Talk:Massively multiplayer online game/Archive 1

Archive 1

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 u want sex "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)

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)

"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)

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)

MMOBBG not defined

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

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)

How's this? --Flightsoffancy (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WW2 Online

WW2 Online is very detailed, thus why I added it to the Simulations. Explanation here: World_War_II_Online#Damage_model. After Cretog8 made a comment, I tried a more logical description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flightsoffancy (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 June 2008 (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)

re: First paragraph. Many of these games are not actually video games. Many are text based, and contain no video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.21.208 (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Shattered Galaxy screenshot.jpg

The image Image:Shattered Galaxy screenshot.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Massively Multiplayer Online Virtual Sex Game

The term 'Massively Multiplayer Online Virtual Sex Game' (it's linked in the Adult video game article) redirects here, but there is no reference to the genre. Perhaps another section could be added under the types? 66.191.19.68 (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (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)

This is exactly why I didn't do this myself. It needs nuking, but some fuckhead will always put it back. 81.157.40.121 (talk) 03:11, 26 December 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)

Actually I believe there was an effort to remove the word computer from all these sections such that mmo refers to all platforms. Putting BB in front doesn't add anything really. 69.221.252.96 (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Advertisment?

The section titled "MMO text-based game" reads like an advertisement to me. Maybe some one could fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.40.221 (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Types

The types section descends into idiocy after the first few categories. People are just cobbling words onto Massively Multiplayer Online and sitting back all proud. The articles a joke. 81.157.40.121 (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

MMO is a popular marketing buzzword so it would seem that this article is getting dumped on by adverts and example farming. A multiplayer dancing is nothing new; an MMO dancing game would be one of a kind. Ieriv (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

MAJOR cleanup required -- IMHO :-)

This page, in my opinion, is in need of major overhaul. I would be happy to do this myself, but one of the main problems is that it is so jargon-y that someone uninitiated (such as I) can't make headway. I would be happy to work with someone -- I'd do grammar and structure, and s/he could do content, including rephrasing large parts into layman's terms -- but I can't do it on my own, because I don't know if my "corrections" would be in error and corrupt the meanings. Post on my user talk page if you're interested. Joshua McGee (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

MMOFPS Term

The description and definition of the term "MMOFPS" is biased and is not a fact. As a matter of fact, nowhere in anything legal or governmental based is the term MMOFPS defined. The term argues that for an FPS to be massive, and to be a MMOFPS, it must be many players interacting in one main world, not just a room of 10 or 20 people playing against eachother. Most FPS are massive not because you can interact with everyone at the same time, but because you can interact with anyone you want. Just because there is a limit of people you can interact with at one point in time does not make it 'unmassive'. There is no minimum for massive or not massive written anywhere. An FPS can have 1,000+ people on it at once, just not all playing in the same room. Saying that an FPS is not MMO because it is only based on 10 or 20 people is quite like me saying something along the lines of the opposite, that WoW isn't an MMO because people are separated in servers and channels. 209.107.217.23 (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

By that definition, online card games like solitaire are MMOs because thousands of people are playing simultaneously, though not directly with more than a handful of people. No, what you're talking about is a multiplayer online game. The article on massively multiplayer online games goes into the difference between MOGs and MMOGs. Wyatt Riot (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

i might put in a word here: to my knowledge, the only true 'MMOFPS' achieved so far is Planetside, by SoE. it is/was (the game is aged, and in major decline when i last played) a persistant world in which around 400 people maximum could all take part in a battle over a continent, usually centered around bases, and furthermore mostly around key bases needed to advance across the continent (though black ops runs to non-frontline bases were also common, and a hell of a lot of fun if i do say so myself). the only other possible example of this i could think of is Tabula Rasa, by PlayNC, which was shut down for various reasons. -coughAioncough-. However, tabula rasa was (imho) an RPG with FPS characteristics, rather than an entire FPS. baaaasically, what i'm trying to say is, perhaps it's not legally defined because there havent even been a handful created yet.

