Looked into FUM after I saw it in your FLYFF video. They look more helpful and less harmful than I initially thought. I think they should do more to separate their brand from vapes but yeah hoping all the best to them and their mission. I hope they do not take a more profitable route in the future.
as someone who does not habitually visit the comments on youtube videos, watching from my couch, I must say - a staggering amount of this video was dedicated to refuting the comment section I mostly watch "Death of an MMO" and was hoping for a more analytical breakdown, I didn't need the 15 minutes of justification of opinions of intentions.....I just want the meat of the subject.
Just FYI, with this post you demonstrated not engaging with the topic at hand which I specifically asked for, which means I actually don't even want you on my channel anymore. It's available offense you offered to offer nothing of value and instead just complain about something. You didn't understand what you could have used as a moment for education
@@nerdSlayerstudioss Honestly you need to stop embarrassing yourself in the comment section. I can't watch your content anymore after reading your childish replies to comments. Regardless of whether or not the comments are dumb, you replying like this comes across incredibly juvenile and quite frankly unprofessional. Sorry if this is frustrating to read, but you really need to take a step back and reevaluate how you interact with your audience.
I feel like a large number of players enjoy experiencing a virtual world full of other players without being forced to socialize with them extensively. "Alone together" is how I've been describing this concept. It can be hard to define what exactly "Massive" means in the context of MMOs. Personally I've been defining it as 100 players on screen at a minimum, which is somewhat arbitrary but feels about right to me.
Completely agree, I make that analogy when consulting all the time. Massive is what you want it to mean and feel sometimes, because you control the environment, how large things are, and what player connections/interactions actually mean. For example, 15 people in my room feels massive.
The '100s of players onscreen' thing frankly confuses me, because I doubt I've ever seen or played a game where having such an unwieldily colossal amount of players onscreen at the same time is in any way a normal or regular occurrence. So ... which online RPGs would count as MMORPGs, then? Certainly not WoW, EverQuest, Ultima Online, or any other classic that I could think of.
@DaveGrean Aion, Silkroad Online have persistent worlds with fort wars that can be at least 100s up to a 1000 players at once. Not to mention EVE although the latter might not fit the rpg part of MMORPG.
@@DaveGrean UO, EQ, AC, and DAoC all had more than 100 players on screen regularly. Many other MMOs including Warhammer Online, EVE Online, RuneScape etc. have had very large numbers of players. Most modern MMOs mostly instance heavily and keep player numbers in the same space low, which in my opinion is one reason they don’t feel massively multiplayer.
@@benpielstick ... Are you sure you aren't exaggerating? Maybe you mean like 20-30 players tops? I can't imagine how over a 100 would look or how it would even work. How would you even play the game if everything is zoomed out so much that so many players can be visible at the same time? Or if the servers are so overpopulated that everyone just has to stand that closely to each other. It sounds very hard to believe to me
I think the problem is not if a game like FF14 is a MMORPG or a MORPG, but that if its a MORPG, it would put it in the same "space" as Monster Hunter World, and the level of player interactions is eons apart between the two. There is a video of The Gaming Shelf about What is a JRPG that says tha nowadays as the differences between a western and a japaneses rpg becoming blurrer and smudged, with games like elden ring and undertale, what the genre means is more like what you expect of the game: you expect that a western rpg provides customization and dialogue choices and put you character as the center of the world, while a jrpg you expect the epic story about a group of (predefined) characters, grind and effort becomes power and artistic experiences (be it great cgis, orchestral music or amazing pixel art). Back to mmorpg as genre, you could say that we still use this term as it defines a set of expectations, like community-driven interactions and eternal character progress. You could say that those expectations aren't the same as they were back when genre started, it maybe evolved along the games. Back then we hadn't smartphones or social media, so we needed those huge massive virtual worlds to gather. Those mmo experiences won't ever be the same.
Counter point to your final one since I disagree, VRchat is putting most Triple A's out of business in that respect. The desire to be online, be anonymous, roleplay, or find a safe place to be yourself will always be wanted, especially as technology advances and makes it easier.
@@nerdSlayerstudioss I agree that the desire is there, and it even predates and surpasses gaming, we can just look how much money was spent on all those meta crap, or read a old sci-fi book. But what I meant is that, even when the technology reaches a point of near 0 latency and processing power for tens of thousand of characters in the space, it won't translate to the same massive game worlds like it was in our time, it will be more like Roblox hub of worlds. May there will be one or other niche thing, like Eve is nowadays, but those Massive, in your sense of the word, MORPG we had back then was an product of that early internet time.
So for me, this argument to split the current game design of games of "40 players max in the same instance online RPG" from the late 90-early 2000's days just brings more confusion and fuels the old "mmo is dead" argument. In the same way that not every jrpg needs to be turn based or not every action rpg needs to be a top -down view diablo-like, mmo became just a catch-all term, and the current more raid party that went from 40 to 8 players is not just because wow changed this, or themeparks done that, but also a reflection of changes in our culture, acessibility to video games, change of average age of a gamer, etc.
Honestly I think throwing Monster Hunter in this discussion is just kinda confusing. It’s an Action RPG but it leans way more towards Action than RPG. Even then only World Iceborne with its Raid-ish bosses and 16 player lobbies can really get the MORPG title. FF14 and MHW can be compared when looking at game infrastructure as there are similarities and from a developer standpoint I can see how they could be categorized together. However as a consumer Monster Hunter World is as much Splatoon 3 as it is Final Fantasy 14.
It does feel like, games rarely try to push the mold and be different. It’s always gotta be safe now and market friendly. Which has created this stagnation of development, same with movies and shows. Each just becoming a copy of another, and over time it’s a copy of a copy of a copy so on and so forth.
Well this some point, every major concept has already been tried. You can add different coats of paint and different gimmicks, but people are still going to call it like "Oh it's just a Soulslike Metroidvania with some Zelda elements on top", that sort of thing. Which sucks, but it's how people's brains work
I think we see this with movies and games, and huge budgets coupled with profit seeking above artistic vision are the culprits. MMOs suffer from this quite a bit due to the enormous cost of making these games. You have to play it safe when risking that much, funded by investors and beholden to corporate boards
@@heavensborne That's not really the point though, making one's own spin on something else is what you're thinking of, and that can lead to interesting games itself if the spin or twist is a good one, sometimes even developing the genre as a whole even! No, seems more like what they're talking about is the cookie-cutter painfully predictable ones that try nothing new or exciting at all, ONLY things that have been 'proven' to work to braindead executives and upper management.
I can only hope that technology and engines at one point will get so good that an indie studio could be able to make their "indie MMO/MO" with a similar development cycle than a roguelike. Hammering the good old indie innovation that is constantly breeding new life into gaming, but this time into MMOs/MOs. An example would be StarBreak, an already lost indie instance-based MO that mixed "permadeath metal slug" and a somewhat meaningful online teamwork of 100+ players (you could quit an instance at any time by casting a spell), and if enough people perma-died or left, the herd of players would start to panic and flee, making the mission much harder/riskier.
I tried to respond objectively to the last video, but I'm pretty sure it got buried among all the other comments and I hope you'll see it this time. Please understand that some of this is going to be critical, but it is in an effort to try and help you understand the other side of the equation so that future messes can be avoided, so please hear me out even though this will be quite long since I've further expanded upon it. I really don't think the majority of unhappy responses you got last time were from people that thought you were hating on any specific games or even on the non-Massive online titles last time, though there were definitely some fanboys who took using FF14 as a personal attack, but that's the internet. Some people misunderstood what was being discussed while others, myself included, saw it as you willfully misunderstanding what people mean when they say they want more solo content in MMOs because you were applying the statement to the precise meaning and not the generalized. With this follow-up video, I now don't think that was the case - I think it was a genuine misunderstanding in both directions. You touched on something in this video that really relates to what got a lot of people feeling feisty last time - the vague language people use when describing online RPGs as a whole and how using less precise language isn't helpful. To the layman, the term "MMO" is used to broadly paint all online RPGs and that means when you put out a video talking about it being selfish to want to have a lot of solo content in a MMO, many viewers are going to view that as saying that you're opposed to solo content in online RPGs as a whole. Like it or not, when a term becomes commonly accepted in the vernacular of a community, more specificity is required to ensure the audience doesn't misunderstand the message. Your previous video would have been perfectly fine for a conversation amongst those working within the industry, as they are more likely to speak with the precise terms, but when your are talking on the consumer level you have to remember that precision often vanishes amongst generalization. Even amongst those who have seen your previous videos in the series there will be those who forgot, there will be those who viewed the distinction as simply being pedantic, and there will be some who disagree on what defines "Massive" in "MMO" (part of why it's used as the generalized term is because many people don't look at instancing size, but as the number of players that can populate a server and thus how many potential player interactions are possible, even if not all at once, just look at modern WoW as an example). In all honesty, if about 4-5 minutes of overview from this video had been slapped onto the front end of the last one, you likely wouldn't have received anywhere near the level of negative responses that you did, and that is all just due to narrative clarity. As a quick aside, one thing that might help with clarity is to specify that MORPGs are frequently referred to a "theme park MMOs" for those who wish to paint all online RPGs with the "MMO" terminology since MORPGs tend to wish to present you with a huge world full of specific activities or attractions that are meant to experienced in a specific way, much like a traditional offline RPG. Overall, you're a very logical, highly technical person that has a deep understanding of the subject matter, but that also makes it so that you can come across sounding like an elitist asshole even though you don't mean to... I understand, I'm like that too and have had people call me out on it when I didn't even realize I was coming across that way. Much like you, my own experiences were when discussing topics for which I have a great passion and it's because people with this personality type that we share tend to get very wrapped up in the technical details and when we discuss our passions, we expect others to participate in the discussion at the same level and it makes us come across as condescending even when we're really just trying to be academic and informative. If I may, I'd like to make a suggestion because it's something I'd do if I were in your shoes as a content creator... Specifically for these passion project videos that are meant to be informational, run the final script by someone you trust to give honest feedback who you know can put themselves in the position an average person being presented with that script and not someone already educated in the subject matter, then ask them if you are making you points clearly and even more importantly, that you don't sound like you're talking down to the audience. As the saying goes, "it's not what you say, it's how you say it." Thanks for your time.
I agree, but I also think it's not solving the issue by just clarifying that he doesn't mean games that he considers MORPGs. Just MMORPGs, because I don't see any reason why an MMORPG can't have room for solo content. Not saying all MMORPGs should, but I think the category is still too large of an umbrella for a discussion like this. There are going to be examples of MMORPGs that still appeal to solo players, and MMORPGs that choose to focus almost exclusively on group content, so we need more sub categories. Also I agree that the language of the video at times seems to slip into assumptions that solo = non-cooperative when usually solo players are more than willing to participate in groups, they just want to have the freedom to limit their social engagement to a level they are comfortable with, and many games facilitate this with in game factions, open world events, etc.
While some of it may be the result of misunderstandings on both sides, it unfortunately feels like nerdSlayer refuses to accept any fault. The beginning of this video has him speaking of "fragility and anti-intellectualism rampant in society" in regards to people who were critical of his previous video, and his reaction to someone (Christopher Jacobs) commenting below that they'd wished for a more analytical video is downright toxic.
This feels like a semantic problem on the differences between Sandbox and Themepark MMOs, which I thought was the established terminology for a game like Eve (Sandbox) or a game like FFxiv (themepark). Should we maybe remove MMO as a label or classification? Or maybe be more nuanced with the label? I guess, but there's usually a break point in normal conversation where specificity is thrown out for common, modern-day nomenclature, often derived from how the mainstream audience understands the thing. MMO is a nice established base for the kind of design weight you can expect from an online game; MMOs usually have a lot of interconnected (or not so interconnected) systems that span the game, as well as a common UI and feature set from the game that brought the term "MMO" to the mainstream, WoW. If you need more clarification, then you ask or give that clarification, but broad terms are broad for precision's sake, not accuracy. This is a similar problem with the term "RPG" often only denoting that the game will have some kind of skill tree or character upgrade system derived from experience points and levels. It says very little about how much of a game will actually involve role playing because that's just not what the term means anymore. Do I think these should change? Sure, but that's up to society as a whole and the terms used by the masses. I can't be upset by someone that uses the term MMORPG when they just mean an online game that has levels and skill trees; that's accurate enough to a layman. I have to ask for clarification because maybe they aren't into the hobby and have no idea about the kinds of games that exist or haven't even put thought into the terminology or where it came from. Ultimately, this is just language and the ebb and flow of it's understanding and use. Best we can do is ask for clarification and know that overtime the need for such clarity should arise in the types of games that come out, such as souls-like needing to exist for that is a kind of game that people want to play and express that *precise* interest to others. Remember, these terms are never accurate and never will be, their existence comes from a need for precision.
FYI, you ignored the Japanese historical perspective fantasy star online and Yoshi P's thoughts on any of this which I mentioned in the video that if you don't pay attention to any of that, i won't read or respond to anything you have to say.
@@nerdSlayerstudioss I'm curious why FFXI never comes up at all in these discussions? It's both the first FF mmo and thus XIV's predecessor and it was quite popular, at least from what I've seen from what limited data we had on subs. Having 500k or so before the WoW black hole hit.
