We've reached a point in MMO gaming where it's the turn of the survival MMO to dominate and with the likes of DayZ, Nether and 7 Days To Die on offer, there's no shortage of choice. However, another online zombie survival game is in the works, Last of Humanity.
XMMORPG Writes:
The survival genre is quickly taking grip of the MMO world and with an exciting variety of survival MMO games available today, there's no shortage of the adrenaline fueled survival experience that so many gamers crave. The likes of DayZ, Nether and 7 Days to Die are offering gamers a whole new take on the MMO experience, focusing on interesting survival mechanics and deadly interactions with other players. But for all the exciting elements of the survival genre there's a reoccurring problem showing its ugly face at almost every turn, loot.
Awesome, except those are not MMOs. How can I take seriously someone who can't even put a game in the correct genre?
Who determines whether it's the correct genre? A developer/publisher can label an FPS game as an MMOFPS when it only consists of 8-12 man matches.
League of Legends is considered an MMO by many, although obviously part of the sub-MOBA genre, and that still doesn't feature the stereotypical MMO definitions.
By definition alone there isn't a set number of players that need to be able to participate in order for the game to get the MMO tag, it's more a matter of perspective.
Common sense suggests that games coming out today should -- at the very least -- meet the standards of MMOs released over 15 years ago when it comes to the number of concurrent players on one server etc. for them to be labeled as MMOs.
Incorrect ideas don't turn into correct ones if millions of misinformed people believe them to be true. So whatever, if anything, goes on in the minds of MOBA players is of little importance here. We're discussing an article written by a gaming journalist, or someone pretending to be one, and they should be held to higher standards. Or do you think there's room for gaming journalists who know so little and are so incompetent in what they do that they perpetuate misinformation overheard in a MOBA game populated by barely literate 13-year olds?
I wrote the article myself and I don't claim to be a journalist but I'm very experienced in the MMO space.
Runescape is one of the older MMO titles of today and even that game can only support 2000 players on a single server. Many of today's titles that you would claim do not fill the typical definition can actually house more than that on a single server, even if the players aren't always in proximity.
Take a look at any popular MMO source that features actual journalists, both more credible and experienced than you or I, and you'll discover DayZ, Nether and 7 Days to Die content, all games you claim do not embody elements of the MMO.
Your comments toward the MOBA genre are also so misinformed, it's hilarious.
There comes a point where the masses agreeing often changes the original definition of a particular point. As an example, 20 years ago you would be just offering your opinion but to people today, you're just trolling. 0 constructive elements to your statements.
Have a good day.
You know what's the worst part when discussing anything MMO related with me? I know more than you, and so I know exactly when you're full of shit. I've played more MMOs than I care to remember, and I've been playing them long before Runescape was even a twinkle in somebody's imagination. While using factually wrong, vague and/or largely irrelevant information to back up your flawed arguments might impress some less knowledgeable players, it only amuses me.
You don't know whether the games you're referring to are actually hosted on a single server. Even if they are, your argument still can't hold any water, since MMOs did host those players on a single server, which means SINGLE GAME WORLD, as any half-experienced MMO player would tell you, which in turn translates to close proximity, and that makes a night and day difference. I can't tell if you're being ignorant for the sake of the argument or do you truthfully think this comparison made any sense to anyone but yourself and a handful of people who consider calling someone a troll a good way to win a discussion. Look up DAoC, Planetside, EVE. Read up on fights involving hundreds of people in an area the size of Elektrozavodsk or less.
The same thing's been discussed over at massively and mmorpg.com many times already. They post about MOBAs, multiplayer FPSes, and multiplayer ARPGs like Diablo III, even though I don't recall Diablo II ever being called an MMO even though the genre already existed. The only thing that's changed since then is the fact that there's a lot more people who can't tell the difference between the two and choose to label multiplayer games as MMOs, because, simply, they're newbies and don't know any better.
Why do "actual journalists" make the same mistake? It's not because of lack of knowledge. It gets them views. Day Z isn't an MMO. LoL, HoN, DOTA, DIII etc. aren't MMOs, but since some people already think they are, why the hell would they not report on them and get A LOT more views since all those games are insanely popular? That's the whole rationale behind this. It still doesn't change the fact that calling a simple multiplayer game an MMO is wrong and won't be taken seriously by anyone with a clue. It's partly your decision what your target audience's going to be, so unless you consider your readers to be a bunch of drooling idiots who don't know any better, you might want to rethink a couple of things.
Good day to you too, sir.
