Diablo 3: Its the fault of the audience or the developers?

[Ruzinus]

The question I have is: What as Blizzard attmepting with Diablo 3 in your opinion?

Fair question, I did meander like crazy before getting to the pointiest point.

The idea was that high level runs would remain interesting not for the SB reward feeling of having pressed a lever until the right loot came out, but that the various affixes on elite monsters would provide challenges that actually varied in ways much more meaningful than having corridors be in different places.

You want them to "just look around"... at MMOs? What? Diablo 3 isn't an MMO. If there's anyone that knows how to make an MMO, it's Blizz, but they weren't making an MMO here.

Just a few to not make this a very long post:
1)It requires a permanent Internet connection like a MMO
2)It uses a simplified item system ala WoW, a MMO
3)D2 Inferno actually was capable of being beaten on your on on Singleplayer but in D3 you MUST have a party to even BEGIN to survive in Inferno, much like any MMORPG that focuses on having an entire guild to kill a single monster.

1)So does Starcraft II, is that an MMO, or is it just a game with annoying DRM?
2)This is an opinion. I'd say that of the two, D2s loot is more like WoWs, while D3s is more like Borderlands.
3)You either haven't been on D3 Inferno or you just suck at D3.
See Nighthawk's post for more. The problems with multiplayer and the higher viability of single player play, are, in my ever so arrogant opinion, the biggest thing wrong with D3.

Do you understand what the MMO genre is? A maximum of 4 players interacting isn't MMO, it's Co-Op.

The way you put it in your first post is that Bliz actually wanted to take risk on making a good Skinner Box, when all they had to do is to look at the competition (the failed Wow Clones and more) to avoid having to do something as expensive as did. What games you ask? fucking ANYONE who failed at making a Skinner Box is enough, plenty of corpses for the ravens to scavenge. Or are you suggesting that D3 is so unique in the execution of its SB that has NOTHING to learn from everybody else?

First off - NO NO NO CLEARLY I DID NOT USE ENOUGH EXCLAMATION MARKS AND CAPITALIZATION LAST TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT IS NOT A BETTER SKINNER BOX! IT IS PURPOSELY A LESSER SKINNER BOX! I HAVE SAID THIS IN EVERY POST!!! EXCLAMATION MAAAARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Secondly, you're still being vague. Of course creative enterprises can value from learning from what came before, but WHY DO YOU ASSUME THEY DIDN'T? Looking at the past could easily have led to their idea about how they handled varying elite affixes. Maybe the conclusions they drew from looking at the previous history of gaming just happened to be precisely opposite of the conclusions you drew...

...which are what, exactly? You're waving your arms around saying LEARN, but you still have yet to put forth a single thing you think they should have learned but didn't.

If you think it's lessons about making a more addictive Skinner Box then they WOULD have nothing to learn from anybody, because it's not something they're trying to do. It's like asking if Dolphins are so unique in their flight that they have nothing to learn from anyone about it. Of course they have nothing to learn from anyone, dolphins don't fucking want to fly, even if their nature means they must jump out of the air.

Whatever. You clearly have no specific examples or you would have given them. You don't even know what you wanted Blizz to do differently.

 

[evilneko]

So... people realized that endlessly grinding the same enemies for lewtz isn't fun?

Will wonders never cease...

actually i would argue that people quickly learned that grinding for gear was pointless in D3, due in part to the RNG AND random skill allotment (even on set pieces) and the fact that it was far easier to just farm (or buy) gold and get what you need off the AH.

why farm, when you can buy? why farm, when 99% of the drops, including rares and legendaries, is pure vendor trash? why farm, when there is little motivation to do so?

Sounds like the prng needs its bounds tweaked and some loot tables set with a selection of static items.. y'know, kinda like an MMO.

Nope, not biting.

BUT THOU MUST!

 

[ohnoitsabear]

I have no idea what you were trying to convey in OP, so I'm just going to answer the question in the thread title.

If a game sucks, it is never the fault of the audience. It is always the fault of either the developer or the publisher, and usually they're both at fault, to an extent. If the developer or publisher decides to listen to player feedback, then it is their responsibility to decide how to make a better game based on that feedback, and if they decide wrongly, then it is their fault.

 

[DioWallachia]

3)You either haven't been on D3 Inferno or you just suck at D3.