Ironically FFXI players all agree with me so far in my experience, I don't think it comes up because it's a fundamentally different game. Yoshi P has talked about it though, especially in beginning. I still think it's incredibly relevant, especially OPRG vs MMORPG (as FFXI feels massive in basically every way in comparison)@@EimiShahrizai
@@nerdSlayerstudioss If I had to compare XIV and XI it'd be that XIV feels like it's trying to be a game while XI is more concerned with being a world. From the pace of combat, which is slower on purpose so you can type to party members while playing, to the fact that travel is gated by the in game transport schedule, Vana'diel is a world, while Eorzea is a video game. I just so rarely see it come up when you discuss older mmos, when I think it's fascinating that despite it having load screens between zones, it still manages to feel like of the biggest virtual worlds I've experienced.
"Several hundred players on screen" about that, there are old WoW stories where they tried to have a huge battle with 300 people on each side in front of Orgrimmar in Classic and one person throwing a spell after they all lined up literally crashed the server. So, yes, they allowed it, but it wasn't feasible in the least 😂
Anything more than a few full raid groups attempting world pvp in even classic completely lagged the game out, every time, without fail. We have countless recordings of this.
I understand the point these videos are trying to make, but what I didn't understand was the point of making the point. Throughout my life, I have played dozens, if not hundreds, of online multiplayer games, and many of them were MMOs or ORPGs. Never have I heard anyone outside the previous video argue about the semantics of what genre or game type an online game should be classified as. I could be an outlier who has been fortunate enough to never come in contact with this controversy, I admit that. However, personally, I do not care about what you would call a game or not. It seems like a very vocal minority is fueling all the controversial discussions. I do hope the comment about a 'fragile and anti-intellectual society' was aimed towards these types of people and not everyone who made a comment criticizing the video, but I can't know that, so I'm not going to assume. I really think these videos could have focused more on educating the players of these games about the differences in the genres or game types they play, whether they be subtle or glaring, and why making these differences clear matters. Instead, we got a video caring way too much about what the comment section said and not one that focuses entirely on clearing up the confusing nature of the previous videos.
To start, I think I should state that I am also a solo player, have been for decades now, so this post is coming from someone who is also a solo player. This video really only highlights the issue in defining the categories of games. Some will think games like SWTOR, GW2, FFXIV are MORPG while others think they're MMORPG, but as there really is no actual classification for the Massive (seriously, go look, try to find an actual hard number, you'll only find estimates or goals) or how many players it takes to turn an MORPG into an MMORPG, it's a never ending debate. This entire series is really just a distinction without a difference. You believe many of these games are not MMORPGs, that's totally fine, you're welcome to your opinion, others disagree. As someone who has played damn near every MMORPG (also as a SOLO player) since Neverwinter (because to me they all are MMORPGs, from Neverwinter, to FFXIV to Lost Ark) the amount of people playing at a time has never mattered to me as I only really interacted with them when I absolutely needed to (Ahh, Valkrum Dunes, the gateway to hell if you wanted to solo). The differences in systems and approaches by the developers for the game doesn't matter. There really is no actual need to have separate classifications for them, which is why, by and large, there isn't within the industry. Look up top whatever number of MMORPGs in history and you'll find most of the game you don't consider to be MMORPGs on that list because that's how they are regarded by the industry and the vast majority of the gaming playerbase. I think you should look at Yoshi P's own comments about FFXIV as he himself, as recently as his interview with Sportskeeda this year where he emphatically states and considers FFXIV to be an MMORPG and touches more on the reasons for his different approach to ARR compared other MMORPGs on the market, acknowledging the lack of time people have to play and bar to entry for things like story (he's against skips because he states that FFXIV is a story based MMORPG). His whole approach to ARR was to make it more casual friendly (not just casual as in player type), but more something you can pick up and put down whenever you wanted to by design. He's even on record telling people to stop playing in-between patches, to go play other things. His difference in approach to how the game is designed doesn't make it a different category of game. Especially when the man himself is going around calling it an MMORPG. His interview with Game Focus in 2016 also highlights these same positions as well, specifically designing the game the way it is to appeal to casual players specifically. Then we have his interview with Eurogamer in 2022, again reiterating the MMORPG that is FFXIV and elaborating on his vision and what he considers his ultimate idea of the MMORPG which I'll quote below: ""My idea of the ultimate MMORPG is one in which each player playing the game can pick and choose the content they want to play, and the developers take into account the myriad values held by the players, responding to as many requests as possible" The Duty Support system may initially seem to be an odd fit. After all, Final Fantasy 14 is a multiplayer game, so why allow players to complete duties solo? Yoshida believes it can provide an entry point to the game. "The main point is not that we are focusing exclusively on single-player content in particular, but rather that the scale of the game, its content, and development has finally grown to the extent that we can provide content tailored to solo players," he said. I'm focusing heavily on FFXIV here as you seem to misunderstand Yoshi P's position in this video (or perhaps I'm hearing it wrong and misunderstanding) but your own classification of FFXIV as an MORPG and not an MMORPG is counter to that of the man himself. Now, we could go tit for tat on several of the games mentioned, but those are going to boil down to definitions of words, intention of developers and styles of approach to how the games were designed. Yes, games can be designed differently and still be considered a specific genre of game, something you seem to allude to not being the case as you mention on several occasions how certain MMORPGs are designed differently and thus are they really MMORPGs. Definitely a great video, though while I understand what you're trying to do, I don't see the point. You seem to be terminally online as much as I am (assuming you're being honest about your history with MMORPGs), so you know damn well trying to educate people on the internet is going to be a massively uphill battle lol. I didn't watch the previous videos, but saw this on my recommended, now I'm going to watch them. If you further clarify your positions on why FFXIV for example isn't an MMORPG, I might edit this, but I actually bothered to look up the words of Yoshi P himself just to be sure and his position is definitely different than yours. Rewatching the Yoshi P angle you have for the 30th time now, I'm going to need you to quote Yoshi P saying FFXIV wasn't an MMORPG because you do actually state that he "is aware that FFXIV is not an MMORPG" at 17:55 in the video, but this actually is countered by literally every interview you can find on him discussing the game online.
I'm sorry but of you started with Neverwinter you probably didn't play anything else than MORPGs so how could you tell a difference, which makes your opinion frankly useless as it is not fully informed.
@@MATCHLESS789 It's semantics, if there are several people in the same consistent world and can be seen everywhere in the world, so designed to be an MMO, it *is* an MMO. What others do or whether they want to engage with you or not is none of your business.
I think your last videos message was muddled and wasnt very clear and then you attacking people in the comments didnt help i understand where your coming from but you sounded mad condescending in your comments and responses.
This is a debate my younger brother & I have had a few times before. I, as on classic MMORPG player feel the difference between something like EQ & XIV are stark, while he, someone who really doesn't care for the genre is perfectly fine lumping them together. Ultimately it comes down to investment & general care of said subject. He can go on & on about anime genres, sub genres, screen play, and lore, etc, while I casually enjoy the medium but and hard pressed to find all the, what I consider, minute difference. Another example is cars. I personally can tell you all the difference between the body lines, paint quality, transmission types & even feel between the types of brands, country of origin, design philosophy, interior feels, etc., while to him they are just different sized & shaped "people movers". If it doesn't interest you enough, said thing is all "close enough".
It almost feels like we need a middleground term between MMOrpgs ( eve, darkfall, etc) and Morpgs where the current MMOs exist, cause they do have a good amount of massive is just not that important in the game, almost like an afterthought.
I think Guild Wars 2 walks that line a bit. Questing zones can feel far more crowded than many other MORPGs, especially around big events. Then there's WvW to consider that really makes the game feel more massive when you play it.
yeah but of course even then its not massive in the sense that the old games were and they are of course optional game modes as well and not its always playing alone with other people as well@@InnerVision66
@@darensgw2 Yeah it's not massive, there are a separation between zones with loading, which leads me to think they are instanced and phased same as FFXIV. As for WvW, it's one of the three core pillars of the game. It is that large scale PvP that pits severs against each other. If you're not in a large group you're really not gonna get anything done.
Accurately communicating a concept in a time where we can't agree on what is true is the first step. It's a pet peeve of mine too that every thing gets called an mmo when it simply isn't. On the one hand it's pedantic to the layman, but on the other hand it's just being accurate in what you mean. The Witcher is an rpg, Aion an MMORPG. Now some people call LoL an MMO or Valorant. They aren't. No persistent world with a massive amount of players in it interacting and playing at the same time with eachother. Tldr; maybe he's should have just defined them accurately, said classifying things correctly isn't an attack on the things and called it a day.
I'm thinking about it and it feels like MMOs are more of a 'vibe'. I don't even know what you'd classify a MORPG as if it wasn't a RPG, but I do know what a MMORPG could be if you removed the RPG. When I think MMO, I think a game with tons of players you can chat with, with social functions like player housing and the ability to host events (Which ironically, FF14 is one of the best at. It just feels more MORPG when it comes to actual 'gameplay'). But what would a MO be? Or at least, maybe I'm just a bit mixed up because I'm somebody who'd love to play a MMO or its little bro equivalent if it was still social, but was more about playing a character or role without the foundations of a RPG (Builds and numbers being super important mainly).
I wouldn't advertise any product that youre willingly sucking sometjing into your lungs without knowing what it is or any extensive research being done
What about the thing called Semantic change? I feel like most people use the term MMO as it is and don't mean MASSIVE multiplayer online game. Trying to argues that people are using a term wrong is a losing battle. The games evolve let the language change with it. I get that the games that people now days call MMOs aren't "Massive" but imo the word massive is up to interpretation. To me Gw2 is a "massive" game so why can't I call it a MMO if that's how I see it? Also MMORPG rolls off the tongue easier that MORPG.
But its not a "massive, multiplayer, online rpg", it's "massively multiplayer online rpg". If a million people play a SP RPG game with always online DRM - does it become an "MMORPG"? No.
I'm not into the concept of vapes. Switching from a bad habit to a good habit might sound alright, but there's also the higher probability of switching from no habit to a bad habit.. Or a bad habit to a worse habit. I met a guy who smoked. He switched to vapes and now he smokes both cigarettes and vapes.
I think the issue this is trying to touch on is how any given person defines the first M in MMO and that not having been mutually agreed upon by the public. In my case I draw the line between MMO and MO (or Hub World MMO as well here) would be if there is Primary Content that can be feasibly done with more people than can be grouped together. In most cases I would deem Primary Content to be Combat, Crafting, and Story, of which only Combat can really pass the "Massive" and "Multiplayer" line. So where GW1 and PSO/PSO2 have no content that can be done with larger than a single (by game systems) collective group, WoW (40) and FFXIV (24) can. Even if we take the latter 2 examples largest "group content" being Alterac Valley (80) and Frontlines (72), they still do not exceed system group limitations of 40 and 24 simply by having opposing teams of maximum capacity, but the Primary Content does have activities that can be reasonably done with more people than that, being World Bosses and A/S Rank Hunts for examples. We can safely say WoW and FFXIV are less "massive" than say EQ1, WAR:AoR, DAoC, EO, etc. but even those really didn't require groups that heavily, and even when you heavily required a group with games like early FFXI the content very often discouraged "Massive" on the scale you seem to be implying of "in the 100s of players on screen", with systems like mob "tagging" preventing loot and experience. So now the opposite end of the "What is Massive" issue rears it's head, if all participants in a "Massive" activity capable of being rewarded for it, and is that necessary to calling it "Group Content"/"Cooperative Content"? Now I don't play enough games that really go all out on players on screen, since they tend to be exclusively PvP focused games, and I don't like PvP enough to play them, but say a 1k v 1k Eve Online battle takes place, is every player considered by the game as working together in any "tangible" way or is it just up to 2k people playing solo/small RPGs in the same space and is that enough to qualify as "Massive", and not just a ton of people on screen playing a really "Tiny" RPG. I think mainstream understanding tends to see any game where an amount of people that can't be quickly counted as Massive, so in cases like PSO the "Hub World" is technically capable of hosting a pretty ridiculous amount of people. Hub Worlds in a certain sense is like a Pause/Start Menu in a single-player RPG or at least an explorable extension of it. Then to counter my own stance on what I the first M to be, does a Hub World count as "Primary Content", I don't personally. Now the final issue plaguing the "MMO" moniker is the definition of "Multiplayer" the 2nd M. Before someone just refutes it, how much interaction do two players need before it actually qualifies as "Multiplayer", is it simply existing in the same virtual space? Being able to communicate? Being able to trade? Being able to form a group? And likely other conceivable questions. Now for most games highlighted in this video, the 2nd M doesn't have much contention, but when you flip into the mobile game market, the "Massive" begins to feel a lot more applicable than the "Multiplayer" part. Often times a mobile game will call itself an MMORPG, but the most interaction between players is a "Daily Friends List Check-In", "Chat", and maybe a "Clan" in which any activities almost never require both players to be playing and online at the same time. Even the generally PVP focused majority of those games is One Player fighting against a Bot Controlled other players pre-setup camp. In summary, until the player base, developers, and publishers come to some sort of consensus on the limitations of the Ms in MMO we will be stuck in this conundrum of everything being called an MMO by the mainstream/general public.
I believe Josh Strife Hayes made a video discussing the term MMORPG and how incredibly vague and obtuse it actually is. After all, if taken literally, the term really just means 'RPG that is online with a lot of other people'. Personally... I don't really care? I played a ton of MMO's back in the day and nowadays I mainly play FFXIV. I just play what I think is fun and don't really give a rat's behind about what term we're using to describe it nowadays. I've seen games on steam with a whole load of labels (2D metroidvania roguelite deckbuilding dating sim RPG whateverthefuck) and sometimes it feels like taking a shotgun blast to the brain. It feels like when you get a bit into music and people start blasting you over whether that song/band is numetal, metalcore or buttfuckmetal or whatever.
