Game Concept Definitions,

[Bane_Star]

I'm new here, and I'm not 100% sure of some things,

I think maybe a Sticky Thread on the definitions of things in this Game design forum would be a good idea..

For example.. what is a Massive, Multiplayer Online Game? vs just a Multiplayer Online Game? I'd say a minimum of 10k players before you could earn the title Massive.

Multiplayer is obvious, but is it? Was Diablo Multiplayer? it had a 4 player limiter to it.. Many games have 'server limits' does that make them less of a MMO?

What about Online.. do the people of this forum define online meaning purely being on the internet.. which I define as an internet game.. vs Online meaning that players need to have constantly "on - line" and forming groups and defeating quests in groups..

Many click quest games, are not to me MO's thats my opinion.. even if many people play it, even if its on the internet.. its not collaborative. You'd need the ability to have at least 2 people in the same virtual space defeating the same creature at the same time..

Consider Mafia games, they have Many players, they are online, and to complete certain 'stages' you need to have friends collaborate? no.. you need to have friends.. but its still a single player experience with a Multi Level Marketing, friend recruitment system.

What about many Web browser games? Lords of Legend was one I collaborated on a while ago, Yes Massive numbers of players, but since they merely made up a list of attack targets, which could have been bots, or otherwise.. it lacked the 'Multiplayer Online' aspects which I talk about.

What about others? any ideas?

[hallsofvallhalla]

I have been through this conversation a couple times, lots of grey areas here.

My opinion:

A MMO is a game that has a the ability for players to socially connect. Whether it is a game with 10 max players per client but has a web based site where players can buy/sell/auction, chat, whatever. Now I do not mean just a forum for people to talk about the characters but a way for the characters to connect and be useful. The Massively is not how many players are signed up but how many potential players that can interact.

Diablo could have been MMO but was way too limited on the social interaction. You could play with random people but did not have anywhere to go to handle character functions on a global level with other players.

[Jackolantern]

There is no set definition that the game industry as a whole accepts. Obviously many consider Guild Wars to be an MMO, but some do not. Some consider Diablo II to be an MMO, but some do not. Some people consider browser-based games to be MMORPGs, while some insist that they are PBBGs, which are different according to them.

And then the concept of the "MORPG" (Multiplayer Online RPG) complicates things further. When does it become "massive"? People have very different ideas about this. Some set a certain number, while others believe it is the level of interaction between players.

And persistence is an important concept as well. I think almost everyone agrees that MMORPGs have to have some kind of persistence. This means that you don't start over each time you log in, and the world is still running while you are not there. But then this gets into issues of instancing. If a game is almost 100% instanced, can it still be an MMORPG, since it doesn't technically have a persistent world that is shared and running even without you logged in? There is no set, fully-accepted answer.

I just think it boils down to "you know one when you see one". World of Warcraft is definitely an MMORPG. So is LotRO, DAoC, EQ 1 and 2, FlyFF, Ragnarok, and many others. I personally kind of see browser-based games as being PBBGs, as they are hard for me to classify with games such as EVE or WoW. But that is just my opinion.

[SpiritWebb]

As far as browser-based games, I believe they are PBBG's, but at the same time there are those select few that I would consider an MMORPG. DarkOrbit (http://darkorbit.com is one of them). Its a space-age fighting game built in flash. The game continues even if you log out, much like WoW or LotRO does. They also put out an under-water type game with all the same effects as the space version, just the graphics changed. (HUD, ships, and background).

But Jack is right, it all boils down on your personal feelings on when one would change from either an MORPG to an MMORPG. I think it boils down to how many people can log in at one time and interact. That all imho.

[hallsofvallhalla]

yes Dark Orbit is more of a MMORPG than LOTR, DDO, EVE, EQ, and others. It has a bigger player base than all combined.

I think the term MMORPG has been thrown around really loosely more and more. Especially when you have engines like RC claiming they are MMORPG when in fact they are only MORPGs. (Multiplayer Online) Mush like diablo.

[Jackolantern]

In my opinion, RC is still for MMORPGs. MORPG, to me, is more of a term for Action-RPGs that have strong muli-player aspects.

But then again, I don't even think the commercial game industry uses the MORPG term.

And I can't see anyway around calling LotRO, DDO, EVE or EQ MMORPGs. Several of them helped define the genre. I don't really see the number of players making a game "more of an MMORPG", once you get past a certain point that all of those games are firmly past.

[Bane_Star]

Interesting Views..

For the sake of Argument, I think that on this website it might be nice if we define something so when you say .. I'm working on a MORPG, I can understand that your target audience is 2-10 players at a time, in small groups.. low world interaction.. Guild Wars style.. vs MMORPG which is WoW style.. and most of us don't have resources to make such a game.

PBBG? I haven;t heard that before?

[Jackolantern]

Interesting Views..

For the sake of Argument, I think that on this website it might be nice if we define something so when you say .. I'm working on a MORPG, I can understand that your target audience is 2-10 players at a time, in small groups.. low world interaction.. Guild Wars style.. vs MMORPG which is WoW style.. and most of us don't have resources to make such a game.

You must have missed some of the colorful conversations we have had before about the meaning of MMORPGs, so I think I will pass on trying to make a site-wide definition. And why bother? All that matters is how everyone's game plays. Why spend so much time on defining labels?

And "PBBG" stands for Persistent Browser-Based Game. That is what you learn how to make in Halls' video tutorials.

[PaxBritannia]

For me, there is no difference between a MMORPG and MORPG apart from number of players.

I also think that a game can fall into a few categories. For example, Runescape is a MMORPG and a PBBG and a BBG, etc.

But it's not really important, who cares if it a MMORPG or a MORPG? The only difference is a MORPG and a ORPG, with the difference being player interactivity. However, some game have MORPG game-play but as it is a secondary playing style, with the primary being a RPG, it is marketed as an RPG.

The point is, who cares about a label:

A man's called a traitor - or liberator
A rich man's a thief - or philanthropist
Is one a crusader - or ruthless invader?
It's all in which label
Is able to persist
There are precious few at ease
With moral ambiguities
So we act as though they don't exist

(The song Wonderful, form the play Wicked)

Pax.

[Bane_Star]

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I hate when games get labeled RPG's just because it has experience system and skill upgrades.