Or you know, didnt feel like using real money to bribing may way into victory ASAP before the patches came out or because didnt feel like paying money they dont deserve. Kinda like how MMO have the "free to play" but leave the uber items for the people willing to use money early on.

Also, for 2):

First off - NO NO NO CLEARLY I DID NOT USE ENOUGH EXCLAMATION MARKS AND CAPITALIZATION LAST TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT IS NOT A BETTER SKINNER BOX! IT IS PURPOSELY A LESSER SKINNER BOX! I HAVE SAID THIS IN EVERY POST!!! EXCLAMATION MAAAARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didnt say it IS better,i say they were TRYING to make one better than the last one. Hell, i didnt even use the word TRYING because i already assume that anyone would try to go for a better SB. Because after all, if this mechanism makes gamers behave like addicts then of course they are going to use it, and they will use all their resourses to make one that its even MORE addicting (what kind of evil overlords would they be if they DIDNT do that? i would do it just for free thanks to my contempt for other human beings, of course )
And yet, you killed me with these sentence: "IT IS PURPOSELY A LESSER SKINNER BOX!". Can i ask what they were smoking? i could understand if they fucked up by sheer incompetence but PURPOSELY? now that is something i cant grasp, specially for a company related to Activision (second worst company next to EA)

 

[DioWallachia]

I have no idea what you were trying to convey in OP, so I'm just going to answer the question in the thread title.

If a game sucks, it is never the fault of the audience. It is always the fault of either the developer or the publisher, and usually they're both at fault, to an extent. If the developer or publisher decides to listen to player feedback, then it is their responsibility to decide how to make a better game based on that feedback, and if they decide wrongly, then it is their fault.

If they decide wrongly on the player feedback, then its the fault of the developer? what if they go for the "the customer/audience is ALWAYS right" kind off mentality and make a game ENTIRELY on player feedback. Would that mean that its the audience fault for not knowing WTF do they want? or is just the developers who couldn't find something coherent on their wishes?

 

[DJ_DEnM]

I've never played D2 but I've always had friends who wouldn't stop playing it and telling me to download it. I finally bought D3 but after the initial playthrough I didn't feel like going through again. Can someone tell me if D2 has more replayability then D3?

 

[ohnoitsabear]

I have no idea what you were trying to convey in OP, so I'm just going to answer the question in the thread title.

If a game sucks, it is never the fault of the audience. It is always the fault of either the developer or the publisher, and usually they're both at fault, to an extent. If the developer or publisher decides to listen to player feedback, then it is their responsibility to decide how to make a better game based on that feedback, and if they decide wrongly, then it is their fault.

If they decide wrongly on the player feedback, then its the fault of the developer? what if they go for the "the customer/audience is ALWAYS right" kind off mentality and make a game ENTIRELY on player feedback. Would that mean that its the audience fault for not knowing WTF do they want? or is just the developers who couldn't find something coherent on their wishes?

If a developer decides wrongly on player feedback, then yes, it is their fault. The developers not only knows a helluva lot more about game design than most people , but they have a much better idea of what vision they have for their game, and what ideas would and wouldn't work well with that vision.

That's not to say that the customers are always wrong, or that their complaints aren't valid. It's just that it's up to developer to address those complaints without straying from the vision of their game.

In the end, it's the developer's responsibility to make a good game. If a game fails to be good, for whatever reason, then it is their (or the publisher's) fault.

 

[OrpheusTelos]

You want them to "just look around"... at MMOs? What? Diablo 3 isn't an MMO. If there's anyone that knows how to make an MMO, it's Blizz, but they weren't making an MMO here.

Just a few to not make this a very long post:
1)It requires a permanent Internet connection like a MMO
2)It uses a simplified item system ala WoW, a MMO
3)D2 Inferno actually was capable of being beaten on your on on Singleplayer but in D3 you MUST have a party to even BEGIN to survive in Inferno, much like any MMORPG that focuses on having an entire guild to kill a single monster.

1)So does Starcraft II, is that an MMO, or is it just a game with annoying DRM?
2)This is an opinion. I'd say that of the two, D2s loot is more like WoWs, while D3s is more like Borderlands.
3)You either haven't been on D3 Inferno or you just suck at D3.
See Nighthawk's post for more. The problems with multiplayer and the higher viability of single player play, are, in my ever so arrogant opinion, the biggest thing wrong with D3.