WoW is an MMO because, even though people are separated into servers, there are still several thousand people capable of being online at any given time (and usually in the latest city or trade hub. three cheers for lagforge, lagrimmar, and lagaran.) furthermore, it's a persistant world, something FPSes that use individual servers (a la EA's Battlefield series, or <whoever the hell>'s Call of Duty series.) notably lack.

if you REALLY wanted to get technical and say it must be an undivided, persistant world, then to my knowledge EVE online would be the only MMO in existence today (persistant and, excepting test servers, unified). thus, you need a little flexibility in the terms. HOWEVER, there is a line that halo, CoD, BF, and their ilk are on the other side of. no second M for you guys. ^_^

hope i helped! Tryntu, Ekian, Masterof(my)mind(2), aaand the usual:--143.60.134.95 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

TibiaME not the first mobile MMO

I believe Dwango's Samurai Romanesque was the first mobile MMO back in 2000 on NTTDoCoMo's network - it could accommodate several thousand players at once. There used to be some reviews around for it but they seem to have disappeared, however there is an IEEE journal article about it from 2003 at least here: http://www.wirelessgamingreview.com/reviews/samurai021402.php - the quote from Justin Hall's review (no longer available) on ShiftedLibrarian shows it to have been released in 2001: http://www.theshiftedlibrarian.com/2002/02/20.html

If nobody has any other claims on this, I'll make the edit. Apolaine (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I made the edit plus the IEEE citation. Apolaine (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

More proof that Samurai Romanesque was the first Mobile MMO, use the google translator to encode the japanese. http://game.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/20010118/dwango.htm, http://www.itmedia.co.jp/news/0011/17/dwango.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.212.23 (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

larger new games as examples of what is and isnt an MMO.

I think it is important that games such as Call of Duty Modern warfare 2 are in the examples as not as many people know about halflife and battlefield 1942 adding call of duty, and halo to the list of games would not be mmo's would help. ( no im not a fan of either.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.219.144 (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2010 (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)

Huxley

To add on to this, Huxley suffers from the same.. lack of identity that global agenda is stated to suffer from, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huxley_%28video_game%29#Gameplay - should a note not be included there as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.60.134.125 (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

April 26, 2010 Revisions

Because of the number of significance of the modifications I made, I felt it would be better to discuss them here than in the edit summary. I made changes throughout the article, focusing on clarity, unification of the article, citation, and neutrality. I changed the term MMOG to MMO throughout the article except where necessary because the term MMOG was not even introduced in the previous version, and the term MMO is more widely known in the public. I added a picture of a MUD interface because that is the type of game I believe the average individual would have the hardest time visualizing given the current state of electronic gaming and CGI. I added a large number of citations throughout the article, where they were noted as being need and elsewhere, and also added considerable explanation of terminology and ideas that might have been unclear or seemed biased. I massively changed the "virtual economies" section so that it is a valid contribution to the article rather than a rant against gold farmers. I also added a section discussion both the positive and negative views of MMO addiction/immersion, because their lack of inclusion gave the whole article a significant bias towards the games, especially because MMO addiction is often the most commonly known element of these games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IVANis1 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit that I'm not thrilled with the changes, but I'm also not thrilled with the article as it stands. You've added a bit of original research, discussion of marginally notable games, and some of your references are rather unreliable. That being said, this article is already filled with original research, marginally notable games, and poor references. My suggestion would be to revert and discuss each of these changes here, and also to gut the article of poor content if we can't source it properly. Wyatt Riot (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted back to an earlier version of the article. It's far from perfect, but at least it's a start. As I said in my edit summary, I believe the article needs to be sourced or gutted. I'll try to work on it soon if my schedule allows. Wyatt Riot (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy Farm

Happy Farm has over three times the amount of players as World of Warcraft. The game receives more than 23 million daily users. This article claims WoW as the biggest. What is the criteria? Revenue or players or what? Please advise. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

