A View From the Road: The Stool and the Chair

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

A View From the Road: The Stool and the Chair

If Champions Online is an MMOG, then maybe so is Team Fortress 2.

Read Full Article

once it reaches the base of your shoulder-blades, so its in the physiology of the beholder.

as soon as it has an back, a stool is only a stool when it has no back what so ever.

so yes its a chair even if the back is only 2.54 centimeters (or one inch)

also interesting read, im always looking forward for a new funk article.

Hehe I was going to say when the back of the seat supports your back for you.

Seriously though MMOG is a strictly open definition of a game that is both massive and online. It is not necessarily an MMORPG although some MMOGs are MMORGPs. I'd be less inclined to call TF2 an MMOG simply because at any given point it is not Massive at all. It's quite small and will reset it's entire quantity every time a round ends instead of persisting despite the fact that an objective has been completed.

The most blurred line game in the pipes right now is probably Global Agenda. GA is an extremely sharded and instanced game which features FPS/3RDPS style play in each zone resets quite like TF2 would after a "mission" with the exception that it will change (persistantly) depending on the things happening in other instanced zones.

My level 99 jar of piss says that if TF2 isn't already an MMOG, it's going to become one eventually. That, or my sniper just has really high-level piss for some reason ...

I'm not sure why people are so terrified of clear definitions, but it certainly allows all sorts of folks to get teaching degrees these days.

A stool becomes a chair when it gets a fourth leg and a back that is high enough to support the person sitting in it if they should lean back.

Putting a 1" or 2" high back on a stool doesn't make it a chair, since the definition is a practical, not a philosophical one.

In that light, Champions Online may not really be an MMOG, but that is not its primary failing.

Champions Online, like its predecessor City of Heroes/Villains, is supposed to be a superhero game (MMO or not). Despite its really quite beautiful costume elements and occasionally whiz-bang "pew-pew" graphics, it is really no more than World of Warcraft in spandex. In fact, it is demonstrably World of Warcraft in spandex, as the developer seems to have taken his cue from Lord of the Rings Online and done no more developing than was necessary to put spandex over chainmail and overlay a comic book environment onto the WoW combat engine, at least from the point of view of this player.

The failing referred to, then, is the inability of the developer - of both games, as it turns out - to understand that they are exploiting a genre that they simply don't know enough about to simulate, which genre is comic book superheroes. The specifics of how they failed to correctly model the genre are too numerous to list here, but to sum up, Champions Online, like City of Heroes/Villains before it, is once again selling stools as chairs.

While stools had their uses, they were only around until someone realized a chair was a better idea. Maybe someone will publish a superhero MMOG developed by people who, I don't know, actually READ comic books. Then, if they fail in how they simulate the world, at least they will get the heroes right and, who knows, maybe the fourth time will be the charm.

We can dream; that's what gaming is all about. :-)

I agree that the whole labeling kraze just helps us associate certain games with certain aspects of that gaming. However, I was a little confused, but if i am correct than what you said was in Champions online, you make a character and throw him into a "realm" depending on how your feeling at the time. Assuming that thats correct than by traditional definition it isnt a MMO at all. Which means that there is finally a game out there better than WoW!!!

Also I think a stool becomes a chair when the back is made so high as to support the person resting in the chairs humble graces. So yeah a foot high backing on a stool, by my definition counts as a chair.

An interesting read, raising some intruiging questions.
What do we consider a standard multiplayer game? Four people sat around a console? Six people hooking up computers over LAN?

Nowadays its not uncommon for games to incorperate some form of multiplayer in which a couple dozen people can play together. Heck, that might even be considered a small player base in this day and age.

As for the stool question, I would go with the posters before me; it becomes a chair when the back is high enough to support your back ;)

Dasher:
snip

Out of curiosity, how do you think Champions' combat is like WoW's? It's a ton more mobile, you can fight while flying, you can actively block, and you can charge attacks. I mean yeah, you have instant casts, cast time abilities, and you press hotkeys on your keyboard to use them, but that's like saying that TF2 and Wolfenstein are the same combat system because you press LMB to shoot.

