Why must "MMO" always be followed by "RPG"?

[TeeBs]

A game based on Parkour, that sounds like a even more boring version of a game based on skateboarding.

But back to the OP

I think Extra Credits did a video on this, there is a Golf MMO in Korea and a Sex Based MMO called Bonetown. *Mods don't strike me down there was an article about the same thing please have mercy*

I like the idea of a RTS MMO though the game itself would probably be buggy and is probably better in theory then practice.

Also this is my 1337 post, awesome.

There are several MMO sex based games out there. BUt that's not something to be presented at the escapist.
RTSMMO? There are several, being the most popular Travian. Fair enough its a browser game, but I dont think you can have a game a la starcraft 2 (in graphic quality) as MMO. Your average gaming PC would probabbly not be able to cope with it. Maybe in a few years.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/87722-Porn-Game-Maker-Starting-A-New-Industry

This is what I meant, there is a article on this website and actually there are quite a few of them.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

City of Heroes. All your arguments are invalidated.

Equally Puzzle Pirates, Eve Online, Aion...

 

[StormShaun]

A game based on Parkour, that sounds like a even more boring version of a game based on skateboarding.

But back to the OP

I think Extra Credits did a video on this, there is a Golf MMO in Korea and a Sex Based MMO called Bonetown. *Mods don't strike me down there was an article about the same thing please have mercy*

I like the idea of a RTS MMO though the game itself would probably be buggy and is probably better in theory then practice.

Also this is my 1337 post, awesome.

Awesome high five *Offers high five*

 

[illas]

WoW is a MMORPG and Blizzard has enough money to buy... well... anything.
Imitating something that is ridiculously successful is a justifiable business venture, even (it seems) if the success of the original renders your newer product irrelevant.

One could argue that CS:S and TF2 are MMOs, given the millions of players that enjoy them - MMO meaning that there are thousands of people playing, and anyone can play with/against anyone else. Persistent stats, items, etc, are more a commodity of the MMORPG and aren't, to me, a defining aspect of "MMO".

 

[Woodsey]

Any multiplayer match online in an FPS is an MMOFPS.

Well no, if that was true they wouldn't bother making the distinction of massively multiplayer. MMOGs have persistent worlds.

OT: That's the most popular type, but its not the only one.

 

[Stammer]

There's a difference between "online" game and "massively multiplayer online" game. An MMO is a persistent world that uses fewer enormous servers instead of many small servers. A game that lets you play in the exact same world as 1000+ other people simultaneously and can potentially interact with all of them at precisely the same time.

Diablo II (when playing online) is -not- an MMORPG. It's an ORPG.
Guild Wars is -not- an MMORPG. It's an ORPG.
Massive Action Game is -not- an MMOFPS. It's an OFPS.

That being said, I completely agree that other genres could seriously benefit from the "MMO" advancement. I believe there was something revealed at E3 or something last year that was an MMORTS, a game where thousands of players per server duke it out for world domination.

 

[WolfLordAndy]

@OP - There are a number of games that dont use stanard RPG set up. EvE online doesn't need grinding as its skill learning is all time based, rather then level. Planetside, Tabula Rasa (RIP) and APB (RIP... for now) are/were all shooter-skill based games. They are rarer, and its annoying that there arn't as many out there to play, but so far the gaming audience as a whole hasn't showed that they're greatly viable. Instead everyone just eats up the MMORPGs that get thrown out every couple years.

I've not personally played it but isnt DC Online mean't to be much more skill based, and you can get max level in about 2 weeks casually playing?

@Everyone saying FPS multiplayer is MMO... no, by the vague definations we usually get about MMOs, they have to have one key thing, a persistant world, that is always on, even when 0 players are there. All FPSs are just maps that are over at the end of a round and reset to start again. Some are alot closer with Global Agenda and the like, but they're so heavily instanced that they feel more like a FPS with a 3d server select/load out screen.

Hey, it might even make good business sense too. Imagine being able to tap into the teeming hordes of CoD fans with a MMO-FPS based around near-future warfare.

They actually had one of those called PlanetSide... but I'm pretty sure it died out a few years ago.

Planetside is still going, its now down to one server, but still going. They're planning the sequel at the moment if you google "Planetside Next" you'll get some of the sneak shots that have been released so far.

