We don't know how to classify stuff any more

[hal1]

Ok, We agree to disagree on what is an MMORPG (actually this forum is MMOG Discussion and I have no idea what that might be). Let us talk about what is not an MMORPG and see if we can agree on that. In this forum at this time there are World of tanks, World of warships and Armored warfare. None of which are MMORPG's . But The division ( that some of us might call an MMORPG) is in PC Games. Again I am not telling you whats what here. I just want to hear you're thoughts.

[Chimpy]

Honestly, who the fuck cares?

The "rules" of what belongs in General Discussion and Serious Business are always blurry too. Welcome to F13.

[Azazel]

Don't a lot of these recent survival games have persistent world states? I generally don't classify any of those as MMOs simply due to low population count on their servers.

Surely an mmo doesn't need a high population count,  just potential for one.

For the Massively it does. Hence MOG or MORPG. Battlefield has 64 players - I'd call it large, but I wouldn't call that "massive".

[Venkman]

Ok, We agree to disagree on what is an MMORPG (actually this forum is MMOG Discussion and I have no idea what that might be). Let us talk about what is not an MMORPG and see if we can agree on that. In this forum at this time there are World of tanks, World of warships and Armored warfare. None of which are MMORPG's . But The division ( that some of us might call an MMORPG) is in PC Games. Again I am not telling you whats what here. I just want to hear you're thoughts.

Eh. As others have said, MMORPG is no longer a thing that needs defining. Heck, there's not even a clean "this is the first MMORPG" example. The debate for what qualifies as MMORPG is probably twice as old as F13 itself.

What it isn't is session-based arena battling games that themselves are normally defined by the game mechanic (FPS, RTS) until you get to "MOBA" which is what kind of "battling arena" exactly? Super micro-manager-y RTS? But that's all session-based too except the account and unlocks right?

In the end, these genre labels used to matter back when retailers needed clean ways to categorize games on store shelves. Nowadays, Steam, Amazon, and the mobile app stores seem to invent categories at the drop of a hat. They're still important at a macro level when looking at what to invest in (i.e., eSports spectator = MOBA not RPG), or if you find just that kind of game you like and only want more of that. But in the end, all features are fungible.

This is why I kinda don't see MMORPGs as a thing unto themselves anymore. A few years back we started seeing all the important features get pushed into other types of games. Persistent FPS character stats between sessions, XP and achievement unlocks in so many other types of games, metagame loops driving IAPs in social then mobile apps (which is really just games built to drive RMT, which itself was invented by players to get around arbitary cockblocks in games), and now as some of you note: persistence in survival horror.

[hal1]

Ok, Thanks for your opinion. But is there a way to talk about these games in the sense. well you liked that one you should try this one. Two things are bothering me here. And there basically black desert (and it's hard to say it isn't a mmorpg but I don't want it to be) And The division (and it's hard to say it is a mmorpg but it probably is). I think were all agreeing that the old labels aren't working well. Not to mention the classification on this forum. How about theme park, EQ (which didn't have enough quests), Wow (which did) and just for discussion Blade and soul. Vs sandbox and I'll say Eve and Black desert. Lots of other games could be added here I'm just using stuff I'm familiar with. Is that useful? What do you think would be useful?

[Rendakor]

Other than lack of direct trading, I'm not sure how Black Desert isn't an MMO. Have you played it?

Could you please work on your grammar and spelling? Because your posts are really hard to read.

[hal1]

Uh grammar and spelling. I'm using the spellchecker as far as it will go. I lost my hearing at the age of 5 and I'll turn 64 in a few months. So spelling is a challenge for me. Have I played Black Desert? I'm not sure how to answer. I own it and have logged in a few times. You know try to see if my witch can cast a fireball on a bug (she can). But have I given this game a chance? I haven't because it is not the game for me. I've been playing Tera and Blade and soul of late. I said in the past I'll buy it I'll try it but I'll probably not like it. And that has proven to be true. If you like sandboxes your in hog heaven here, but if you like theme parks this will leave you wanting. It's not a bad game, indeed it's a good game if this is the kinda game you want. It isn't the kinda game I want.

[Rendakor]

The fact that it isn't the game you want shouldn't disqualify it from being an MMO.

