[Typhon]

I suggest "LCF", which stands for lagtastic cluster fuck.

[tazelbain]

I suggest "LCF", which stands for lagtastic cluster fuck.

*golf clap*

[01101010]

MMO vs MM&O?

[WayAbvPar]

I saw WoT beta and was wondering how a Wheel of Time game got to beta without a 50 page thread here. My mistake.

[Dark_MadMax]

I do think that the definition is expanding more and more titles are riding the edge of what was once considered the only definition. I just don't agree that seamless giant worlds are the only definition anymore, I don't think there are many of those left anymore anyway. I have always seen instances as a tool to add in a more controlled experiences, its a complement to the larger usually seamless world, not a detractor.

There are some titles though, that do not really need or deserve the title MMO though, I agree with that.

Just a note, JE:Evolution recently removed instancing, but that will likely impact the size of one single encounter (was something like 50 x 50 I think), where as before, the amount could be higher. Its all give and take.

In most traditionally defined MMO spaces, especially RPG with a seamless world, the chances of seeing more than 64 players in one area is small anyway, start getting around 100 or so, and the server gets testy. The massively part is about the potential to interact with millions of players, not the guarantee that you will. Instances don't change that.


Well I threw in  massive "seamless non-instanced world" because its imho shortest definition  of necessary (but not sufficient) design for enabling game play I want from mmo. There are of course finer points of technical aspects and game mechanics which would not technically allow all people interact at same time  (AC for example had pretty elegant solution of  "portal storms" - when too many players gathered in the area than the servers could handle they would be teleported out , it had nice lore and fit the world)

There are many elements needed to also ("content") but if you dont have at leas that very basic thing its just lobby multiplayer game. No matter if its 3d lobby or simple text chat. And btw GW is not an MMO. It multiplayer questing game (not a bad one for those who liked pve) with arena (not a bad one too )

Camp check in LGuk was so much fun. People really have forgotten that mmo is all about making sure thousands of people all need to compete over a single mob for their quest, not making sure people have fun playing a game together. Really need to bring back placeholder mobs and rare quest drops, too. And corpse runs and level loss due to experience, people have totally forgotten what makes mmo fun.


Those mechanics have absolutely nothing to do with instances.Those are deliberately designed time sinks in order to make people "work" -yeah thats the catass-design philosophy -you have to grind for everything for it to be worth anything .the sad part that broken design is persisting in "pvp" mmos (shadowbane, darkfall) .DF is probably one of the most catass games there is (save the asian ones). The fact that wow has less boring and less explicit timesinks is not because it has instances and those two are intrinsically linked together like conjoined twins.

 In fact I really could care less for pve parts of the game if it doesn't interact with pvp side . I do think in PvP world static shared mob spawns server as great point of conflict- something pve players dont like , I am pvp player I like conflict, but I am not gonna argue pvp vs pve design here.

I don't like having "to camp" - predefined world announced timers (or published times , which could be wrapped in lore)  solve that. Instancing solves nothing - it removes elements of gameplay I like ( which is interaction with non static, non predefined situation)





I will agree with Sky, and go one step further. I would say instancing is what "saved" MMOs. Or maybe more accurately is what boosted it from niche to mainstream. Joe public doesnt want to camp a spawn for hours and hours and hour. They want their fun to be handed them on a plate, and who cane blame them.


Wow so the whole genre which started so gloriously is "progressed" to 3d lobbies and monthly fees microtransation for almost 15 years old concept of multiplayer game! Multiplayer games always existed , some of them were good, some bad. Match on fixed map with predefined conditions and predfined  fixed set of players is not what I am looking for in a mmo. You want that? "Majority" want that? -well you have it , and had it for long time. I in fact like multiplayer games, I just like them without grind and monthly fee element. Majority seems to want grind attached to it and more simple game play than their non existent brains and reflexes can handles (apparently run of the mill fps and rts  are too complex for  "majority")


I am looking for "emergent" gameplay ( I hate that it became buzzword- but its very precise one). Let me give you short example  -  in old  vanilla wow, pre bg ,pre honor there was some ogre fortress. There was a quest chain both for alliance and horde there. Doing quests there naturally lead to  small scale pvp conflict between players. We didn't queue up for "5 vs 5" combat, we simply went on doing quests, found other faction their , grouped up and started fightihng them (and ogres  too) for spawn. It was great fun .And there were many spots like that where pvp naturally happened. I did not know I would have to fight there (sometimes I wouldnt) , there was no capture the flag, no timer , it felt as a natural unconstrained fight.-something which happens in worlds, not arenas.