Do you understand what the MMO genre is? A maximum of 4 players interacting isn't MMO, it's Co-Op.

I am going to throw a bit of a wrench in your definitions here then.

Guild wars

It has a lot in common with D3. If you are going to go "Its not an MMO" then tell me what defines a MMO from a non-MMO.

Guild Wars is an MMO in my mind, but every feature of Guild Wars could have been done with a Battle.net method of of D2.

Also on your reference. SC2 can be played offline. You cannot get achievements, but it can be played offline killing the Online part of the massive multiplayer online.

Guild Wars was intented to be an MMO, whereas Diablo III is a loothack that also happens to require an internet connection.

One who is SmarterThanYou has spoken.

 

[Lunar Templar]

never played a Diablo game before D3

and i have to say, its the Devs fault. the game is/has
1) WAY TO SHORT, 10 hours is to short for an RPG of any flavor
2) no end game at all
3) a fucked 'difficulty' curve which you can get around with stat stacking
4) item drops that are completely worthless 99.99999% of the time, making farming gold and hitting the AH the best way to get anything even remotely useful
5) had any skill to get around the stat stacking labeled 'over powered' and nerfed into near uselessness.

now I'd be lieing if i said i didn't have fun with it, cause i did, but there is really no reason to play it past normal.

now i can only hope gutting my account will at least let me break even with it :/

 

[Ruzinus]

I am going to throw a bit of a wrench in your definitions here then.

Guild wars

It has a lot in common with D3. If you are going to go "Its not an MMO" then tell me what defines a MMO from a non-MMO.

Guild Wars is an MMO in my mind, but every feature of Guild Wars could have been done with a Battle.net method of of D2.

Also on your reference. SC2 can be played offline. You cannot get achievements, but it can be played offline killing the Online part of the massive multiplayer online.

Oh, Mr. Cutest-Avatar-Of-Them-All.

Would you have viewed GW as an MMO if it didn't have that non-instanced city hub?

If your answer is yes, then I doubt I'll be able to understand your definition of MMO, and we'll just have to disagree. I don't see any reason why the meaning of the term should have shifted so far as to include a game where you can't have a massive amount of players/avatars in the same space.

 

[Ruzinus]

3)You either haven't been on D3 Inferno or you just suck at D3.

Or you know, didnt feel like using real money to bribing may way into victory ASAP before the patches came out or because didnt feel like paying money they dont deserve. Kinda like how MMO have the "free to play" but leave the uber items for the people willing to use money early on.

Also, for 2):

First off - NO NO NO CLEARLY I DID NOT USE ENOUGH EXCLAMATION MARKS AND CAPITALIZATION LAST TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT IS NOT A BETTER SKINNER BOX! IT IS PURPOSELY A LESSER SKINNER BOX! I HAVE SAID THIS IN EVERY POST!!! EXCLAMATION MAAAARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didnt say it IS better,i say they were TRYING to make one better than the last one. Hell, i didnt even use the word TRYING because i already assume that anyone would try to go for a better SB. Because after all, if this mechanism makes gamers behave like addicts then of course they are going to use it, and they will use all their resourses to make one that its even MORE addicting (what kind of evil overlords would they be if they DIDNT do that? i would do it just for free thanks to my contempt for other human beings, of course )
And yet, you killed me with these sentence: "IT IS PURPOSELY A LESSER SKINNER BOX!". Can i ask what they were smoking? i could understand if they fucked up by sheer incompetence but PURPOSELY? now that is something i cant grasp, specially for a company related to Activision (second worst company next to EA)

They were "smoking" the fact that they are game designers, not businessmen.

To recap: People actually complain that Blizzard didn't Skinner box them hard enough. GG Humanity.

Oh look, we've come full circle.

 

[Snowblindblitz]

I've never played D2 but I've always had friends who wouldn't stop playing it and telling me to download it. I finally bought D3 but after the initial playthrough I didn't feel like going through again. Can someone tell me if D2 has more replayability then D3?

I think it has a lot more. Skill trees are set, so playing a class more then once can be quite fun. Most classes even play quite different depending on the build. For basic example, the Paladin class could be built around the skill Zeal, using a rapid fire attack with life/mana steal to keep running. Or, go the Blessed Hammer route, which is a magic spell, and focus more on plus to mana/mana regen.