[hal1]

The point here is saying it isn't an mmo doesn't convey any information. Ya I can't say it isn't an mmo it is by my standards but it isn't a game I'm interested in playing. Its an mmorpg sand box and I want a mmorpg theme park and these's  are not the same.

[Rendakor]

Well, it seems you've found the proper terminology. MMORPG, to me, is still a useful term because while it doesn't differentiate well between Black Desert, World of Warcraft and Everquest, it does clearly exclude things like Call of Duty and Madden 2016.

[Azazel]

Catch-all descriptions on the size of "MMO", "MMORPG", etc are merely partial descriptors. Whether The Division is or isn't, you'd also need to know that it's a 3rd person shooter, has diablo-ish loot, and personal instances for your entire PVE career unless you're grouped - when you share your personal instance with the other couple of people you're grouped with for that duration. "MMO" is only one facet of all that, and a small part of it at best.

[Druzil]

In sports there's a thing called the 'eyeball test' for when you're evaluating teams regardless of what statistics they put up.   I think it kind of applies here.   Black Desert passes the MMO eyeball test in my eyes and The Division falls a little short.   

Also I think coming up with dozens more sub genres is a waste of time.  People just need some general categories and some comparables so they can find games they might be interested in.

[Azazel]

No, not sub-genres. Just elements. Lots of elements that apply in diffent combinations to lots of different games. 3rd person. First-Person. Shooter. Open world. Linear. Lobby-based. Persistent. etcetera. Sort of like what you're saying with general categories, but even looser. Remember, no-one has to define a canonical list or anything. I just think it's more useful to think of games these days in terms of their elements since Call of Duty and Battlefield have experience points, persistent character building and customisation while Grand Theft Auto has a shared persistent open world with FFA PVP. The old terms aren't that useful anymore because all online games are built from different combinations of their "native" genres and "RPG/MMORPG" elements. It doesn't matter anymore if some guy thinks that EQ1 is a "proper" MMO but World of Warcraft (or The Division) isn't.

[Venkman]

Right. It's not really about genres anymore (if it really ever was), it's about features. I like Battlefield because has the shooty things I like plus the destructible environment that seems unique to that brand, and it has more diversity of playstyles for a shooty game than CoD. I like the Division because it reminds me of a RPG/Shooter combo like Mass Effect 2.

RPG for character progression based on metrics and what affects skill
1st/3rd person point of view to anchor you in the world
Some type of combat fighting system to give you something to do
Things in the world to collect to build up your cache
Between-session persistence to keep you coming back

The only differences are how you shoot things and exactly what is persistent between sessions.

Soon there will only be one game. The game. The singularity

[MahrinSkel]

Soon there will only be one game. The game. The singularity

Also known as the thing that replaced politics, that made economics irrelevant, and the One True Faith.

Oh, and it will probably be run by trolls. And not the 'So ugly they're cute' RPG trolls.

--Dave

[Count Nerfedalot]

If you want a themepark MMORPG (with the Massive optional) and can live with tab-target combat and similar "old-fashioned" conventions, in my opinion WoW is the best overall, and the best fantasy, SW:TOR is the best SciFi, and A Secret World is the best modern genre. All are different, but have great worlds and stories and coherent, logical, well-defined and well-marked progressions.  LoTRO is a good runner up but lacks a little something. EQ2 was my favorite MMORPG, but not for its themepark attributes although they are adequate.  Nothing released recently comes close to any of those for themepark experiences. SWTOR showed the world just how expensive and risky it is to enter that space, competing with games that have been adding and polishing content for years or decades, and nobody has even bothered to try since, instead trying to differentiate themselves with different combat systems, PvP, or whatnot.  Black Desert is a hot mess of interesting ideas (good and bad) and pretty graphics and incredible complexity (good and bad) that don't quite hang together as a seamless whole. Not as bad as SWG was for that, but still disappointing.

And back to the original discussion, every single one of those games I mentioned are definitely Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games.  Other games may or may not be debatable as such, but those fit EVERY reasonable qualification for that label.  If you don't like one or more of them, it's not because they aren't MMORPGs, it's because you want something else that isn't part of the definition of what is or isn't an MMORPG.  Something that some MMORPGs may have while others don't, and quite possibly something that some games that definitely aren't MMORPGs may have. Like Skyrim or something.