Is it Getting Harder to Define What Makes an MMO?

Today's market is bursting at the seams with games riding the coattails of the MMO craze. As the success of games like World of Warcraft rose, publishers ran wild with the "MMO" tag, persistent world or not.

When we reported EA's unveiling of its Need For Speed World racing-sim MMO in London earlier this week, the news received little fanfare from our readers, and they weren't alone. Most MMO fans weren't exactly frothing at the mouth in anticipation of a new "massively-multiplayer online racing game," with the exception of Need For Speed's established community and the usual racing-sim fans. We're not specifically picking on Need For Speed World here; it's just another sign of the times. The unrelenting emergence of online multiplayer games branded as MMOs has watered-down the market. Today's new MMO announcements (which surface weekly) just don't carry the weight they once did, even those with relatively-unique gameplay based outside the usual RPG fantasy and sci-fi genres.

One problem is that today's market is bursting at the seams with games that tried to ride the coattails of the MMO craze. As the success of games like EverQuest and World of Warcraft rose, video game publishers ran wild with the "MMO" tag, often branding it on multiplayer games that don't even feature a persistent world. Today, the line that actually defines an MMO has become blurrier than ever. However, a lot of video games that teeter on that line have benefited from the influence of "traditional" MMOs. The first-person shooter and real-time strategy genres, for example, are taking cues from the progression-based gameplay and social/co-op aspects of MMOs that made them famous.

A few years ago, defining the elements that constitute an MMO was an easier task. The answer was in the acronym, after all…a "massively-multiplayer online" game. Back in the Ultima Online and EverQuest era of PC gaming, there was an obvious distinction between several hundred players gathering online in a "virtual world" and a handful of friends connecting to a private server to play a FPS or RTS game.

Things started to change when consoles like the Xbox and Playstation2 plugged into the Internet; by definition alone, shouldn't something like Halo 2 be considered a "massively-multiplayer online" game? That's why the "persistent world" factor became particularly important to distinguish MMOs. The term was coined in the early days to describe the ever-present "virtual world" of MMOs that persists despite the relativity of a single player, or a small group of players—unlike the transient environments and "worlds" created in most online multiplayer games.

Eventually, this would be the "litmus test" that most media and fan communities would use to determine if a game could be called an MMO. The genre certainly wasn't limited to MMORPGs; plenty of old sci-fi and shooter games like PlanetSide and Jumpgate were considered true MMOs, which gave rise to all the suffix acronyms we use today, like "MMOFPS" and "MMORTS." But unless the game featured a persistent world, the task of labeling it as an MMO was fairly black-and-white.

Recently though, the stark boundaries that separated MMOs from the rest have become a little fuzzy. Games like EA's Battlefield Heroes or Riot Games' League of Legends forced the mainstream gaming media to reevaluate its definition of MMOs, at least in terms of news coverage. When considering whether to devote coverage to a particular game, we at ZAM have entertained more debates about these issues throughout the past year than ever before (and we're confident in guessing that most other MMO media outlets have as well).

In the case of Battlefield Heroes, for example, we decided to run a beta-preview of the game even though it isn't technically an MMO. It was hyped as an online shooter with "MMO influences" because of its character progression and gear itemization mechanics. It's also a free-to-play and highly-accessible Web-based game (via a browser plug-in, à la Free Realms), but there's no actual "persistent world" to speak of.

Much of the same is true for DotA-style games like League of Legends and our recently-previewed Heroes of Newerth; gameplay is "match-based" but includes what many gamers would consider "MMO-esque" elements like leveling and character progression, persistent gear or item rewards and more. They don't technically qualify as "true" MMOs, but games like these lift some of the most-appealing aspects of the gameplay that MMO fans enjoy.

The result is a middle-ground genre that, in many ways, parallels the success of the burgeoning "social gaming" medium. In fact, we'd be remiss if we didn't mention the growing similarities between online social gaming and MMOs, which we detailed in an earlier editorial. The distinction between MMOs and social games like Farmville is still an "easy call" for most gamers, and aside from the occasional spoof, we don't cover this genre…but we're still keeping a close eye on the impact that social networking is having on MMOs, which is proving to be substantial.