I think the biggest reason why we don't see a lot of proper MMORPGs is because the gaming industry as a whole have shifted from prioritizing games with fun moment-to-moment gameplay to prioritizing on games with pretty graphics. We went from MMOs like Ultima Online, Runescape, Everquest and WoW, to Black Desert Online, New World, Tera, and Destiny 2 (lolDestiny 2, the greatest MMORPG ever). The problem with this, though, is that you can't really have an MMO where there can be as many as a thousand or more people on screen with the graphics of something like Horizon Forbidden West _and_ have it be stable without your processor/GPU/CPU just turning to molten lead. As to the whole "people blindly defending their favorite game" bit, it's simply a natural thing for people to do. As an example, if a WoW player were told that the game was dead, that anyone who continues to play it are idiot poop faces for playing it, of course they're going to passionately defend it. It's merely a human instinct to defend something one cherishes so greatly.
@@nerdSlayerstudioss Oh, I agree with you on that. I don’t think you’re unfairly attacking FFXIV. If anything, you bring up some really good points about it. What I was saying was that people will instinctually defend something they have an attachment to. People will inevitably have an emotional attachment to something that has been a big part of their life - even if what they’re saying may not be true or is spoken out of emotion rather than being steeped in logic. You’re not wrong in pointing out the things that are wrong with a game (I mean, that’s basically what you do with the DoaG series), and I’ve had my own criticisms with FFXIV over the years. For example, I’ve been vocal about how the various Jobs have become too homogenized and play identical to other Jobs within its category. I’ve also expressed concern about how the game is becoming _too_ accessible. They’ve taken away a lot of abilities and effects that give the game some measure of depth, like removing Protect, Stoneskin, DoTs on several Jobs, as well as taking away aspects of a Job that gave it its own unique identity, like with my main Job, Dark Knight (they took away abilities like Darkside, Dark Arts, Blood Price, as well as neutering Abyssal Drain).
It's much simpler than that really. MMOs are insanely expensive to develop. Not just on the front end, but having continuous cost on the backend as well. You want to ensure that you are profitable so you do things that you know have been successful. Companies are extremely risk-averse and get more and more so as the price ticket rises.
I've always found this topic very interesting, and this video got into some good detail. Though I have a few questions. Maybe you've answered these elsewhere, but I'll ask them anyways. 1. What would you say is the dividing line between a MMORPG and MORPG? Obviously there is the massive part, but what passes the line for massive? Is it a number of players interacting at once, or is it as simple as the game relying on the players roleplaying with each other to promote teamwork or being part of a system as a whole, like a real world? Where would something like GW2 with its WvWvW fit in that? I would say as a whole the game would fall under MORPG due to not having many massive aspects of players interacting and taking on distinct roles, except when you then consider WvWvW. But the context of WHY they are interacting and HOW they are doing it is pretty minuscule in comparison to say EVE Online. You could say it's the numbers in that case too, but I think it's more nuanced than a simple number cutoff. That is why I mention the why and how of that many players are interacting. 2. More of a followup question to the above. You mentioned in the FF14 changes that for a MMORPG it mostly relies on the players as the primary path for content and experience as role play actors. Would something like a large role play Minecraft server count as an MMORPG due to the players being the primary option for generating content? I've seen Minecraft servers that go on for years, have hundreds of players on and off, and take advantage of the potential scale Minecraft offers to give a massive feel. But they don't have the massive numbers like mentioned in older MMORPGs that could support 500+ players at once. 3. You mention that SWTOR and FF14 could have been better games in respects to their content, story, and gameplay if they didn't have the focus on MORPG aspects. By that do you mean much narrower focus on online aspects primarily? Say something more like the lobby system of Monster Hunter? Or is it simply there would have been more development room for gameplay, story, and graphics? I know you mentioned the latter, but I was curious on clarification if you meant NO online play whatsoever. I feel like the way you were talking about it could be interpreted a few ways. Either still online but with less focus on the online aspects, or next to no online and focusing more on their parent IP's success with single player gameplay and story, maybe with co-op to flesh things out more. To expand some on my 2nd question. Even if the game went in either direction, either more focus on small scale online vs no online, would the game still be able to develop over time with new content? I feel that is one important thing to consider with these games. To use more standard games from the IPs as an example, Final Fantasy 7 Remake and Knights of the Old Republic. If SWTOR and FF14 originally focused development more like their parent games would they have even had a longer lifespan with newer content? To use more recent examples. Something like Destiny which is one of the main examples of a live service game these days, if it released like Bungie's previous game series Halo, then it wouldn't have had enough room to generate income to develop expansions and thus less content. So while we may get a better overall experience, it would be in a smaller package and have a shorter lifespan. I guess my main followup question with all of that added context is, do you think those trade offs are worth it for these live services/MORPGs? Because realistically sacrifices have to be made during development. I wrote out a lot more than I was expecting. It's a topic I could go on for a lot longer too. Maybe there is a better place to put these thoughts that you might be able to respond to. Either way, if you don't respond I at least enjoyed the video and the topics you brought up. MMORPGs/MORPGs mean a lot to me and I find them endlessly fascinating to explore and discuss.
Love most of your videos, mostly your death of a game series, but this seems to be a 30 minutes rambling video about pointless semantics. Still excited for your next video, take care! :)
Please don't come back to any of my videos if you think 30 minutes of historically backed data and arguments is just semantics. Like genuinely, I don't want you to watch my videos.
Not making an argument on a video you post on, for me is the definition of pseudo-intellect. For example how you didn't actually attack any points raised, demonstrates you can't so you feel the need to say bad words about me as if I care about what some random poster I have never seen nor heard about says. Meanwhile you can't even understand a 30 minute comparison video, yikes!
@@nerdSlayerstudioss I just want to point out that I understood everything you have said in the video and understand the logic that you are using. I was merely sharing my opinion on the video as a whole and didn't want to write an essay explaining why it's a pointless discussion. You just showed to me and a couple other people that you can't take criticism and want to live in your echo chamber and that's fine! Have a greet week! :)
This is one of the few times now where I'm really not sure about this sponsor. You're advertising vaping under a different name. Whether it's safe or not isn't the problem, just advertising anything like it is very concerning.
MMORPG used to mean Massive through design: Fully open world (even if zoned) with nothing privately instanced. Practically the only proper _M_MO's we have seen come out over the last few years (or at least were close enough) that I can say I've played include ArcheAge, New World, Crowfall (you absolute disappointment, you), and BDO. Compare them to Lost Ark that I found myself jumping back into, and it's hard to really give a game like that the "Massive" moniker. Other than the quest chains, there's effectively zero reason to be anywhere that isn't a capital city, and it is absolutely riddled with instanced content, with zero reason to interact with any players other than for the instanced content. There's nothing massive about that at all. It's a solo online game that occasionally requires coop. It's a glorified lobby game. And just like practically every other online RPG like it that calls itself an MMO, the only thing massive about them is the effort put into abandoned open worlds no one touches once the quest chains are done and the amount of players sitting in the capital waiting for their instance to pop. And despite WoW's success and scope, I think it represented the end of Massive moniker being appropriate, especially since over time it was designed more and more towards merely being an MORPG with increased instancing and with the open world zones becoming less important while transitioning rather entirely into mere one-and-done themepark rides. Not many so claimed MMOs since WoW have really done much to revitalize (let alone innovate on) the sense of the _massive_ part of the acronym, leading to quickly abandoned open worlds or hardly an open world to speak of at all. I really want to have a truly massive multiplayer online RPG again, one that actually plays into it, rather than it effectively being treated as window dressing. Also, hopefully not get screwed over by reversals in OW design decisions (New World, ArcheAge come to mind), designing away from the OW over time (WoW), or screwed over by poor monetization and exploitative systems (ArcheAge again, for sure, with how it handled farms and the labor/crafting system). Feels like the next one the genre's fans are anticipating the most is Ashes of Creation (Star Citizen doesn't count perpetual alpha trololol). We'll have to see just how well they live up to the hype.
I became a solo player because of online RPG. Playing tons of team centric games was great until a year or two goes by with most of the guild breaking apart becase of various reasons. I just realize I'll be the last man standing most of the games I play eventually. So why bother getting into a dedicated guild.
At the end, you reinforced my feelings about this sort of video: that the people who say they miss the socialization of old-time MMORPGs actually just miss being able to gank noobs. You see it a lot in Ashes of Creation comment sections. The most significant difference between Ultima Online and FFXIV is the lack of forced PVP.
I left a negative comment on that last video about you talking about FFXIV. Mine However was because you claimed the story couldn't compare to a single player Final Fantasy story because "It couldn't, by being a multiplayer game" or some such. However that games story is far better then most if not all other Final Fantasy games stories. The MMORPG vs MORPG stuff is certainly fair though.
Hard disagree on the story being better than the single player FF games. I would argue only 2 expansion stories are even close to the worst sinlge player FF stories.
You're delusional if you think it takes Shadowbringers and Heavensward/Endwalker level writing to only beat out the stories of the likes of FF1 and 2. Also I left my comparison somewhat open ended because it's a shorter list of the single player entries that DO compare rather than not imo. As in for me maybe FF9 and FF tactics could be considered on par or above FFXIV's story @@GingrWithNoE
@@ankujo8924 You're delusional if you think everybody shares your opinion as if it is hard fact and not indeed an opinion. Using FF1 as low hanging fruit is honestly adorable and kind of negates the whole point of having a conversation in the first place. Thats like comparing a Tesla Model A to a horse drawn carriage in a discussion about take off speeds.
@@nerdSlayerstudioss craziest thing about it is if you were an apsiring newb who wanted to play their first MMORPG I would likely recommend FFXIV since it offers the most content and IMO best end game PvE experience with a strong in game communtity, but like it goes against my FF fanboyism to allow these people to talk about the FF games like theyre all some poorly written trash when 75% of 14s story is MMO fluff fetch quests; they refuse to keep people dead so big moments have little meaning, and the main character is a mute super hero with the power of planet god. As a continuously developed online game; FFXIV struggles terribly with its inability to draw conclusion to its arc in a proper manner.
Interesting topic thanks for insights, watched the video twice. I play Guild Wars 2, it's such a unique hybrid combat system, and the primary game functions/modes are no different with the layout of "Massive" intentional large scale - World Bosses scaled to map for everyone to participate (more participants), Meta-Events (expansion specific events), World v World server Zergs, Raids etc. But the expansions/content of character development, and mostly playing the game is a combined soloable and co-operative (voluntary) option. Struggling to conjure up an "atypical" architype to place such a game, yes marketing is involved in hype for what is quantified and subjective as massive for consumers. But maybe it's like movies where you get horror/thriller, aspects of both genres.
I think GW2s approach is/was genius, I just usually don't give them as much credit because nobody has done it like they have done it (it's not replicable really). GW1 not being massive at all, makes GW2 immediately seem far more massive having open zones (with player count caps or not). I think GW2 is a natural evolution, so it might be one of the few if not only instances of a ORPG going massive.
@@nerdSlayerstudioss gw2 is still my favorite mmo by far. I think it feels a good nish, but Anet doesnt advertise it as well as games like Wows and ff 14
I think I jumped universes again. I swear I've seen this video before. Like 100% not even in a deja vu kinda way. So... an alternate you in a different dimension made this months ago.
Thank you for this breakdown. I regularly reference your videos/points made when making the bold statement that FFXIV and PSO2 are not MMOs. The pitchforks usually come out quick, which I then direct people to what you've said regarding them. (As such, I hope I didn't just send you angry mobs, lol) One of the most important things you said here however is that it's good to understand and make the distinction between both games, so that devs can create and market their works more effectively, to both target audiences and people looking for more and different than what they're accustomed to. We can have it all, but it's important to know and express what we want.
My all-time favorite MMORPG is RF Online (Rising Force Online) sadly it's not successful in the West therefore it didn't get much love from MMO communities. But to me, it is the most Massive and multiplayer-ish MMO I've ever played ( I still play it from private server to private server). Basically, the game is PvP focused between 3 different races that fight with each other and the endgame of the game is just PvP for resources (resources to gear up like enhancing materials), but the game relies on player numbers, and if the server became too little in terms of population and not many people attending the "war" the game became less fun to play. The dynamic of the game is also fun, you elect a Race Leader each week to hopefully lead the race to win wars. It's so much fun and so far for me there is no MMO that could rival this in terms of massive and multiplayer aspects.
RF Online's Chip Wars during its high point was amazing, thousands of players across the 3 factions duking it out for 2hrs on a single map with alliances being established and backstabbing happening behind the scenes.
I am late to the video but still felt like dropping a comment of appreciation for it! I play WoW as a solo player but I really like the endgame group content. Looking for group lets me do that extremely well, which is why I think MORPG is a great name. You are in an online environment, free to engage with people when you want to, but not "forced" to in order to progress to a near-optimal level.
Great video and I do agree with most of your position here. I will say that this comes off a bit too combative and, especially in the end, it feels like you're taking things a bit personal. I understand where you're coming from, but man, don't give internet neckbeards any way to take things that way or they will double down. Just some friendly advice since I want to see you continue to do well and without any "controversy" (you know, the cringe-worthy reddit/twitter type).
