Talk:Massively multiplayer online game

What's mess about the MASSIVELY prefix

First they talk about more that 200 users that must meet but it's say "can be lower".

For a technicism the amount of concurrent player are limited, no matter if the "server" allow thousand of player at once, the true is that only a limited number are concurrent in a specific node, usually separating player groups in different area or simply hiding (ghosting) some user of another. For example WOW :you can put all users of a server in a same place and take a "big photo of all the members"?.. no, you cannot!. There are a impose limit for it.

You could say, Massively is more a allegory rather a qualitative measure, so MMOG is different to MOG just for the "uber" amount of users, a subjetivism impose by every game.

So in the same way, a game can call themself a "Ultra/Mega/Global/Worldwide/Universal massively multiplayer online game".

May be we will need a more specific explanation and difference about MMOG vs MOG.

• Perhaps it's less related to the physical capabilities of the game, and more to the variety it gives to gameplay. For example, in WoW, you can, without hitting a loading screen, interact with hundreds and even thousands of other players (with some moving around of course). In what some would consider a "non-massive" MOG, like Guild Wars, you are interacting with only a handful of players at a time when it comes to the core gameplay, and which ones you interact with can be predictable and controllable. Nobody is going to suddenly come across another player while questing in Guild Wars, but this can and does happen in WoW. Even if the persistent world is not, in terms of the data structures etc., really one massive world, it IS when it comes to gameplay. So in EFFECT, if not technically, there is one massive shared persistent world.

Yes it is somewhat allegorical. But it's an important distinction I think, at least to gameplay. There is a fundamental degree of "freedom" that is lost in an entirely instanced game with no persistent world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.122.170 (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Duplication?

Isn't the article MMORPG exactly the same thing? Grunners 05:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• No. MMORPGs are role-playing games, whereas MMOG covers the more general idea of massively multiplayer. If there's duplication, it's because MMORPGs are the most popular type of massively multiplayer game. --Mrwojo 13:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The definition within Wikipedia is pretty inexact though. World of Warcraft for example is as far from a real Role-Playing Game as anything could ever be. So the general idea around Wikipedia seems to be that every game that features Elves, Magic and stuff is a RPG and everything else isn't. --Fyrn

What constitutes a "real" RPG is up to debate and is partly a matter of opinion (which is mentioned on role-playing game, computer role-playing game, and MMORPG). What makes WoW not an RPG? ("Elves, Magic and stuff" isn't a defining feature of MMORPGs, checkout Star Wars Galaxies and City of Heroes for example.) --Mrwojo 15:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a Wikipedia misconception. It's been an ongoing (perhaps mis-)categorization of games which attempt to emulate Dungeons & Dragons in computer form as roleplaying games, going back to the old Gold Box D&D games or perhaps earlier. Afterwards, games of the same genre (though not necessarily the same setting) also became classed as RPGs. Wikipedia is correct to categorize these games as RPGs, because the commonly-accepted definition classes them that way, even if any "roleplaying" that occurs is very shallow. --Dachannien 17:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

WoW isn't an RPG because nobody roleplays. Exp points and skills don't make it roleplaying. Wouter Lievens 20:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Being the oldbie I am, I still like the MPOG term. I never liked the MM part. --Cyberman 00:58, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of First & Last Paragraph of Intro

Please eval the changes I made to give more context to the first paragraphs of the intro (where Air Warrior and MUDs felt wrong to have been omitted), and to acknowledge the recent penetration of Halo and Halo II and Xbox Live in the last paragraph. I did not alter any of the downstream text to make it all flow more as a whole, since I wanted to get feedback on these changes first before doing any additional edits to unify the piece. If the changes I made look good we should discuss what (if any) additional edits should go in the sub-sections. Coll7 22:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

In the lead, it mentions Adventure Quest as a free MMO. Is that really true? I don't think is classifies as an MMO. Anyone agree? Greeves 16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Marge of Overview and History Sections

Overview was predominantly a history section, but the History section at the bottom duplicated much of its content. I renamed the top section Overview and History, merged the two sections and tried to edit it to eliminate duplication, lose nothing else and have the whole thing flow. Please comment, edit etc. Coll7 19:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Reference_desk/Science#How_much_virtual_space_exists_in_persistent_worlds

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#How_much_virtual_space_exists_in_persistent_worlds? Please comment, ∴ here…♠ 16:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Massively multiplayer sports management games?

I was looking for info on a type of game that isn't mentioned here, where players manage a sports team against hundreds or thousands of other human players. I don't know if there is a name for it or anything, but examples would be like Hattrick or What If Sports. Recury 00:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue the best name is simply "sports management game." See my site: SMG News. I've requested an article on the subject, "sports manager game." And I don't think the entry would be redundant at all, since all other similar entires include video games or fantasy sports games, or both. Braveowlracing 15:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Massively multiplayer collaborative art "game"?