« Previous 1 2

Comments

Post Comment
asdf
# May 25 2010 at 9:41 AM Rating: Good
*
111 posts
Personally, I enjoy your site immensely, but my response here may seem a bit critical. Its meant constructively of course. Just a caveat before reading....

I find your definition of MMO a little constricting. In reality, looking at the acronym, nothing can be inferred about the qualities or features of an "MMO" other than it has a large scale of players and is online. It speaks to nothing about how your game play experience is presented. Character progression (see Borderlands section) and persistence are non-factors. I think the media definition for these games is often wrong. For instance trying to relabel RPG character progression as MMO character progression is a fallacy. Perhaps the only reason for this oft made mistake is the fact that the earliest of these MMOs were RPGs. Having been around this genre since its earlier days (1997 with UO), you never saw anyone doing anything but RPGs. I do not think that is good reason to start constricting the definition of what an MMO is. RPGs were just a very easy integration into this type of game. Now I'm not trying to convince anyone here that halo or any old game with a matchmaking service is an MMO, but I can't fault anyone for thinking in as broad a terms as those.

To me, MMO is perhaps the wrong marketing term to describe these kinds of games, at least from the perspective of persistence. Back in the day, another term we used to describe these games was PSW or persistent state world. Now that term obviously talks to persistence. To me it is a more apt term that you can more legitimately infer things about. I.E. its a persistent state WORLD, and a world has lots of people, so right there you can infer it is something having alot of people on it. Overall I think its just hard to label things and I just want you all to think a little more carefully when trying to pin down exactly what an MMO is. Personally, I think the term MMO now is being used to describe any game or service that enables you to connect to a large and diverse set of gamers to play a particular game, and honestly I am ok with that definition. It is a different approach than the old stick 1k people on a server and let them figure everything out on their. Not saying that that model is outdated either, because that kind of sandbox game is one of my personal preferences....

At the end of the day though, why is this even important? Even in a "true" MMO (in the traditional sense) like WOW, yes you have a "persistent" world with "massive" amounts of players. But the majority of that world is barely used or seen due to the ease of travel (teleports, portals etc), and common points of focus (Ironforge or whatever the popular new gathering place city with Lichking was). There is alot of hardware out there supporting a world where the only thing enjoying it is the AI of the monsters running around out there. Not to mention the fact that in reality the world is self is very static and unchanging. Not to mention the fact that you don't do anything with anymore than 5, 10 or 25 people anyways.... so really, the fact that i can run around in this huge, unused world with a thousand people that I cant truly interact with to do anything worthwhile... well it just makes me think that the definition of what an MMO is unimportant. Having fun in whatever the game creators offer you is what is important =)
asdf
# May 28 2010 at 3:48 PM Rating: Excellent
*
93 posts
Good points, and your remarks are an example of some of the feedback we were looking for; to find out where our readers stand on the issue, and whether or not the definition is really that important at all (compared to the resulting gameplay of a certain title, after all is said and done).

Thanks for the reply.
Semantics; Definitions
# May 24 2010 at 7:15 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,530 posts
WaxPaper wrote:
gameplay is "match-based"


Does this mean "not a massive amount of players (perhaps even a single-digit number)?" If so, then it should not qualify as an MMO right from the start.

WaxPaper wrote:
but includes what many gamers would consider "MMO-esque" elements like leveling and character progression, persistent gear or item rewards and more.


I agree with a few others on this board insofar as the above statement seems to just be a confusion of terms. There wasn't "leveling" before MMOs? There weren't "items" and "armours" before MMOs? These are RPG-elements, not MMO elements, so their being featured in a game is clearly not "MMO-esque.

I suppose the "issue" is essentially reduced to one's definition of "massively multiplayer," however, I would argue that a persistent world is actually a necessary feature of the MMO for functional reasons:

It would seem that the potential to play with around ten people from a lobby is not "massive," but there is a rather sizable gray area. Until a lobby can match a few hundred people at once and merge them into a newly-created world (something which may never be done for several reasons, lengthy queues being one of them), the persistent-world notion appears necessary in order for a game to be properly described as one which has the potential for a "massive" number of simultaneous players, as there seems to be no alternative in facilitating online, large-group (i.e., "massive") interaction.

