Are We A MMO?

I keep my SotA forums skinned like my old BBS too!

 

Berry well stated.

 

Wow, totally did not read my posts or just saw what you wanted to.

1.) I never said a 30 vs 30 w/ lobby, as if a lobby matters, was an MMO. Your scenario was... and I quote, "So a FPS with 1 lobby and thousands of 30 vs 30 battle ground maps is a MMO?", which represents at least 120,000 players online, with at least 60 per instance, to that I said, "YES". That still holds the qualities of an MMO. Whether or not it is today's typical standards it still is an MMO.

2.) I never said that all online multiplayer games were MMOs. I pointed out that some were, even FPS ones. Check MMORPG.com for more.

3.) MMO/MMOG/MMORPG are not just meta tags for doing searches. There are plenty of reputable dictionary references that define what an MMO/MMOG is and has been since the 90s.

4.) For all your arguments SotA still fits within your definition of an MMO.

5.) Your latest retort still does not prove your argument or add anything different. You don't even acknowledge you defined SotA as an MMO either. So are you still trying to argue SotA is NOT an MMO? Or are you just trolling to be trolling?

 

Seems to me like you both hear what you want to hear... just right there I can say that Ristra didn't say MMO was only a meta-tag... he said if all that matters. And if you think about it, a meta-tag is bound to have a definition attached to it.

And might I add, IF we don't want to deepen the conversation and find more proper terms or a more precise definition, then it truely is all that matters

 

Just saying once again, the term MMO came out in the 90s. What it meant then, for terms of gaming, is not going to be typical of what we expect today of games. That, however, does not change the definition already set. Old games shouldn't be nixed from the MMO/MMOG list simply because our standards today are much better.

By following that logic we could eliminate so many old computers from the list of, or timeline of, computers simply because they do not have the same standards as today's computers.

 

I can't beleive I will repeat this for the third time... but its fine that to you SOTA is a MMO, but to us it might be something else, we aint in a spelling contest here...

The proper thing to do is stop doing things just to be right, rather state what to you is a MMO and if people want to say its something else, let them.

 

You act as if it's not an MMO or it's simply my crazy viewpoint.
So are you arguing it is, or are you arguing it isn't, or are you just throwing whatever in there to keep the fire burning?
So which is it?

 

The funny thing about your posts... you say you are one way... but you really just keep trolling. You say, "The proper thing to do is stop doing things just to be right, rather state what to you is a MMO and if people want to say its something else, let them", and yet here you still post against anything I say or pro-MMO. That would make you a hypocrite, right?

 

Um...

Massively Multiplayer, RPG.
I'd say the answer to this threads complicated question, is yes.

 

I think what matters to some people is less the terminology and more the game mechanics, and they think with the label, the devs are trying to cater to the MMO audience which is used to a certain type of game with certain game mechanics. While the reason the devs originally avoided the label MMO and called it SMO (Selective Multiplayer Online) is because they wanted to appeal more to the single-player audience.

My belief is that absent any intent by the devs to switch gears, they had to do so just because gaming websites and Steam had problems with the label SMO and would just call it an MMO despite whatever Portalarium called it.

However, how you choose to sell your game also sets expectations for new players and then it becomes like a feedback loop. If you market your game primarily on social gameplay (dance parties and housing!) for instance, over things like combat, story, world immersion, those types of players are going to get into your game with certain expectations, and they'll judge your game against it. I think this is something some of the earlier backers have some misgivings about, when new players have a different set of expectations. And personally I think if the devs said from the beginning and repeated throughout development "this is a Classic RPG", "this is a Classic RPG", players would be coming into the game with that expectation and not expect it to be a Themepark.

Instead, the devs not only do not say it, they have tended not to argue in favor of "role-playing" at all, consigning their definition of RP to cosplay type activities within the game. Something they said at one point, "we're for all players, not just role-players," accepting the weakened version of what role-playing is. Whenever they defend things like map travel they also use arguments like "the regional economy," instead of highlighting the fact that this is supposed to be in the spirit of a Classic RPG and how elements like this are a part of role-playing and immersion.

So, personally, I believe the devs have just consistently been poor in setting the tone and expectations for the game, and this has made the development process more contentious than it should have been. Just IMO.

 

I don't gloss over the points you have made. If you want your definition that loose then I move on from your conversation. Using sources such as MMORPG doesn't help your case. It solidifies your position that you believe the definition must be that loose. (aka isn't loose at all) Very well, you've said your case and answered the OP's question.