Well, an MOG in my opinion, is "a game" in which multiple people play. There is a game in TF2, which is a set of parameters - "complete certain objectives in order to make your team win". Into this game you can put however many players you want, and not change anything fundamental about the way that the game inherently operates.

An MMOG on the other hand, uses multiple people to create "a game" in the first place. It is only possible for a game to be an MMO if it requires actually harnessing the people that are playing it in order to become a game. So for instance, unless you are on a private server and can make a super human hero with ridiculous stats, you will never be able to beat the lich king solo. There isn't even a really hard game involved, it's just not a game.. the experience is just you running up, and then resurrecting. There is no game involved until you acquire a 30/40 strong group of people. That is when the game actually starts. MMOs rely on that pre-condition to be filled first in order to explain the rules to even begin!

Take the auction house - one of the most common features in an MMOG. The reason this feature is a massively multi player one is because it only begins to operate when you have different players using it. It isn't the case that there is an auction going on, and into this auction you can just inject various numbers of players to participate, quite the reverse. In order to make the auction happen in the first place, you need people there to even start. This is like an MMOG in general - it isn't that there is a game in progress into which players can be added, it's something which needs players in order to actually become the game it is. WoW wouldn't function without at least a raid's worth of people present on each side in a server.

So in conclusion, there is a difference between a game with people in it, and people actually making a game/ game experience.

Sorry if there's a lot of repetition in this post.. but i think i eventually said what i wanted and hopefully meant :P

EDIT: Yea i just thought i'd quickly add an appendix to this :P I think many people would read this and highlight the fact that there are many parts of an MMOG which generally do not need more than one person to participate in. For instance, solo questing. In this instance however, i would point to the many other aspects of an MMOG, which will pervade a users experience, even if the quest they are on doesn't actually require multiple people to function. I would cite the world PvP element of the game - the chance that one might run across an enemy in their solo questing. And obversely, the fact that one might run into a friendly player. As well as chat and the afore mentioned auction house, the experience that one has in an MMOG, even whilst "on your own", is still markedly different to if the game were actually a single player one.. The world has still been based and designed around its population, rather than the population just being extras in the world (if ya see what i mean).

CantFaketheFunk:
Think about it, and get back to me when you can tell me when a stool becomes a chair.

As soon as it has a back and armrests, no matter what the size.

And a similar line appears in MMO's.

Champions is a MORPG, WoW is a MMORPG, Team Fortress 2 is a MMOG, L4D is a MOG.

However, when Danny or Phoenix is involved, Team Fortress becomes an MORPG as well, mainly due to their becoming the character they play. :)

"Demoman?"

I wanna know what happened to the stool!

A stool becomes a chair when i can lay back and cross my arms without falling and looking like an ass.

WoW's approach to server architecture greatly divides the playerbase, and while that may not be an issue for a game with purportedly 11 million subscribers, it poses substantial problems for smaller games. I take the view that arbitrarily - and permanently - dividing the playerbase is bad. I have to reroll, or spend $25 to move servers in WoW. From this standpoint, I can appreciate that in Champions, I move servers with the click of a button.

The sense of community of a server with consistently the same players is lost. However, the freedom to shift from server to server really adds a lot more than it takes away. Someone farming the mobs you need? Shift away. I don't feel limited by the 100 player "limit" either. I can't remember a time in WoW where I meaningfully interacted with 100 people at once. In fact, most often when you get too many people too close together, a mob mentality takes over and the chat channels turn bad.

I think that single server as far as playerbase interactivity is great, and sharding it a la guild wars is fine by me.

CantFaketheFunk:
A View From the Road: The Stool and the Chair

If Champions Online is an MMOG, then maybe so is Team Fortress 2.

Read Full Article

A stool becomes a chair the moment you stop calling it a stool and start calling it a chair.