Planetside I believe wasnt a straight shooter, it had dice rolls behind the combat. But it failed because of multiple problems from what I remember hearing about it, and it ended up having to shutdown.

While planetside had ranks that went up with XP, they had nothing to do with stats (more like how you get ranks in current FPS games, you just get more guns/armour/vehcles to choose from). There were no rolls behind the combat at all, it was just like any other fps as to how damage was calculated, and 100% skill based. While it failed to get mass appeal, it ran 5 servers for a while, then dropped to 3 (2 american, 1 euro) for ages, and only in the last year or 2 dropped to a single east coast american server.

 

[Aethren]

Because Second Life.

Seriously, why is it that everyone seems to forget about the quite possibly (one of the) first true virtual world(s) that gives the players the ability to do anything?

 

[Savagezion]

There's a difference between "online" game and "massively multiplayer online" game. An MMO is a persistent world that uses fewer enormous servers instead of many small servers. A game that lets you play in the exact same world as 1000+ other people simultaneously and can potentially interact with all of them at precisely the same time.

Diablo II (when playing online) is -not- an MMORPG. It's an ORPG.
Guild Wars is -not- an MMORPG. It's an ORPG.
Massive Action Game is -not- an MMOFPS. It's an OFPS.

That being said, I completely agree that other genres could seriously benefit from the "MMO" advancement. I believe there was something revealed at E3 or something last year that was an MMORTS, a game where thousands of players per server duke it out for world domination.

This is a great example of someone defining what is allowed to be an MMO. Guild Wars is an MMO even by your definition.
"A game that lets you play in the exact same world as 1000+ other people simultaneously and can potentially interact with all of them at precisely the same time."
This is guild wars 1 but I disagree with your definition of an MMORPG vs. ORPG. An MMORPG has no single player capability. It is soley a game for online multiplayer and offers no other way to play it and it has a persistent world. This is what all MMO's have in common regardless of genre and interface and everything else.

Diablo is an "ORPG" or as I call it, an RPG with online capabilities. Call of Duty would be a FPS with online capabilities. Classifying Guild Wars with them is either proof of ignorance, or proof of someone just wanting to hate on it. It has a persistent world (If you say it doesn't then Cataclysm just made WoW an ORPG instead of an MMO as they essentially copied Guild Wars Prophecies), it is only playable through an online connection to the persistent world, and you can interact with other people in this persistent world at the exact same time.

Guild Wars just broke the shit out of the "old system" mold in favor of a "new system" (read: system = mechanics) and people are mad that they don't like it so they try to make any excuse as to why Guild Wars is not a "real" MMO. It is every bit as valid as any other MMO out there.

 

[Physics Engine]

Motor City online was a MMORacer when it was still going it was pretty awesome. I guess the Test Drive: Unlimited series counts as a MMOR as well. Then there's TrackMania and Need for Speed World that are also MMOR games with many different people on the same roads as you are.

NfS World is F2P and I'm not sure how it's doing since it was pretty dated on release date anyway.

 

[Stammer]

"A game that lets you play in the exact same world as 1000+ other people simultaneously and can potentially interact with all of them at precisely the same time."
This is guild wars 1 but I disagree with your definition of an MMORPG vs. ORPG. An MMORPG has no single player capability. It is soley a game for online multiplayer and offers no other way to play it and it has a persistent world. This is what all MMO's have in common regardless of genre and interface and everything else.

Uh, no, that's not an opinion... That's actually the definition of what it is. An MMORPG is defined literally as a "Massively-Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game". "Online Role-Playing Game" is a game that can be played online. Tacking the "Massively-Multiplayer" onto the genre doesn't mean "perpetually online with no offline ability", it means "a game capable of hosting thousands of people in a massive perpetual world".

And just because I'm saying "Guild Wars is by definition not an MMORPG" doesn't mean I'm hating on it. I appreciate Guild Wars and am in fact highly anticipating Guild Wars 2. I'm just stating the facts. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of logical fact. This is defining a word.

EDIT:

To put this into an easier perspective, think of it this way...