However, the enjoyment of a forum (NOUN - a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged) is discussing the details. In this case it's the question carries a lot of room for perspective.

Case in point: If a laptop had a label of "gaming laptop" stuck on it would you take the advertisers word for it? Or would you dig deeper?

I prefer the details.

 

Oh haven't you though?
You say this is a place where people can say things like, "SotA is an apple pie. It tastes great. Hard to slice though". Yet if someone says contrariwise you want to harp to them about everyone having their own view yet you continuously quash their view as well. Hypocrisy.

How does it solidify my position, loose or not? Just because a few don't like either the "mmo" tag or don't like what they expect from an mmo does not mean it's not an MMO. There is a vast amount of players, sites, companies, informative groups that say otherwise. But if you want to say sites like MMORPG are wrong then that's on you. If you want to say that the companies that make the games and label them MMO's are wrong, then that is on you as well. If you want to argue that many dictionaries use a definition that would well set SotA as an MMO, then it is on you as well. If you want to overlook the fact that MMO terminology came out in the 90s and what was considered massive then in game standards vs. what now would be considered massive may be a lot different, then that is on you as well.

If you want to argue whether you feel that SotA is an orange rather than an MMO, that is on you. It takes nothing away from it being an actual MMO.
I cannot make the irrational be rational.

As stated on the actual FAQ page for SotA:

Will this be an MMO?
Shroud of the Avatar is a new form of online role playing game we are calling a Selective Multiplayer Game. This will allow players to choose how they want to play. Play options will include single player offline, single player online, friends-only online, or open multiplayer online. For players who play in the default open multiplayer, Shroud of the Avatar will feel very much like a traditional MMO. However, Shroud of the Avatar also includes a full single player story crafted by Richard Garriott and Tracy Hickman, best known for his bestselling Dragon Lance series of books.

So despite having some different options in selection of play modes, "Shroud of the Avatar will feel very much like a traditional MMO."

 

It rarely is one of tho things. Then again you have to care in the first place to understand the value of friendship that binds us.

I only point out the logical fallacy of being so extremist in discussion that is all, and at the same time I am trying to spark innate knowledge that is in our DNA as ultima series player, such as this wonderful post by redfish that redefines the language we use to communicate which in turn creates a very prolific ambiance that enhances our emancipation.

 

See you just came in, nothing much to lose right, at worse you'll have another pass at swearing. Its easy to use the troll card and label, much easier than the situation I am living right now.

I know you are part of me, but the truth is that your great need is what I am after, because hidden therein is a part that maybe I forgot.

People talk when they are listened to, and you brother, need to learn to listen.

You see I live and feel every moment because I know that I am not alone in feeling this spiritual magnitude behind all this, and everytime someone says the same idea I had in mind I am relieved of a part of my burden.

I cannot help but being a hypocrite, because I hold infinite value, wasting value is worse than achieving the status quo... so maybe if we didn't play a make pretend game we could call it a day ?

cheers bro, and may peace be with you

 

Personally I never once got the feel of an MMO from playing SOTA. More or less a simi single player game where you randomly (rarely) come across other players. This is not a bad thing depending on your point of view. However I never saw more players anywhere other the the pvp tournaments and that's no even 50 people. I feel *MASS* is a bit of a strong description for this game.

The only responsible reason I say that is that I just don't see a large number of players returning and staying to this game. As it sits that is, even the parts of the game I love can't bring me back right now. Hopefully will change.

 

That is exactly the difference.

 

I think we don't need anymore of this right now

 

*rubs temples*

*long sigh*

 

There you go again with that wannabe "guru" stuff, Capt. Tangent of the Order of Walking Fortune Cookies. Go ahead and throw out a "word salad" and make it seem like you have some enlightened stance on anything other than just trolling here. You even admit to trolling and being a hypocrite. Please just move along child.

 

I couldn't aggree more. Right now i find myself with a game that's not what i expected when i paid for it. And i tried to base my expectations on what i heard on deep dives and postmortems, so i think it's worth something. A game should worry about their players Quality of Life, but players should be able to adapt to the challenges that the game poses, and currently SotA has little of that (which is one of the main qualities of a classic RPG).

Not saying the game can't be great, just saying that currently it's not the game i understood they planned to make.