“MMO” Means Nothing Anymore

Thanks for watching! We hope you enjoy.
Join us on Patreon for exclusive content & loot! / join
Follow me on Twitter: / bellulargaming
Chat on our Discord: / discord
Our game studio's website: bellular.games/ 👀

[@Poldovico]

A few days ago, I was trying to climb the tower from the FF14 summer event. There were a bunch of people trying the climb at the same time, sharing tips, making jokes, chatting about anything. I was at it for four days, and over that time I saw the same people trying and talking, day after day. Some took a liking to me, I guess, because they started noticing whenever I tried the tower again, offering praise when I made it higher and encouragement when I fell. Eventually, I reached the top, only to find a small group of the people who had been cheering me on over the climb were waiting at the top, hanging out and welcoming players who made it there. One was a Bard who had taken to playing music to pass the time. I joined them and we spent the evening talking about whatever, seeing the people climb, cheering for them when they made it up, taking screenshots and watching the fireworks. To me, the possibility to have experiences like this is what makes an MMO special. Lobby games with a loot treadmill can't do that.

[@justsomeguy4422]

FFXIV really do be a treasure of a game. to find experiences you really dont come across in other mmo's, and especially through social aspect as youve described.

[@Poldovico]

@@justsomeguy4422 Maybe, but I can't see how a similar thing couldn't happen in WoW or Guild Wars 2. In contrast, I can't see how it could happen in Diablo Immortal or Warframe.

[@BoredDan7]

I was literally watching this video as I got to the top of the tower for my third time. At the top sitting there was someone who I was climbing with day one who got their first summit around the same time I did. This is really what makes something an mmo to me, is that shared world. It's having this persistent space that you and others all occupy together. I don't care if the battle content is instanced, so long as that shared world is there, that anchor point for the experience, where you many of the same faces but also tonnes of strangers all doing there own thing.

[@burnersforhim]

i can’t wait to get all my friends on my vampire themed island

[@_Encie]

@@burnersforhim don't expect that much customization from it lol

[@anti-macro]

Above all else, to me the defining characteristic of an MMO is a persistent shared virtual world inhabited by a community. A lot of games I see labeled as "MMO" are nothing more than lobby games that feature some of the content often seen in MMOs, like dungeons/raids Eorzea, Azeroth, Tamriel, Tyria etc. aren't just maps, they're fully realized worlds made alive by their playerbase. If a game doesn't have that, it's not an MMO.

[@Legodudeguy123]

This. As a 3,000+ hour Destiny veteran and a 800+ Warframe player, I would never call them a MMO and attempt to compare them to WoW or FFXIV, their completely different beasts. Josh Stryfe Hayes’ videos on what a MMORPG is and what a MORPG is perfectly summarize their differences, and I 100% stand by that. It would be more accurate to call games like Destiny and Warframe Diablo-likes, their natural evolutions of the formula Diablo pioneered ages ago, just with a light sprinkling of elements found in MMO’s.

[@uppsie]

One of the things I like to point out when people argue about like Destiny 2 vs say FFXIV is that in FFXIV on my server if I go to like Limsa and see everyone standing around, I can leave and rezone into limsa again and those same people would be there. There is a genuine coherent community that can interact in that open world. In destiny 2 if I load into the EDZ i'm dumped into an instance of it with a bunch of random people and if I leave and come back I end up in another random instance with different people. People that I very likely will never run into again. This is one of the reasons why a lot of people in WoW feel that sharding has kind of damaged the game. Sure, it helps Blizzard keep some worlds looking more populated for people who play on otherwise dead servers without having them get the bad PR that server merges usually brings, but it comes at the sacrifice of something that I think most people felt was a core aspect of an MMO.

[@DrakkarCalethiel]

You hit the nail on the head with this one. This SHOULD be the defacto standard when a game can be called a MMO.

[@AeriFyrein]

I've been saying this for nearly 20 years, ever since the original Guild Wars (Prophecies) was released, and people started calling it an MMO. If the *playable* game areas are not shared/persistent, then the game is NOT an MMO, in my opinion. Lobby games should NEVER be considered an MMO. As soon as you start going down this path, nearly any halfway-modern multiplayer game becomes an MMO. The limits that modern game engines and hardware allow may blur the definition of "massively," but there is still a vast difference between a game being "massively multiplayer" and simply having a massive number of players overall.

[@cizmar1972]

Exactly

[@thorn_lekoh]

There's a difference between "couch coop but we have the internet now so it's online" multiplayer and MMO-like multiplayer where it's more like "we play people that live in the same space". The element of a "virtual world" (or what crypto bros would love for us all to call "metaverse") in my opinion is what the MMO is about.

[@tromend]

"EVE!" **Proceeds to show just a freaking spreadsheet** YES! THAT'S MY GAME! ... It is accurate tho.

[@bitfrost9]

To me, what defines the classic MMORPG genre is not simply the fact that a game is an MMO while also being an RPG. It is how the MMO part combines and interacts with the RPG part that matters. The idea that your character is an extension of you as a player in a digital world is what makes it an RPG. An important factor to make that connection between player and character is the constant progression of the character through the experiences and efforts of the player. What form that progression takes varies by game and player. It could be a grind for stronger gear, raiding stronger bosses, competitive PvP, achievement/collectible hunting, or even simply RP. The main thing is the player effort directly contributes to the progression/development of their character (or characters in some cases) thus solidifying the player as part of the world the character lives in. Now when that world the character lives in is also inhabited by a massive amount of players, it becomes an MMORPG by definition. But in order to truly connect the MMO and RPG terms, there has to be a level of community; not just a community that exists in the same world, but one where there is potential for players to interact with one another in the course of their individual pursuits of progression. Generally speaking, that would mean the ability to form parties or guilds catered towards end game content, but there are other simpler interactions players can have with each other. Player trading for example is a core form of interaction in any MMORPG (to refer to an example in your video, Monster Hunter does not have this). Emotes are another simple interaction that gives players ways to express themselves in game through their character. In a shared hub, emotes and chat channels form an expressive connection between characters; and players by extension. Another interaction would be some form of ability to either compare your progress with others in the world, or to show off your own personal progress. A collector showing off his Warglaives of Azzinoth; a PvP veteran sporting high rank exclusive rewards; FF14 ultimate weapons; etc. All of these are milestones can be made visible to others as a way of showing off, and that in itself is community interaction. These are things that made me fall in love with MMORPGs and they are sadly often overlooked by developers who just want to slap the MMORPG tag on their game.