When one describes the "biggest" business, typically one is referring to total revenue, not the number of individual customers. Tarinth (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, true. But Happy Farm is a free game, like chess. The biggest game in that category would be the "most played". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The criteria is that a reliable source must have called it the "biggest MMOG" (or "most played" or whatever claim is being made). bridies (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

MMO Identity

I think it's irrelevant to question a game's "'MMO' status" on the grounds that a it does not support more than 64-players in a given environment (i.e. Global Agenda). As per "multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously", any game is considered MMO if it is played off of one and only one official server at a time (i.e. one account per server). IMO community, account persistence and large-scale player interactions are more descriptive of an MMO than the naive more-than-64-players-per-map and persistent-open-world requirments. Such traits should be attributed to MMORPGS specifically (and even then...) --DMZ (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2010 (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)

Half of my DND group didn't roleplay, and neither did half the people on the old MUD's i played, so those aren't Roleplaying games either, by your standards. If it requires a certain percentage of the players to roleplay to qualify as a roleplaying game, than what percentage, by your standard, qualifies something as a roleplaying game? Personally I consider anything with roleplaying game mechanics to be defined as an RPG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.159.34 (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Some additions to consider

Star Wars: The Old Republic was released in 2011 and has become a very widely played MMORPG around the world. This game was brought to success by its creator, BioWare, who also created the previous games that it was based upon many years prior. This MMORPG is based in the Star Wars universe thousands of years before the famous films were made. It is a very similar game compared to other popular MMOs such as World of Warcraft or Guild Wars. They currently have over 1.7 million estimated subscribers. MMOverflow (2012)

Another very famous MMORPG that was released very recently was Tera, a South Korean-made game based in a world full of magic and epic weaponry. This game was a breakthrough in MMO gaming, as it brought a different outlook on MMORPGs as a whole, bringing in a unique combat system and a very wide-set world comprised of amazing graphics and cinema. It also brings back the excitement of battles with huge enemies, making the game pretty challenging and encouraging the players to form into groups to take them down. TERA Oline (no Date) Raysmiti (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is more of a general guide to MMOs, not specifically about MMORPGs. If you have reliable sources that say SWTOR or Tera were influences on MMOs in general, please feel free to add that material. However, that content would probably be more appropriate at Massively multiplayer online role-playing game instead. Both games are already mentioned at List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Woodroar (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Time Committment and Affection

Thanks for you msg (sorry I'm a Newbee). Since about 5% of video game players and 40% in some MMORPGs are effected I consider "Refusal Statement" as anything but apropriate.

• "Refusal Statement" = (rv per WP:WEIGHT, other miscellaneous issues.)
• WP:WEIGHT quote: "... the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all ..."

I didn't use UNDO. I rewrote the article softening certaint expressions. If there's still an issue I'll like to discuss what I can do.

I like to put a section about Time Consumption and Risk of Addiction in the MMOG article. Can you give me suggestions to the following points, pls.

• 1. may I do so?
• 2. how long may it be (lettercount)?
• 3. which words needs to be left out here?
• 4. is there a restriction off certail links or references here? (since there is a seperate article about Video_game_addiction.

Thanks.

Anyway, I am a fan of WoW, and played it for a couple of hundred hours. Is a great game! Betino (talk) 23:08, 18 Feb 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing. The reason I have linked WEIGHT is because the issue of addiction is not special to MMOGs, MMORPGs, or otherwise, but to video games as a whole. Covering it in this article would be inappropriate. It is indeed linked to in video game. If you feel that your additions make sense somewhere, consider proposing them on the talk page at video game addiction. --Izno (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Massive Multiplayer Online games need proper definition. MMO are not MMORPG

They used to call them Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games. These were all persistent worlds. Now they call them just Massive Multiplayer Online games, which includes anything with a massive number of people playing online. We don't have an actual number set for the world "massive". I'd say thousands. Some of these games do not have a persistent world. Dream Focus 23:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Category for Massive Multiplayer Online games

