Is blizzard to MMO based?

[Krugar]

Re: Is blizzard to MMO based?

A Persistent world is not based on how little random it is. Persistent worlds always had one, many, all of its areas randomized or semi-randomized. It is simply the ability to exist even if after its players logged off and the fact persistent worlds -- in the context of MMOs -- follow periodical reset cycles to avoid any permanent changes to the world. Monsters respawn and areas reset (or, for random areas, are rerolled).

EDIT: In fact Persistent World is yet another term that has been becoming wider with time. Initially a Persistent World was a world in which players changes became permanent. That is no longer the case and the term has fallen to include other things as the fad at the time dictated. Much like probably in the years to come MMO starts to encompass games like Diablo and whatnot.

 

[Demetrium]

Re: Is blizzard to MMO based?

Here's another huge difference I would argue. In an MMO, it's expected that you have to work together with other people to complete some parts of the game (specifically, the end game), while in an ARPG or classic RPG, they can be done single player from start to finish.

Ok, yeah, there are some differences here. While the Wiki definition doesn't really mention party involvement at all, I think it's a valid distinguishing point between the two games. While stuff like Uber Trist and Hell D2 in general are pretty difficult to do alone, you can pull it off with the right builds.

Also, ARPGs tend to have an ending. You can say you've beaten Diablo, no one can say they've beaten WoW, because it's entire purpose is to be played almost infinitely. Closest you can get is to beat whoever the highest end game boss is at the time, but then you just wait for the next patch and they've added a new dungeon. Hell, you can't even fight the Lich King yet, so essentially, WoW has no end.

MMOs are timesinks, things are done slow and methodically. Emphasis is placed on combat, but also on atmosphere, professions, socialization (guilds), and bragging rights. ARPGs are supposed to be fast paced and initially work towards a solitary goal: Beat the game. Once you've done that a bunch and get bored, you start making up your own versions of "end game" but it doesn't go anywhere near the extent that MMOs try to provide.

The differences are far more vast than you make them out to be.

Ok, this I don't agree with at all. You can always say you've beaten any game until new content is released. I beat WoW like 5 times. I beat it when I killed Ragnaros, Nefarion, C'Thun, Kel'Thezuad, Lady Vashj/Kael, Illidan, Kiljeaden...you get the point. You beat Diablo 2 when you killed Diablo. Then they released an expansion, just like WoW (roughly annually) releases new content. Yeah, they haven't released the Lich King yet, but you can always claim to an extent you've done everything possible at a certain time. It's really up for the player to define when he's beaten WoW and D2. Someone who killed Baal on normal might say they beat D2. Someone like me who has done Hell Baal/Uber Trist on Hardcore would disagree with their statement. This is directly comparable to WoW's current implementation of endgame raiding. While many of the bosses are fairly easy to beat, there are "hard modes" you can attempt. Someone in a low tier guild might be content with beating the regular modes and claim they're done. Someone in a top 50 guild would disagree and strive for hard mode kills.

Timesinks are a point of view. Diablo also has an economy (in my opinion, larger than WoW's) an item crafting system, and people often form clans/guilds. Again, you may have your own definition of completing the game, but I'm sure its different than mine. I've played D2 multiplayer like 4 or 5 times before, and intend to upon 1.13's release. I and several people I know have played both WoW and D2, and while none of us play WoW anymore, we keep coming back to D2.

 

[sicilian]

Re: Is blizzard to MMO based?

Ok, this I don't agree with at all. You can always say you've beaten any game until new content is released. I beat WoW like 5 times. I beat it when I killed Ragnaros, Nefarion, C'Thun, Kel'Thezuad, Lady Vashj/Kael, Illidan, Kiljeaden...you get the point. You beat Diablo 2 when you killed Diablo. Then they released an expansion, just like WoW (roughly annually) releases new content. Yeah, they haven't released the Lich King yet, but you can always claim to an extent you've done everything possible at a certain time. It's really up for the player to define when he's beaten WoW and D2. Someone who killed Baal on normal might say they beat D2. Someone like me who has done Hell Baal/Uber Trist on Hardcore would disagree with their statement. This is directly comparable to WoW's current implementation of endgame raiding. While many of the bosses are fairly easy to beat, there are "hard modes" you can attempt. Someone in a low tier guild might be content with beating the regular modes and claim they're done. Someone in a top 50 guild would disagree and strive for hard mode kills.

