I think MMO fits in with the same vague RPG, RTS, and FPS terms. They're somewhat generally vague definitions that are used as a way of classifying game types. MMO in this case simply being "alot of people", subject largely to personal opinion. Arguing about it would thus be like arguing synantics, pointless.

Quote:

Spoonbender Wrote: It's defined however you like it. There's no official definition, so your guess is as good as anyone's.

Quote:

But I'm still curious as to why there's no real definition of what constitutes an MMO.

Because it's an arbitrary label, turned marketing buzzword, turned overused drivel by ravenous fanbois...

I'd define the "massive" part of massively multiplayer to be an order of magnitude higher than plain old multiplayer, so a limit of 128 or less is too few. Having no real limit other than server space is a reasonable definition.

But as everyone else has stated, it's really just a marketing label so that people can lump types of games together. As far as labels go, I think "MMO" is fairly well defined; it conjures up images in your mind of Everquest and World of Warcraft (and various other games I can't play due to not having a decent internet connection at home), with a core component of the gameplay being the interaction between the players.

If you get really nebulous, try coming up with a universally acceptable definition of what constitutes a "Role Playing Game" [smile].

Quote:

Original post by Trapper ZoidIf you get really nebulous, try coming up with a universally acceptable definition of what constitutes a "Role Playing Game" [smile].

Or you could coin a new term. Down with conventions!

Define a roleplaying game? I think I could do that. But it's a genre of games... it's easier to define those because they've all been around for a while. But "MMO" is relatively new and at the end of the day there's two camps: the people who think an MMO is only limited by server space, and the people who think an MMO constitutes more players than conventional games. The fact that it's an industry buzzword is the fact that bothers me... how can you use a phrase in advertising if that phrase doesn't really have a definition? And yes, before someone says this... I think this rule should be applied throughout advertising, and not just in our industry either ;) Anyway...

Role Playing Game: (adj.) A game wherein a player controls one or more statistic-driven characters in a non-linear adventure, usually in a world that fits into the fantasy genre.

I can say that and chances are most people will generally agree with that definition, in vague terms anyway. But...

Massively Multiplayer Online [game]: (adj.) A video/ computer game wherein there is no predetermined maximum amount of players who can join in multiplayer online play.

That definition would be argued by some people, even in this thread. I was having this conversation with a gamer in Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield. ESP_Gunslinger would definitely argue with that definition (and would toss in a few "mom" jokes from the 1980's, too... you've got to love the online world!). That's why I think the phrase should have a more tangeable definition that everyone can agree with. I mean, if you called Doom a Role Playing Game or Final Fantasy VII a first-person shooter, it'd be grounds for arguement (in some circles it'd even be grounds for murder!).

At any rate, I've stressed why I think a definition is important... maybe this is a topic that probably won't be ended with a definite solution, for me anyway. But I'll continue to hope. So far this thread has brought up several varied definitions... I'd like to narrow it down to one somehow, if that's even possible.

- Matt

Agree with the one above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What defines a MMO? The question is, really, who cares?

This is so subjective I won't even begin to explain! Everybody got it right. DogCity got it the most right ("it's not 2 people"), a few posts above, but then again my opinion isn't worth a dime.

Arguments over definitions are a very, very sad way to waste a good developer's time. Valuable time that should be spent creating quality games! :)

Quote:

Original post by Maximus_PT1 Role Playing Game: (adj.) A game wherein a player controls one or more statistic-driven characters in a non-linear adventure, usually in a world that fits into the fantasy genre. I can say that and chances are most people will generally agree with that definition, in vague terms anyway.

This is why I find trying to define "RPG" so interesting, because I agree that most people would come up with a definition like that (including me). But when you get down and analyse it, it's not actually good at deliminating which games are RPGs or not. How statistic-driven do the characters have to be? How non-linear does the game have to be? Is the fantasy genre that important to defining what makes an RPG? Is Diablo, The Legend of Zelda, or the Heroes of Might and Magic an RPG (they satisfy a lot of the definition)? What about Chrono Trigger, which I found to be fairly linear, is that not an RPG [smile]? But I'm digressing from the original point, which is defining MMOs, so I'll leave it there.

I'm in agreement that coming up with some sort of standard definition for all these terms is desirable, but that might just be because I hate seeing these terms being fired around so loosely.

Although I'm a bit fan of hybrid genre games and those that go against the trend, I do think that game designers need to think a bit about which labels will be attached to their game, because if your marketing department won't do it, the magazines, stores and players will. If your game gets an inappropriate label the perception of its gameplay could suffer as a result. I still remember how one of my favourite games, Magic Carpet, was labeled by some reviewers as a FPS (due to the first person viewpoint), even though it was a weird action strategy game at heart. Since these reviewers were then expecting a game like Doom, they were disappointed.

However I expect in this case that the people claiming Battlefield 1942 is a MMO game are wrong, and possibly trying to give a sense of "prestige" by associating it with the MMO trend. I'd clearly label that as a multiplayer team-based FPS game.

It's not complicated.

MMO - A game which maintains a persistant world that is shared by a large group of online players.

If you minimize either of the key factors of "persistance", and "large group of online players" than your MMO would be less of an MMO.

*edit*

Quote:

Original post by Maximus_PT1 Role Playing Game: (adj.) A game wherein a player controls one or more statistic-driven characters in a non-linear adventure, usually in a world that fits into the fantasy genre. ... Massively Multiplayer Online [game]: (adj.) A video/ computer game wherein there is no predetermined maximum amount of players who can join in multiplayer online play.

Nice tries but no, all of those are too specific.

RPG - Any game where taking on the role and responsibility of a given/generated/chosen character is the primary facet of gameplay.

Quote:

Original post by T1Oracle If you minimize either of the key factors of "persistance", and "large group of online players" than your MMO would be less of an MMO.

I say again, if I hypothetically created a game containing 10,000 concurrent players (hell, let's be ridiculous and say 1,000,000,000 even), but the game didn't present a persistent world, would it still not be a rather Massive Multiplayer Online game? Don't forget that you can tack a bunch of letters other than "RPG" onto the end of "MMO". An MMOFPS, MMORTS or even MMOTBS might not be very well suited to persistence. What if I created MMOPong (where n players play in an arbitrarily shaped arena with n sides and had a few hundred players online constantly? Persistence becomes a completely meaningless and potentially detrimental requirement for some types of games, but theres no real reason these games couldn't be called MMOGs.