I don't really understand what you mean about taking things personal. This is my actual job and my career so of course it's personal. I don't know how that changes anything
Your use of language and tone, putting it lightly, is antagonistic and condescending. Lots of people have careers where there is inherent conflict with other people, however they handle it better than you do.
The thing is, I am not trying to "handle it better". That's your weird standard that I both don't adhere to, nor care about. Notice how I said you need to post an argument to engage on this video, and you are here complaining about me being a meany pants instead? Which is literally addressed in the video? LOL. It's like you either didn't watch it, or thought I would give a shit about hurting idiots feelings past a point. Sorry, I don't, TB is my favorite content creator thank god (rest in peace)@@BanterousLemon . It's always people like you, I have never seen post before nor talk to me on any other platform who complain about me being confrontational. It's cringe because it comes from your parasocial relationship and lack of understanding of me as a person, which you could have solved 10000 different ways.
@@nerdSlayerstudiossI understand. Perhaps it's not the best phrase to use. In summation, my point more stands on don't let them get to you. Even if it bothers you, don't feed the antagonistic basement dwellers. "Avoid wrestling pigs in the mud because you both get dirty but the pigs enjoy it." These type of people's entire existence is feeding off inconsequential conflict online. If engaging with your community is important to you, then it's probably best to choose engagements that you enjoy.
Positive note: all I am hearing is GW2 music when you speak and I have to rewind to actually hear you. The nostalgia is hitting me hard and I thank you for it
People forget genres exist to give you an idea of what you're playing. I hate when people call things like Nier or Dark Souls JRPG's because it literally makes the turn useless.
This subject again? Really beating dead horse, MORPG is just not part of the nomenclature and unnecessary to try and wedge in. Online RPGs are already multiplayer and this distinction between what is truly MASSIVE to be properly titled an MMO just sounds like a personal bugbear. There is a reason people are apathetic.
I do like that some online games have made a move toward being able to solo stuff cause players move on, games get older and soon, there isn't a community if you're a new player. I've played games where I don't see another soul for literal days of solo gameplay and that's not a bad thing necessarily. It makes the game feel empty, sure. But that doesn't make the game any less good or bad. You take it as you want. Having someone point out objective points on a game shouldn't get you frustrated and if it does, that's a "you" problem. He's not attacking you nor should you attack others cause a fact about the game is brought to your attention. No game is perfect, everyone of them has their flaws. If you look at some of the older games, if you didn't have a group of people to play with, you barely got anything done. Final Fantasy 11 was just like that. There was no function to find party members, you had to actively search for people. Leveling was done out in the world, not dungeons with matchmaking. It took a lot more effort to make progress with no other effective recourse, so that's what you had to do. I'm glad making solo as an option is a thing.
Very true. Didn't mean to suggest they were the same style of game. I guess what I was trying to say in that second paragraph that some online games were engineered every differently. I don't know what games today would be more community focused like FFXI was back when I played it over a decade ago.@@nerdSlayerstudioss
I watched both videos, and commented on the last one. I didn't mean to come off toxic last time if I did so let me clarify a few things. I'm a long time viewer of your channel, and I felt like you were stating that people that don't engage in group play were mentally deranged and needed to seek professional help. As you stated at the end of this video you've played MMOs in the way that I described my hypothetical player in the previous video's comments. This hypothetical player is reflective of many people I know that eventually either became more social in game or stopped playing due to them not liking the game. An example of this is say someone's girlfriend that played Skyrim, so said boyfriend bought her WoW in order to play with her. We played on a PvP server, and she was not having a good time there. She had a blast in the lower level zones playing with us and questing, but once we got to the point that we needed to do dungeons she had a hard time keeping up. This was exacerbated once she started hitting Contested Territory zones and was ganked repeatedly. She stopped playing and so did her BF, cause he wanted to spend time with her. We wound up switching servers to a PvE server later down the road, and she had a much better time, and wound up becoming a main healer on our raid team, so happy ending. I think you have great points in this video, and it's nice to have a both a short history of both genres, as well as a a better description of why both are good and bad in their own ways. My only critique here would be to please open the video with the same kind of message you had at the end. NGL, almost left, as I felt like you were snapping at your critics. I can see that you are trying to voice your opinion while defending your statements. I get it, its rough online when you feel like people are dogging you for stating your opinion. Sometimes it's best to take a step back and reassess how you're wording things. Delivery is key, and sometimes we all could use better packaging.
With all due respect, I don't have to tell every person I argue with my personal story. That's why I left it at the end so people wouldn't make it about that despite it being the onus for me. It's important as an educator that I'm educating people, which doesn't mean being nice nor doesn't mean coddling people. But I respect your opinion regardless
@@nerdSlayerstudioss I wouldn't imagine you would given your position. I just left mine figuring it would give my previous comment more context, and didn't really matter in the grand scheme considering its not uncommon. I'm not a known entity that has to worry about people bugging them over it, but yeah I suppose it would be a little weird. Still, a little kindness never hurts. As they say, you get more flies with honey than vinegar.
I am not trying to get people to like me, I am trying to get people to understand how life works. Which creates dislike. I get hundreds of comments from idiots, people proud they don't read, and more. So unfortunately, as I said in this video, blame the internet...I was raised on it. You can't retroactively make me care about being nice to willfully ignorant idiots, sorry. My programming doesn't work that way anymore. And if this video offends some sensibilities, it says more about you, your argumentation skills, and the fact that you aren't me IMO. Because this video...is me, all of me. I just put the sad story at the end because if people cared about sad stories, I wouldn't have to keep making the same video.
@@nerdSlayerstudioss Buddy, I'm not here to tell you what to do. It was a suggestion. I get that you must get that a lot, but it was meant as a gesture of kindness, not bitterness. The internet is an ever changing place. The internet of yesteryear is not the internet of today. Things change. Regardless, do your thing though. I'm not here to stop you.
You need to be in a group to fully enjoy the game vs grouping is optional and not necessary. I think I get your point. I fall into the latter, grouping is optional, as I am the proverbial real life comes first. EVE online is fun. Certainly it can be played solo but there are aspects of it that cannot be fully enjoyed without being a group (Ah... how I miss TOG when they were active). Parties being optional and ad hoc are sometimes more entertaining for me than dedicated guilds or alliances - City of Heroes was fun for that despite Super Groups being a driver in the game. Good video, thanks Nerd.
Counter Strike to Diablo 2 to Guild Wars to FFXI, growing up on the Internet was an absolute blast. I agree if it weren't for those games being morpg or mmorpg, I might never have learned how to socialize. Awesome video - Thanks!
I feel like each time you post a video (I watched most of them, the DOAG are my favs), there will always going to be some form of emotional attachment to it from other people. Be them anguish, sadness, nostalgia or anger, there will always be something. I always attributed this to how blunt you are about what you talk about. Its a stark contrast to other video discussing the same things. I appreciate it. As for the subject at hand, I agree that categorization of online games can only bring better games in the future. It makes making the next big online game a more focused endeavor from devs. And we severely need the next big online game be them MMO or MO. I really want to play MMO like EVE or ArchAge but goddamn... do I feel intimidated. I always feel like commenting on your videos difficult because at one point in the video, I have some thing to say, but then at another point, it becomes moot because the comment doesn't have anything to do with the video. P.S. I thought you've already learned how FFXIV players can sometimes be very protective and was expecting such backlash from the soloable mmo video. I mean... that thumbnail alone can bring about a calamity hehe
See i don't disagree with your points and having not seen the other video your tone comes off as slightly salty here ? I think the problem with the Internet is we can only be clearer and clearer but never get 100% of people to understand
To add on to this, it actually makes sense that I love it so much as PSO1 was my first real online game and I played it for a VERY long time. FFXIV kind of carries on a lot of its concepts
Embers Adrift is the only legit classic MMO out now, just nobody plays it. Could easily take the entire world over with a small group of friends. Stands out in the industry too, just the box price. No cash shop and an opt-in sub fee, think a patreon sub. Game is hard af too.
I think it doesn't matter the slightest. Call it whatever, whichever, it's fine. In regards to FF14 though, there is a MMORPG portion of it. World Bosses, Bozja Battlefield, Firmament Festival to name a few. Also there are MORPG aspects of it. Story Quests, Raids and Dungeons for example. So there comes the question: if it kept toggling between the two, is FF14 a MMORPG or is it MORPG? If one just engage the MMO aspect and the other just engage the MO aspect, what is FF14 for those people? FF14 is MMORPG because it can be a MMORPG. But if people just playing it like a MORPG it can be that too. One doesn't invalid the other. It can compliment too.
Thanks for the video and I was thinking about it a couple days ago. This is a little off topic but I really would like to have more games designed to be more coop, especially the RPG's.
in WoW just going around and collecting mats or crafting and selling on the auction house is game enough sometimes, just paying a monthly fee to be a vendor
As a primarily solo guy, I actually wish more MMOs built more systems that depended on team play. The tradeoffs necessary to make these games dont make it worth it to a solo player or a social ones. Trying to please everyone will please no one
Sick vid, I think a Sandbox vs Theme park video is in order as its almost synonymous with MMORPG vs MORPG topic and many modern gamers have only experienced Theme park mmo's 🙂
I'd for sure not mind studying up on sandbox MMOs, as yeah I've only ever played themepark ones. I don't even think I'd enjoy sandboxes as I like structure (and why I don't enjoy most Open World RPGs that have come out this past decade that try to be a sandbox), but I still wanna learn what made them tick and why they aren't popular nowadays as much
@@heavensborne Its funny. I personally do not like open world offline RPGs, I rather my offline experience be linear, almost like a reading a book from finish to end, rather than writing my own book. When it comes to MMORPGs, I prefer sandboxes because it feels like a real world with real people where anything can change everytime I log in.
I like your videos and share your opinion most of the time, but regarding this video, I'm curious about the sponsor, how was the process to accept the sponsorship based on the sort of product they sell and the claim about it being a healthier habit?
You're 100% correct. I'd actually argue that multiplayer online games have trended AWAY from "massive" for a couple of decades while most players in this conversation first tried them AFTER that trend began. WoW was a big part of that trend, and has only pushed towards smaller player interactions. The age of games where you genuinely have to consider the actions of more than 100 other people has essentially passed, represented only by a handful of niche legacy titles.
Massive or not, the heaviest factor in this clash of genres (to me obviously) is how often I find a *meaningful emergent interaction with another player* . By far my most fond memory in an MMO started by playing solo for weeks, and then emergently finding a group with a requirement I could fill (we all NEEDED the extra hand, the game was hard but I was awkward about asking for help), and only then changing into a more group-based mindset. I developed a loyalty to the group who adopted silly-me, siding with them during in-game politics between guilds, thus creating multiple rivals and allies. Suddenly I was part of the world, a loyal member of a small group who was playing a small part in a bigger political/economical/territorial game (Lineage 2 btw.) This is why I don't like going around shouting that I'm looking for a group, why I value emergent interactions, why I value much more a 1-on-1 chat asking to do some content or to join a group... than applying to 15 guilds and automatically join the first to accept me. I do get heavily disappointed if I get into mid/lategame without experiencing enough meaningful emergent interactions. Yes, I did fail to socialize, but the game also failed promote meaningful interactions (not hating / appreciating any individual user during my stay on that shared virtual world.) I'll name a some examples of "meaningful emergent interaction" in MMOs / MOs: * Random PK/PvP with no words exchange, real reasoning nor context behind it *is NOT meaningful* (also not emergent if it's a PvP-intended area.) * A HUB with dozens / thousands users running around, each always doing their own thing *is NOT meaningful* (BDO). * Queueing for a Party Raid instance *is NOT meaningful nor emergent* (it's even less exciting than a MOBA match.) * Clans warring over in-game politics, economy or territory *IS meaningful* (but not emergent since this tends to be date-specific.) * Saving / Getting saved by a random player when there is a high risk & death penalty for both *IS emergent AND meaningful* . * Having to cooperate in tight sync with a random user to barely stand a chance *IS meaningful* (even League can provide this.) * Invasions in Dark Souls are *much more meaningful and emergent* than ambushes/ganks in MMOs. Slight off-topic: Most MOs/MMOs nowadays try to have fast-phased gameplay to keep people busy and playing for longer (most people also like this), but I think slower-phased games had the underrated advantage of giving you some free windows of time to care about others, even during meaningful combat gameplay. This is why I like Tab-Targetting MMOs with slower combat and less key-pressing (e.g. attack while moving.) Games like this allow you to play while still staying active in the social side of it. Some games like BDO make it real hard to even press/hold the mic button if you are busy grinding or doing something challenging, further hindering the social aspect of it. I'm kinda disappointed that Throne & Liberty is aiming towards a more action-based gameplay, but at least they are trying to remove the auto-play.
Ha, I loved L2 back in the day (until about C6) and I love invasions in souls games. I don't play any modern MMOs anymore but I still play Souls games to invade/get invaded often. Too bad Fromsoft is getting kinda more and more lame about invasions with every game.
guild wars 1 wasn't an mmorpg, but guild wars 2 definitely is. guild wars 2 doesn't focus on small scale, the content that gets the most developer attention are large encounters on maps
lol I see Grandchase @ 13:11 I have some wild ass gamer memories from that one. Basically when the game first came to the west it.... didn't launch with a level cap I no lifed and grinded like crazy on launch and when they actually did add a level cap it was a lot lower than the lvl I had ended up grinding to. I spent like a good 3-6 months idr how long exactly bodying people in pvp because of this and was constantly called a hacker. Also other fun thing was I got a cape in the beta for being in the best clan which ended up being BIS for the entirety of the game. Simply because it was the only cape slot item that raised stats by a % instead of by a flat number.