[@royalecrafts6252]

Mmorpg has hardly any rpg elements like classic true table rpgs, like baldurs divinity pillars wasteland and so on, on mmo you just have a fetched quest system and linear guidelines, boring items, boring crafting, boring fetched combat, is not immersive enough nor does it provide you multiple ways to finish a single quest chain, mmo yes, rpg? Nah is as hard as a titanium box

[@DeeFourCee]

I don’t consider Warframe an MMO myself but an ARPG corridor shooter with occasional open world elements. They are working on a new open world area in their next Major update which sounds like it a much larger scale project than their 3 prior open world dynamic and exploration areas

[@Ecenchill]

Points for the opening song bellular, we all lift together is a banger.

[@miqotesoulia8620]

all I know is that the MMO I play right now is #1 and it feels great. TONS of players on, content always being done not forgetten. Helping new players make their way through the world. Happy af. (its the critically acclaimed MMO--- heh you know)

[@MythrilZenith]

I feel like MMO is the new marketing hotness that everyone is jumping on now, just like BR or Survival or eSport used to be. Just stretching the definition and watering it down to milk profits from a new wave of players who are craving something of that particular type but haven't really solidified a particular style. Playing OSRS, one of the last "traditional" MMOs still popular, most of the time the existence of other players doesn't seem to matter. Unless I'm on a super populated world I'll see maybe a handful of players in any particular session, and unless I'm doing something like mining or fighting where their existence directly interferes with my ability to do what I want I will rarely even notice them. Seldom do people talk, and when they do they get short answers like "go to the GE" or "look up a guide." Landscape has greatly changed. That said, OSRS is undoubtedly an MMORPG, whereas I wouldn't give the same description to something like PoE or Diablo Immortal even if it's common for marketing to do so.

[@DracoSuave]

New? This nonsense has been done for quite a while.

[@MrMittenshasatophat]

There is nothing new about MMO being used as a marketing term that lost all its meaning. Its been a meaningless word for well over 10 years now. Honestly more.

[@christophercelmer405]

I dont know about everyone else but I want rpg back into my mmo. Everything has turned into a rush to optimize fest instead of just enjoying the game, world, and collaboration.

[@Pantaro2007]

yep, everyone wants to debate everything but this 90% of the time. the genre becoming mainstream has effectively killed what made the genre special.

[@_Encie]

Meta is the key word. This shit takes so much freedom and fun away

[@Mishakeet]

That ship has long sailed my dude. If you can optimize, people will. That's the reality.

[@alexandrebelair4360]

@@_Encie You don't have to play meta and meta was a thing since forever.

[@alexandrebelair4360]

Optimizing is human nature.

[@lilybunne]

That's the problem with tying a genre to an abbreviation. When you judge them by what the abbreviation means and not genre precedent, like 90% of games are "Role Playing" games, any game with a sizeable online community is "Massively Multiplayer" in a sense. The way these genres are defined will continue to evolve over time, and maybe we'll end up with a subgenre title for "classic" MMORPGs, the same way we can split Bayonetta and DMC and such away from just Action Games with the subgenre Character Action.

[@dragonriderabens9761]

Could someone explain why people say the definition of an RPG has been ruined I genuinely do not understand this take

[@alchemi8085]

@@dragonriderabens9761 Back in the day, actual "role" playing games often had a character sheet involved and a fairly involved backstory for your character. Characters were unique. Or they had a very specific task in group play. A lot of games claiming to be RPGs today maybe are to an extent, but not to the same degree as games in the past.

[@lhfirex]

@@dragonriderabens9761 Nearly every game today has leveling and loot, even when it's a genre that doesn't really need it. So almost every game has those RPG elements, especially the ones from bigger studios.

[@GetterRay]

Character Action is a terrible non-descript term as well. I prefer the term that Capcom uses to describe DMC, Stylish Action, over something that is just as vague and broad as "Multiplayer Online Battle Arena". Which should really be called Aeon of Strife Style Fortress Assault Game Going On Two Sides.

[@VagrantFox]

I've been internally screaming about this for years! The dissolution of what is means to be an MMO drives me nuts. Few things are as upsetting as searching for a new MMO to play with and seeing lists of shit like Destiny and Warframe. Both great games that execute their gameplay loops well, and which pull from an objectively massive pool of players, but traditional (classic) MMOs they are not. These marketing "MMOs" lack the open-world-as-default paradigm. The persistence of existing in an economy powered by player crafters. Housing. The chance you'll be adventuring in the woods and come across 100 players having some party or other frivolous activities. The things that ground the player in a world SHARED with everyone else. They're fine games, but MMOs they are not.

[@gharm9129]

Great post but the word you're lf is "dilution" not "dissolution". Over all I agree, we have strict definitions of what an MMO comprises and current publishers/ devs stretch, ignore or have no clue or maybe they think they're creating something new by relabeling/ recycling other game designs.

[@Sir_Lagg_A_Lot]

I agree with you. I have played warframe, and I wouldn't call it an MMO, even tho it is a very good game. I have even heard people calling World of Tanks an MMO, and it is a queue 15v15 team pvp game. The term MMO has been applied to too many things and lost its meaning.

[@gharm9129]

@@Sir_Lagg_A_Lot Yeah, I've seen recently some calling Chivalry 2 an mmo even lol

[@skiing4everPS3]

I think shared hubs are underrated a bit. A LOT of FFXIV's end game isn't "Oh we're a massive RPG where we have everyone running fates and alliance raids all the time", it's "Hey we're in Limsa or Gold Saucer hanging out in our best glam, showing off and chatting". Should Warframe's hub have more direct social interactions in the hub/be a bigger part of where you are rather than something you pass through unless you have an active party (say it had like The Slice is Right or Leap of Faith) then wouldn't it literally fit everything FFXIV is doing 99% of the time that we're doing with other players? The hub IS the core concept of an MMO imo, and it's how that hub is made to be a place where players WANT to congregate and show off.

[@NaoyaYami]

The one time I tried FFXIV trial (I have maybe 1hr total in that title for now) I was absolutely in love with potential of all those emotes you can use even when sitting in a chair. I guess I feel nostalgic about truly social, carefree adventuring MMORPG even though I've never had a chance to play one myself :(

[@alexandrebelair4360]

@@NaoyaYami These emote were only used by weirdo back then.