Everything that exists exists regardless of people being here however they only become something in the cognitive sense once we designate them as such.

A chair is a chair if you say it is a chair, a car is a car as long as you say it is a car, now the assumption is that whatever descriptor you use is commonly agreed upon. Herein lies the problem with defining something, it requires a consensus that is never acquired but is instead dictated. People didn't decide one day that chairs were called chairs, a small group of people did and started telling everyone one else that was what they were called until it finally became the norm.

So yeah.

Long story short, I just call games games. If it doesn't entertain me it is software. If it is entertaining in a non constructive sense I call it a game. So SPORE for instance would be called software to me, I would rank it next to photoshop. However Arkham Asylum or WoW would be a game. They give me great pleasure (as does photoshop) but unlike photoshop I don't really leave them with anything besides a cognitive erection.

That...might...have made sense.

Dasher:
Champions Online, like its predecessor City of Heroes/Villains, is supposed to be a superhero game (MMO or not). Despite its really quite beautiful costume elements and occasionally whiz-bang "pew-pew" graphics, it is really no more than World of Warcraft in spandex. In fact, it is demonstrably World of Warcraft in spandex, as the developer seems to have taken his cue from Lord of the Rings Online and done no more developing than was necessary to put spandex over chainmail and overlay a comic book environment onto the WoW combat engine, at least from the point of view of this player.

Never played it, huh? :)

lewiswhitling:
Well, an MOG in my opinion, is "a game" in which multiple people play. There is a game in TF2, which is a set of parameters - "complete certain objectives in order to make your team win". Into this game you can put however many players you want, and not change anything fundamental about the way that the game inherently operates.

I think this is pretty close to what the new definition of MMO should be - Multiplayer is playing with other people to win, Massively Multiplayer is just playing with other people with player-set objectives. Even people who only play Team Fortress to have a laugh for a bit are still on a team whose objective is to win the round, while the most serious World of Warcraft or Champions Online player plays to do whatever they want.

Mildly on topic - A guy in my Champions Supergroup ground a single group of enemies to get a super-weapon that will INEVITABLY be nerfed in a few patches. It finally transpired that he hadn't moved from a single spot in 5 hours - maybe MMORPG's new meaning could be "any game that causes people to obsessively do things that any sane person would consider painfully, painfully stupid in the name of a few axtra stats"?

KaiusCormere:
WoW's approach to server architecture greatly divides the playerbase, and while that may not be an issue for a game with purportedly 11 million subscribers, it poses substantial problems for smaller games. I take the view that arbitrarily - and permanently - dividing the playerbase is bad. I have to reroll, or spend $25 to move servers in WoW. From this standpoint, I can appreciate that in Champions, I move servers with the click of a button.

The sense of community of a server with consistently the same players is lost. However, the freedom to shift from server to server really adds a lot more than it takes away. Someone farming the mobs you need? Shift away. I don't feel limited by the 100 player "limit" either. I can't remember a time in WoW where I meaningfully interacted with 100 people at once. In fact, most often when you get too many people too close together, a mob mentality takes over and the chat channels turn bad.

I think that single server as far as playerbase interactivity is great, and sharding it a la guild wars is fine by me.

I don't think I can necessarily agree with this. I mean, I see *why* they did it, and I think it definitely has its benefits, but the world ends up feeling very sterile to me, personally. I remember leveling up in WoW and meeting new people just by virtue of constantly running into them in groups, or learning to hate specific Horde, and I think Champions loses something when it has a persistent world but not a persistent playerbase. It has, at least as far as I've experienced, no real "community" visible in-game, since the players are always different.