Edited, May 24th 2010 9:17pm by KaneKitty
Semantics; Definitions
# May 25 2010 at 1:23 AM Rating: Excellent
*
93 posts
Yes; of course leveling, character progression, gear itemization and other elements like these aren't exclusive to MMOs, and are rooted from traditional RPG game mechanics (even as far back as pencil-and-paper D&D).

But what I'm referring to when I use these examples to describe the games I mentioned as "MMO-esque" is the addition of one more important factor: online gameplay with multiple players. When all (or some) of those elements are combined with online multiplayer, then a video game is sometimes considered to be "MMO-like." I agree with you that we probably couldn't say the same about many other games that include RPG elements and influences, but the "online multiplayer" factor is a different story, which is why the MMO community and media (not just ZAM) pays attention to some of the games referenced in this editorial. But at the same time, and as I mentioned in the beginning, there's no way the majority of gamers would consider something like Halo 2 an MMO, even though it's played online by a massive amount of players. The "persistent world" is still an important factor, but I don't think it's necessarily the be-all, end-all definition of MMOs anymore, either.
MMO is a buzz word
# May 24 2010 at 1:14 PM Rating: Good
***
2,881 posts
the problem here is a confusion of acronyms. MMOs have been so closely associated with RPGs that people sometimes freely use either term to define the same thing. when you mention League of Legends and Battlefield Heroes, you say they are described as "MMO-esque" because they feature character progression and item collection; however, neither of these elements have anything to with MMOs. these are RPG elements.

further, it is not hard to imagine how different types of games would operate on an MMO level, even though i haven't played any that i would use with the MMO prefix.

a MMOFPS (or MMORTS) could be based on skill rather than player progression by making all weapons available from the beginning. that someone brand new to the game could grab a weapon and join the fray without being so over matched that they could never help their team (imagine a lv1 vs a lv75 in FFXI). the MMO aspect of it would come from how the battles are tallied, which could work like a huge game of capture the flag with tons of flags. player or weapon progression would be RPG elements.

i tried to come up with an idea to make MMO-racing sound plausible, but every time i finished, i thought that the game wouldn't be any different than having an online leader board with points on a single player game, or a game where have to play online and every race is against real people. in either case, its definitely not massive. additionally, win or lose, no one cares but you, which again doesn't feel MMO at all.

a MMO needs to continue on without you so that changes that took place while you were away affect you. this is the persistent world. but in addition to that you need some sort of teamwork, either us vs them or good buys vs bad guys. if there was no cooperation, there would be no point in playing online vs offline.
MMO is a buzz word
# May 24 2010 at 6:18 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,882 posts
Buront wrote:


i tried to come up with an idea to make MMO-racing sound plausible, but every time i finished, i thought that the game wouldn't be any different than having an online leader board with points on a single player game, or a game where have to play online and every race is against real people. in either case, its definitely not massive. additionally, win or lose, no one cares but you, which again doesn't feel MMO at all.


easy, simple idea:
It's a bit RPGish/social gaming-like, but say you have a racing team of 5-10 people or however many is common. The team has to use individual skills, the best of which are only available to specialists, as a whole to improve their car. One person drives against cars from other teams on the server, or possibly alone but the computer compares their time against other teams' times from a specific period. Between races there are different things people can do, such as socialize with their team or other players, develop their skills, or just waste time with mini-games or small challenges.
Multitudes of Multiplayer Online Games
# May 24 2010 at 8:39 AM Rating: Good
Apparently character progression and multiple players over the internet is all that's required to be an MMO now. The first "M" seems to be a bit silly at this point.

So TF2 and CoD are MMOs, now. WiC, too. Are Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter MMOs, now? I mean, friend/follower counts are a constantly progressing stat that people farm like experience points. All they need now is to provide some kind of upgrade to your page when you reach certain milestones on your friend count, and we'll see some 'Zam coverage for sure on the latest Twitter strategies and Facebook patches.
Multitudes of Multiplayer Online Games
# May 24 2010 at 12:07 PM Rating: Excellent
*
93 posts
To be fair, and as I eluded in the editorial, we're pretty selective when it comes to covering games that aren't "true" MMOs. In the case of video games that are blatantly not MMOs, our coverage is quite small, too...sometimes just one single feature. But if we only covered persistent-world, traditional MMOs, we wouldn't be able to provide news and info about a lot of games that our community is interested in, like League of Legends.