[@ever-changingbeing]

To me, MMO means being together with thousands of people in a freaking big Open World RPG game which offers infinitely repeatable dungeon & raid based content alongside world bosses. Social hub games are shouldn't be considered MMO. They can be. That's the problem. They shouldn't be.

[@fallengarden]

Exactly.

[@NaoyaYami]

If Destiny or Warframe are MMOs, then you could just add public lobby/hub to a game like Borderlands and make it "MMO" which is completely absurd. Even original Guild Wars shouldn't be considered MMORPG as it was nothing else but cooperative, instance-based RPG with plenty of player hubs.

[@katomamundara8106]

When was the last time you'd have 1000+ people in the same instance however? Even WoW doesn't do that anymore. Hasn't for ages and it's the quintissential 'modern' MMO (while XIV's arguably *the* Modern MMO). That definition is a bit extreme, unfair, if not outdated because of the hindrances/issues it brought gameplay.

[@ever-changingbeing]

@@katomamundara8106 Definition should describe what the genre is about, not what you have in the market atm. If i wrote hundreds instead of thousands the point would be the same.

[@katomamundara8106]

@@ever-changingbeing Yes, but your initial 'definition' implies that many contemporary examples of an MMO, including WoW, would be disqualified because they limit the instance limit in the hundred(s). WoW and FFXIV for example. All because you said thousands. And then, at what minimal point do we 'draw the line' between 'MMO' or not? How many people at one time? How arbitrary must we get? Must it be in every zone all the time? IN that respect, Destiny for example, despite capping somewhere around 20 people in an instance, would classify as an MMO. But some would argue, subjectively if not arbitrarily, that that wouldn't make it 'massive'. What does count as massive then? And thus comes the problem because massive has 2 definitions - one for mass, and one for volume. Mass being it needs to just be a large measurement by standard comparison (IE: Zone Size). Volume implies 'exceptionally large', compared to average. (IE: Population size) Now, this is compared to what? 2-player multiplayer games? 20 people is 'massive' compared to even '4' player multiplayer which was the common in those days. Arguably even compared to the rare 10 players in PC games. How about zone size? When does a zone become 'massive' compared to a non-MMO example? There is no actual standard, and comparing even to Singleplayers, many Contemporary MMOs do not have the 'Area' requirement nowadays compared to modern Singleplayers like Skyrim. Comparing almost any modern MMO to your initial statement (Everquest, classic WoW, etc) almost nothing meets the '1000s'. So where do we draw the line on the modern 'massive'? Your definition is your arbitrary general perception. And while I agree to a degree on requiring at least hundreds visible at a time, it also is biased and I could accept that no longer being the case and now requiring but dozen(s) of people. Nothing in the phrase MMO implies anything beyond - Massive. Multiplayer. Online. Role-Playing. Game. And none of those mention a need for Repeatable Dungeons or even Raids - they're just standards we've come to accept. The issue ultimately comes down to the fact that 'massive' has, arguably and likely, too subjective a meaning.

[@dinabrown6529]

GW2 is still an mmo, open world is still massive with lots of people doing events killing world bosses exploring the world.

[@Mystra]

Agreed

[@Repenter0]

An MMO and an MMORPG are not fundamentally different things, its just that MMORPG has largely cooped the entire concept of MMO. There are MMOFPS like Planetside1&2 and a few others. There are MMORTS like Shattered Galaxies (a very old game admittedly) but I'd argue stuff like Conquerors Blade still applies here too. MMO just means massive multiplayer online, nothing more, nothing less. Its a very broad brush and obviously isn't inclusive just to EQ clones even if thats how its been used in general discourse for awhile.

[@kiriuxeosa8716]

The question isn't do multiple people play a game online its can multiple people play online and interact with each other together in a social environment as well as play the game cooperatively. Damn near every single game now has an online aspect to it but not many bring people in to a cooperative environment where direct communication is permitted but yeah alot of the current games can be considered mmos as they are adding the social areas normally not seen in that genre like in fighting games and fps games. Normally for those the only time you can interact with the group is in the lobby, now we have gathering areas where you with a mini avatar can go and talk to people and then enjoy the game together

[@xrystal]

The part of mmo games I play are the interactions with the community. I craft stuff and then sell it to other players. SWG for example I literally spent all gameplay gathering and crafting and trading with other players. Sims online I would count as an mmo only because there were high numbers of people you could play with such as opening your house to the public and having maybe 50 or 100 people sitting around your home chatting while skilling up using your interactive furniture.

[@hkoizumi3134]

This problem seems like a language issue. A word may sound the same but means differently between two separate countries. The publisher and developers use MMO as a marketing word while players or consumers define it as a genre or culture. FF14 certainly knows it's being used as marketing because it tireless try to convey to their fanbase about their MMO experience.

[@TyrWolf88]

NerdSlayer's been going on about MORPG and MMORPG like they are still useful terms. So many games can be described as multiplayer online roleplaying games that I've been arguing that we should just use more specific terminology, like we could call Destiny 2 a "MORPG" or we could just call it a multiplayer online looter shooter, which tells you more about the actual gameplay experience you're going to have.

[@LukaSauperl]

Destiny 2 has an open world where you can have many many players. I'm sure that many play the instanced stuff, but I personally spent most of my time in the open world just running around, killing stuff and discovering hidden things.

[@smakajo400]

A literal virtual alternate reality. Something that is "alive" and can be manipulated with or without my presence. Planetside, for instance, is a massive multiplayer online first-person shooter where the objective is total conquest of the map. Your presence or lack of can influence what conclusions will play out. There is no "instance" or regulated group set to accomplish a path laid out, but something that can be calculated and planned preemptively or in the spur of the moment. I literally was in a unit that was a part of a uniform with a guy who was leading actions and others were calling out what was going on as if it was a real battlefield, not a single time did I believe I was on my own. There was also a battle at a bridge simply for tanks to cross, and my presence as an engineer with my spawned turret caused others around me to do the same since they found out how effective that was, conclusively ended with my factions tanks taking the bridge and causing a push to the next settlement. Though it lacks a story, because there was not one included, it had gameplay value, a community that empowers the gameplay, and a world set by default to play on. Though I cannot fly worth shit in this game, it really got me stingy as to what I'm looking for in an MMO.

[@xKaisora]

I think people are mistakenly calling Warframe an MMO because they hear that they added several open world elements. In reality the most amount of players you can play with at any given mission is always 4 even in the open world areas. The only time you ever see more than 4 people is in dojos, the bazaar, or relays. (all of which are trading/reputation hubs)

[@Talsbynians]

Love these kind of exploration discussion videos

[@Frosthowl93]

Bellular just taking the opportunity to use void music in video form.