What about browser based massively multiplayer real-time art projects such as seen at http://www.thebroth.com - should a new category be made for these? I am not sure whether there are many projects like TheBroth, but it sure is BBMM and it sure is fun - but is it a "game"? Should we call these BBMMCOA, browser based massively multiplayer collaborative online art, or just MMOA or BBMMOA ? Wyxel 03:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact I have since changed my mind about this - I propose we call these things just MMCAP: Massively multiplayer collaborative art projects. Wyxel 08:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no responses... I'll now be bold and make a mention of BBMMCAP in the actual MMOG article. Wyxel 09:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at that yesterday, I am not sure BBMMCAP is massively multiplayer; this throws into question how many players constitutes "massive" more than the average FPS/RPG? (i.e. more than 32 activly participating) or more than 500 registered. MMOGs are generaly virtual worlds BBMMCAPs are deffinaly not Virtual Worlds. My other comment is they are not really a game, games tend to have rules and objectives - the broth seems to have few rules other than those of common decency and certainly no clear objectives. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 09:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I can only speak of Thebroth, which is fairly new but has already over 8000 registered users and sometimes 200+ simultaneous users. I would certainly agree, it's not a game in the traditional sense. There is an award points system and there is rating of snapshots, but there is no "winning" of sorts. It has some hallmarks of traditional MMOGs in the sense that it offers a persistent world (maybe canvas is the better name here?) and it uses shards with parallel world forking. I suppose in general anything to do with art and self-expression would probably not fare well with rules other than you mentioned, common decency. The question remains, is an MMCAP a subtype of MMOG or something else altogether for which no parent category exists? Wyxel 20:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Research on MMOGs

How about adding a section on research on MMOGs? I've just written entries for T.L. Taylor and Lisbeth Klastrup, two scholars who have done work on Everquest and World of Warcraft. There's a lot of other research also going on in this area now, Taylor and Klastrup are just two of many. Should a section on academic work in the field be a section of this entry or its own entry? Lijil 09:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the kind of research you're talking about *may* only be applicable to MMORPGs, and there's a research section over there, though it definitely needs work. --Beefnut 21:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Edited MMOFPS section

Edited out some misleading phrasing in the MMOFPS section. Huxley and Face of Mankind do not qualify as "popular" ecamples of the genre, as Huxley isn't even released yet, and FoM has so few players as to nearly be considered non-notable by Wikipedia standard. --72.35.146.211 20:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Warrock?

I'm not gonna edit the page, but warrock is only a multiplayer game. It is in no way massively multiplayer. However if the criteria of this page is for an non-persistent world with less than 64 players on "player created" servers then by all means it's an MMO. I'm just saying, that someone might want to take this into consideration as it might have been spam by someone who liked warrock. 69.221.239.2 04:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Added back in types

I added back in the section about the different types of MMOs as someone blanked the section without discussing it first. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Vanguard Caption

The Game is out think its safe to remove that.

External Links

Its just me or the external links section ins't following the WP:EL? Antonio Carlos Porto 02:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Habitat buy Lucasfilm was the first graphical MMO

Habitat was the first graphical MMO.

"The first graphical online virtual world that supported lots of players at once -- more than 16 -- was Habitat, and that was the mid-eighties," says Raph Koster, the chief creative officer at Sony Online Entertainment.

  Some of the Plato graphic online RPGs supported more than 16 players, back in the 1970s.  See avatar, oubliette, moria, drygulch, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.21.186 (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 

Also, shouldn't Furcadia be mentioned in the MMOSG section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.21.186 (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Massively?

Grammar

Hi, since I'm not a native English speaker, I'm somehow confused by the lemma. "Massively" is an adverb("...except for nouns..."). But, here it refers to a noun: multiplayer, doesn't it? Shouldn't it be just massive then? --Geri, 18:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Massive would be correct English, yes. Massively is what the industry initially used in marketing efforts, and has become the common usage - even though it is technically wrong. Ehheh 18:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. And, it's even more confusing when also looking at MMORPG, where it is was mentioned correctly :). I'm asking, because it's grammatically wrong in the german Wikpedia, too, and i'm thinking of a lemma change there. --Geri, 18:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Multiplayer" is an adjective (it makes no sense to think of it as a noun), I think. Therefore, "massively" would be correct. SharkD 20:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree with you; "multiplayer" is an adjective in this case, but the phrase still sounds poorly constructed. I prefer the sound and look of "massive online multiplayer game" instead. It gives the appearance of being English even though, as you stated, MMOG is technically ok English, too. Vox populi, vox dei; the present phrase, however wrong it may appear to be, is here to stay. FLafaire 15:44, 5 June (UTC)