So many people in the comments of this video and the other one are getting it wrong. The first M in MMO isn't "massive" in the sense that the game is massive or big in scope or scale. Its "Massively Multiplayer". So much confusion can be removed with a google search and some reading comprehension.
Feels like there needs another term in between MMO and MO also perhaps a term for a solo based online rpg that still has social elements. It truly is fascinating that we used to have more genre titles or subgenres, yet now it seems to be shunned to better describe a game. Number of players involved for X type of content could be a good measuring stick. Be PvE content, PvP Content, Crafting content, and even content that is more strictly Social.
That part in the intro saying that players knows more about a game than their creator remembers me of masahiro ito that to this day, people continue to argue with him in twitter about his lore lol
You sir just put a term to my conundrum. I always felt odd playing GW2, FFXIV, SWTOR, Retail WoW, Black Desert, Etc. but never could quite put my finger on it until this video. I played these games LIKE mmorpgs because that's how they're constantly refereed. That only put an unfair expectation on them since they aren't MMOs, they're MOs. I felt like I was going crazy trying to figure out what retail wow does so wrong while classic, TBC and WotLK did right. It's how the games were meant to be played. It's why I hold such a special place in my heart for ArcheAge since that was an MMORPG in every sense of the word. After what they did to Archeage, then the crypto Archeage game, ArcheAge 2 is gonna be so bad why can't I get a good MMO
As a side note to the main point, I think a lot of the pushback in the previous video was because (some) people equated being told their gameplay was ‘not optimal’ with it being ‘bad’ when that’s not the case at all.
I totally agree and I actually didn't really account for that here, but it's something that i noticed a lot with players. Is that don't like being told they're not optimal even if it's pretty much always true. That's why I tried to make real loan analogies that actually just ended up making people more offended
Spend a couple days checking /r/ffxivdiscussion on a regular basis and it will start to become apparent that there actually are a lot of unhappy ffxiv players around.
This just made me more convinced at how poorly conceived the 'soloable mmo' video was. You spend half that video theorizing about how solo play doesn't prepare you enough for real life, and literally use ff14 as an example of a game being a worse mmo because it's catering to solo players. Now you spend the first third explaining you have no problem with MORPG and both have their place. Please keep the new nerdslayer studios, I like him much better than the one from three weeks ago.
By the way, you just demonstrated you didn't watch that video because in that video I never said it made the game worse in any way shape or form. So I'll be honest, I don't have much interest in anything else you have to say. Hopefully you'll see that I'm a principal person. I don't care that you just like me now.
As far as im aware, it doesn't matter what people say about the best way to smoke, putting anything into your lungs other than what you naturally should be is inherently dangerous. Irrelevant to if it is a better option than smoking literal cigarettes, it's still harmful to a body over a long course of time. As long as you understand and accept that idea, I think It's fine to go along wiith sponsors like that. But, I think this type of sponsor can seem a bit messy to promote. I suppose if you would promote a cigarette then maybe it's not a big deal but, figured I'd say something anyway. All love, great video!
very true and good points discussing the differences of these as most today are in fact just solo able MORPGs that being said my monkey brain usually lumps them all together and I just end up saying MMOs but what I mean is both MORPGs and MMORPGs. But my First MMORPG was Everquest online adventures, and it got closed down many years ago, that was not a game you could solo or beat by yourself lol, and I miss that.
I really don't think that people understand just how hilariously often people just call games things that they aren't and, if anyone doesn't get the base idea of what Nerdslayer is getting at, the easiest way to sum it up in modern context would be to say something like... Destiny 2 is not an MMOFPS just because BUNGiE and D2 players call it one. Is it online? Yes. Is it an FPS? Yes. But is it Massive? No. In Destiny 2 you are unable to engage with more than 10 other players outside of the social hubs nor is the scale of the game anything more than what I would call a "City Sized Map" at any given moment. How about how, for a long while there, people wanted to call Overwatch a MOBA when it was always and very clearly a Class Based Arena Shooter? That's sorta the point here. The distinctions matter because, without them, the concepot of knowing the "genre" of a game loses basically all of its meaning and that's a really dumb concept when all it really takes is for someone to put in a modicum of effort to clarify what is and is not accurate.
this was a great follow-up to the previous video. I definitely struggled to understand some of the points there but it was much clearer to understand with the examples and other parts here. thanks for the video!
this is just asinine, it seems like your distinction is just how many people can be displayed at once that makes it "massive" and spending 90% of the video telling other people how they are wrong or ignorant if they don't use that same metric.
I always assumed FFXIV was more Online RPG as opposed to MMO. FFXI is closer to an MMO (Atleast back in the day) than 14 is. XD Good video! ^_^ Keep up the hard work.
I've watched all your videos and I still don't get the difference. Like, I get the distinction of MORPG, and the games that fall under that, but I don't get what makes something massive or not, or no longer massive.
I am a huge fan of FF14 and I never thought of it as an MMORPG myself. When I think MMORPG, I think a huge community mostly making their own fun in the game with few theme park-like elements constructed by the developers. For some reason, people seem to think being labeled as an MMORPG is "more prestigious" than being an MORPG or some other online game, and these people think calling FF14 what it is, a MORG, make it "lesser". It's a weird phenomenon.
I have noticed it's non massive RPGs in general, to not pick too much on FFXIV...but I do notice it the most with FFXIV, and I blame cultural differences.
So under your definition would a theme park mmo just have a bigger ammount of theme park like features? but still be focused on sandbox even as a theme park mmo?
@@darensgw2 Honestly, I'm not a game designer, so I'm probably way off the mark with my terms. I just think a true MMORPG needs to give players more agency to interact with one another instead of getting distracted by quests one can just do on their own.
@@omegaxtrigun Neither NS or I said we "look down" on theme-park MMORPGs or MORPG. Neither of us said any game is "Lesser" for being an MORPG instead of an MMORPG. In FF14 you might see a few hundred people milling about in major cities or areas, but the majority of quests and content can be done on your own. For the most part, in MMORPGs, you need to cooperate with other players to do much of the content.
@@omegaxtrigun bro did you see the video lol, they say even then than just because you are not an MMORPG and instead and Morpg its still fine, none is superior
A lot of the comments might come from people thinking "Yeah but my game has this specific content that requires XXX amount of players, so it must be massive, right?". Taking the example of Black Desert, most of the content is designed to be completed by 5 players maximum but a few specific content piece are more massive oriented (being world bosses and nodewars/conquest wars). But appart from that, the game is mostly just a MORPG. If the game was designed with the massive part in mind, nowadays, they clearly opted out of it being the most important part of the game and focused almost entirely on the single player experience (tho the next content coming is like a 300v300, it has been years the massive parts was pretty much on hold).
So would it be correct to say, that the big success of Classic WoW, other than nostalgia, was due to it being a true MMORPG with 2 Ms in a period where there is a great shortage of them?
Reasons "other than nostalgia" is like looking for reasons that a bruckheimer movie made money and then saying "besides the SFX" It's not a reason, it's THE reason
I'm really big into FF14, and I never took issue with your previous video. I only disagree about some very minor and specific elements, but I support the general sentiment :)
I personally believe most of the misunderstandings on your videos is that you do not provide a visual explanation on a 20~30 min video, so some people end up not paying attention halfway in the video. In my personal case though, most of the times I just put the video on the background to listen stuff while doing something else :P
Ive been arguing with people for decades about what a mmo and mo is and why they are difderent and every time its been like talking to a bruck wall. They all just think if it connects to the internet its just automatically a mmo, you simply can talk sense into a person who makes the active choice to be dumb.
Now I have watched to the very end, I can argue with you! you are wrong because, x,y,z, so there! Cant remember which part you are wrong about but I am sure it was in there. I have been soloing MMO's and MO since EQ1 and somedays I feel like I want to rp in the world, somedays I want to team up and kill big thingies. Good vid as always.
I just want a wildstar reboot or the riot mmo to play. Can't really understand people butthurting so much about ff14 being a singleplayer rpg with the mmo elements or other mmos not really being MMO. Great vid.
When it comes to people misunderstanding your points, especially ff14 fans, in my experience ff14 fans are extremely defensive and ready to be offended. You can't even make observations of the game without them assuming you're saying its a bad thing.
![15 อันดับ เกมออนไลน์ MMORPG ที่ดีที่สุด ปี 2023 ก็ยังน่าเล่น [PC]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7E0xfaDqtI4/mqdefault.jpg)
Go to tryfum.com/NERDSLAYER and use code NERDSLAYER to save an additional 10% off your order today.
Looked into FUM after I saw it in your FLYFF video. They look more helpful and less harmful than I initially thought. I think they should do more to separate their brand from vapes but yeah hoping all the best to them and their mission. I hope they do not take a more profitable route in the future.
Hay man by any chance are you planning on making a video on gundam evolution, When the server goes down in a few months?
as someone who does not habitually visit the comments on youtube videos, watching from my couch, I must say - a staggering amount of this video was dedicated to refuting the comment section I mostly watch "Death of an MMO" and was hoping for a more analytical breakdown, I didn't need the 15 minutes of justification of opinions of intentions.....I just want the meat of the subject.
Just FYI, with this post you demonstrated not engaging with the topic at hand which I specifically asked for, which means I actually don't even want you on my channel anymore. It's available offense you offered to offer nothing of value and instead just complain about something. You didn't understand what you could have used as a moment for education
Please don't come back to my channel. You are not the type of person I want on my channel
@Nerdslayergaming yikes. I'm sincerely disappointed. I wasn't trying to be an asshole, just giving my opinion. Sorry, peace.
im very dissapointed too 🙄. nerdslayer needs to drop his guard and hang out with real people instead of fighting on the internet.
@@nerdSlayerstudioss
Honestly you need to stop embarrassing yourself in the comment section. I can't watch your content anymore after reading your childish replies to comments. Regardless of whether or not the comments are dumb, you replying like this comes across incredibly juvenile and quite frankly unprofessional.
Sorry if this is frustrating to read, but you really need to take a step back and reevaluate how you interact with your audience.
I feel like a large number of players enjoy experiencing a virtual world full of other players without being forced to socialize with them extensively. "Alone together" is how I've been describing this concept.
It can be hard to define what exactly "Massive" means in the context of MMOs. Personally I've been defining it as 100 players on screen at a minimum, which is somewhat arbitrary but feels about right to me.
Completely agree, I make that analogy when consulting all the time. Massive is what you want it to mean and feel sometimes, because you control the environment, how large things are, and what player connections/interactions actually mean. For example, 15 people in my room feels massive.
The '100s of players onscreen' thing frankly confuses me, because I doubt I've ever seen or played a game where having such an unwieldily colossal amount of players onscreen at the same time is in any way a normal or regular occurrence.
So ... which online RPGs would count as MMORPGs, then? Certainly not WoW, EverQuest, Ultima Online, or any other classic that I could think of.
@DaveGrean Aion, Silkroad Online have persistent worlds with fort wars that can be at least 100s up to a 1000 players at once. Not to mention EVE although the latter might not fit the rpg part of MMORPG.
@@DaveGrean UO, EQ, AC, and DAoC all had more than 100 players on screen regularly. Many other MMOs including Warhammer Online, EVE Online, RuneScape etc. have had very large numbers of players. Most modern MMOs mostly instance heavily and keep player numbers in the same space low, which in my opinion is one reason they don’t feel massively multiplayer.
@@benpielstick ... Are you sure you aren't exaggerating? Maybe you mean like 20-30 players tops? I can't imagine how over a 100 would look or how it would even work. How would you even play the game if everything is zoomed out so much that so many players can be visible at the same time? Or if the servers are so overpopulated that everyone just has to stand that closely to each other. It sounds very hard to believe to me
I think the problem is not if a game like FF14 is a MMORPG or a MORPG, but that if its a MORPG, it would put it in the same "space" as Monster Hunter World, and the level of player interactions is eons apart between the two.
There is a video of The Gaming Shelf about What is a JRPG that says tha nowadays as the differences between a western and a japaneses rpg becoming blurrer and smudged, with games like elden ring and undertale, what the genre means is more like what you expect of the game: you expect that a western rpg provides customization and dialogue choices and put you character as the center of the world, while a jrpg you expect the epic story about a group of (predefined) characters, grind and effort becomes power and artistic experiences (be it great cgis, orchestral music or amazing pixel art).
Back to mmorpg as genre, you could say that we still use this term as it defines a set of expectations, like community-driven interactions and eternal character progress. You could say that those expectations aren't the same as they were back when genre started, it maybe evolved along the games. Back then we hadn't smartphones or social media, so we needed those huge massive virtual worlds to gather. Those mmo experiences won't ever be the same.
Counter point to your final one since I disagree, VRchat is putting most Triple A's out of business in that respect. The desire to be online, be anonymous, roleplay, or find a safe place to be yourself will always be wanted, especially as technology advances and makes it easier.
@@nerdSlayerstudioss I agree that the desire is there, and it even predates and surpasses gaming, we can just look how much money was spent on all those meta crap, or read a old sci-fi book.
But what I meant is that, even when the technology reaches a point of near 0 latency and processing power for tens of thousand of characters in the space, it won't translate to the same massive game worlds like it was in our time, it will be more like Roblox hub of worlds. May there will be one or other niche thing, like Eve is nowadays, but those Massive, in your sense of the word, MORPG we had back then was an product of that early internet time.