[@Kat1kafka]

Mmo means second job now

[@MrPatchy248]

Stop, I was just singing We All Lift Together just before clicking on this video notification

[@vc4961]

There will never be a 'next big' mmo, ppl been waiting forever already

[@oscarespino893]

I think there's enough market space to have a theme park style MMO and a traditional approach. The only major difference is how projects are scoped in that traditional approach as well as honest projections on player attention for that group. The theme parks will always attract the most guests but there will be a group that will find that laissez-faire traditional design breathtaking.

[@arkhamcreed4326]

As a casual player who refuses to grind repeatable content and doesn't give a crap about gear scores as long as I can complete content, for me an MMO has a very simple context. It is a game I can play with my friends. All of them. Not a limited co-op, or a 1v1 fighter or something. It's a game where my buddies and I can all log into the same playspace, party up, and go do something fun. Even if we can't all party up together, we can form a guild or a clan, and still all dispatch to the same play area and go off together in spite of that limit...forming an unofficial party made of smaller parties. Basically it isn't about the type of content, the gameplay loop, progression system, open world or instance; it's about being able to get as many friends as possible all in the same virtual space at the same time, having fun.

[@CHEFPKR]

MMOs, to me, require a persistent world that exists when I log off. Where things happen when I'm not around. A massive boss falls, a raid is finished etc.

[@TankHunter678]

As I saw on another youtubers channel the MORPG genre has always existed, and actually predates the MMORPG. The thing is that what we would consider a MORPG now back in the day would be considered a MMORPG, because back then having a server that held up to 100 people was massive. Where having a group of 4 or 5 people together is a pretty sizable group. MORPGs getting caught up in the MMORPG was a downside because MORPGs work better then MMORPGs. The focus on small group dynamics in the shared persistent world makes things easier to design around, and you get to flesh out the world itself by making the NPCs more varied in action in how they interact with the environment, the player, and other NPCs. As in a MMORPG you could have hundreds of players running through the area and so you need to keep simulation down so that these players do not stutter their way through the game.

[@shutup1037]

Yea usually have better action combat and better mobility

[@demi9672]

Never heard that 'MORPG' term, and ive personally played The Fourth Coming, Helbreath and other mmorpgs of that time.

[@LoopStricken]

Cold, the air and water flowing

[@KaueCoral]

In a rapidly lonelier society this is the true new definition of MMO: Massive Isolate Players with a few Groups to do few Stuff...

[@HCSR2]

I remember when GTA:SA came out and people started arguing it was an RPG because CJ had stats that improved and progressed through your gameplay option: e.g., going to the gym. The MMO label is being diluted the same way now but I have a feeling it will either rectify itself like RPGs did when real RPG games started coming out making the distinction very clear, or a new term will be born to describe them and MMO will be used more of a distinction like single player, co-op, multiplayer online, massively multiplayer online.

[@TheShugoBR]

yes, MMO still useful, and Guild Wars 2 is the best definition of it right now.... specially with World Bosses where you gather 50+ people to defeat it, and the WvW where you fight squadrons of 50 people vs 50 people or even more on epic battles to capture a castle for a week

[@jamesquinn8558]

My serious gaming started with Baldur’s Gate laterElder Scrolls-series. I went to explore MMO’s because I wanted bigger worlds to explore but I’ve never cared for socializing. I’m not looking for friends or groups to play with. I like character building. I like people being around simp,y because watching what they do is often amusing.

[@kazukoohashi7171]

Features a game needs in order to be considered an MMO: Archaic mechanics like levels and stat points that are holdovers from traditional pen&paper RPGs that serve no real purpose other than to give players a false sense of progression. A complex system of abilities, talents and traits, most of which will be promptly ignored as soon as the meta is solved. A sprawling overworld populated by various monsters and NPCs that will be completely empty by week two while players idle in the capitol cities. A beautifully written, fully voiced and cohesive narrative that players will skip over as fast as possible in their race to "endgame", so they can run the same instanced content week after week while complaining that the game has nothing to do. Endless, mind-numbing grinds for piddling rewards that ninety nine percent of the playerbase will never engage with because they value the few shreds of sanity that remain. And of course side content that will cause the forums to erupt in anger because the devs are "wasting time" on things that aren't relevant to an increasingly insignificant minority of players.

[@xxKYTHExx]

i personally have always viewed MMO not just in terms of if it is multiplayer and played online, but just as importantly how much "horizontal" content the game provides. take lost ark for example, yes it is open world with multiple people playing simultaneously but in essence it only offers only one vertical content which is getting stronger with levels and gear. on the other hand take FF14 for example, yes you have the vertical content of gearing but it is not definitely limited to that. From collecting mounts, glams, doing housing, crafting, rp with friends and your free company (aka guild), playing the market to earn lots of currency, and even just playing ala harvest moon/ animal crossing on your own island, the horizontal content is just huge. perhaps the industry needs a better term to distinguish between such type of games because i do agree that the term MMO nowadays seem to apply to just about any game that can be played online with other people.

[@LimbaZero]

MMO Usually has large maps where players start and grind. Then they also have dungeons/raids. Played long time ago wow and now randomly GW2. What I currently play is No Mans Sky. Not sure did their "expedition" mode put them also in "MMO" category. When starting expedition all players start in same planet in different locations and go to search way points around the galaxy. OK you can also play that mode in offline. Sometime basically necessary because you can't find land to make base etc :) It also have "dungeon" but they are community quests that you take from anomaly. These quest are usually in one star systems so if you create group in anomaly you can go with your group and all spawn in same solar system.

[@SmugglerSteel]

MMORPG got shortened to MMO as human want to do, and the internet culture trends of shortening words for brevedy. At that time it didn't matter most people knew what you meant when you said MMO = MMORPG. At the time most games that fit the definition of Massive Multi-Player Online were games like WOW and such. It's just more genere migrated into fitting the notion of MMO and used the term mean they were Massive and Multi-players online but they totally skipped out on the RPG part. Then it got jumbled. Myself having lived in the MMO=MMORPG still think of it as games like WOW or FF14. I personally want the RPG part to be in the mix or I am just not interested. Doing only gear grinding, with little support for elements that allow you to create something beyond it isn't a MMORPG to me. It might be MMO but not MMORPG.

[@jamesjohn7827]

calm down comb over boy!