Also, unique and legendary items have set stats, making them worthwhile to find and use. Difficulty is also more steady early game in my opinion, which helps keep things interesting.

One of my top games.

 

[Ruzinus]

-snip-

Here is the thing thou.

Even that City Hub were instanced. There was a limit to the amount of players in the individual Hub. Also in the end if I was suppose to accept difference between Diablo 3 and an MMO is a 3d virtual lobby, then the MMO doesn't have anything worth putting the tag on.

It is the problem of modern gaming that the DRM now gets build into the gaming to such a degree that if a game were to be played offline it would have to be noticeably different. Take Ubisofts Anno 2070 where the DRM become part of a meta game dependent of other players forcing the game online through DRM as well as gameplay.

With all this maybe we should redefine MMO to mean having the big world instances, thou then again that doesn't do much for defining a game like Global Agenda where the City Hub quite literally serves as nothing more than a 3D matchmaking area.

Also your definition makes the of a MMORTS impossible. Unless you believe that RTS's by their very nature cannot be made MMO's then you need to refine definition.

Were they? I only played GW once during some sort of free weekend-like event... I don't think it was an MMO. I just think it used those lobbies to create the illusion of being one, much like PSO did, and I think people accepted GW as such because the gameplay was somewhat EQ-inspired.

I do agree that always-online DRM is disgusting. So far I've only personally encountered it through SC2 and D3 (I think, anyway... I've been hearing some creepy things about Steam seeming to turn into it for some people, but I've yet to have any problems using Offline Mode myself). With SC2 I didn't really think about it, which is the danger of the thing, isn't it?

And yes, I don't think that "MMORTS" really makes sense. I mean, I guess you could do the MAG thing and just have something like WC3 but with maps that allow for like 48 players... but would it even be fun at that point?

 

[elvor0]

3)You either haven't been on D3 Inferno or you just suck at D3.

Or you know, didnt feel like using real money to bribing may way into victory ASAP before the patches came out or because didnt feel like paying money they dont deserve. Kinda like how MMO have the "free to play" but leave the uber items for the people willing to use money early on.

I see you're well versed in Inferno made eh? No. Inferno is actually easier to solo, way easier to solo. I was doing Inferno long before the patches came out, and it's not actually that hard. It's tedious yes, and occasionally you'll come up against enemies that due to the random nature of stat and ability allocation, you can't beat, but that's not hard. That's just obtuse game design. Before the patches it was fucking stupid, monsters scaled immensley with each person who joined, to the point where Extra health brute enemies couldn't be killed with four people, unless you had the really top end stuff, I'm sure you could if you spent ages on it, but they also have enrage timers which instantly kill you. Just stacking health on top of things is lazy ass design. But they've fixed that issue now, so I don't count it as an issue anymore.

I've never bought anything with real cash off the auction house, and I've never really felt that undergeared, so don't pull that "pay to win" derp, because it's completely unfounded. The sort of people that feel the need to pay to win in Diablo esque games would be doing it even if the RMAH wasn't in the game, through the dodgy black market. And so what if they do? You're not competing directly against anyone, unless you're in a top guild, and seeing as there isn't any PvP, it's not even a case of he can buy his gear and whoop your arse.

If someone has got enough spare cash lying around to waste it on stuff like the RMAH, let them, as far as I'm concerned, I'd like to think I can expect free content somewhere down the line from the bundles of cash Blizzard are making from it. That and I can sell stuff to chumps that I don't need in a safe environment. Seems like a win win to me.

Even then, all the gear is in the game, it's not like anything is off limits to you and all of it is in the Gold Auction house, if you want better gear, do a little bit of farming and buy it with gold.

However on topic, I've not got any problems with Diablo 3 really, it could do with some more content, but then D2 didn't have much side content beyond the main story to begin with, it wasn't until much later patches that you got Uber Diablo and Uber Tristram etc etc. It's nothing more than a streamlined, modernized version of Diablo 2, but conversely, nothing less. I can't wrap my head round with what everyones problem is.

The always on DRM is a point to complain about, I haven't had any issues from it myself, but I can quite easily see why people take umbrage with it. However, that's the business side of things, not the game design side of things.