I had more fun fighting at molten core entrance than I ever had inside the instance. We raided that dwarf city  and human capital cities (whatever their names) just for fun . it was radically different from " here is team 1 they are red, we are team 2, we are blue. FIIIIGHT ! and it goes on till blues are red and red are blues!" . Most of examples I would remember would be pvp ones- simply as that what  I like , but they are examples from older games(like UO,AC,EQ) I am sure many pve players could state for you of how different interaction in the world is from their point of view.

 Now the was WoW -it was not really designed to be pvp game, but it still had fun world pvp simply because of no instances. It could be made into tons more , but they instead went with instancing everything , and nowdays world pvp is mostly relic of the past.

[Shatter]

It was a term that at the time made sense and had value but over time its been stretched thin and means little.  Online games now need new broader categories, in essence sub categories to systematize them more to modern times.  

[Nebu]

The issue with your anecdote is that what you consider fun is considered an annoyance to most current gamers.  They want to pull the cord and be handed a prize.  MMO's that we played 6+ years ago have been turned into amusement park rides that end with a slot machine pull.  That or a sort of Chuck E Cheese experience where you collect tickets to buy your in game achievements.  In today's MMO, the fun is in the reward to a far greater degree than in the game itself.  I consider this to be the crux of the problem in the direction that MMO's are moving.   I want a game that is fun in and of itself.  If I get a reward while enjoying gameplay, that should be a bonus rather than the motivation for my gaming session.

[Dark_MadMax]

The issue with your anecdote is that what you consider fun is considered an annoyance to most current gamers.  They want to pull the cord and be handed a prize.  MMO's that we played 6+ years ago have been turned into amusement park rides that end with a slot machine pull.  That or a sort of Chuck E Cheese experience where you collect tickets to buy your in game achievements.  In today's MMO, the fun is in the reward to a far greater degree than in the game itself.  I consider this to be the crux of the problem in the direction that MMO's are moving.   I want a game that is fun in and of itself.  If I get a reward while enjoying gameplay, that should be a bonus rather than the motivation for my gaming session.

Yeah the reward over game itself is  a core problem -you are right. I was thinking a lot over the issues and came to conclusions that its inevitable to have that "reward" design element. Its human brains, we wired for that. Fighting nature  is pointless. I myself find rewards gratifying (e.g. world of tanks with  progression trees is more fun to me than same thing but instead everything given at match start as long as there is no excessive grind).

I highly suspect the "majority" is happy with just reward ,hence the mainstream games are  going this way as there no requirement of actually designing things which are hard to design . I mean look at immense popularity of that facebook abomination. Humans mostly are simply creatures.  catering to lowest common denominator works . I just hope there will be niche products,  for the others

[Sky]

In fact I really could care less for pve parts of the game if it doesn't interact with pvp side . I do think in PvP world static shared mob spawns server as great point of conflict- something pve players dont like , I am pvp player I like conflict, but I am not gonna argue pvp vs pve design here.

I don't like having "to camp" - predefined world announced timers (or published times , which could be wrapped in lore)  solve that. Instancing solves nothing - it removes elements of gameplay I like ( which is interaction with non static, non predefined situation)

Well, that's a whole different situation you didn't mention in your original post.

Also, please learn how to use the quote function rather than make up your own way with italics. You don't visit someone's house and piss in the sink. It might serve the purpose, but there's really a better way.