I fail to be impressed by this argument;
Guild Wars runs almost entirely instanced worlds that are only punctuated by towns where anyone can run around, those towns then are divided by "shards" (which are really just servers) in which you can then socialize and build a party. From that party you create you can then enter the instanced world together, ultimately limiting the amount of players who can interact together in a game, removing monster spawn camping, ganking and other bullshit like that early MMOs like Everquest were plagued with.
The author also argues that C:O is an MMOG, NOT an MMORPG, which is what Champions Online, WOW, Guild Wars and all other games are. The comparison of TF2 to C:O as MMOG's works perfectly because an MMOG can simply be defined as a game which has the capacity to network large amounts of players together. For TF2 the steam network manages to pull that off, in fact, Halo 3 might as well be called an MMOG, or COD4 could be an MMOG.
Champions Online boasts an RPG system that makes it obviously an MMORPG. The breaking down of the actual landscape into different servers serves the same purpose that Diablo 2 did back in the old days, except that Diablo did it to support Battlenet Servers. What will Diablo 3 be called? It certainly fullfills the idea of an MMOG, since you have a persistent character who can then log into a server and play in that large world with friends, much like TF2, if Tf2 is to be an MMOG as well, totally not just a game with multiplayer.
I think merely the definition of Multiplayer has evolved from its old, 16 man Quake server days to a much larger capacity, and eventually that capacity, as it has been argued right now, will rival that of a classical style MMORPG.

Even in the best of circumstances, "massively" can be a bit of an overstatement.

Much past the beginner areas of WoW, things start thinning out quick. I could go an hour without seeing another player in Desolace, or Swamp of Sorrows. Sometimes I'd zone-chat "Is anybody out there?" and a couple people would say "me" and "me too" and I'd /who desolace and sure enough there'd be maybe five. Even in places like Ashenvale or Tarren Mill, outside of the quest hubs, when you did see somebody they'd mostly just be running by.

So where is the "Massively" in that?

What MMOs do is provide the resources to build an in-game community. Then your guild has alliances with other guilds and there are good guilds and bad guild and hard core and easy going guilds and ones on the rise and others dying and some with no end to the drama. In my loneliest moments in Swamp of Sorrows or late night in Ungoro Crater there was still guild chat to keep me happy.

Guilds feel absent in Champions. I've seen plenty of people in guilds, though no recurring or dominating ones. I've seen a few PST me to join such-and-such guild on general chat--but by this many hours played in WoW or WAR I'd have had many guild invites by now, whereas in Champions I've had none.

Community is an issue Champions need to work on. Not that I think it is insurmountable, and the Champions system does have the aforementioned advantages. I mean if you are a hermit you CAN'T go off to a quiet region of a dead server even if you wanted to. But without community, Champions is more an RPG with other players around. Which is definately better than an RPG, but not an MMO.

Cap'n Haddock:
I fail to be impressed by this argument;
Guild Wars runs almost entirely instanced worlds that are only punctuated by towns where anyone can run around, those towns then are divided by "shards" (which are really just servers) in which you can then socialize and build a party. From that party you create you can then enter the instanced world together, ultimately limiting the amount of players who can interact together in a game, removing monster spawn camping, ganking and other bullshit like that early MMOs like Everquest were plagued with.
The author also argues that C:O is an MMOG, NOT an MMORPG, which is what Champions Online, WOW, Guild Wars and all other games are. The comparison of TF2 to C:O as MMOG's works perfectly because an MMOG can simply be defined as a game which has the capacity to network large amounts of players together. For TF2 the steam network manages to pull that off, in fact, Halo 3 might as well be called an MMOG, or COD4 could be an MMOG.
Champions Online boasts an RPG system that makes it obviously an MMORPG. The breaking down of the actual landscape into different servers serves the same purpose that Diablo 2 did back in the old days, except that Diablo did it to support Battlenet Servers. What will Diablo 3 be called? It certainly fullfills the idea of an MMOG, since you have a persistent character who can then log into a server and play in that large world with friends, much like TF2, if Tf2 is to be an MMOG as well, totally not just a game with multiplayer.
I think merely the definition of Multiplayer has evolved from its old, 16 man Quake server days to a much larger capacity, and eventually that capacity, as it has been argued right now, will rival that of a classical style MMORPG.