You want them to "just look around"... at MMOs? What? Diablo 3 isn't an MMO. If there's anyone that knows how to make an MMO, it's Blizz, but they weren't making an MMO here.

Just a few to not make this a very long post:
1)It requires a permanent Internet connection like a MMO
2)It uses a simplified item system ala WoW, a MMO
3)D2 Inferno actually was capable of being beaten on your on on Singleplayer but in D3 you MUST have a party to even BEGIN to survive in Inferno, much like any MMORPG that focuses on having an entire guild to kill a single monster.

1)So does Starcraft II, is that an MMO, or is it just a game with annoying DRM?
2)This is an opinion. I'd say that of the two, D2s loot is more like WoWs, while D3s is more like Borderlands.
3)You either haven't been on D3 Inferno or you just suck at D3.
See Nighthawk's post for more. The problems with multiplayer and the higher viability of single player play, are, in my ever so arrogant opinion, the biggest thing wrong with D3.

Do you understand what the MMO genre is? A maximum of 4 players interacting isn't MMO, it's Co-Op.

I am going to throw a bit of a wrench in your definitions here then.

Guild wars

It has a lot in common with D3. If you are going to go "Its not an MMO" then tell me what defines a MMO from a non-MMO.

Guild Wars is an MMO in my mind, but every feature of Guild Wars could have been done with a Battle.net method of of D2.

Also on your reference. SC2 can be played offline. You cannot get achievements, but it can be played offline killing the Online part of the massive multiplayer online.

Guild Wars was intented to be an MMO, whereas Diablo III is a loothack that also happens to require an internet connection.

One who is SmarterThanYou has spoken.

But what are the actual technical differences?

What technical difference makes Guild Wars an MMO and D3 not one?

All you have is your opinion, and I am sorry I dont take your opinion as worth anything.

May I also point you to this.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/117939-Diablo-II-Dev-Diablo-III-Was-Originally-an-MMO
Im sorry ex-developer opinion kinda trumps yours when it comes to making arguments from authority.

"Diablo III WAS originally an MMO" Was being the key word here. Which means it isn't an MMO now, just shot yourself in the foot there with your own argument. /Well/ done.

I think the important thing for an MMO is an at least somewhat persistant world. Diablo doesn't have a persistant world, the second you stop playing, the world ceases to exist, much like in an RTS match. WoW on the other hand, even if no one was on the server, the world would still exist and carry on existing.

Guild Wars is a glorified Co Op game in my eyes, (I can't say anything on GW2, given I haven't been following it), because outside of the town there was no one. NO ONE! Even in town it wasn't everyone that was there, just a few select people, it was just a 3D lobby and nothing more, like the Wi Fi club in Pokemon really. So while that doesn't have any effect on the quality of the game, it doesn't really make it a true MMO. Think about how WoW, Warhammer Online, SWOTOR, Eve Online are, then compare them to Guild Wars.

 

[elvor0]

You want them to "just look around"... at MMOs? What? Diablo 3 isn't an MMO. If there's anyone that knows how to make an MMO, it's Blizz, but they weren't making an MMO here.

Just a few to not make this a very long post:
1)It requires a permanent Internet connection like a MMO
2)It uses a simplified item system ala WoW, a MMO
3)D2 Inferno actually was capable of being beaten on your on on Singleplayer but in D3 you MUST have a party to even BEGIN to survive in Inferno, much like any MMORPG that focuses on having an entire guild to kill a single monster.

1)So does Starcraft II, is that an MMO, or is it just a game with annoying DRM?
2)This is an opinion. I'd say that of the two, D2s loot is more like WoWs, while D3s is more like Borderlands.
3)You either haven't been on D3 Inferno or you just suck at D3.
See Nighthawk's post for more. The problems with multiplayer and the higher viability of single player play, are, in my ever so arrogant opinion, the biggest thing wrong with D3.

Do you understand what the MMO genre is? A maximum of 4 players interacting isn't MMO, it's Co-Op.

I am going to throw a bit of a wrench in your definitions here then.

Guild wars

It has a lot in common with D3. If you are going to go "Its not an MMO" then tell me what defines a MMO from a non-MMO.

Guild Wars is an MMO in my mind, but every feature of Guild Wars could have been done with a Battle.net method of of D2.