[@cyphi474]

Way, way back in time, when i was way younger, i bought gaming magazine and read about Ultima Online. Man, you can share world with other players, you can contribute any way you want. Like example catching fish entire day, but instead of just selling it to npc, you can sell it to other players who need it for crafting. That had me hooked pretty much instantly. Thats what i see when you say mmo(rpg). It just today its technically correct, but not to the point used term. Its became broader definition. From that point is allright call all multi-massive online games mmo, but more speciffic subgenre is needed to diversify.

[@TheSteveSchulz]

Is it even worth debating? There's always some degree of purist who will debate the status of a game as an MMO. The fact that GW1 gets the designation of "lite" MMO is hilarious to me when the VAST majority of people back in its heyday called it straight up an MMO. Yes, there were of course purists who pointed to its lobby-like, instance-based design as a knock on it being an MMO at all, but those people were utterly *rare*, because the people who actually played it realized it had a lot of MMO elements like guilds, trading, a progression/skill-building system, etc. Consider that even the term RPG is amorphous. Mass Effect is sometimes considered an RPG by people, because players make choices for Shepard and essentially inhabit the role. That, to me, is a justifiable argument as to why it is an RPG. But you'll get people who argue that s/he is not an avatar representation of the player, even though some players do view it that way, and therefore it's not really an RPG. And I don't necessarily disagree with them, because players *can* view Shepard not as an avatar. But that whole concept of the "avatar" is outdated anyway. It's an example of a term "authorities" on genres define and use just to push their own ideas on people. Hell, Planetside used to be considered an MMO, and yet its design is not unlike Fortnite's 50v50 mode. And yet people today don't think of Fortnite as an MMO. Why? Because the definition changes based on what is the "norm" for a period of time. And yet, for its time, Planetside very much was an MMO because games rarely could do multiplayer on that scale (especially in the shooter genre). Games are in a weird space. Its genres are more debatable than what you typically find in other mediums, because they incorporate ludic concepts that iterate or change so much more than typical "genres" of movies, books, etc. Sci-fi is pretty easy to understand when what is fiction merely depends on what is possible at the time. But even "fantasy" is debatable, considering you can have fantasy in a futuristic setting when people don't commit to the science part of sci-fi, for example. Game genres are that debate on a much greater scale. The only clear-cut ones to me seem to be in the shooter format when you can clearly distinguish a first person shooter given its camera placement.

[@Haimi-fv5xj]

12:01 I was listening to you present those terms and yeah, I was thinkjng monha. It's absurd, but it fills the bill. It's also more fun to me than any other game you talked about, so ...

[@sweepingtime]

I really dislike the idea that we are losing something as the MMOG genre evolves. Especially so in this video where it goes off into a point where it talks about how in some MMOGs the threat of PVP makes the game world feel more 'dangerous'. No it didn't. Open world PVP made games tedious and trolling. The wilderness of Ultima Online was roamed by naked adventurers because they couldn't afford to lose their best armour and weapons on some simple gathering foray, and visually it looked ridiculous. A lot has been said about players creating the content for others, but look at the failures of things like Fallout 76 and the lesson is that players are more likely to create no content rather than to do the devs' work for them.

[@shakeweller]

"MMO means nothing anymore" *proceeds to show clip of himself keyboard turning in 2022* Me: "Nothing has changed." :D

[@vikkran401]

Keyboard turning is better for videos

[@SuperLogan8054]

Love intro music. Please do a warframe video. I and I'm sure many others would love to see discussion on story, developers and game. It's truly a free to play done right any veteran can explain why. Also other types of content made for the game like fan art, videos etc

[@Gibraltar_Gamers]

Bellular, you are smashing it with these vids!

[@mismismism]

I always thought the "massively" in MMO meant a shared world. Just having a hub and co-op missions is not an MMO IMO, that's just a game with multiplayer.

[@kamishawe1890]

Agreed, mmo as a definitive description is redundant in this day and age. No matter how it’s executed, ANY game that has massive amounts of people interacting online with each other tech is a mmo. Call of Duty, Eve, LoL, Overwatch, Ark Survival, Minecraft, etc. It’s all mmos. Because of that shift in how games are distributed and consumed, the “old” definition of the mmo genre games needs a new genre name IMO.

[@AlexFDR]

its been quite a few years since the tagline mmo meant anything to me, when games like league of legends, world of tanks and other instanced/match based pvp games started being considered mmos, i just tuned out. A very similar issue has been cropping with the rogue like/lite tags being used interchangeably which annoys me to all hell.

[@Zyixxx]

I'm so looking forward to Pantheon Rise of the Fallen. Very old school MMO design philosophy.

[@uglystupidloser]

massively multiplayer online. whether it means massive world or massive player count in a world, i am not sure. it would make sense to have both to accommodate either. and, from there, you have "social mechanics" come into play. a comment here mentioned climbing the tower in ff14, and that experience was something that he was sharing in real time as he kept trying and failing. other game mechanics like world records, auction houses, and parties could all be done outside of an mmorpg, but the mmo aspect gives you a more intimate connection with the community doing these things. you can see what other people are doing, and you can interact with them. the mmorpg is just the ballroom, and the players are trying to navigate the social arena. is destiny an mmo fps? you have social hubs, dungeon instances, and can meet new people...but you dont really CARE about other people. its not really... a community thats online. sure, you have dedicated players and a community that interacts with each other OFFLINE, but what are they doing together in game? it feels like destiny just has the social mechanics of an mmo at just a pure surface level. and their gameplay and level design does nothing to encourage players cooperating or competing. everyone else might as well be npcs. why would you interact with anyone else in destiny? IS there a reason to? why do mmorpgs keep having distinct classes, why was wows horde vs alliance so loved, why is it that people come together for community events in mmorpgs and the highlight is the memories that they can make with OTHER PEOPLE? the loot drops and new skins are just like a birthday cake at the party. people can come and ENJOY something TOGETHER. it is the relationships that we are really celebrating and keeps the genre alive. the "cake" or the loot is just what gets people to come together. maybe destiny is an mmo fps. but i think its poorly done as an mmo, if it is to be considered as one.

[@demi9672]

MMO is just an umbrella term when a game has a shared state between players. Either shared Currency/items/events/gamedesign/missions.

[@PearseNation]

I’m fine with a distinction between classic MMOs, pvp MMOs, and instance MMOs. I know which ones I prefer (instance and then classic).

