Imagine a gane like zelda, where battle is in real time. Is it possible to have battles like that. Battles that take skill to win. If so, how would you reward long time players. Could this work - As a player kills more enemies, he could go up a level. Higher levels make him stronger and better, able to use new powers and to equip better armour etc, yet still basing on skill.

it is possible check out SUN.
here are others like Huxley, but there is something about the auto-attack key that is just part of playing MMORPGs. I think what needs to be done to impove on that is more combat variation and more options over how you will perform in combat.

Diablo 2 is an MMO and it's real-time action. Of course it has it's faults, but it's all about reflexes and thinking on your feet.

Quote:

Original post by Ned_K Diablo 2 is an MMO and it's real-time action. Of course it has it's faults, but it's all about reflexes and thinking on your feet.

Actually, it is not an MMO. The world isn't really persistant, your quite limited in the number of people you actually play with, and theres a few other reasons its not an MMO. Planetside, D&D online, WW2 online, etc. would be better examples.

Quote:

Original post by TheFez6255 Quote: Original post by Ned_K Diablo 2 is an MMO and it's real-time action. Of course it has it's faults, but it's all about reflexes and thinking on your feet. Actually, it is not an MMO. The world isn't really persistant, your quite limited in the number of people you actually play with, and theres a few other reasons its not an MMO. Planetside, D&D online, WW2 online, etc. would be better examples.

No, Diablo 2 is a massive multiplayer on-line game, i.e. MMO. There is no official definition that breaks down how many people you have to be able to play with simultaneously. The individual games themselves within Diablo are no more than publicly accessible instances. The monstrous worlds of games like WoW and EverQuest are too rare to be the only MMO-style games. I take the acronym at face value. It allows for many different types of approaches, from EQ to Diablo 2. Otherwise we are just debating semantics when there is no central authority providing precise definitions anyway. Everyone has a slightly different definition of MMO. I tend to agree with broader definitions rather than narrow.

Ned_K: How is 8 players (iirc the limit in D2) massively multiplayer? Battle.Net is NOT a game server, it is a chat server that lets you spawn game servers and game clients.

Quote:

Original post by Extrarius Ned_K: How is 8 players (iirc the limit in D2) massively multiplayer? Battle.Net is NOT a game server, it is a chat server that lets you spawn game servers and game clients.

How are thousands of people, all online at the same time and interacting, able to create games together at any time, with thousands of games in existence at any given time, and the ability to share items with the community at large and to go from existing game to existing game at will (barring password protection and game full), NOT massively multiplayer?

If this is NOT massively multiplayer, then please direct me the one and only definition that is universally accepted by game designers and the game playing public.

I'm not talking persistent world. But many people equate the idea of MMO to the idea of a persistent world with 1000's of people occupying the same space. It doesn't have to be the case.

It all comes down to semantics.

By your defintion, 2 player chess is MMO because many computer versions fulfill all of your requirements except for the ability to share items, since it doesn't have items.

I find such definitions usless, and would instead make a requirement that the game has to have many people playing together{in the same game} able to interact {in ways beyond talking to eachother} (So games like Guild Wars where everything is instanced for small parties are not MMO).

Quote:

Original post by Extrarius By your defintion, 2 player chess is MMO because many computer versions fulfill all of your requirements except for the ability to share items, since it doesn't have items. I find such definitions usless, and would instead make a requirement that the game has to have many people playing together{in the same game} able to interact {in ways beyond talking to eachother} (So games like Guild Wars where everything is instanced for small parties are not MMO).

No, I haven't provided you with a definition. I merely listed characteristics of Diablo 2 that makes me feel it is an MMO. I do not claim that list is the last word or complete.

You say you "find such definitions usless" and yet provide a defintion totally open to interpretation, namely:

A) "the game has to have many people playing together{in the same game}"

What is "many"? 5? 8? 10? 20? 100? 100,000?

Your definition only seems to revolve around the number of people in a game simultaneously. And you don't give that number, hence the definition doesn't help settle the issue.

B) "able to interact {in ways beyond talking to eachother}"

Diablo 2 meets that definition. As does Guild Wars. These games are all but a variation on a theme.

Finally, who arbitrates whose defintion is the final word? Isn't this arguing of definitions getting off the original posters question in any event?

I didn't give a definition either, but if you want one I'd put the fuzzy variable 'many' in the realms of 50 or so, and I'd redefine interact to a fuzzy definition involving the central gameplay elements of the game. Thus, talking and trading in Guild Wars wouldn't make MMO, because the central gameplay is fighting and using skills only usable when secluded in small groups. The many-team PVP aspect in guild wars might come close, but it doesn't quite fit the definition.

Personally, I think the definition is very important, because as you have pointed out some games that are MMO according to some definitions already have a sort of realtime action, while according to another definition, such games do not exist.