Also on your reference. SC2 can be played offline. You cannot get achievements, but it can be played offline killing the Online part of the massive multiplayer online.

Guild Wars was intented to be an MMO, whereas Diablo III is a loothack that also happens to require an internet connection.

One who is SmarterThanYou has spoken.

But what are the actual technical differences?

What technical difference makes Guild Wars an MMO and D3 not one?

All you have is your opinion, and I am sorry I dont take your opinion as worth anything.

May I also point you to this.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/117939-Diablo-II-Dev-Diablo-III-Was-Originally-an-MMO
Im sorry ex-developer opinion kinda trumps yours when it comes to making arguments from authority.

"Diablo III WAS originally an MMO" Was being the key word here. Which means it isn't an MMO now, just shot yourself in the foot there with your own argument. /Well/ done.

I think the important thing for an MMO is an at least somewhat persistant world. Diablo doesn't have a persistant world, the second you stop playing, the world ceases to exist, much like in an RTS match. WoW on the other hand, even if no one was on the server, the world would still exist and carry on existing.

Guild Wars is a glorified Co Op game in my eyes, (I can't say anything on GW2, given I haven't been following it), because outside of the town there was no one. NO ONE! Even in town it wasn't everyone that was there, just a few select people, it was just a 3D lobby and nothing more, like the Wi Fi club in Pokemon really. So while that doesn't have any effect on the quality of the game, it doesn't really make it a true MMO. Think about how WoW, Warhammer Online, SWOTOR, Eve Online are, then compare them to Guild Wars.

Now here you are defining Guild Wars as a non-MMO and an MMO needing to have a persistent world.

Now this isn't necessarily a definition I disagree with, but it is a definition that isn't shared universally. What you have done is made the idea of a MMO-RTS impossible as well as making a ton of other games who define themselves as MMO's not MMO's. Is Champions Online an MMO? They purposely shard their servers into instance in order to make heroes less common in the city they are. Only difference is number of players then otherwise it just define by the number of players then. I wanted the definitions clarified in an attempt to point what is an MMO.

I would also like to point out it wasn't an argument with the link.
It demonstrated an argument from authority. A logical fallacy that the man I quoted used.
It also doesn't say what it is like you pointed out. Just what it was. So I dont make the argument that it is an MMO, only that it was. Afterall since you understood the rest of my post correctly then you should be aware that I am not defining what an MMO is. I asking others to define it.

Fair enough, my fault then, I thought you were linking that article to say that D3 is an MMO.

Well I haven't actually played any RTS MMOs, so I can't really comment on that, I was aware that the acronym exists and there are games out there that classify themselves as such, but that's about it. I'm not quite sure how an MMO RTS would work really, if you can give me a quick idea of one the basic idea of the one RTS MMOs, that'd be great, (not that I'm saying I don't believe you, just I can't think how it would work, at least not in the traditional sense. MMO /Turn/ based Strategy is an easy one).

But I do think that in order for it to be an MMO, it needs to have a large persistant world, that exists regardless of if anyone is connected. That large numbers of people exist in, independent from each other, and not limited by one guy hosting the match and people joining him (as is the case with D3). The key word is /MASSIVELY/ multiplayer. Champions online still has all that, sections of people are just put out of phase in order to try and cut down on people not being able to quest because there's /too/ many people in one area all trying to do the same thing. Personally I think it's a good idea at the launch of an MMO, because there is going to be a lot of crowding, and should be phased out as the population density spreads out over time.

If the only way you can interact with people outside of towns is by grouping with people, then it makes that town a 3D lobby, and the world around is no longer a persistent one (as in WoW, or Champions Online). Because it only exists for as long as that player is out side of the town, after which it merely becomes that players save game. I mean you wouldn't call Halo an MMO would you? I mean it has a lobby, and lots of people are all in that lobby, but there is ZERO chance of you encountering them in your own game, and they can only join you if you invite them, where by you are now playing a Co-Op games. Which is how Guild Wars works. In WoW/CO, even if you chose to play on your own, you would still bump into other people, because the world exists independently of you and the people you encounter.

I suppose we could say that MMO has different conetations depending on the suffix it has. For me, in order for it to be an MMO /RPG/ those things I listed need to be present, for it not to be a glorified way of saying your game has Co Op, but I'll have to wait on your description of the MMO RTS before I carry on with that point.