So for me, this argument to split the current game design of games of "40 players max in the same instance online RPG" from the late 90-early 2000's days just brings more confusion and fuels the old "mmo is dead" argument.
In the same way that not every jrpg needs to be turn based or not every action rpg needs to be a top -down view diablo-like, mmo became just a catch-all term, and the current more raid party that went from 40 to 8 players is not just because wow changed this, or themeparks done that, but also a reflection of changes in our culture, acessibility to video games, change of average age of a gamer, etc.
Honestly I think throwing Monster Hunter in this discussion is just kinda confusing. It’s an Action RPG but it leans way more towards Action than RPG. Even then only World Iceborne with its Raid-ish bosses and 16 player lobbies can really get the MORPG title. FF14 and MHW can be compared when looking at game infrastructure as there are similarities and from a developer standpoint I can see how they could be categorized together. However as a consumer Monster Hunter World is as much Splatoon 3 as it is Final Fantasy 14.
It does feel like, games rarely try to push the mold and be different.
It’s always gotta be safe now and market friendly.
Which has created this stagnation of development, same with movies and shows.
Each just becoming a copy of another, and over time it’s a copy of a copy of a copy so on and so forth.
Well this some point, every major concept has already been tried. You can add different coats of paint and different gimmicks, but people are still going to call it like "Oh it's just a Soulslike Metroidvania with some Zelda elements on top", that sort of thing. Which sucks, but it's how people's brains work
I think we see this with movies and games, and huge budgets coupled with profit seeking above artistic vision are the culprits. MMOs suffer from this quite a bit due to the enormous cost of making these games. You have to play it safe when risking that much, funded by investors and beholden to corporate boards
@@heavensborne That's not really the point though, making one's own spin on something else is what you're thinking of, and that can lead to interesting games itself if the spin or twist is a good one, sometimes even developing the genre as a whole even!
No, seems more like what they're talking about is the cookie-cutter painfully predictable ones that try nothing new or exciting at all, ONLY things that have been 'proven' to work to braindead executives and upper management.
Yes. There was a good video about this by Self Deficient called Modern Gaming
I can only hope that technology and engines at one point will get so good that an indie studio could be able to make their "indie MMO/MO" with a similar development cycle than a roguelike. Hammering the good old indie innovation that is constantly breeding new life into gaming, but this time into MMOs/MOs.
An example would be StarBreak, an already lost indie instance-based MO that mixed "permadeath metal slug" and a somewhat meaningful online teamwork of 100+ players (you could quit an instance at any time by casting a spell), and if enough people perma-died or left, the herd of players would start to panic and flee, making the mission much harder/riskier.
I tried to respond objectively to the last video, but I'm pretty sure it got buried among all the other comments and I hope you'll see it this time. Please understand that some of this is going to be critical, but it is in an effort to try and help you understand the other side of the equation so that future messes can be avoided, so please hear me out even though this will be quite long since I've further expanded upon it.
I really don't think the majority of unhappy responses you got last time were from people that thought you were hating on any specific games or even on the non-Massive online titles last time, though there were definitely some fanboys who took using FF14 as a personal attack, but that's the internet. Some people misunderstood what was being discussed while others, myself included, saw it as you willfully misunderstanding what people mean when they say they want more solo content in MMOs because you were applying the statement to the precise meaning and not the generalized. With this follow-up video, I now don't think that was the case - I think it was a genuine misunderstanding in both directions. You touched on something in this video that really relates to what got a lot of people feeling feisty last time - the vague language people use when describing online RPGs as a whole and how using less precise language isn't helpful. To the layman, the term "MMO" is used to broadly paint all online RPGs and that means when you put out a video talking about it being selfish to want to have a lot of solo content in a MMO, many viewers are going to view that as saying that you're opposed to solo content in online RPGs as a whole.
Like it or not, when a term becomes commonly accepted in the vernacular of a community, more specificity is required to ensure the audience doesn't misunderstand the message. Your previous video would have been perfectly fine for a conversation amongst those working within the industry, as they are more likely to speak with the precise terms, but when your are talking on the consumer level you have to remember that precision often vanishes amongst generalization. Even amongst those who have seen your previous videos in the series there will be those who forgot, there will be those who viewed the distinction as simply being pedantic, and there will be some who disagree on what defines "Massive" in "MMO" (part of why it's used as the generalized term is because many people don't look at instancing size, but as the number of players that can populate a server and thus how many potential player interactions are possible, even if not all at once, just look at modern WoW as an example). In all honesty, if about 4-5 minutes of overview from this video had been slapped onto the front end of the last one, you likely wouldn't have received anywhere near the level of negative responses that you did, and that is all just due to narrative clarity. As a quick aside, one thing that might help with clarity is to specify that MORPGs are frequently referred to a "theme park MMOs" for those who wish to paint all online RPGs with the "MMO" terminology since MORPGs tend to wish to present you with a huge world full of specific activities or attractions that are meant to experienced in a specific way, much like a traditional offline RPG.
Overall, you're a very logical, highly technical person that has a deep understanding of the subject matter, but that also makes it so that you can come across sounding like an elitist asshole even though you don't mean to... I understand, I'm like that too and have had people call me out on it when I didn't even realize I was coming across that way. Much like you, my own experiences were when discussing topics for which I have a great passion and it's because people with this personality type that we share tend to get very wrapped up in the technical details and when we discuss our passions, we expect others to participate in the discussion at the same level and it makes us come across as condescending even when we're really just trying to be academic and informative.
If I may, I'd like to make a suggestion because it's something I'd do if I were in your shoes as a content creator... Specifically for these passion project videos that are meant to be informational, run the final script by someone you trust to give honest feedback who you know can put themselves in the position an average person being presented with that script and not someone already educated in the subject matter, then ask them if you are making you points clearly and even more importantly, that you don't sound like you're talking down to the audience. As the saying goes, "it's not what you say, it's how you say it."
Thanks for your time.
I agree, but I also think it's not solving the issue by just clarifying that he doesn't mean games that he considers MORPGs. Just MMORPGs, because I don't see any reason why an MMORPG can't have room for solo content. Not saying all MMORPGs should, but I think the category is still too large of an umbrella for a discussion like this. There are going to be examples of MMORPGs that still appeal to solo players, and MMORPGs that choose to focus almost exclusively on group content, so we need more sub categories.
Also I agree that the language of the video at times seems to slip into assumptions that solo = non-cooperative when usually solo players are more than willing to participate in groups, they just want to have the freedom to limit their social engagement to a level they are comfortable with, and many games facilitate this with in game factions, open world events, etc.
While some of it may be the result of misunderstandings on both sides, it unfortunately feels like nerdSlayer refuses to accept any fault. The beginning of this video has him speaking of "fragility and anti-intellectualism rampant in society" in regards to people who were critical of his previous video, and his reaction to someone (Christopher Jacobs) commenting below that they'd wished for a more analytical video is downright toxic.
This feels like a semantic problem on the differences between Sandbox and Themepark MMOs, which I thought was the established terminology for a game like Eve (Sandbox) or a game like FFxiv (themepark). Should we maybe remove MMO as a label or classification? Or maybe be more nuanced with the label? I guess, but there's usually a break point in normal conversation where specificity is thrown out for common, modern-day nomenclature, often derived from how the mainstream audience understands the thing. MMO is a nice established base for the kind of design weight you can expect from an online game; MMOs usually have a lot of interconnected (or not so interconnected) systems that span the game, as well as a common UI and feature set from the game that brought the term "MMO" to the mainstream, WoW. If you need more clarification, then you ask or give that clarification, but broad terms are broad for precision's sake, not accuracy.
This is a similar problem with the term "RPG" often only denoting that the game will have some kind of skill tree or character upgrade system derived from experience points and levels. It says very little about how much of a game will actually involve role playing because that's just not what the term means anymore. Do I think these should change? Sure, but that's up to society as a whole and the terms used by the masses. I can't be upset by someone that uses the term MMORPG when they just mean an online game that has levels and skill trees; that's accurate enough to a layman. I have to ask for clarification because maybe they aren't into the hobby and have no idea about the kinds of games that exist or haven't even put thought into the terminology or where it came from. Ultimately, this is just language and the ebb and flow of it's understanding and use. Best we can do is ask for clarification and know that overtime the need for such clarity should arise in the types of games that come out, such as souls-like needing to exist for that is a kind of game that people want to play and express that *precise* interest to others. Remember, these terms are never accurate and never will be, their existence comes from a need for precision.
FYI, you ignored the Japanese historical perspective fantasy star online and Yoshi P's thoughts on any of this which I mentioned in the video that if you don't pay attention to any of that, i won't read or respond to anything you have to say.
Maybe we should remove the " theme park" title because if that's the case every game is a "theme park" some just don't give you a tour.
@@nerdSlayerstudioss I'm curious why FFXI never comes up at all in these discussions? It's both the first FF mmo and thus XIV's predecessor and it was quite popular, at least from what I've seen from what limited data we had on subs. Having 500k or so before the WoW black hole hit.
Ironically FFXI players all agree with me so far in my experience, I don't think it comes up because it's a fundamentally different game. Yoshi P has talked about it though, especially in beginning. I still think it's incredibly relevant, especially OPRG vs MMORPG (as FFXI feels massive in basically every way in comparison)@@EimiShahrizai
@@nerdSlayerstudioss If I had to compare XIV and XI it'd be that XIV feels like it's trying to be a game while XI is more concerned with being a world. From the pace of combat, which is slower on purpose so you can type to party members while playing, to the fact that travel is gated by the in game transport schedule, Vana'diel is a world, while Eorzea is a video game. I just so rarely see it come up when you discuss older mmos, when I think it's fascinating that despite it having load screens between zones, it still manages to feel like of the biggest virtual worlds I've experienced.
"Several hundred players on screen" about that, there are old WoW stories where they tried to have a huge battle with 300 people on each side in front of Orgrimmar in Classic and one person throwing a spell after they all lined up literally crashed the server. So, yes, they allowed it, but it wasn't feasible in the least 😂
I definitively remember most of PvP raids between The Crossroads and Astranaar had insane lag and ended with the servers crashing.
@@Biouke Hillsbrad foothills was another of those areas... Just oof!
To be clear, I played wow with way more players than that
Anything more than a few full raid groups attempting world pvp in even classic completely lagged the game out, every time, without fail. We have countless recordings of this.
I understand the point these videos are trying to make, but what I didn't understand was the point of making the point. Throughout my life, I have played dozens, if not hundreds, of online multiplayer games, and many of them were MMOs or ORPGs.
Never have I heard anyone outside the previous video argue about the semantics of what genre or game type an online game should be classified as. I could be an outlier who has been fortunate enough to never come in contact with this controversy, I admit that. However, personally, I do not care about what you would call a game or not.
It seems like a very vocal minority is fueling all the controversial discussions. I do hope the comment about a 'fragile and anti-intellectual society' was aimed towards these types of people and not everyone who made a comment criticizing the video, but I can't know that, so I'm not going to assume.
I really think these videos could have focused more on educating the players of these games about the differences in the genres or game types they play, whether they be subtle or glaring, and why making these differences clear matters. Instead, we got a video caring way too much about what the comment section said and not one that focuses entirely on clearing up the confusing nature of the previous videos.
To start, I think I should state that I am also a solo player, have been for decades now, so this post is coming from someone who is also a solo player.
This video really only highlights the issue in defining the categories of games. Some will think games like SWTOR, GW2, FFXIV are MORPG while others think they're MMORPG, but as there really is no actual classification for the Massive (seriously, go look, try to find an actual hard number, you'll only find estimates or goals) or how many players it takes to turn an MORPG into an MMORPG, it's a never ending debate. This entire series is really just a distinction without a difference.
You believe many of these games are not MMORPGs, that's totally fine, you're welcome to your opinion, others disagree. As someone who has played damn near every MMORPG (also as a SOLO player) since Neverwinter (because to me they all are MMORPGs, from Neverwinter, to FFXIV to Lost Ark) the amount of people playing at a time has never mattered to me as I only really interacted with them when I absolutely needed to (Ahh, Valkrum Dunes, the gateway to hell if you wanted to solo). The differences in systems and approaches by the developers for the game doesn't matter. There really is no actual need to have separate classifications for them, which is why, by and large, there isn't within the industry. Look up top whatever number of MMORPGs in history and you'll find most of the game you don't consider to be MMORPGs on that list because that's how they are regarded by the industry and the vast majority of the gaming playerbase.
I think you should look at Yoshi P's own comments about FFXIV as he himself, as recently as his interview with Sportskeeda this year where he emphatically states and considers FFXIV to be an MMORPG and touches more on the reasons for his different approach to ARR compared other MMORPGs on the market, acknowledging the lack of time people have to play and bar to entry for things like story (he's against skips because he states that FFXIV is a story based MMORPG). His whole approach to ARR was to make it more casual friendly (not just casual as in player type), but more something you can pick up and put down whenever you wanted to by design. He's even on record telling people to stop playing in-between patches, to go play other things. His difference in approach to how the game is designed doesn't make it a different category of game. Especially when the man himself is going around calling it an MMORPG. His interview with Game Focus in 2016 also highlights these same positions as well, specifically designing the game the way it is to appeal to casual players specifically.