I wouldn't call Guild Wars an MMORPG, either. Guild Wars, like Diablo, is... well, I guess I could call them MORPGs. Multiplayer Online RPGs, but without the Massive aspect.

I think one primary difference here (and I don't know a lot about Champions)... but games like TF2 (or even L4D) are categorically different than games like WoW or EVE-online because you don't have to continue to pay. The playerbase supports themselves. To some extent, to me, the difference between the two generes is when the "world" requires more resources than the players themselves can muster --- and it then requires a "company" to run the servers.

A stool becomes a chair when it has the ability to provide back support, regardless of how little that support is.

I would believe in order for a game to be classified as an MMORPG it would require the following:

Internet
A trade system between players
PvE or/and PvP encounters
Trade skills
And the ability to host large amounts of people in a single server
Persistent world

After some time into Team Fortress 2 after its release, when new items began to pop up like Heavy Weapons Guy's second minigun, that was when I started thinking of TF2 as being so much more than your typical multiplayer shootemup. By then people had gotten comfortable with their favorite character (I still favor the Heavy because I love his laugh when I am on a shooting spree) and are now having capability to do customization. Especially with the hats now, you can really set your character up to be your own. It no longer is the Doctor, the Sniper, or Heavy Weapons Guy. It is now Doc Beige, Crocodile Pointnclick, or Sasha's Boyfriend. I guess it is only a matter of time before the same thing happens to Counterstrike, Halo (although what Rooster Teeth has done with Halo so far rocks; Griffball anyone?), even GTA4's multiplayer (I'm already stuck on my balding guy with the red suit, kinda reminds me of a Joe Pesci/Tommy Vercetti lovechild).
Valve has shaken the pillars of MMO-heaven, it only remains for other developers to join in, blurring the definition even further.

CantFaketheFunk:

I wouldn't call Guild Wars an MMORPG, either. Guild Wars, like Diablo, is... well, I guess I could call them MORPGs. Multiplayer Online RPGs, but without the Massive aspect.

I only have Guild Wars and I've only played WoW for 30 minutes so I know next to nothing about it. I would like to ask how you make the distinction regarding massively? It's not becuse I disagree with you, because I don't know enough to disagree. I don't particularly fancy those kinds of games so I've never really looked into it. I've just assumed that it was pretty much the same. Anyway, why the difference?

teh_gunslinger:

CantFaketheFunk:

I wouldn't call Guild Wars an MMORPG, either. Guild Wars, like Diablo, is... well, I guess I could call them MORPGs. Multiplayer Online RPGs, but without the Massive aspect.

I only have Guild Wars and I've only played WoW for 30 minutes so I know next to nothing about it. I would like to ask how you make the distinction regarding massively? It's not becuse I disagree with you, because I don't know enough to disagree. I don't particularly fancy those kinds of games so I've never really looked into it. I've just assumed that it was pretty much the same. Anyway, why the difference?

Guild Wars is a heavily instanced game, there is a communal hub, but almost all the actual world areas are for solo gameplay (or for a small party). There's really no chance that two players will just randomly come across each other out in the open world other than the towns. In this vein, it's much more like Diablo than an MMORPG. It's a Multiplayer Online RPG, but there's nothing Massive about it (as opposed to WoW or LotRO or WAR, etc, where the entire world is open and only small sections of it are instanced)

Chairs and Stool are arbitrary terms given meaning only by context. If the person who makes it calls it a chair, its a chair regardless of any characteristics it may or may not possess. What makes a dog? There are like 50 species of "dog" but the definition is pretty lax. Teeth? Fur? Canine Genus? Really? So is a Dingo a dog? Howabout a Hyena? The difference is an illusion created by people to fulfill are necessary need to arbitrarily categorize. So Nyah!

