So many people believe that any game has to be an MMO RPG to qualify as a MMO. Yes, I also mean certain very prominent youtubers who shall remain unnamed even tho they are cynical and brits. There are so many different kinds of MMO’s. We have:
MMORTS
MMOR
MMOFPS
MMORG
MMO Social stuff thingies
MMO god knows what, there are so many that don’t even fit into any of these categories.
And yes, Star Conflict IS an MMO. No it is NOT wrongly advertised.
Sheesh
Rant
Bla
*edit* oh and since people apparently still don’t get it, MMO means Massively Multiplayer Online. Which applies to Star Conflict.
Well now you are arguing over semantics. In a very literal sense, Star Conflict is an MMO. However, by that definition, almost all online games are MMOs. Call of Duty, Crysis, Battlefield etc. They all technically have massive player bases, that do play online…
However, few gamers would call those games MMO. The mainstream accepted definition of MMO is a game that features hundreds of players all playing on the same map-not just a couple dozen people fighting out a small skirmish. Although this isn’t the literal definition of MMO, it is the understood one.
In a sense, Star Conflict isn’t lying when it says it is an MMO. However, that is the equivalent of calling Call of Duty an RPG because it has an level up system. Literally speaking, Star Conflict is an MMO. Practically speaking it is not an MMO.
Well now you are arguing over semantics. In a very literal sense, Star Conflict is an MMO. However, by that definition, almost all online games are MMOs. Call of Duty, Crysis, Battlefield etc. They all technically have massive player bases, that do play online…
However, few gamers would call those games MMO. The mainstream accepted definition of MMO is a game that features hundreds of players all playing on the same map-not just a couple dozen people fighting out a small skirmish. Although this isn’t the literal definition of MMO, it is the understood one.
In a sense, Star Conflict isn’t lying when it says it is an MMO. However, that is the equivalent of calling Call of Duty an RPG because it has an level up system. Literally speaking, Star Conflict is an MMO. Practically speaking it is not an MMO.
Call of Duty, Crysis and Battlefield do not count as MMO’s since an MMO requires a large amount of people on ONE platform (server). In the previously mentioned games you will find mostly seperate and privately hosted servers allowing for a max of an average 32-124 players.
The majority of gamers have no idea what they are talking about and take rumours/half-truths as granted without getting a second opinion from someone who might actually have a clue. They then proceed to spread said rumours and half-truths as the ultimate truth and allow no discussion about it. That is what is then commonly referred to as mainstream definition a.k.a humbug or laughing stock. The definition of an MMO is a large amount of players interconnected on a single platform via internet. A lobby like the one we have in Star Conflict counts.
A game is not an RPG because it has a level up system. An RPG is defined by the player(s) taking on the role of a fictional character and then taking responsibility of his actions throughout a given narrative which is delivered either verbaly or per script which may or may not be affected by the players decision-making. It’s why it’s called a role-play-game. A level up system is not required and does not mark an RPG.
Literally and practically speaking Star Conflict is an MMO.
It is just this kind of behaviour which I just lamented about. I am grateful for you answering but before trying to spread a new rumour/half-truth please make sure you actually research the matter beforehand because that is exactly how these kinds of things come into existence.
Call of Duty, Crysis and Battlefield do not count as MMO’s since an MMO requires a large amount of people on ONE platform (server). In the previously mentioned games you will find mostly seperate and privately hosted servers allowing for a max of an average 32-124 players.
Well isn’t that almost a false dichotomy? In either case, players are ultimately being divided into groups of less than 124 and are fighting in an “arena” that gets reset every match. There is no over-arching overworld which I understand as a key aspect of an MMO. In Call of Duty you load up a match, fight over the objective, match ends and map resets, rinse wash repeat.
Star Conflict is currently no different in that respect. You load up into the game, fight over the objective, match ends and map resets, rinse wash repeat. Gameplay wise, both work the exact same way. Sure the servers are set up differently, but does it really matter? If star conflict used a list of servers, it would have the exact same gameplay. I define my genres by gameplay, now how it is coded or run.
To me, a genre label that defines how a game is run, not how the game plays, is not a very useful definition. Maybe the official definition of an MMO is that it must run on a centralized server. Does that tell me anything about how the gameplay works? I don’t think so. Starcraft II is an MMO. Star Conflict is an MMO. Diablo III is an MMO. League of Legends is an MMO. What do they all have in common? Centralized servers. Does that tell us how the game actually plays? Nope.
On the other hand, if you tell me that an MMO is a game with a persistent overworld, than that does tell me a lot. It tells me that there will be more than just instanced matches, but also an over-arching playing field where hundreds of players can interact together simultaneously in one setting. There will be trading, there will be large scale combat and the world continues even after the player has quit.