Then we have his interview with Eurogamer in 2022, again reiterating the MMORPG that is FFXIV and elaborating on his vision and what he considers his ultimate idea of the MMORPG which I'll quote below:
""My idea of the ultimate MMORPG is one in which each player playing the game can pick and choose the content they want to play, and the developers take into account the myriad values held by the players, responding to as many requests as possible"
The Duty Support system may initially seem to be an odd fit. After all, Final Fantasy 14 is a multiplayer game, so why allow players to complete duties solo? Yoshida believes it can provide an entry point to the game.
"The main point is not that we are focusing exclusively on single-player content in particular, but rather that the scale of the game, its content, and development has finally grown to the extent that we can provide content tailored to solo players," he said.
I'm focusing heavily on FFXIV here as you seem to misunderstand Yoshi P's position in this video (or perhaps I'm hearing it wrong and misunderstanding) but your own classification of FFXIV as an MORPG and not an MMORPG is counter to that of the man himself.
Now, we could go tit for tat on several of the games mentioned, but those are going to boil down to definitions of words, intention of developers and styles of approach to how the games were designed. Yes, games can be designed differently and still be considered a specific genre of game, something you seem to allude to not being the case as you mention on several occasions how certain MMORPGs are designed differently and thus are they really MMORPGs.
Definitely a great video, though while I understand what you're trying to do, I don't see the point. You seem to be terminally online as much as I am (assuming you're being honest about your history with MMORPGs), so you know damn well trying to educate people on the internet is going to be a massively uphill battle lol. I didn't watch the previous videos, but saw this on my recommended, now I'm going to watch them. If you further clarify your positions on why FFXIV for example isn't an MMORPG, I might edit this, but I actually bothered to look up the words of Yoshi P himself just to be sure and his position is definitely different than yours.
Rewatching the Yoshi P angle you have for the 30th time now, I'm going to need you to quote Yoshi P saying FFXIV wasn't an MMORPG because you do actually state that he "is aware that FFXIV is not an MMORPG" at 17:55 in the video, but this actually is countered by literally every interview you can find on him discussing the game online.
I'm sorry but of you started with Neverwinter you probably didn't play anything else than MORPGs so how could you tell a difference, which makes your opinion frankly useless as it is not fully informed.
@@MATCHLESS789
It's semantics, if there are several people in the same consistent world and can be seen everywhere in the world, so designed to be an MMO, it *is* an MMO.
What others do or whether they want to engage with you or not is none of your business.
I think your last videos message was muddled and wasnt very clear and then you attacking people in the comments didnt help i understand where your coming from but you sounded mad condescending in your comments and responses.
This why games like elden ring and monster hunter focused more on story but always have an option for coop
Exactly
This is a debate my younger brother & I have had a few times before. I, as on classic MMORPG player feel the difference between something like EQ & XIV are stark, while he, someone who really doesn't care for the genre is perfectly fine lumping them together. Ultimately it comes down to investment & general care of said subject. He can go on & on about anime genres, sub genres, screen play, and lore, etc, while I casually enjoy the medium but and hard pressed to find all the, what I consider, minute difference. Another example is cars. I personally can tell you all the difference between the body lines, paint quality, transmission types & even feel between the types of brands, country of origin, design philosophy, interior feels, etc., while to him they are just different sized & shaped "people movers". If it doesn't interest you enough, said thing is all "close enough".
It almost feels like we need a middleground term between MMOrpgs ( eve, darkfall, etc) and Morpgs where the current MMOs exist, cause they do have a good amount of massive is just not that important in the game, almost like an afterthought.
I think Guild Wars 2 walks that line a bit. Questing zones can feel far more crowded than many other MORPGs, especially around big events. Then there's WvW to consider that really makes the game feel more massive when you play it.
yeah but of course even then its not massive in the sense that the old games were and they are of course optional game modes as well and not its always playing alone with other people as well@@InnerVision66
@@darensgw2 Yeah it's not massive, there are a separation between zones with loading, which leads me to think they are instanced and phased same as FFXIV. As for WvW, it's one of the three core pillars of the game. It is that large scale PvP that pits severs against each other. If you're not in a large group you're really not gonna get anything done.
my biggest question is why for the past 2 decades has this been a heavy topic? does it really matter? is it really that important?
Accurately communicating a concept in a time where we can't agree on what is true is the first step. It's a pet peeve of mine too that every thing gets called an mmo when it simply isn't.
On the one hand it's pedantic to the layman, but on the other hand it's just being accurate in what you mean. The Witcher is an rpg, Aion an MMORPG. Now some people call LoL an MMO or Valorant. They aren't. No persistent world with a massive amount of players in it interacting and playing at the same time with eachother.
Tldr; maybe he's should have just defined them accurately, said classifying things correctly isn't an attack on the things and called it a day.
Pretty good video, great points. The insufferable smugness made it a painful watch though.
Fair enough ;)
Found the based "it gets good after 300 hours" MSQ enjoyer.
@@NoraNoita Youre reply to my joke comment is perfectly par for the course from what I would expect from a FFXIV main.
I'm thinking about it and it feels like MMOs are more of a 'vibe'. I don't even know what you'd classify a MORPG as if it wasn't a RPG, but I do know what a MMORPG could be if you removed the RPG. When I think MMO, I think a game with tons of players you can chat with, with social functions like player housing and the ability to host events (Which ironically, FF14 is one of the best at. It just feels more MORPG when it comes to actual 'gameplay'). But what would a MO be?
Or at least, maybe I'm just a bit mixed up because I'm somebody who'd love to play a MMO or its little bro equivalent if it was still social, but was more about playing a character or role without the foundations of a RPG (Builds and numbers being super important mainly).
I wouldn't advertise any product that youre willingly sucking sometjing into your lungs without knowing what it is or any extensive research being done
What about the thing called Semantic change? I feel like most people use the term MMO as it is and don't mean MASSIVE multiplayer online game. Trying to argues that people are using a term wrong is a losing battle. The games evolve let the language change with it.
I get that the games that people now days call MMOs aren't "Massive" but imo the word massive is up to interpretation. To me Gw2 is a "massive" game so why can't I call it a MMO if that's how I see it?
Also MMORPG rolls off the tongue easier that MORPG.
But its not a "massive, multiplayer, online rpg", it's "massively multiplayer online rpg". If a million people play a SP RPG game with always online DRM - does it become an "MMORPG"? No.
I'm not into the concept of vapes. Switching from a bad habit to a good habit might sound alright, but there's also the higher probability of switching from no habit to a bad habit.. Or a bad habit to a worse habit. I met a guy who smoked. He switched to vapes and now he smokes both cigarettes and vapes.
I respect your opinion, especially you took the time to write it out and give me an anecdote too.
I think the issue this is trying to touch on is how any given person defines the first M in MMO and that not having been mutually agreed upon by the public. In my case I draw the line between MMO and MO (or Hub World MMO as well here) would be if there is Primary Content that can be feasibly done with more people than can be grouped together. In most cases I would deem Primary Content to be Combat, Crafting, and Story, of which only Combat can really pass the "Massive" and "Multiplayer" line.
So where GW1 and PSO/PSO2 have no content that can be done with larger than a single (by game systems) collective group, WoW (40) and FFXIV (24) can. Even if we take the latter 2 examples largest "group content" being Alterac Valley (80) and Frontlines (72), they still do not exceed system group limitations of 40 and 24 simply by having opposing teams of maximum capacity, but the Primary Content does have activities that can be reasonably done with more people than that, being World Bosses and A/S Rank Hunts for examples. We can safely say WoW and FFXIV are less "massive" than say EQ1, WAR:AoR, DAoC, EO, etc. but even those really didn't require groups that heavily, and even when you heavily required a group with games like early FFXI the content very often discouraged "Massive" on the scale you seem to be implying of "in the 100s of players on screen", with systems like mob "tagging" preventing loot and experience.
So now the opposite end of the "What is Massive" issue rears it's head, if all participants in a "Massive" activity capable of being rewarded for it, and is that necessary to calling it "Group Content"/"Cooperative Content"? Now I don't play enough games that really go all out on players on screen, since they tend to be exclusively PvP focused games, and I don't like PvP enough to play them, but say a 1k v 1k Eve Online battle takes place, is every player considered by the game as working together in any "tangible" way or is it just up to 2k people playing solo/small RPGs in the same space and is that enough to qualify as "Massive", and not just a ton of people on screen playing a really "Tiny" RPG.
I think mainstream understanding tends to see any game where an amount of people that can't be quickly counted as Massive, so in cases like PSO the "Hub World" is technically capable of hosting a pretty ridiculous amount of people. Hub Worlds in a certain sense is like a Pause/Start Menu in a single-player RPG or at least an explorable extension of it. Then to counter my own stance on what I the first M to be, does a Hub World count as "Primary Content", I don't personally.
Now the final issue plaguing the "MMO" moniker is the definition of "Multiplayer" the 2nd M. Before someone just refutes it, how much interaction do two players need before it actually qualifies as "Multiplayer", is it simply existing in the same virtual space? Being able to communicate? Being able to trade? Being able to form a group? And likely other conceivable questions. Now for most games highlighted in this video, the 2nd M doesn't have much contention, but when you flip into the mobile game market, the "Massive" begins to feel a lot more applicable than the "Multiplayer" part. Often times a mobile game will call itself an MMORPG, but the most interaction between players is a "Daily Friends List Check-In", "Chat", and maybe a "Clan" in which any activities almost never require both players to be playing and online at the same time. Even the generally PVP focused majority of those games is One Player fighting against a Bot Controlled other players pre-setup camp.
In summary, until the player base, developers, and publishers come to some sort of consensus on the limitations of the Ms in MMO we will be stuck in this conundrum of everything being called an MMO by the mainstream/general public.
To me, an mmo was when they had one server where the playerbase shared, like wow before the sharding
I believe Josh Strife Hayes made a video discussing the term MMORPG and how incredibly vague and obtuse it actually is. After all, if taken literally, the term really just means 'RPG that is online with a lot of other people'. Personally... I don't really care? I played a ton of MMO's back in the day and nowadays I mainly play FFXIV. I just play what I think is fun and don't really give a rat's behind about what term we're using to describe it nowadays.
I've seen games on steam with a whole load of labels (2D metroidvania roguelite deckbuilding dating sim RPG whateverthefuck) and sometimes it feels like taking a shotgun blast to the brain. It feels like when you get a bit into music and people start blasting you over whether that song/band is numetal, metalcore or buttfuckmetal or whatever.
I think the biggest reason why we don't see a lot of proper MMORPGs is because the gaming industry as a whole have shifted from prioritizing games with fun moment-to-moment gameplay to prioritizing on games with pretty graphics. We went from MMOs like Ultima Online, Runescape, Everquest and WoW, to Black Desert Online, New World, Tera, and Destiny 2 (lolDestiny 2, the greatest MMORPG ever). The problem with this, though, is that you can't really have an MMO where there can be as many as a thousand or more people on screen with the graphics of something like Horizon Forbidden West _and_ have it be stable without your processor/GPU/CPU just turning to molten lead.
As to the whole "people blindly defending their favorite game" bit, it's simply a natural thing for people to do. As an example, if a WoW player were told that the game was dead, that anyone who continues to play it are idiot poop faces for playing it, of course they're going to passionately defend it. It's merely a human instinct to defend something one cherishes so greatly.
Nobody called FFXIV dead, I even praised the game and still have delusional idiots say I'm attacking it. I even shared my script rofl
@@nerdSlayerstudioss Oh, I agree with you on that. I don’t think you’re unfairly attacking FFXIV. If anything, you bring up some really good points about it. What I was saying was that people will instinctually defend something they have an attachment to. People will inevitably have an emotional attachment to something that has been a big part of their life - even if what they’re saying may not be true or is spoken out of emotion rather than being steeped in logic.
You’re not wrong in pointing out the things that are wrong with a game (I mean, that’s basically what you do with the DoaG series), and I’ve had my own criticisms with FFXIV over the years. For example, I’ve been vocal about how the various Jobs have become too homogenized and play identical to other Jobs within its category. I’ve also expressed concern about how the game is becoming _too_ accessible. They’ve taken away a lot of abilities and effects that give the game some measure of depth, like removing Protect, Stoneskin, DoTs on several Jobs, as well as taking away aspects of a Job that gave it its own unique identity, like with my main Job, Dark Knight (they took away abilities like Darkside, Dark Arts, Blood Price, as well as neutering Abyssal Drain).
It's much simpler than that really. MMOs are insanely expensive to develop. Not just on the front end, but having continuous cost on the backend as well.
You want to ensure that you are profitable so you do things that you know have been successful. Companies are extremely risk-averse and get more and more so as the price ticket rises.
Yeah sorry I realized my post doesn't seem like it's agreement. I also agree with your position, both of them.
Legit thought i forgot to close my Guild Wars 2 client 🤣
Nice choice of music there Slayer
I've always found this topic very interesting, and this video got into some good detail. Though I have a few questions. Maybe you've answered these elsewhere, but I'll ask them anyways.
1. What would you say is the dividing line between a MMORPG and MORPG? Obviously there is the massive part, but what passes the line for massive? Is it a number of players interacting at once, or is it as simple as the game relying on the players roleplaying with each other to promote teamwork or being part of a system as a whole, like a real world? Where would something like GW2 with its WvWvW fit in that? I would say as a whole the game would fall under MORPG due to not having many massive aspects of players interacting and taking on distinct roles, except when you then consider WvWvW. But the context of WHY they are interacting and HOW they are doing it is pretty minuscule in comparison to say EVE Online. You could say it's the numbers in that case too, but I think it's more nuanced than a simple number cutoff. That is why I mention the why and how of that many players are interacting.