Timesinks are a point of view. Diablo also has an economy (in my opinion, larger than WoW's) an item crafting system, and people often form clans/guilds. Again, you may have your own definition of completing the game, but I'm sure its different than mine. I've played D2 multiplayer like 4 or 5 times before, and intend to upon 1.13's release. I and several people I know have played both WoW and D2, and while none of us play WoW anymore, we keep coming back to D2.

Fair enough on both points. In my view however, when I play both games, I get the feeling that I can actually work towards an end goal in D2, where I just get the feeling of a never ending grind in WoW. It could be my personal preference, but I feel like the point of MMOs tends to be build and socialize, and storyline and importance of the story is secondary.

 

[Demetrium]

Re: Is blizzard to MMO based?

Fair enough on both points. In my view however, when I play both games, I get the feeling that I can actually work towards an end goal in D2, where I just get the feeling of a never ending grind in WoW. It could be my personal preference, but I feel like the point of MMOs tends to be build and socialize, and storyline and importance of the story is secondary.

I definitely understand your point of view. When I played WoW there were people who loved the storyline, questing, and were completely driven by it. For me, it was the competitive aspect --- having the best gear, getting gladiator, and downing the hardest bosses ASAP. There are many people who use it as a social outlet, too.

 

[Gorny]

Re: Is blizzard to MMO based?

I definitely understand your point of view. When I played WoW there were people who loved the storyline, questing, and were completely driven by it. For me, it was the competitive aspect --- having the best gear, getting gladiator, and downing the hardest bosses ASAP. There are many people who use it as a social outlet, too.

-Social outlet:

Be Horde.

Go fishing in Stormwind, right under your enemy's nose. Site there (underneath Alliance Flightmaster in Valley of Heroes) and fish undetected while The Alliance tries to figure out who's raiding them and why they can't seem to find the attacker. lolz.

 

[jacobgold]

Re: Is blizzard to MMO based?

What is so difficult about telling the difference between Diablo and an MMORPG?

Diablo: less than 10 players in game.
MMO: hundreds or thousands of players in game.
Diablo: create your own game. leave and join others.
MMO: log into a permanent server.

Diablo is an Action RPG not a Massive Multiplayer RPG.

 

[GoldenBird]

Re: Is blizzard to MMO based?

...

They have 1 MMO. And 2 others in the making.

Versus how many games? Oh, gee, only the Diablo, Starcraft, and Warcraft franchises, not to mention the many other games...

-Social outlet:

Be Horde.

Go fishing in Stormwind, right under your enemy's nose. Site there (underneath Alliance Flightmaster in Valley of Heroes) and fish undetected while The Alliance tries to figure out who's raiding them and why they can't seem to find the attacker. lolz.

Rofl, you are evil.

 

[crazybs]

Re: Is blizzard to MMO based?

I would say they're heavily RPG based for sure.

Hopefully blizzard will be one of the companies to not be scared about new IPs and start a few other amazing games, but for some reason I don't see it going into the Nascar Racing Simulation genre to expand their horizons.

 

[Kiroptus]

Re: Is blizzard to MMO based?

I would like to see an FPS done by them. Maybe with some RPG spice or something along the lines of Metroid Prime.

I do believe they can handle any genre with the great game designers that they have.

 

[Gorny]

Re: Is blizzard to MMO based?

...




Rofl, you are evil.

Very Evil.

 

[ThulRasha]

Re: Is blizzard to MMO based?

Yeah, well there's certainly differences but I feel like a lot of it is perspective.

Correct. The differences may be small, but theres a lot of them.
Add it all up and you can see why *most* people call WoW an mmorpg and don't say the same for Diablo.
You can't just tackle one difference at a time per post and forget about all the others.