Well isn’t that almost a false dichotomy? In either case, players are ultimately being divided into groups of less than 124 and are fighting in an “arena” that gets reset every match. There is no over-arching overworld which I understand as a key aspect of an MMO. In Call of Duty you load up a match, fight over the objective, match ends and map resets, rinse wash repeat.
Star Conflict is currently no different in that respect. You load up into the game, fight over the objective, match ends and map resets, rinse wash repeat. Gameplay wise, both work the exact same way. Sure the servers are set up differently, but does it really matter? If star conflict used a list of servers, it would have the exact same gameplay. I define my genres by gameplay, now how it is coded or run.
To me, a genre label that defines how a game is run, not how the game plays, is not a very useful definition. Maybe the official definition of an MMO is that it must run on a centralized server. Does that tell me anything about how the gameplay works? I don’t think so. Starcraft II is an MMO. Star Conflict is an MMO. Diablo III is an MMO. League of Legends is an MMO. What do they all have in common? Centralized servers. Does that tell us how the game actually plays? Nope.
On the other hand, if you tell me that an MMO is a game with a persistent overworld, than that does tell me a lot. It tells me that there will be more than just instanced matches, but also an over-arching playing field where hundreds of players can interact together simultaneously in one setting. There will be trading, there will be large scale combat and the world continues even after the player has quit.
What’s the point of me explaining something if you don’t read it or just don’t want to accept it? I’m done discussing this, you can have whatever personal definition you want and I won’t waste my time talking to a wall. Fact remains your personal definition is incorrect. Just because I call my table window from now on doesn’t mean my table is a window. But even if I want to make my table into a window I won’t go and tell people who don’t know better that the table is a window.
There is no point discussing definitions because of their nature being definitive.
I don’t simply accept things, I debate them. And what I am debating here is the usefulness of your definition of MMO. All this time you have been touting it around as the “official” definition of MMO, but I disagree. A good definition is one that accurately describes something in a meaningfully way. You mentioned that if I were to call a table a window, it would still be a table. And this is true. The definitions table and window are good because they describe an object in a meaningful way. A table is a slab of material, standing off the ground supported by legs or mountings. A window is an opening in a wall that allows an individual to see outside or inside.
The issue with your definition of MMO is that it is meaningless in the context of video games. FPS, RTS, RPG, 4X, Space Sim and so on are all great genre labels because they have meaningful definitions. If I were to tell you there was an FPS RPG game coming out, you would have a decent idea of what to expect. If we define MMO as a game that runs on a central server, that doesn’t tell us anything. Do we then begin calling Starcraft 2 and MMO RTS? League of Legend and Dota 2 MMO ARTS? Sim City an MMO City Simulator? The term MMO has now become a worthless term.
You still probably believe that you have the advantage of “appeal to authority” with your grand official definition. The issue is that there is no official definition to begin with. There is no council, no authority that dictates what game terms mean. Not even the dictionaries have defined it. In truth, your opinion of MMO is no more legitimate than any other opinion.
To warp up, I define an MMO like so: a game that features a persistent world in which hundreds of players act simultaneously. The definition you have been touting around simply states that an MMO is a game that runs on a central server. One describes how the game plays, the other describes how the game works. If you wish to define games by how they work, not how they play, then fine.
One way or another, it may be wise to spend our time and resources on more fruitful ventures at this point.
I don’t simply accept things, I debate them. And what I am debating here is the usefulness of your definition of MMO. All this time you have been touting it around as the “official” definition of MMO, but I disagree. A good definition is one that accurately describes something in a meaningfully way. You mentioned that if I were to call a table a window, it would still be a table. And this is true. The definitions table and window are good because they describe an object in a meaningful way. A table is a slab of material, standing off the ground supported by legs or mountings. A window is an opening in a wall that allows an individual to see outside or inside.
The issue with your definition of MMO is that it is meaningless in the context of video games. FPS, RTS, RPG, 4X, Space Sim and so on are all great genre labels because they have meaningful definitions. If I were to tell you there was an FPS RPG game coming out, you would have a decent idea of what to expect. If we define MMO as a game that runs on a central server, that doesn’t tell us anything. Do we then begin calling Starcraft 2 and MMO RTS? League of Legend and Dota 2 MMO ARTS? Sim City an MMO City Simulator? The term MMO has now become a worthless term.
You still probably believe that you have the advantage of “appeal to authority” with your grand official definition. The issue is that there is no official definition to begin with. There is no council, no authority that dictates what game terms mean. Not even the dictionaries have defined it. In truth, your opinion of MMO is no more legitimate than any other opinion.
To warp up, I define an MMO like so: a game that features a persistent world in which hundreds of players act simultaneously. The definition you have been touting around simply states that an MMO is a game that runs on a central server. One describes how the game plays, the other describes how the game works. If you wish to define games by how they work, not how they play, then fine.
One way or another, it may be wise to spend our time and resources on more fruitful ventures at this point.
All I have to asnwer at this point is reread OP.
Also yeah your right this is getting ridiculous.