Are We A MMO?

LOL

I love threads like this, you guys crack me up.

Just as long as I'm not involved.

 

Oh so there was a political agenda all this time huh

How did I ever predict that

No no no... its really just to debate the term MMO, so that we can all sleep at night !

 

Meh. 9 pages? Are you kids really THAT bored?

 

That shouldn't even be formulated into a question... might not be your cup of tea

 

Definitions matter and you've chosen to ignore this one.

Right there in black and white. Massive playerbase + Multiplayer + Online does not always fit this definition. Can't say it any plainer than that.

Yet, some how, your telling me that is not true?

The key different is how the multiplayer is handled.

 

Oh hell, you still at this? It's right there in that one definition you tried to cherry pick... "A massively multiplayer online game (MMOG or MMO) is an online game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, simultaneously in the same instance (or world)"

Or world... they differentiated it from same instance there... meaning it doesn't have to be one instance. SotA already supports hundreds if not thousands already, which by your own definition you're using here puts it in the MMO category. So what exactly are you arguing about now?

Also note, "typically" in the description.

 

Yet you still call 30 vs 30 with a lobby an MMO...

If you can not acknowledge that there are multiplayer games that are online but do not meet the MMO criteria. That's fine, MMO is nothing more than a meta tag for searches.

That fits for SotA, if all that matters is searches. There are defining factors that drop games off that list.

 

Can we please swap the topic over to Star Trek please?

 

Star Trek is a massively multiactor series.

 

The diference between multiplayer online game and MMO is in the extra M. Though what is massive varies quite a bit depending on the game and who you ask. Most racing games or real time strategies do not support more than 8 players, some go bit higher, but usually not above 32 or so. Shooters these day usually support more players, though I would still say that most of them are limited to 8 or less. Those supporting up to 64 are not exceptions anymore, so in those cases we can argiue whether MMOFPS should be able to support more than 50 or more than 100 or more than 200 players... MMORPGs are the most common of MMO games and do support hundreds or thousands of players, but they are usually instanced in one way or the other so it is often question whether you count number of players visible to each other in one instance or living in the world. Though I would still say that there is plenty of RPGs that have very limited multiplayer to just a few players.

The point is the line to what number is needed for the extra "M" is blurry. Some say anything above fifty, some think that these days it should be over thousand and plenty of people are in between.

 

Webster : impressively large or ponderous : stars more massive than the sun.

It is so much impressively larger than the comparison cannot be made...

aka not massive :

aka massive :

 

What has this to do with bored.

We have Humans talking thousands of hours during a lifetime about things we are passionate about, even if they are disappointment about parts of it.

Thousand of Hours people dedicate lives for Soccer, for NFL Football, for Fashion, for the newest Selfy of Kardashian, for Cars, for Travel , for Books and Movies?
Often they are confronted in those passion with great and less great experiences. They share and talk about it ! Ongoing.

Or Star Wars... or Star Trek or whatever. They talk hours and years about what they did like or not like about Episode 1,2,3 and no one seems to mind.


And in this Forum some are ongoing freaking out all the time that some old Ultima Fans keep coming back again to talk about the Game or Developers - or if they are happy or not, or if it is a MMO.

OK. You are not freaking out.

but you just reminded me of the ones always asking to move on.







I think you can expect especially Ultima Fans to even talk more about the Game the more they Development comes to an end. Hey we have some who follow Richards live and purchase books and dedicated alot more to not talk about it.

Sota is just a part of the Ultima or Richard Franchise. And be ready for even more players talking about the Game if it is not living up to the Standard they are used too then less!


Now back to the MMO Definition.


I think Sota is no MMO, no Solo Game... It is a "What the Hell i wanted to be... i forgot it" Game.

 

It would be cool if they were talking about SotA in more detail, but they're arguing in circles over a term that has no concrete, night-and-day, true/false, black-or-white definition.

 

Hey don't include me in that bunch... I've said very early on it was a figure of speech

Besides we HAVE talked about some details about vision and scope

 

Milk, Malk, Molk. : )

 

Funny discussion you've got here.

Agreed. But I'd add an extra "contextual" to make your point even sharper.
Contextual definitions matter.


By the common definition a banana is a fruit and the strawberry is a berry, but by the botanical definition the banana is a berry and the strawberry a fruit.

Hence why I think that your dialog will be fruitless (pun intended) since your opposition doesn't recognize any deviation in the definition dependent on context which your meta approach require.
Without the contextual part then the play-by-email and MUDs of old easily become MMORPGs, which shows the problem with too loose definitions. Although I fear such finer minutiae, while appreciated by the likes of us, does not fair too well in a forum discussion like this one.

 

I wish i had only half the amount of good grammatical clear expression like Spoon.

But i will just Quote cracked.com to maybe say the same:

There Are Intelligent, Well-Thought-Out Arguments on Every Side of (Almost) Any Issue

This is both the most obvious and the most easily overlooked point. When we have a strong opinion on an issue and have researched and validated that opinion, it can be exceptionally difficult to see why anyone would have the opposite viewpoint. Here's the thing: The person who holds the opposite viewpoint is thinking the exact same thing.

 

The direction of your point is different than the other conversation. The blurry part is the more interesting discussion

10 players or 100 players, 10,000 even. Would that prompt a new label? A FPS with 5 vs 5 or a FPS with 50 vs 50, still a FPS. A MMOFPS is something different isn't it? The difference between MMOFPS and FPS isn't how many players they put into a lobby or a zone.