[Nebu]

I just hope there will be niche products,  for the others

Support indy developers.  They may be our only hope.  I'm about finished with mainstream MMO releases until the design model changes. 

[Rasix]

Also, please learn how to use the quote function rather than make up your own way with italics. You don't visit someone's house and piss in the sink. It might serve the purpose, but there's really a better way.

Ahh, you got to him before I could use my new paint masterpiece.

[Musashi]

This thread is totally semantic.  Who cares?  When you compare modern multi player internet games to a twin paddle pong console, then all of them are massively multi player.

[naum]

 

[Dark_MadMax]

Also, please learn how to use the quote function rather than make up your own way with italics. You don't visit someone's house and piss in the sink. It might serve the purpose, but there's really a better way.

Sorry guys that is side effect  of  posting too much on blogs. And of course when I post on blogs i screw up and use

Code:

[ quote]  [/quote] 

tags!

[Goreschach]

Also, please learn how to use the quote function rather than make up your own way with italics. You don't visit someone's house and piss in the sink. It might serve the purpose, but there's really a better way.

Sorry guys that is side effect  of  posting too much on blogs. And of course when I post on blogs i screw up and use

Code:

[ quote]  [/quote] 

tags!

Just use the quote button to the right of a post. That way it displays the person's name.

[kildorn]

If you include "seamless world" in what makes an MMO, Everquest stops being an MMO. Woo zoning!

I think what pushes GA over TF2 in the MMO space isn't the player lobby, it's the persistent character. While in a TF2 or most class/persistent unlock FPS games I can switch classes mid match, in what I mentally consider MMO-like is that in GA, my character is mine, and while I can have another, I'd need to log out to switch.

Even that I will admit is a very arbitrary and stupid mental line to draw, given that in WoW I can switch roles (though on the same character) during a raid/instance as well.

But that's mentally where I draw the "I'm trying to be an MMO" versus "I'm a multiplayer game with a lobby" line.

[Mrbloodworth]

Question, GA got a lot of flack about "Not being an MMO", they are soon to add a large open area outside of the "dome". Someone said GA is at the edge of the MMO line. Will this addition push it over?

[Malakili]

Question, GA got a lot of flack about "Not being an MMO", they are soon to add a large open area outside of the "dome". Someone said GA is at the edge of the MMO line. Will this addition push it over?

Maybe?

Anyway, I'm going to try a different angle on this:

To me, an MMO should include INVOLUNTARY player interaction.  Yeah, I said it.  Now read the rest before you reply in a fit and say you don't want to have to group up with Dr. D-bag to level please.   Its not about GROUPING, thats incidental.  What it is about is that other players should play a prominent role in your experience.  If two people meet out in the game world it should matter, there should be a reason for them to talk to each other, or trade with each other, or fight together or maybe even fight each other.

There is an obvious market for the "Play solo but be able to easily play with other people if and when I want to game," but frankly it doesn't get at the core of what the MMOG genre is to me.  The open world alone isn't it, the persistent character progression isn't it, the auction house isn't it.   Its an acknowledgement by the developers and playerbase that the other players besides your own matter to your play session.  Maybe that means instead of being able to hit repair at any old vendor, thats a player trade skill, maybe it means loot should primarily be crafted, I don't know the specifics of what game mechanics need to or should be implemented to reach that goal, but thats the core of it to me.

Its for this reason I say a game like NWN PW servers is more of an MMO than most of the stuff on the market.  Yeah leveling was slow, often there weren't ANY max level player son a server, most of the time you had to work together to accomplish any god damn thing.  But you know what, it was fucking AWESOME.  

You can all puff out your chests and say "well now I'm old and have a family and don't have time to fuck around for 10 hours" FINE, but then stop saying you want an MMO.

Edit: So, to sum up basically, when you see another player in the game world, you should care who they are, why there are there, what their character does, and so forth.  The more "strangers passing in the night" a MMOG gets, the farther it gets from what I'm looking for.


Man, that rant felt good.  Now, please pick it apart.