Category:Massively multiplayer online turn-based strategy games puzzles me. How many people can you have playing a turn based game online at a time? Would it be considered massive, or just multiplayer? I'm don't think you can have too many people playing games like this where you have to patiently wait for everyone to take their turn before going again. Dream Focus 23:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The example, UltraCorps, has 200-300 people playing each game, with 1 or 2 turns per day, and all turns are calculated at the end of the day. This seems to stretch the definition of "massively", and possibly even "multiplayer" since a game could theoretically be played without any players being online simultaneously. Ultimately, I think if we found a good source backing up the genre, then it can stay. Until then, I agree that it's unlikely and should probably be removed. Woodroar (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

MMORTS Examples

Why are there no examples for MMORTS games? Are we allowed to add examples? Deutschmark82 (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Deutschmark82

People keep adding non-notable examples and they get removed, or they add a ton of what they think are important examples and they get removed. You're absolutely welcome to add examples suggested by reliable, third-party published sources. Woodroar (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect from MMOEG ?

Sorry fpr my bad English. I'm not a native-speaker.

Why is "MMOEG" redirected to this article, when here isn't a single word written about it ? Failed examples of the past are maybe "Spend the Night", "Playskins", "Red Light Center and "Sociolotron".

MMOEG = Massively Multiplayer Online Erotic Game.

cf. to this topic: Hoffmann, Arne: Future Sex, München 2013, S. 146-7. --84.59.198.59 (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

MOBA category needed

Need to add category: MOBA aka "Multiplayer Online Battle Arena".

MOBA games I know of: Aeon of Strife (Custom Map for Starcraft) Defense of the Ancients aka DOTA-Allstars (Custom Map for Warcraft 3), League of Legends aka LOL, Heroes of Newearth aka HON, Demigod

Links: http://mobagamers.com/

Definition from Urban dictionary was really good: "MOBA (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena) is a new gaming genre. Spawned from early forums from the custom map for Starcraft called {Aeon of Strife} and Evolved in to the most recent Defense of the Ancients or "DotA". The objective of the MOBA Genre is for each team to destroy the opponents' Base, heavily guarded structures at opposing corners of the map. Players use powerful units known as heroes, and are assisted by allied heroes and AI-controlled fighters called "creeps". As in role-playing games, players level up their hero and use gold to buy equipment during the mission.

Each human player must control one Hero, a powerful unit with unique abilities. In DotA-Allstars, players on each side choose one of ninety-five heroes, each with different abilities and tactical advantages over other heroes. The scenario is highly team-oriented; it is difficult for one player to carry the team to victory alone. Nevertheless, some heroes, given enough time, can change the outcome single-handedly, while countering the opposing team's heroes.

Because the game play revolves around strengthening individual heroes, it does not require one to focus on resource management and base-building, as in most traditional real-time strategy games. Killing computer-controlled or neutral units earns the player experience points; when enough experience is accumulated, the player gains a level. Leveling up improves the hero's toughness and the damage it can inflict, and allows players to upgrade their spells or skills. In addition to accumulating experience, players also manage a single resource, in most cases: gold.

The typical resource gathering is based on a combat-oriented money system; in addition to a small periodic income, heroes earn gold by killing hostile units, base structures, and enemy heroes. Using gold, players buy items to strengthen their hero and gain abilities. Certain items can be combined with recipes to create more powerful items. Buying items that suit one's hero is an important tactical element of the scenario.

Most MOBA Games offer a variety of game modes, selected by the game host at the beginning of the match. The game modes dictate the difficulty of the scenario, as well as whether people can choose their hero or are assigned one randomly. Many game modes can be combined (for example, an easy difficulty level and a random hero pick), allowing more flexible options."

MMOSLG?

I have seen this term used recently MMOSLG from what I have been able to determine it means Massive Multiplayer Online Simulate Life Game, it would be nice if someone could update this article to explain what differentiates these types of games.