A regular online game may or may not have an offline feature (see: Darkspore, Command & Conquer 4), but to play with other people, you have a non-in-game lobby that you can either create your own "instance" or join another person's "instance". Guild Wars is admittedly different in that its towns are its lobbies.

A massively-multiplayer online game is where the entire game is its lobby. You can fight enemies and team up with people inside the lobby. Sure, some events may be instanced but most of the events are performed on the server in a fully-interactive, fully-functional lobby.

 

[Savagezion]

"A game that lets you play in the exact same world as 1000+ other people simultaneously and can potentially interact with all of them at precisely the same time."
This is guild wars 1 but I disagree with your definition of an MMORPG vs. ORPG. An MMORPG has no single player capability. It is soley a game for online multiplayer and offers no other way to play it and it has a persistent world. This is what all MMO's have in common regardless of genre and interface and everything else.

Uh, no, that's not an opinion... That's actually the definition of what it is. An MMORPG is defined literally as a "Massively-Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game". "Online Role-Playing Game" is a game that can be played online. Tacking the "Massively-Multiplayer" onto the genre doesn't mean "perpetually online with no offline ability", it means "a game capable of hosting thousands of people in a massive perpetual world".

And just because I'm saying "Guild Wars is by definition not an MMORPG" doesn't mean I'm hating on it. I appreciate Guild Wars and am in fact highly anticipating Guild Wars 2. I'm just stating the facts. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of logical fact. This is defining a word.

Then every game you listed (including Guild Wars) was an MMO because they have all accommodated thousands of players at the same time. Diablo 2 in its prime accommodated thousands of players at the same time, Call of Duty accommodates thousands of players at the same time. Once you reach a mark of 1000+ online players you are officially an MMO by that definition.

 

[silver wolf009]

Any multiplayer match online in an FPS is an MMOFPS.

No, not really. A MMO needs the 1st M, and FPS match is just a MOFPS. The most that a shooter has come to MMO status would be M.A.G.

OT: Why? Because originality BURNS US!!

 

[Stammer]

Then every game you listed (including Guild Wars) was an MMO because they have all accommodated thousands of players at the same time. Diablo 2 in its prime accommodated thousands of players at the same time, Call of Duty accommodates thousands of players at the same time. Once you reach a mark of 1000+ online players you are officially an MMO by that definition.

But you can't interact with all of those people simultaneously unless you're in the server lobby, can you? And even then it's usually just chatting (or at most, a marketplace).

Look, no more arguing. We're getting off topic anyway.

 

[Savagezion]

Then every game you listed (including Guild Wars) was an MMO because they have all accommodated thousands of players at the same time. Diablo 2 in its prime accommodated thousands of players at the same time, Call of Duty accommodates thousands of players at the same time. Once you reach a mark of 1000+ online players you are officially an MMO by that definition.

But you can't interact with all of those people simultaneously unless you're in the server lobby, can you? And even then it's usually just chatting (or at most, a marketplace).

Look, no more arguing. We're getting off topic anyway.

Guild Wars' instance system is something I get tired of people saying it makes it a non-MMO. The argument is basically that Guild Wars isn't an MMO because you can't kill steal/camp steal in it. The instance system actually works better than the old system as it actually has positive effects. But people are accustomed to the old system and can't be bothered to consider the old system was worse.

If I am playing Guild Wars and you are playing Guild Wars, I can talk to/play with you. Period.
/tell Stammer Meet me in Lions Arch.


As for 'hijacking' the thread:
This is still on topic. I provided Guild Wars as an example of a dev breaking the mold to MMOs, you said it doesn't count. I am contesting that point. Otherwise the OP could just say that any example provided as to why his statement is false doesn't count. That is a fallacy and I am pointing that out. This thread is a great example as to why devs are afraid to try something new as opposed to simply copying WoW.

 

[Stammer]

I actually completely agree with you that the always-instanced part is a great system, however like all systems it can be done well and it can be done poorly. Star Trek Online is an example of how it's done poorly.

But despite how it's done well, it still makes Guild Wars by-definition simply just a "Multiplayer Online RPG".

Yes you can chat with people who aren't in the same instance as you, but you can do that in lots of games. But you wouldn't call Halo a "massively-multiplayer online shooter", just because of the definition. Again, the best way to describe the definition of an MMOG is by saying that the meat of the game is in and of itself an internet lobby.