[@Arrow333]

Back in the time "MMO" was just the short version of "MMORPG". So when other games from other genres moved towards the shared online world experience, they all might fall into the (M)MO term easily, but not necessarily into the RPG part. I specifically would argue that the first M ("massively") is not really deserved by some games, and if you allow dropping that all the games (maybe with a lobby) with online group content can be added here. Even games like CS:GO. So indeed: "MMO" doesn't mean much anymore. Using the full term "MMORPG" might be necessary again. And even then the lines got blurry. I see a trend of mixing genres in recent years for new games that makes it different to name the genres, and when one such game is successful and other games adopt the same mix, basically a new subgenre is created that can't be easily distinguished from its "parent genres".

[@smailedog657]

Yep, Planetside was marketed as a MMOFPS

[@Jkend199]

What makes an MMO and MMO... Its the people. I played World of Warcraft, for years... why, because it was a way to hang out with my friends when it was impractical to actually hang out with my friends... and because we always needed 5 for a dungeon, we met other people, and folded them into our circle of friends. The social aspect of WoW is what kept me playing, and it was the exodus of the people I played the game with that caused me to stop playing WoW. MMORPG used to be this social thing you did with people... Zepla said it best. When I was sitting there alone in my garrison I realized that WoW wasn't fun anymore... its not enough to have lots of people in a world at the same time, you have to give them reasons to interact, to talk, to do stuff together. I remember playing a tank and always needing a healer for stuff, and Spamming LFG for a healer, and eventually meeting a healer, spending an evening spamming dungeons with him and chatting on discord, we became friends and he invited me to his guild, eventually I became their Main Tank and I got to know a number of people in the guild, and we logged on and did whatever just for something to do while we chatted on discord... Now there's not even a reason to talk to your healer or your tank at all, the social part of MMO's is gone, and for me that's why I played MMO's... for me that's what it means to be an MMO, its an activity not unlike a bar or whatever, a place you can go (even if its just pixels and polygons) to meet people and do stuff together when maybe its not practical to do so in the real world.

[@KibaTheBarbarian]

song in intro Warframe | We All Lift Together

[@r0ninKai]

imo an MMO does not necessarily need to be an RPG but as an RPer, an MMORPG must have RP. I dont care if other people dont like RP, but without it an MMO is just an MMO.

[@Turamwdd]

And this is how I can tell you are a younger gamer or at least didn't play the original MMOs (no insult meant). MMO and MMORPG were interchangeable originally. Technically MMO became the shortened version of MMORPG. Over the years, people have become seeing them as a genre and subgenre instead of the same thing (thank your marketing and publishing companies for that). MMO has become so broad as to be meaningless.

[@raevenent751]

@@Turamwdd An RPG is just a genre. While MMOs have started as an RPG, an RPG is just a genre. MMO = Massive Multiplayer Online. Planetside 2 is an MMO, but it just happens to be an FPS. As to how it's an MMO, you can have 100s, of players fighting each other, and that can just be from 2 factions duking it out, not even including a 3rd faction to make it a 3 way fight

[@LoliLikesPedobear]

As TTRPG and IS player and game master, MMORPG chat RP is clunky cringe

[@AymenDZA]

I don't care how many times Bungie calls Destiny 2 an MMO, it simply is not. The most I'm willing to say is MMO-Lite.

[@j.gillette5411]

Perhaps we can apply a litmus test to these online games. If you can Roleplay in it with other players, it's an MMO.

[@OuroborosGhoul]

Anything that has a RPG or an MMO that’s just how it is

[@xanasago]

The classic problem of not undefined and changing definitions. We almost should work out definitions like in a specification before we stark discussing and talking about something xD But even for me personally the term MMO is a bit fluctuating. It's more about the feel and how connected the players are. Games with some social hubs have a "MMO-feel" or something like that. In the end I wouldn't really define a genre just to leave a bit of room for innovation and creative freedom. And when news websites start calling everything an MMO especially if they were MMO focused. It's just that they are in desperate need for content. Doesn't help to water down the definition but I also wouldn't blame them if they want to earn income to survive. But that topic is for another day...

[@torgrimhanssen5100]

Sadly, the massive part has been conflated with player base and not event scale, market economy, etc. I have played Browser based MMO's that 95% of "mmo's" can't even compare in scale to, though interaction is noting like an RPG.

[@belld.s5276]

To answer the question, does it matter? No I don't think so. I'm sure some people will look at the "genre" of a game and determine if they want to play it based solely on that, but even more so will determine by trailers, demos, or by content creators. When I started Genshin, I thought it was an MMO and had no idea it was a gacha until I saw the gacha systems. I hate gachas, but I still played the game because it was fun for a time. I only played for like a couple months, but quit bc my irl friends weren't interested. I think people buy games based on hype generated these days, but before I think followings were more cult-like? dare I say. You'd have to do some research and twitter wasn't around to tell you what's going to be good or bad. Personally, I don't think MMOs have changed that much. What I'm doing today in FF isn't THAT different to what I was doing in WoW 15 years ago. I have a player character, leveling up, chatting in chat, and doing whatever I feel like will be fun that day. These days I like to do roulette and play one of the dozens of classes FF has to offer, back then I liked to hop on my toon and hunt opposing faction players in Stranglethorn. Both are fun. I do wonder what prompted this video topic. Seems like something is stirring hm, I wonder...

[@shadowkomet7180]

Runescape, Maple Story and WoW basically defined the genre for MMO, and therefore if a game diverges from that, then it is just Online Multiplayer. Even Phantasy Star Online 2 was Online Multiplayer. PSO2 Genisys is when it became MMO.

[@mouseii88]

MMO is still something unique, just aren't necessary something everyone really looking for now. It comes with Politic, ugly drama, and all the fun fighting something together. Look for "Three Kingdoms Tactics" it's MMO RTS that everyone share the same map, potentially having thousands of units fighting over one castle at once, and action does have consequence to other players, such as wiping every single land your rival owns to make their season miserable. I think one key selling point selling point of MMORPG is "fight for something together that stay", be it castle that your guild hold for a week, or some world boss that need 50~100 player to fight, or just an event to collect 10million gift boxes from map. But that's not something everyone is looking for, especially a more engaging gameplay is much more possible than early 2000s, and it shows as popular games is a lot more "less shared but rich in gameplay" There are so many features and value that is achievable without the "fight together" part of it, and got rid of the toxic grind zoning, fighting over boss rewards, or cheated by party member all sort of other politics. Anyway, MMO is great, it's very unique, but it's a niche and make little economic sense at this point.