I don't think you have to worry about ZAM ever going "overboard" or "off the deep end"...Like I mentioned, a huge factor in determining which games we cover is you, the readers and community members. The ZAM community plays a larger role in what we cover than some people might think.
eh
# May 23 2010 at 12:50 PM Rating: Decent
I see more gaming publications making these mistakes more than publishers who are quick to label something a MMO or an RPG. It seems some even give the terms with each other since characters development should only make one think of an RPG first, not an MMO. The scale of the world, the persistence of the economy, and the over-all level of player interaction with each other and the world should determine what is an MMO. I see games like Monster Hunter labeled as either an MMO or an RPG a lot in gaming publications and all I can do is shake my head in dismay when one can barely define an an multi-player online action-adventure game.

MH is limited to 4 player instances so its definitely not massive and player interaction and trade is limited where most dealings are with NPCs than other players. Much like Zelda their is no state development, only weapon, armor, and item acquisition to help one develop and progress. The emphasis on defeating foes is in tactics rather than attributes which is how I would say action elements are defined where RPGs are focused on stats and some strategy since you can't beat a traditional RPG with strategy alone.
What I consider...
# May 23 2010 at 10:08 AM Rating: Default
...to be an MMO is any game that has:

1) persistent world; meaning the world stays even after everyone logs out

2) 64+ players that can see each other (ie same zone, or same instance [AoC])

3) Character progression beyond that of items (EVE qualifies due to skill trainings)

It also boils down to would I ever consider playing it.

PS:

Where the hell is our ".hack//sign"-like MMO, because I'm tired of playing in the virtual world...I want to be IN the virtual world.
What makes a true MMO
# May 23 2010 at 5:04 AM Rating: Decent
What defines a MMO? Whether it be a RPG, RTS, FPS, or whatever 3 letter acronym you can think of I do believe there are certain criteria involved with labeling something a MMO.

It's true that consoles games with online multiplayer are quite the norm nowadays, but I believe that hardly makes them MMO's. Sure you're playing across the globe in a game that many people are playing, but are they all playing in the same world at once?

This is the factor that defines the MMO experience for me, many players playing at once in the same world. 16-32 multiplayer frag fests do not a MMO make. If you're going to call something an MMO you should be able to do something with hundreds of other players in the same world.

The only other requisite I would place on defining an MMO experience is the ability to communicate in some sort of meaningful way. You can't really get to know the guy that headshotted you with a sniper from across the map really well, nor would you want to.

In an environment with hundreds of players all competing, sharing, and experiencing the same things community must be an integral part. Without a community to interact with and get to know, MMO's by default will fail. Why do you think FFXI has survived so long?

MMO and the widening market
# May 22 2010 at 8:12 PM Rating: Decent
I love WoW. I also like a bunch of other less established online games. The landscape of advanced gaming which began for my generation with the strategy boardgames that you can still find at most sci-fi/fantasy stores (D&D, Diplomacy, etc...). Each time a new attempt at one of these styles of games came out (i.e. Diplomacy =>Risk) the seasoned audiences would groan and belittle the new 'wannabe'. This sort of reaction is just the natural resistance in people to change. I've always wondered if we dislike change simply because we don't want to have to start over learning again. But that's a topic for another day.

The truth is there are brilliant advances in all disciplines spaced out over time. Few could argue that with out D&D and the digital subsequent 'Neverwinter Nights' the WoW would probably not exist.

So, here we are all involved and veterans of a simply fantastic game called WoW and as other less established and complex games try their hand at the market, we say 'whatever, just another copy' but the truth is without those copies we would never find the next great thing.

So, yes. Definine a domain is important. Laying out the expected rules and requirements for what we call an MMO is probably a good exercise because it allow new ideas to be channeled and focused. But at the same time, it always seems to hold true in every domain and walk of life, The More the Merrier.

:-)
Post Comment

Free account required to post

You must log in or create an account to post messages.