57 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

Melissia, on 19 November 2011 - 06:00 AM, said:

Bleh. Just because a game has "points to gain or leveling" dosen't make it an RPG.

*shakes her pen and paper roleplaying gamer fist at the world*

There was a video put out by the same people who did the F2P video floating around on this forum, but it was about the different kinds of MMOs emerging in the market. MWO is a Massively Multiplayer Online Combat Game (MMOCG), my own definition, and I suppose one could add Tactical in-between Online and Combat, if they wanted to. MWO is not going to be an RPG, although it may possess RPG elements, if I read correctly, for some time to come, if they go in the direction many on this forum seem to want to go with it.

[Mad Pig]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 19 November 2011 - 03:51 AM, said:

I don't care what it's described as - I will play it and if I like it I'll stay. The changing worldline and persistant backstory would seem to give it replayability.

Ya.. thumbs up on that fo sho!

[Red Beard]

Melissia, on 18 November 2011 - 08:31 AM, said:

Like ignoring the later Highlander movies.

Exactly. Zeist my ****.

HL 2 is what happens to an incredible story when you hand it over to a 2 bit writer and give him crap for a budget and tell him to "come up with something".

Edited by Red Beard, 19 November 2011 - 04:13 PM.

[Threat Doc]

Yeah, don't forget Star Trek V: The Search for God, tee-hee

[Vagabond Nomad]

SquareSphere, on 18 November 2011 - 08:10 AM, said:

Generally it comes down to time commitment when people think of MMOs. I played WoW when it first came out and got many of my friends to play. For 2 straight years we'd all play until one day my buddy and i were virtual fishing just talking about our day then both had the realization we actually hadn't hung out in person for about 2 months.

After that almost all us dropped MMO's completely and started hanging out in real life again. I suppose most anti MMO folks have similar stories.

I say let the haters do their thing. Once it's out and folks start putting up videos about how fun matches are, the ones that like multiplayer will downloaded and try it out for themselves. As for the folks that just like single player only, well them's the breaks.

I can understand this sentiment. I used to play the Sims when it first came out, until I had a similar epiphany, and walked away from the game so I too could live my real life. Having said that, I'm totally excited about the propsect of a Mech Combat simulator. But I would walk away from this game too if I had to wait more than a minute to apply new mech configurations, or to do repairs. I loved the previous Mechwarrior games because of the combat and the strategy, not because I had to wait real time to reconfigure / repair my mech in "real time", which I've seen some people suggest.

I'm hoping the Developers focus on the appropriate aspects of the game to simulate, and don't get off track by bogging the game down in administrivia that mimics boring aspects of real life.

Edited by Vagabond Nomad, 19 November 2011 - 06:09 PM.

[buckyballs]

Kay Wolf, on 19 November 2011 - 08:02 AM, said:

MWO is a Massively Multiplayer Online Combat Game (MMOCG), my own definition, and I suppose one could add Tactical in-between Online and Combat, if they wanted to.

I think you might be overcomplicating this.

Wouldn't "multiplayer mech simulator" work just as well if not better?
Unless you work for a bureaucratic or military branch, I see no need to create excessively long acronyms.

[Threat Doc]

Ehh, maybe, but consider for a moment that, if there are more than two dozen people in the lobby at one time, it's not just multiplayer, anymore, really. I suppose I should ask, instead, at what point does a game go from being multiplayer to being massively multiplayer? Admittedly, to me massively means a whole LOT of people. However, for instance, World of Warcraft has an average of 2,400 people per server, and other MMOs have other amounts of folks per server based, I would assume -and I AM only assuming here-, on the complexity of the game, on many other factors. So, since MW4 could only handle a, what, 12 v 12 battle, would it be correct for me to say that any number of folks over that could be considered massively?

What would the threshold be that takes it simply from multiplayer to massively multiplayer? Is there a benchmark?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Kay Wolf, on 19 November 2011 - 05:00 PM, said:

Yeah, don't forget Star Trek V: The Search for God, tee-hee

Please I've been trying to

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Depends how many matches each server can handle, how many servers, all sorts of things which we won't have any idea until probably just before launch. If everybody signed up for this forum is trying to play all at once then I would think that probably qualifies as "massive" - even if only for the lobby queues

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 20 November 2011 - 09:16 AM.

[Kyll Long]

Well as an interesting aside we had this discussion at EA over a James Bond title. I raised a lil bit of controversy when some producers were going to produce a "MMO" card game instead of going for the RPG. Some producers seemed to think that as long as you had xx number of users online in a lobby it was an MMO even if only 2 people could match out at a time. Fortunately they canned the idea. Keep in mind this was EA and some of their core producers. The real reason behind it, as we found out, was they thought it would be cool to program and produce the card game but not the MMORPG.

[Threat Doc]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 20 November 2011 - 09:15 AM, said:

Depends how many matches each server can handle, how many servers, all sorts of things which we won't have any idea until probably just before launch. If everybody signed up for this forum is trying to play all at once then I would think that probably qualifies as "massive" - even if only for the lobby queues

If I understand it correctly, and I'm certain something was lost in translation when I read it, the server(s) is/are actually going to dynamically adjust and create spaces as drops begin and close those spaces when drops end. I believe it's probably more than plausible to be able to do that, so I wouldn't be surprised to see it. However, I still wonder what number would be the line between just multiplayer and massively multiplayer.

[buckyballs]

I'm pretty sure the "massive" is a marketing term used to imply popularity, rather than an actual quantifiable measurement.

But if it's that important to have a buzz word in there, who am I to deny you that?

[Threat Doc]

If it's a measure of popularity, hehe, I would say we're there.

[The Basilisk]

I think what you've ment was RPG not MMO.
MWO will be a pure MULTIPLAYER in first place. And it will be ONLINE. If it gets MASSIVELY....we'll see.
I hope so for my part.

[rollermint]

I'm playing with thousands of other players. I may not ever interact with player #45931 or even 75% of the other playerbase but since this game is about factional warfare and territorial conquest, what the other players are doing and have accomplished will directly or indirectly affect me. Furthermore, what they plan to do in the future will also directly or indirectly affect my gameplay and my own plans. And of course, vice versa.

Its just me but MWO satisfies my criteria as a MMOG.

[Kodiak Jorgensson]

never know, maybe they will add an instant action or historical battles mode to settle there nervers

[Threat Doc]

Really? Have you ever heard of adapting, trying to make Lemonade out of Lemons. I am in this thing for the long-haul, and if it comes out to be so horrid I cannot possibly fathom continuing to play it -which, for the record, I don't feel is going to happen in the least- then I'll drop it like a hot rock. However, I will work through every possible permutation I feel my honor would require of me toward making this game work for me and mine before I'll simply give up on it. I, for one, did go of course through the head-spinning and nervous-shaking problems on the day they announced this game, and my temper cooled and I started looking into the game and, as a purist, I can only say I'm 51% here, right, but 51% shifts the power of corporations, and for now it's enough for me. Even if it stops being enough for me, that percentage drops, I will remain until I see the game in action, and then I'll decide for sure.

[Red Beard]

Kay Wolf, on 20 November 2011 - 04:44 PM, said:

I am in this thing for the long-haul

Cheers to that.