[@sharlockshacolmes9381]

it's in the acrony Massively Multiplayer Online Game, if the game is not built to be an interactive experience with at least a 100 people then it's not an MMO you can try to create hubs to put more players together or emulate the idea of a massive server by creating matchmaking it will not be an MMO for tht you need a world that seems organic in how the players interact and Yes that would mean that games like WoW or FF14 tends to de-MMOfied themselves

[@jimjones9631]

MMO is almost becoming synonymous with live service/games as a service.

[@SuperRamos619]

I mean, MMO are basically the grandfather of live service games though.

[@Riptitde777]

Funny thing is Monster hunter does have a shared hub where you can see players and had it for such a long time as well. I would consider it just an action rpg though with vey mmo like qualities.

[@Krytern]

Endgame has always been secondary for me but devs have given it such a priority we get the short instances games we have today. I want to go on an adventure then have endgame at.... The end of the game, instead of the whole game being it.

[@TheFarix2723]

I know I'm late to this, but the first M in MMO is just a marketing term to differentiate early online games from their nearest competitors, MUDs. MUDs, or Multi-User Dungeons, were early text-based multiplayer dungeon crawls that were popular in the 1990s. However, their populations were always small with no more than a hundred players on at any one time. When Ultima Online and later Everquest launched, they wanted to disassociate their commercial games from their amateur forbearers while stressing the size of their player bases. So they adopted "Massively" as part of their genre label. So it is interesting that "massive" is a sticking point to what whether certain games should be considered an MMO or not.

[@gysahlfields7506]

I don't understand what is the difficulty to understand. MO =\= MMO Lobby Game =/= MMO A few Maps just for coop play =\= Fully realised Worlds like Eorzea. No matter what, this is the truth. Warframe is not an MMO. Destiny is not an MMO. And DEFINITELY not MMORPGs. FINAL FANTASY XIV is an MMOJRPG.

[@brunorosa2904]

MMO = any game with lots of players interacting. MMORPG = a RPG with lots of players interacting. There you go...

[@wompoo7967]

A big shared world please... bring on Ashes.

[@DagothDaddy]

It's controversial but I think all complaints of "What if I don't want to do group content or interact with other players." Should be met with "Play a single player Game then." By the devs. If you don't want to interact with other players or play multiplayer but you are playing a game with multiplayer in the genre name I'm sorry but you're an idiot and I don't think devs should have to taint their design philosophy for those kinds of people.

[@midnitdragoon]

Final fantasy 11... That's a mmo.... What we have now, including final fantasy xiv is more like a single player online rpg

[@SirBakat]

There are many reasons why most of the games mentioned are not really MMOs but these are what I think makes it a bit less vague. If the "massive" player interaction happens in a lobby and or most of the content that matters are instance based then it is not an MMORPG. Those simply have "massive" player hubs. Otherwise MOBAs would be MMOs... hell let's make Street Fighter, Tekken and other fighting games that has online capability MMOs. Those games are not less by any means by not being an MMORPG. edit: And yes clarity as to what an MMO is matters. For category, discussions and transparency of what the product claim it is.

[@kitsu3656]

mmo just means a lot of ppl online simultaneously. it has nothing to do with open world or how many people are in a zone. valorant/cs/cod/fortnite are considered MMOFPS. browser/pc/phone strategies like age of empire are called MMORTS. these games dont have many players running in the same zone or seeing each other or even interract but these games are still called mmos. people can give the word their different definition but the dictionary meaning wont change.

[@Ch4pp13]

I still remember turning a corner in Limsa for the first time in FF and seeing the entire Aetheryte plaza be filled with people, like chockful, and just standing there for a moment. The chatlog being full of people just talking, people recruiting others for their guild, people putting on entertainment because they want to.... and it's there immediately... well, almost, but quick enough that you get your bearings as you're let loose to interact with the community. If you want a social hub for your players to hang around in, make them go through it early on instead of hiding it away or draw people away from it immediately. I only really have FF as a good reference, but loading into the Tower in Destiny or one of the many hubs in Warframe and have no one be talking makes them feel less lived in. I think GW2 has a thing sort of with the giant sprawling inter-faction hub in the center of the map, but the game only takes you there after you've done about 45 levels, meaning you arrive at it too late to get a feeling of the community there.

[@Tempestchron]

A minor correction - for GW2 free players gain access to the Main City at level 35, but that restriction doesn't apply to people who bought expansions. However, other cities like the Human main city have a lot of players chilling in map that provide that sort of social interaction that you can see in Limsa. Thing is, social hubs slowly started to die out design-wise because companies do not have proper solutions for gold/currency spammers that create new accounts just to flood the map chat with inane ads that discourage people from talking in public chat. This is especially a problem in most Asian mmos, which the general public only started to observe with games like Lost Ark. The restrictions that big MMOs like FF14, GW2 and ESO put in place that essentially limited social interactions managed to stifle this in their respective games, but again it made communication less accessible. It's a fact of life I guess, with the prevalence of gold sellers infiltrating games.

[@matthiascoupry]

Dunno for Monster Hunter Rise but Monster Hunter World have a social hub. It's kinda a MMO, it's just a limitation of players per session that feels less classic MMO and that you launch instanced sessions/maps. But Lobby can have up to 16-32 players.

[@freemaysin5088]

Nice to see Tibia on the list.

[@maudlin9725]

Given that the terms MMO and RPG have been applied to games that have less and less to do with the games that originated them, it's honestly hard to concretely define what either are anymore. 20 years ago, MMOs were the only games with a shared, persistent space for dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of players to occupy, while RPGs were about careful stat allocation, searching or grinding for gear, class fantasy, and teaming up with other party members to strategically fight foes, most often in some form of turn based combat. Today, RPG gets applied to anything that has skill and loot upgrades, regardless of the style of combat, variety of builds, or whether you're doing any of this with party members. MMO is even more distorted, as online games have steadily moved away from exploring and fighting in a persistent overworld being the main draw, to most content taking place in instances and having to be made more approachable to solo players or those who at least prefer interacting only with a small group of friends. While the "Multiplayer" and "Online" parts of the acronym have persisted without question, "Massive" is debatable, especially given that the definition of the word itself isn't specifically quantifiable. What I suspect will happen is that the term MMO will continue to see less and less use applied to persistent online games, with what many of us would call one--whether old school or current--coming to be referred to as simply "old school online games".

[@Epicmission48]

What song is in the background at the start and the end?