 

[Savagezion]

Well then WoW (and most other MMOs for that matter) isn't an MMO because it uses instances. And by your words:

But despite how it's done well[or poor], it still makes Guild Wars[World of Warcraft] by-definition simply just a "Multiplayer Online RPG".

It doesn't make it "by definition" not an MMO. Actually, "by definition" allows games like CoD to technically be an MMO. Massive Multiplayer Online means whole bunches of people play it by definition. Right now WoW is touting ~12 million accounts. Guild Wars is touting over 6 million accounts. CoD is in the millions as well. How often people on those accounts play is a frivolous number no one could know for sure.

Your own post contradicts itself.

 

[Stammer]

Please don't quote-mine. You left out an integral part of my comment: "Again, the best way to describe the definition of an MMOG is by saying that the meat of the game is in and of itself an internet lobby."

I didn't say "Any game that has an instance is officially not an MMOG", I said "Any game whose core gameplay is instanced is officially not an MMOG".

What this means is...

Games such as Guild Wars, Diablo II, Call of Duty, Halo, Command & Conquer, Civilization, Darkspore, Battlefield, and Team Fortress II are not MMOGs because in order to play the primary gameplay with other people, you MUST enter an instance to do so.

While games such as World of Warcrap, Final Fantasy XI, Guild Wars II, Star Wars: TOR, and Perfect World are MMOGs because the majority of their play is spent with every single person on the server/world, and instanced events are merely supplementing the core gameplay.

 

[Lazzi]

I quite like the idea of MMOs.

However, I never actually buy or play them bacause there seems to be a bunch of unspoken rules attached to the genre. (Wait... is "MMO" a genre? Oh shut up, you know what I mean.) These laws go something like the following:
1) The gameplay must suck mightily. It must be combat-based. It must revolve primarily around you and your enemy taking turns to automatically slap each other across the face, mostly just to pass the time while you wait for your ability cooldowns to run out.
2) It must involve tedious amounts of grind for the sake of incremental stat increases. No exceptions. Ever.
3) It must have absolutely no interesting narrative content of any kind.
4) It must have really clunky character animation.
5) The setting must be as unoriginal as possible. Ideally a third-generation Tolkien rip-off. If you really want to push the envelope you can set it in space and rip off Star Trek instead.

Of course I realise that the reasoning behind this serial idiocy basically boils down to, "That's how WoW did it and WoW gets to snort diamond dust while enjoying the attentions of exotic concubines dipped in choclate, so that's how we're going to do it." But by now it should be quite clear that nobody is going to dethrone WoW by imitating WoW. Mostly because anyone who wants to play WoW is already playing WoW and has probably made a pretty significant investment in terms of time, effort and community connections.

(The one game that might defy this trend is that Old Republic thing. The idea of a fully voiced and story-driven MMO is certainly interesting. And, to quote Yahtzee, "Star Wars is the one thing over which nerds are sure to get even weirder". But I'm still not about to put money on it.)

So come on games industry. How about a bit of variety here, eh? How about some games that take the good parts of an MMO (huge world, persistant servers, large player population etc) but scrape off the shitty parts. How about say... a parkour platforming game where one faction is based around evasion while the other is focused on pursuit, and perhaps a third based on enforcing the peace. Or a co-op post-apocalyptic survival game. Or a game based around... I dunno... undersea treasure hunting or something. Anything but grinding for XP in a yet another totally-not-Middle-Earth setting populated by swimsuit models and bodybuilders running about in metallic underwear.

Hey, it might even make good business sense too. Imagine being able to tap into the teeming hordes of CoD fans with a MMO-FPS based around near-future warfare. I personally wouldn't touch the damn thing, but I bet plenty of other people would. Surely that would be a better proposition then lining up with everyone else to get comprehensively curb-stomped by Blizzard.

So... thoughts? Would anyone else like to see some non-RPG MMOs?

I understand what you mean but those would still be mmoRPG's (atleast in the technical sense). If you are taking on the identiy of an avatar of your own "origial" creatio and playing a role with in a world then you a techniqually roleplaying. Part of the reason why every one attempt to copy wow is becuase its "safe" and proven unlike other mmo concepts.