It still seems wrong that Wikipedia is allowing errors like this... the article should be called Massive Multiplayer Online Game and accept redirects from Masssively Multiplayer Online Games - you know what I mean? Kapt'n S 12:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not an error, the construction is correct, and your alternative is not equivalent. The "game" is not necessarily massive: you could make a tiny text based p2p game where everyone hung out in a small room. The "multiplayability" is massive. If the phrase sounds awkward, which I'm not sure it does, I bet a linguist could explain that by noting all the sounds happen in one part of the mouth, so it's just awkward to say quickly or something. Correct English is not always poetic. --Thomas B 15:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You are all incorrect. "Multiplayer" is an adjective it describes the noun "Game". "Massively" is an adverb meaning it describes a verb. If "Multiplayer" was a verb then "Massively" would be correct but since it is an adjective only another adjective can describe it therefore making the adjective "Massive" correct. The only way in which "Massively would fit is if the term was "Massively Multiplaying Online Game". Multiplayer is not a noun or a verb it is an adjective. The article should be fixed to reflect this or at least a note should be placed to explain why the name is grammatically incorrect.--70.51.138.116 (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Massively is correct English. Massively refers to the amount of players capable of playing the game, not how big the game is. If "Massively" was referring to the size of the game itself, then it would indeed need to be corrected to "Massive." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofuggin bob (talk • contribs) 09:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Number of players to become massively multiplayer game ?

Hi, i search information of the level number of player to have a massively multiplayer game. On this wikipage is 200 players and i find 128 on an other website (sorry the links is in french [1]). Luciole2013 05:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Another link research paper on these subject [2]. Luciole2013 07:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's really up to personal opinion. Massively Multiplayer is a general term. It's silly to set a specific limit. 100+ on the same server might be MMG, or might not, depending on the size of the game itself. 200 is, however, a nice round number.

Dirt Tyrant (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

New category

I created the category Category:Massively multiplayer online turn-based strategy games. Go ahead and fill it with games if you want to. SharkD 20:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

MMODG

Would Stepmania Online and Flash Flash Revolution count as MMODGs?

203.214.53.239 09:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

For FFR I guess not, since you're not playing with many people at the same time. --Kakurady 15:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

MMOCC/IMCE

I think we should include MMOCC/IMCEs, such as Habbo Hotel, Coke Music, Fake Town. We should also include developing MMOCCs, such as Lime City, Blix City, Soku City, etc. Kapt'n S 12:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Massive Multiplayer Online Rhythm Games?

The article mentions O2Jam as a MMODG, but it is more akin to BeatMania. And Audition is played with the keyboard, not with feet. What's more, online music video games has been emerging recently (R2Beat, DJMax, etc.). So I think they should be better classified as Massive Multiplayer Online Rhythm Games.

Though DANCE! actually self labels as a MMODG. --Kakurady 15:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that label these music games as "dance games" appropriate, despite the developers label it. some developers actually creates "new genres" for their new game, but it's actually nothing new. So I think these games should be labeled as "rhythm" games, not dance games or music games.218.254.40.17 10:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Online Manager Games / Tycoon Games

Aren't MMOMG and MMOTG the same thing? --Kakurady 15:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Manager" games can refer to managing a company, like a "tycoon game," or it can refer to managing a sports team, like in Hattrick, Battrick, Charazay basketball, etc. These games actually seem to be more prevalent. Braveowlracing 15:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

MMOs are not only computer games.

Reading this article makes it sound as if MMOs are only computer games. But they are also console games. Everquest Online Adventures is a PS2 MMORPG. FFXI is an MMORPG that can be played on a ps2. Many many other games are also MMOs and console games. War Hawk is a PS3 online-only game. This article inaccurately doesn't depict MMOs as being on console systems also. Somebody needs to go through the article and edit it so that it shows accurate representation of the fact that they can (and are) both computer and console games. --Mofuggin bob (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is true! We might want to add an article on non-computer MMORPGs as well, such as Everquest, FFXI, etc. I'd be happy to edit but if anyone feels like a new section is needed, the ball's in your court

Dirt Tyrant (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've edited out the word 'computer' where I can. I'm sure it pops up in places where I did not catch it, though.

76.254.123.16 (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Eternal Lands" not really relevant?

It seems to me that the picture of Eternal Lands as the lead-off to the article doesn't make sense because Eternal Lands isn't notable in the way that many other MMORPGS are, and the image doesn't have any special characteristics. 141.157.22.62 (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

MMOBBG not defined

The article uses the term MMOBBG, but does not define it. ZargonDDG (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

BBMMO

There is no definition for the new term BBMMO: "Browser Based MMO".

This referes to the MMO's that are played directly from the browsers. Games like Travian, O-game etc. falls under that category.

Johny Iversen (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Image

Let's replace the picture of the "Ragnarok" logo with something that actually visually depicts an MMO, perhaps a large gathering of online avatars, vehicles, ships, etc, engaged in battle. 74.12.80.85 (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Generations

I have heard that conan and WAR are going to be third gen MMO games, is this ture, does anyone have definitions as to what are first and second gen, i write up that wouyld be interesting if anyone can do the research Sams37 (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)