Champions Online is an MMO because the people who made it said so and because its what they were trying to make. Whether is subscribes to every single template, trapping or pitfall of a genre is completely stupid and irrelevant.

CantFaketheFunk:
Champions, on the other hand, doesn't do that. In fact, the entire game is actually instanced - when you move from zone to zone, it gives you a pick of "Millennium City #49" or "Crisis in Canada #14." You can see how many players are in each little instance

Now, I haven't played Champions Online, but as I understand it you can move freely between #xy zones, i.e. you can play with people in Zone #14, or Zone #25 as you wish - when you wish. The reasoning behind this would be for players to be able to play with everyone who owns the game, and not just people on their server.

So how exactly is being able to play with everyone less "massive" than being able to play with a only a small portion of people that actually play?

CantFaketheFunk:
As far as players are concerned, the game might have hundreds of thousands of subscribers, but you'll only ever be with a hundred at the same time - tops. Most of the instanced locations don't have anywhere close to that. If you're playing in a Burning Sands with 60 other people, that's just barely twice the population of, say, a popular Team Fortress 2 server. That's hardly Massive at all - what good is having thousands upon thousands of subscribers if you only ever get to see a handful of them?

But isn't WoW kinda the same, when you're in a zone there's rarely more than a dozen or so people in that particular zone, and yes you might see the same people when you quest in the same area, and in CO you'll see more different people, again, how is that less massive?

VanBasten:

CantFaketheFunk:
Champions, on the other hand, doesn't do that. In fact, the entire game is actually instanced - when you move from zone to zone, it gives you a pick of "Millennium City #49" or "Crisis in Canada #14." You can see how many players are in each little instance

Now, I haven't played Champions Online, but as I understand it you can move freely between #xy zones, i.e. you can play with people in Zone #14, or Zone #25 as you wish - when you wish. The reasoning behind this would be for players to be able to play with everyone who owns the game, and not just people on their server.

So how exactly is being able to play with everyone less "massive" than being able to play with a only a small portion of people that actually play?

CantFaketheFunk:
As far as players are concerned, the game might have hundreds of thousands of subscribers, but you'll only ever be with a hundred at the same time - tops. Most of the instanced locations don't have anywhere close to that. If you're playing in a Burning Sands with 60 other people, that's just barely twice the population of, say, a popular Team Fortress 2 server. That's hardly Massive at all - what good is having thousands upon thousands of subscribers if you only ever get to see a handful of them?

But isn't WoW kinda the same, when you're in a zone there's rarely more than a dozen or so people in that particular zone, and yes you might see the same people when you quest in the same area, and in CO you'll see more different people, again, how is that less massive?

The issue I take with it is that it's less persistently massive. You can only play with the same people if you, say, have them in your supergroup or on your friend list. Otherwise, it'll be people at random; the playerbase itself will not be persistent. By your argument, in TF2 or Halo 3 or Diablo II, since you can play with anyone who has the game, are they MMOGs?

Yes, WoW has moments of relative solitude in zones, but then it also has 200 people crammed into Wintergrasp for the battle there.

CantFaketheFunk:

VanBasten:

So how exactly is being able to play with everyone less "massive" than being able to play with a only a small portion of people that actually play?

The issue I take with it is that it's less persistently massive. You can only play with the same people if you, say, have them in your supergroup or on your friend list. Otherwise, it'll be people at random; the playerbase itself will not be persistent.

I still find your argument absurdly contradictory, you're claiming something is less massive because it's more massive.

Think of the WoW type shard system as a village, where the community is more tight knit because there's not that many people around and they see each other more often, and CO multiple zone system as a city where there's a bunch of people inhabiting the same space relatively oblivious to each other, but everyone's still able to make a small effort to run into each other more often. Last time I checked cities are still considered more massive than villages.

In the end you'll mostly play with your guildies, real life friends or other friendly people you run into in a PUG anyway, so what does it matter if you always see the same other guy you never intend to play with, or a bunch of different other guys that you never intend to play with?