Vanguard Caption

The Game is out think its safe to remove that.

Card games

With the recent rise of Hearthstone, card games have become a rather popular genre (30M players according to Blizzard, the developer/publisher). Several real life Trading Card Games including Magic: the Gathering and Pokemon have had independent online clients to play their games on the internet. I'm unsure on the exact definition of "MMO", but based on the article, all of these would fall under either the casual MMOG or MMOCCG category. Yet none of these relatively popular online card games is mentioned, the article only references a few card games, that all look rather small, one of them is even discontinued. HEX: Shards of Fate has even specifically called itself an MMOTCG, and with a Kickstarter campaign raising over $2M, I think the game should at least deserve being mentioned somewhere. Is there some part of the MMO definition I'm missing that disqualifies these games?46.5.0.251 (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I have a hard time imagining many sources to discuss online card games as MMOs, and a quick Google News search didn't really show any connection. This could be an interesting question, though. Anyone have any sources discussing online card games and MMOs? ~Mable (chat) 12:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe a general MMO characteristic is large numbers of players in a single game instance. Card games never to my knowledge have had this. Just having online capabilities and matchmaking does not an MMO make. Is Counter-Strike an MMOFPS because players use matchmaking against 10,000s of available online players? -- ferret (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Ferret worded it nicely. Card games are not MMOs. There may be many players, but they are not in a single instance. If card games are MMOs, then so is Counter Strike, Starcraft, Halo, etc. TarkusAB 14:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I do know of at least one "true" MMOCCG, being Wizard 101, in which you explored instances with hundreds of other players and could jump into card-based battles with them at a drop of a hat. But I would not call Hearthstone or games where you only engage in 1-on-1 or similarly limited matches as the same as an MMO, as it lacks the "massively" part. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hearthstone is as much an MMO as Online Chess is. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it appears that with the exception of or Wizard101, which encoprated card battles in a shared explorable world, popular card games that simply employ 1V1 combat, regardless of scale are not MMOs.--67.68.161.51 (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Not to pile on too much, but Ferret described the situation perfectly. I agree with his comment. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 24 August 2016 (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)

Actually, in English grammar an adverb may apply either or a verb or an adjective. Using "Massively" as an adverb to modify "Multiplayer," which is itself an adjective describing "Game" is perfectly correct grammatically. Also, even if this were not the case, Wikipedia is acting correctly in portraying the term as it is commonly known and understood. As was pointed out before, "Massively Multiplayer Game" is the term that was originally coined for marketing purposes and has become generally accepted, and thus is the term Wikipedia should use when referring to these games. --IVANis1 (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2010 (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)

OK, folks, if anyone is still paying attention to this argument, please listen to a linguist (language scientist) --- at least that's what the University of California called me when they gave me my degree, as well as the companies and university I've spent my career in. IVANis1 and Mofuggin bob are right. "Multiplayer" is an adjective; what the heck would "a multiplayer" be? "Massively" is an adverb, and adverbs modify verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs. So "massively multiplayer" is an adjective phrase meaning "involving huge numbers of players". No problem. --Thnidu (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Thnidu: I'm also not a native English speaker, but I can't help but express the inconsistency I see with the expression. It's of course very clear that just removing the "-ly" would change the exact meaning of the acronym MMORPG. The problem is that I've always seen "multiplayer" more like a noun modifier. I mean if you change the word "multiplayer" with something like "multilayer" or "multiangle", you will have a clear derivative adjective of the word: "multilayered" or "multiangular". If one were to use an adverb in front of the word or compare the magnitude of these characteristics, one would use the derivative adjectives, right? One also wouldn't use "multilayer" as a predicative, right? So for all intents and purposes "multilayer" is actually used like any noun modifier, right? If yes, why should "multiplayer" differ from "multilayer" in any way? --JeffieTD 20:00, 11 March 2017 (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)