[@chainclaw07]

Massively multiplayer online - meaning it has to accomodate a lot of people playing together and socially congregate for activities or just for community in the form of "guilds". would battlefield be considered an mmo when you can play games 32 v 32 or 64 v 64? or since you can organize under the banner of a "guild/clan". imo no, there is no shared game space, it's all instanced content. there's no shared economy, there's not even incentivised interaction outside of the instanced content. the fact that in the classic mmos, you log in on your character and the game space is significant and shared is how the genre differentiated itself from it's inception. where you are and traveling that space matters because it is shared with others, it holds resources that players can forage in competition with eachother. the rise of live service has muddled the waters because MMOs, while not beholden to it has always had continuous development and forced online interaction but the industry is pushing live service which encompasses those terms. so an MMO has to be live service but a live service doesn't have to be an MMO.

[@DracoSuave]

'What does MMO mean? Well we could argue bleh and blah and it comes down to semantics--' You're engaging in semantics the second you ask 'what does x mean.' It's not a bad thing--that's what semantics means. The question on if it's an MMO comes down to: 1) Is it online? 2) Is it multiplayer? 3) Is it multiplayer in a massive way? So, for example, if a game's community's level of 'massive' interaction is only through lobbies but the game itself is only 4 player maps, no, it's not massively multiplayer and therefore not an MMO. Valheim wouldn't be a massively multiplayer online game either, because it's just not massively multiplayer.

[@kafka3499]

We all lift together!

[@CaffeineInjected]

@4:50 I['ve been saying this for 10 years! There is no danger in the modern MMORPG. We need real threat of death.

[@KDM16AAB]

Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) is what I consider a game that is capable of hundreds/thousands of players on a a server at one time. Planetside 2 is more of an MMO than Warframe as an example.

[@einsiedler6052]

I'd love to see a more distinct categorization - MMO should be used for the games that provide indeed a fully shared world most of a time. Games that only have shared hubs and co-op content should not lean to the term massive. The content focus itself could also help to label a game - if there is a huge leveling phase most people do solo but the content then changes in endgame and now focuses on multiplayer stuff it may as well be considered an (M)MO while games that are focusing on solo content even in endgame and offer CO--OP should not even bother to advertise itself as multiplayergame. I for example do no longer enjoy the massive multiplayer part of the games. I do enjoy content updates, a community that is alive and talks about the game and changes all the time but not so much the multiplayer content in the game. An almost perfect fit for me is Genshin Impact - constant massive content updates, bosses, grinds, story, puzzles... 100% of content designed for me. While in WoW or FF14 I've to skip a lot of high quality content because I don't like multiplayer content.

[@NasarVyron]

To me, MMOs must be community driven and within a shared world. The key thing is the people you run into don't completely change day by day due to a random queue or login system. The people you play with will see you again making your every day actions and how you interact with others, as well as the achievements you earn with others have meaning within the community you have joined. There was a time when these games would have simply been given the "online" tag then w/e proper tags fit the title. Anymore it seems any game that is played online with others, even loosely so, is being given the "MMO" tag for marketing purposes. Which leads to the next issue, just because a game makes use of elements from other genres does not mean it should be given that same classification. Doing so just causes other genre tags to also become overbroad. The question should always be, where/what is the focus of this game?

[@EhhmmmNo]

Ashes is totally not what I want, I don't want to go on vacation and lose my house because taxes were raised or whatever or someone destroyed the city that I'm a part of. What an insane amount of time required lmao

[@xiuhwho]

My 2 cents: MMO doesn't mean anything anymore because, well, everything is Massively Multiplayer Online. When MMO's first became a thing, companies had to invest a LOT of money into running servers, the main attraction was "a virtual world which has many parallels with the real world" - a game with, what we would nowadays describe as "a social media framework". Servers don't cost a lot to run anymore, at least, not a significant amount of the budget thus many devs choose to throw them in "just because". Warframe never "needed" an open world - it's just something the devs wanted to add for the sake of adding it - WoW ALWAYS needed it, it's what made it successful. That comboed with the fact that the novelty of MMOs wore off years ago basically makes the entire genre a sort of weird optional DLC-like experience rather than the shiny center piece. Don't get me wrong, there are absolutly games that can still pull off something which can be called an MMO - FFXIV comes to mind first. Even these games, however, are a far cry from what MMO meant originally, the core is there but the design around it is completely different - comparing an old MMO to a new MMO would be like comparing Facebook to CoD - they don't really have much in common besides "interaction between people is a thing you can do".

[@alexandrebelair4360]

MMO only means and only meant Massively multiplayer online.

[@xiuhwho]

@@alexandrebelair4360 Semantics are important. MMO used to mean a specific genre of game - nowadays it's a tag you can use on virtually any game. Your reductionist bullshit won't fly here.

[@alexandrebelair4360]

@@xiuhwho Prove that semantics are important. Prove that mmo meant a specific genre of game. Prove that it's the one you claim. Prove it's a tag that you can use on virtually any game. Prove that reductionist bullshit won't fly here. Burden of proof is on you.

[@xiuhwho]

@@alexandrebelair4360 No it's not. First off, this *isn't* an academic discussion, any "burden of proof" is irrelevant. I can hardly cite a source for my claims, they're a product of MY observations, MY experiences and they form MY opinion. Anything I said here is tied to the phrase "My 2 cents", you're free to think otherwise and I'm free to say that I don't agree with you. Secondly, a lot of these things don't "need" to be proven. Just look at how people used to use the term MMO, and how people use the term now. It's not really a difficult feat, you might need to look through some old forums/posts but that's about it.

[@Willias]

I think the difference is going to come down to "if you do content, how many players can you play with at once"? Just having a lot of random people around you doesn't matter if you can't grab a few dozen other randos to slap around a world boss.

[@dravot]

Massively Multi-Player Open-world since Online is implied with almost any game nowadays.

[@jstraziante]

Online multiplayer != Massively multiplayer. MMO is limited by player caps due to hardware limits, online multiplayer is limited by game design.

[@Kataxu]

I personally care about keeping definitions straight, so we all know what we are talking about.

[@Zetasphere]

Still watching but the quick shot of EVE being a spreadsheet is hilarious.

[@sarah_drake]

Ultima Online was my first MMO, and I still personally call it the mother of MMOs. Though I played up to when Gargoyles were introduced before getting back into WoW, I still go back from time to time just to open Razor and play on the countless free shards; and through it all, I still feel it's a true MMO, especially Age of Shadows.