CantFaketheFunk:

By your argument, in TF2 or Halo 3 or Diablo II, since you can play with anyone who has the game, are they MMOGs?

That's irrelevant to my argument. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your argument that something where you can play with fewer people is somehow more deserving of the title "massive" than something where you can encounter and play with a far larger number of people.

I don't really care what anyone calls anything, but the way I'd put it is that something that has one central server where at least a thousand people can be logged on at the same time and easily play(one click) with each other regardless whether they spawn in the same subzone or not -> then its massive. So the games you mentioned wouldn't fall in that category. But that's just me.

I call Guild Wars an MMO because if i was playing WoW it would be pretty much the same.

Existentialism says: a stool becomes a chair when you say it does. Linguists would probably say the same thing. If everybody calls it a stool, it's a stool, and likewise if they call it a chair. What if some people call it one thing and others call it something else? Well, it could be both, or something in between, something entirely different (a chool?).

However, I'm an engineer, so I'll say that it's a device designed for sitting on that includes a back with a height of 1 inch. We've already patented it.

CantFaketheFunk:

teh_gunslinger:

CantFaketheFunk:

I wouldn't call Guild Wars an MMORPG, either. Guild Wars, like Diablo, is... well, I guess I could call them MORPGs. Multiplayer Online RPGs, but without the Massive aspect.

I only have Guild Wars and I've only played WoW for 30 minutes so I know next to nothing about it. I would like to ask how you make the distinction regarding massively? It's not becuse I disagree with you, because I don't know enough to disagree. I don't particularly fancy those kinds of games so I've never really looked into it. I've just assumed that it was pretty much the same. Anyway, why the difference?

Guild Wars is a heavily instanced game, there is a communal hub, but almost all the actual world areas are for solo gameplay (or for a small party). There's really no chance that two players will just randomly come across each other out in the open world other than the towns. In this vein, it's much more like Diablo than an MMORPG. It's a Multiplayer Online RPG, but there's nothing Massive about it (as opposed to WoW or LotRO or WAR, etc, where the entire world is open and only small sections of it are instanced)

Allright. Cheers. I'm a total n00b when it comes to stuff like that so it was great with a bit of explanation.

Honestly, I consider Diablo and Guild Wars to be MMOs in their own right, but saying that they aren't because of the instancing/personal-ness means that WoW is barely an MMO compared to, say, EVE with 300,000 people on one server.

The sense of community is probably the most overrated thing I've ever heard about an MMO anyway, because leveling up and seeing the same people around really isn't as 'amazing' as people make it out to be, building rivalries can be nice, but it's not that great when you can't talk to or message the person because they're an opposing faction (though I understand why they did this with the chat system... :/), mob mentality is terrible enough in a raid, let alone general, trade, BGs and LFG, etc, etc...

I know it all comes down to personal preference, I just think that people should give a game like GW a shot because being able to only have 2 people in your party and replace the other 8 with NPCs is a GODSEND to me because I hate working with bads.

Valiance:
Honestly, I consider Diablo and Guild Wars to be MMOs in their own right, but saying that they aren't because of the instancing/personal-ness means that WoW is barely an MMO compared to, say, EVE with 300,000 people on one server.

LOL, touche. BUT... isn't each star system its own instance? And each star base?

The sense of community is probably the most overrated thing I've ever heard about an MMO anyway,

Sounds like we have an EVE fan in the house.

It isn't the presence or lack of instances, because all MMOs and MOs are heavily instanced, including WoW, where each region on each server is its own instance, and I bet there is rarely more than 50 in an area at a time outside the beginner areas excepting coordinated guild activities. It's whether the player base in instances is consistent or not.

Lol.

What's with the stool/ chair question?

You'd think none of you have heard of Fuzzy Logic.

(which is, essentially, a mathematical definition of something everyone knows anyway, if they bother to think about it. You cannot draw an exact line between two concepts without it being arbitrary at least some of the time.)

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here