If you do, you could argue that any game that supports multiplayer is an mmo.

 

[Ishtor]

Re: Is blizzard to MMO based?

ok i am sue some one on here has already posted this but i want to make sure that this is clear.

Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (commonly abbreviated MMORPG) is a genre of computer role-playing games in which a large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.

This requires for a large number of people (8 or less is not large) to be in the same world at the same time to interact with eachother. That is why it is call "MASSIVE." Diablo has many people that plays the game but you will never see more than 8 at a time. Each game is a different world.

Say that Diablo is a MMO is like saying when you play Halo 3 online it becomes a MMO. just because you play a game online with other players does not make something an MMO. No matter how simular the game play is.

Final Fantasy 12 played exactly like Final Fantasy 11 did (the FF MMO) but was not online. This means even thought the battle system and control of the game was the same, it was not an MMO. It is missing the both part, single player and offline game.

 

[Vang]

Re: Is blizzard to MMO based?

The problem with MMO is the way people perceive it.

Originally it was Massively multiplayer online as been stated, but what does that mean? You take a FPS and put 32 on 32, and some can say its pretty massive amount of players, and its online, and multiplayer.

To me no, that doesn't sound right, but then you add in that your in a chat room for the game with 30 game servers, and now you actually surpass some low population mmo's(See Jumpgate which is rumored to have less than 1k paid subscribers and is an MMO) and your confusing people.

You then say, well it only includes game in which a server can support a minimum of 25k people(I don't know actual server mins/max, but Eve has over 100k on the same server) and it may have instances made for a max of 24-50 players for raid encounters. Now, your talking about an MMO.

Then you look at Guildwars, and get all messed up, as its all instaced except hubs(haven't played it in years) and you see why people are confused.

The media names games that players don't name, and players name games that media doesn't name. If the max for a group was 6 in an MMO, well then Diablo would be an MMO because 8 can be grouped.

So who is right and how is wrong I don't know. I think of an MMO as a persistant world with a minimum of a few hundred on a server, and a high max to be possible, and no chat room, or hub where the majority of the time the game is instanced to a group, the larger part has to be available to many at the same time.

 

[Ishtor]

Re: Is blizzard to MMO based?

64 people is nothing compared to thousands of people being on a server at one time, and a chat room is a chat room. And it does not matter how many subscribers it has, it how many people it can support on one server, that can interact with eachother at the same time.

your right though i dont think i ever seen a set number requirement for what make a game a MMO, but i bet you if some set the official number its going to be more than 8.

 

[Krugar]

Re: Is blizzard to MMO based?

The problem is that we are trying to describe an MMO in terms of numbers of players. And that is not a characteristic of an MMO, or any other type of game whatsoever.

"Massively" is a coin word, as in fact the whole term is a coin phrase meant to encourage the market. Some of the first MMOs (and already named as such) like Ultima Online and later Everquest couldn't support even one tenth of the number of players other online games could at that same time, such as MUDs or Java based MMORPGs like RuneScape. Even today some of the most popular MUDs still existence can effectively support tenths of times more players than any current MMO.

The real, and unique, determining factor of an MMO is based on what it is being compared to:

- If against regular online games like Diablo, an MMO game is a multiplayer game that offers players a persistent world.

- If against a MUD, an MMO is essentially a graphical MUD and capable of generating more than one persistent world. Really, that's just it.

There really is no distinction between an MMO and any other online game in terms of number of players support. This is one feature that is frankly likely to change in the future as non MMO games keep increasing their players count in non persistent worlds.

On the other hand, an MMO doesn't cease to be an MMO if one day you wake up and log in only to find you are the only person online. Neither Diablo becomes an MMO if one day you get the latest patch and find that now you can have 10,000 players in your game.

 

[Boqu]

Re: Is blizzard to MMO based?

this thread is very inspiring...how come I never thought about it before?

next thing the new release of StreetFighter 4 is becoming a MMO too, though only 2 chars are fighting, there are so many PS 3/XBox owners that are on-line....