test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
is this really a "MMORPG" ?
wildheartz12
Member Posts: 17 Arc User
It doesn't seem like it's going to be massively multiplayer.. it seems more like it's just smaller groups or parties going through premade DM scenarios or quests ?
Post edited by wildheartz12 on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The lack of raids actually makes the "massive" adjective really unappropriate.
St. Augustinus
Probably. But i've always heard this term referred to big RvR fights or Raids. So, a number of players playing together in a same instanced or non-instanced zone.
Meta-gaming term issues aside, i don't know if this game will be "massive" (following your definition). I hope it will be, though.
St. Augustinus
Still is, people just like to make up new definitions on the fly for things like MMORPG, Pay to Win, Irony, Rich, and Sane. It happens all the time.
And yes Neverwinter is a MMORPG.
Odd that...
MMORPG is a coined phrase now for MMOs. All "MMORPGs" are really just OMG (Online Multiplayer Game) imo. Games like EVE Online are truly MMORPGs and probably Darkfall (never played that one). But for the most part MMOs have turned to CoOp games as the massively multilayer aspect has long since been ignored beyond just having a chat room with many people and that cradle towards soloist playstyle (not saying soloist is bad but that it's counter-intuitive to MMOs). When a game makes people play together and you have groups and reliance on one another like it is seen in EVE Online then you have an MMO, not when "ohh it's thurs nite, time to get to my instanced small group dungeon/raid."
This idea of raids and hundreds of players fighting at single goals came along years after MMO's hit the field. Even WoW didn't initially have raids.
That is very much a player grown expectation and misunderstanding. As far as a lot of D&D players are concerned they couldn't care about raids. D&D itself is designed to operate between 4-6 members in a party so while the idea of raids works well in something like sieges typical D&D doesn't involve hundreds of players.
They have never said that they won't ultimately add something similar to raids into the game but the concept of raids being an MMO requirement is completely a Post-WoW misconception.
This game is definitely an MMO, no matter what the raiders claim.
It's not a mis-conception, but a change of conception, which is not surprising. Words are made by usage, and are not static in society. Since MMORPG is a word, it may have different definitions that change from time to time, especially in a fast-changing world as gaming industry.
Anyway, if you like it to be a MMO... it's a MMO. If you don't, it's not. I wholly agree with DevotedOfTempus when he says this is a debated concept.
St. Augustinus
Wow another person changing the definition on the fly what a shock. MMORPG was originally coined by Richard Garriott and what he ment by massive was the number of players on a single shard or server was massive. That was it, no special they have to all work together or anything else period. Just because people change the definition of a term to fit their point of view does not make it true.
If that is true then the entire idea of a language breaks down. If everyone gets to have their own definition of a word how do people communicate with each other properly? It is not that the definition of MMORPG changed to mean something else it is that people changed it in theor own mind to mean 1000 different things. If people get to change what words mean I say we change the meaning of words so that I don't owe the bank any money on the mortgage on my house, or better yet so that the bank has to pay me.
I could not agree more. The focus of an MMO should be Co-Op play. You take your time and work together to figure out goals and strategies. It is really awful to sit in a Massive Multiplayer Game waiting for hours on end to find a group to play with for about an hour and then do it all over again the next day with a different group. Most time is spent waiting or looking for other people to play with. And I hate to feel like I am constantly bugging people to join my party and getting shot down. It ruins or sullies the experience for casual gamers because they inevitably don't have enough time to do the things they want to unless they just solo or try to solo most of it. If I wanted to play solo I would play my offline RPGs like Baldur's Gate or even break out my SNES or Playstation and play some classic solo RPGs.
You're reading in a wrong way my post. Meaning of word is done by general consensus and approval. A "mortgage" is exactly a "mortgage" now, but maybe in 100 years it will evolve into something different.
When i wrote "my own" definition of "massive" i just referred to what i read in multiple sources. I'm not really making up something, as you may think. So, it may be wrong, but then it's a battle between 2 different types of use of the same word. It's not a big deal, in phylosophy happens basically everytime.
St. Augustinus
+1 to this
Too often I find myself in the same situation of not having anybody to play with or not able to complete content because you need x gear requirement or experience with y dungeons. Sadly I've become victim of this mentality and now typically play solo classes instead of trying to build for parties. Of course I still keep my character party-able and understand party roles and mechanics, but in general I don't plan on ever finding a group and so don't get disappointed when I'm forced to solo a 5-man dungeon just to finish a quest line.
Nor does it make anymore true when people stick to old outdated definition, MMOs have long since progressed and evolved. And it's irrelevant who coined the phrase first, things evolve. MMOs have become anti-social, that is obvious. One of the reasons people play MMOs is to actually play with others and work as a team.
They have tools for you to meet new people for adventures and the like so you can still feel the world is not as 'small' as just a few people at a time.
Also +1 for the UO reference.
There are open world PvE zones as well.
Funny, every MMO I play with dozens of people many of which I know in real life. I am finding it hard to see how that is antisocial.
Pretty sure you could form 40 man raids for world PvP when that game was released? I may be wrong though, as I started playing shortly after release.
My point was that the dungeon raiding with 40+ players was something which came around later on and while successful for a portion of the MMO player base there are still large amounts of players who are not anti-social but want nothing to do with the standard MMO concept of a raid.
I will always find 2 close friends superior to a group of forty randoms. And this concept counts even if I have my two friends amongst the forty randoms.
I am a small group player. Always have been and always will be. That is my personallity.
MMO's were introduced with the concept of having so many people around that you will always have the ability to play with like-minded players. That was the goal and that is what the term was coined as.
I don't see this as debatable because with that goal, like minded players to me don't enjoy huge raids. Certainly some MMO's can cater to one group more than another but one piece of additional content has by no means defined the MMO Experience and changed its true meanings.
There are still a number of big name MMO's which do not even give an option for raids. The winner of last year's golden joystick for MMO's, League of Legends, doesn't even support more than 5 man teams.
WoW did redefine the standard MMO and introduced many new concepts but it didn't redefine the meaning of the term. It has and always will mean that the ability to play with like minded players is existent.
And i'm not even ashamed about it!
St. Augustinus
People are talking about it so i supposed they care.
As much as I miss the old days of early EQ and DAoC where 'raiding' as people define it today didn't really exist I get more concerned about the RPG part of the acronym getting ignored and devalued than the MMO part mutating definitions for some.