2. More of a followup question to the above. You mentioned in the FF14 changes that for a MMORPG it mostly relies on the players as the primary path for content and experience as role play actors. Would something like a large role play Minecraft server count as an MMORPG due to the players being the primary option for generating content? I've seen Minecraft servers that go on for years, have hundreds of players on and off, and take advantage of the potential scale Minecraft offers to give a massive feel. But they don't have the massive numbers like mentioned in older MMORPGs that could support 500+ players at once.
3. You mention that SWTOR and FF14 could have been better games in respects to their content, story, and gameplay if they didn't have the focus on MORPG aspects. By that do you mean much narrower focus on online aspects primarily? Say something more like the lobby system of Monster Hunter? Or is it simply there would have been more development room for gameplay, story, and graphics? I know you mentioned the latter, but I was curious on clarification if you meant NO online play whatsoever. I feel like the way you were talking about it could be interpreted a few ways. Either still online but with less focus on the online aspects, or next to no online and focusing more on their parent IP's success with single player gameplay and story, maybe with co-op to flesh things out more.
To expand some on my 2nd question. Even if the game went in either direction, either more focus on small scale online vs no online, would the game still be able to develop over time with new content? I feel that is one important thing to consider with these games. To use more standard games from the IPs as an example, Final Fantasy 7 Remake and Knights of the Old Republic. If SWTOR and FF14 originally focused development more like their parent games would they have even had a longer lifespan with newer content? To use more recent examples. Something like Destiny which is one of the main examples of a live service game these days, if it released like Bungie's previous game series Halo, then it wouldn't have had enough room to generate income to develop expansions and thus less content. So while we may get a better overall experience, it would be in a smaller package and have a shorter lifespan. I guess my main followup question with all of that added context is, do you think those trade offs are worth it for these live services/MORPGs? Because realistically sacrifices have to be made during development.
I wrote out a lot more than I was expecting. It's a topic I could go on for a lot longer too. Maybe there is a better place to put these thoughts that you might be able to respond to. Either way, if you don't respond I at least enjoyed the video and the topics you brought up. MMORPGs/MORPGs mean a lot to me and I find them endlessly fascinating to explore and discuss.
xiv players: "We're a chill, welcoming and friendly community :)"
also xiv players: "BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT THE GAME"
Love most of your videos, mostly your death of a game series, but this seems to be a 30 minutes rambling video about pointless semantics. Still excited for your next video, take care! :)
Please don't come back to any of my videos if you think 30 minutes of historically backed data and arguments is just semantics. Like genuinely, I don't want you to watch my videos.
@@nerdSlayerstudioss ight, won't miss your pseudo-intellect but will miss your informative video. Good luck with your channel, have a great day! :)
Not making an argument on a video you post on, for me is the definition of pseudo-intellect. For example how you didn't actually attack any points raised, demonstrates you can't so you feel the need to say bad words about me as if I care about what some random poster I have never seen nor heard about says. Meanwhile you can't even understand a 30 minute comparison video, yikes!
@@nerdSlayerstudioss I just want to point out that I understood everything you have said in the video and understand the logic that you are using. I was merely sharing my opinion on the video as a whole and didn't want to write an essay explaining why it's a pointless discussion.
You just showed to me and a couple other people that you can't take criticism and want to live in your echo chamber and that's fine!
Have a greet week! :)
This is one of the few times now where I'm really not sure about this sponsor.
You're advertising vaping under a different name. Whether it's safe or not isn't the problem, just advertising anything like it is very concerning.
just chill man, no need to get personal with the internet
MMORPG used to mean Massive through design: Fully open world (even if zoned) with nothing privately instanced. Practically the only proper _M_MO's we have seen come out over the last few years (or at least were close enough) that I can say I've played include ArcheAge, New World, Crowfall (you absolute disappointment, you), and BDO. Compare them to Lost Ark that I found myself jumping back into, and it's hard to really give a game like that the "Massive" moniker. Other than the quest chains, there's effectively zero reason to be anywhere that isn't a capital city, and it is absolutely riddled with instanced content, with zero reason to interact with any players other than for the instanced content. There's nothing massive about that at all. It's a solo online game that occasionally requires coop. It's a glorified lobby game. And just like practically every other online RPG like it that calls itself an MMO, the only thing massive about them is the effort put into abandoned open worlds no one touches once the quest chains are done and the amount of players sitting in the capital waiting for their instance to pop.
And despite WoW's success and scope, I think it represented the end of Massive moniker being appropriate, especially since over time it was designed more and more towards merely being an MORPG with increased instancing and with the open world zones becoming less important while transitioning rather entirely into mere one-and-done themepark rides. Not many so claimed MMOs since WoW have really done much to revitalize (let alone innovate on) the sense of the _massive_ part of the acronym, leading to quickly abandoned open worlds or hardly an open world to speak of at all. I really want to have a truly massive multiplayer online RPG again, one that actually plays into it, rather than it effectively being treated as window dressing. Also, hopefully not get screwed over by reversals in OW design decisions (New World, ArcheAge come to mind), designing away from the OW over time (WoW), or screwed over by poor monetization and exploitative systems (ArcheAge again, for sure, with how it handled farms and the labor/crafting system). Feels like the next one the genre's fans are anticipating the most is Ashes of Creation (Star Citizen doesn't count perpetual alpha trololol). We'll have to see just how well they live up to the hype.
I became a solo player because of online RPG. Playing tons of team centric games was great until a year or two goes by with most of the guild breaking apart becase of various reasons. I just realize I'll be the last man standing most of the games I play eventually. So why bother getting into a dedicated guild.
At the end, you reinforced my feelings about this sort of video: that the people who say they miss the socialization of old-time MMORPGs actually just miss being able to gank noobs. You see it a lot in Ashes of Creation comment sections.
The most significant difference between Ultima Online and FFXIV is the lack of forced PVP.
What are you talking about lol
I left a negative comment on that last video about you talking about FFXIV. Mine However was because you claimed the story couldn't compare to a single player Final Fantasy story because "It couldn't, by being a multiplayer game" or some such. However that games story is far better then most if not all other Final Fantasy games stories. The MMORPG vs MORPG stuff is certainly fair though.
Hard disagree on the story being better than the single player FF games. I would argue only 2 expansion stories are even close to the worst sinlge player FF stories.
You're delusional if you think it takes Shadowbringers and Heavensward/Endwalker level writing to only beat out the stories of the likes of FF1 and 2. Also I left my comparison somewhat open ended because it's a shorter list of the single player entries that DO compare rather than not imo. As in for me maybe FF9 and FF tactics could be considered on par or above FFXIV's story @@GingrWithNoE
@@ankujo8924 You're delusional if you think everybody shares your opinion as if it is hard fact and not indeed an opinion. Using FF1 as low hanging fruit is honestly adorable and kind of negates the whole point of having a conversation in the first place. Thats like comparing a Tesla Model A to a horse drawn carriage in a discussion about take off speeds.
Do you see what I'm saying? Ginger? They have to construct mental gymnastics instead of just saying they like their game more
@@nerdSlayerstudioss craziest thing about it is if you were an apsiring newb who wanted to play their first MMORPG I would likely recommend FFXIV since it offers the most content and IMO best end game PvE experience with a strong in game communtity, but like it goes against my FF fanboyism to allow these people to talk about the FF games like theyre all some poorly written trash when 75% of 14s story is MMO fluff fetch quests; they refuse to keep people dead so big moments have little meaning, and the main character is a mute super hero with the power of planet god. As a continuously developed online game; FFXIV struggles terribly with its inability to draw conclusion to its arc in a proper manner.
Interesting topic thanks for insights, watched the video twice. I play Guild Wars 2, it's such a unique hybrid combat system, and the primary game functions/modes are no different with the layout of "Massive" intentional large scale - World Bosses scaled to map for everyone to participate (more participants), Meta-Events (expansion specific events), World v World server Zergs, Raids etc. But the expansions/content of character development, and mostly playing the game is a combined soloable and co-operative (voluntary) option. Struggling to conjure up an "atypical" architype to place such a game, yes marketing is involved in hype for what is quantified and subjective as massive for consumers. But maybe it's like movies where you get horror/thriller, aspects of both genres.
I think GW2s approach is/was genius, I just usually don't give them as much credit because nobody has done it like they have done it (it's not replicable really). GW1 not being massive at all, makes GW2 immediately seem far more massive having open zones (with player count caps or not). I think GW2 is a natural evolution, so it might be one of the few if not only instances of a ORPG going massive.
@@nerdSlayerstudioss gw2 is still my favorite mmo by far. I think it feels a good nish, but Anet doesnt advertise it as well as games like Wows and ff 14
I think I jumped universes again. I swear I've seen this video before. Like 100% not even in a deja vu kinda way. So... an alternate you in a different dimension made this months ago.
damn you know me better in another universe than I know myself
Thank you for this breakdown. I regularly reference your videos/points made when making the bold statement that FFXIV and PSO2 are not MMOs. The pitchforks usually come out quick, which I then direct people to what you've said regarding them. (As such, I hope I didn't just send you angry mobs, lol)
One of the most important things you said here however is that it's good to understand and make the distinction between both games, so that devs can create and market their works more effectively, to both target audiences and people looking for more and different than what they're accustomed to. We can have it all, but it's important to know and express what we want.
My all-time favorite MMORPG is RF Online (Rising Force Online) sadly it's not successful in the West therefore it didn't get much love from MMO communities. But to me, it is the most Massive and multiplayer-ish MMO I've ever played ( I still play it from private server to private server).
Basically, the game is PvP focused between 3 different races that fight with each other and the endgame of the game is just PvP for resources (resources to gear up like enhancing materials), but the game relies on player numbers, and if the server became too little in terms of population and not many people attending the "war" the game became less fun to play.
The dynamic of the game is also fun, you elect a Race Leader each week to hopefully lead the race to win wars. It's so much fun and so far for me there is no MMO that could rival this in terms of massive and multiplayer aspects.
RF Online's Chip Wars during its high point was amazing, thousands of players across the 3 factions duking it out for 2hrs on a single map with alliances being established and backstabbing happening behind the scenes.
I am late to the video but still felt like dropping a comment of appreciation for it! I play WoW as a solo player but I really like the endgame group content. Looking for group lets me do that extremely well, which is why I think MORPG is a great name. You are in an online environment, free to engage with people when you want to, but not "forced" to in order to progress to a near-optimal level.
Great video and I do agree with most of your position here. I will say that this comes off a bit too combative and, especially in the end, it feels like you're taking things a bit personal. I understand where you're coming from, but man, don't give internet neckbeards any way to take things that way or they will double down. Just some friendly advice since I want to see you continue to do well and without any "controversy" (you know, the cringe-worthy reddit/twitter type).
I don't really understand what you mean about taking things personal. This is my actual job and my career so of course it's personal. I don't know how that changes anything
Your use of language and tone, putting it lightly, is antagonistic and condescending. Lots of people have careers where there is inherent conflict with other people, however they handle it better than you do.
The thing is, I am not trying to "handle it better". That's your weird standard that I both don't adhere to, nor care about. Notice how I said you need to post an argument to engage on this video, and you are here complaining about me being a meany pants instead? Which is literally addressed in the video? LOL. It's like you either didn't watch it, or thought I would give a shit about hurting idiots feelings past a point. Sorry, I don't, TB is my favorite content creator thank god (rest in peace)@@BanterousLemon . It's always people like you, I have never seen post before nor talk to me on any other platform who complain about me being confrontational. It's cringe because it comes from your parasocial relationship and lack of understanding of me as a person, which you could have solved 10000 different ways.
@@nerdSlayerstudiossI understand. Perhaps it's not the best phrase to use. In summation, my point more stands on don't let them get to you. Even if it bothers you, don't feed the antagonistic basement dwellers. "Avoid wrestling pigs in the mud because you both get dirty but the pigs enjoy it." These type of people's entire existence is feeding off inconsequential conflict online. If engaging with your community is important to you, then it's probably best to choose engagements that you enjoy.
Positive note: all I am hearing is GW2 music when you speak and I have to rewind to actually hear you.
The nostalgia is hitting me hard and I thank you for it
People forget genres exist to give you an idea of what you're playing. I hate when people call things like Nier or Dark Souls JRPG's because it literally makes the turn useless.
Exactly, it's a buyer-beware, or buyer-thisisforyou.
Or better playing game with "MMO" tag but still expect/insist everything to/should be soloable,some people man
This subject again? Really beating dead horse, MORPG is just not part of the nomenclature and unnecessary to try and wedge in. Online RPGs are already multiplayer and this distinction between what is truly MASSIVE to be properly titled an MMO just sounds like a personal bugbear. There is a reason people are apathetic.
Then scroll past the video? 😂😂
I do like that some online games have made a move toward being able to solo stuff cause players move on, games get older and soon, there isn't a community if you're a new player. I've played games where I don't see another soul for literal days of solo gameplay and that's not a bad thing necessarily. It makes the game feel empty, sure. But that doesn't make the game any less good or bad. You take it as you want. Having someone point out objective points on a game shouldn't get you frustrated and if it does, that's a "you" problem. He's not attacking you nor should you attack others cause a fact about the game is brought to your attention. No game is perfect, everyone of them has their flaws.
If you look at some of the older games, if you didn't have a group of people to play with, you barely got anything done. Final Fantasy 11 was just like that. There was no function to find party members, you had to actively search for people. Leveling was done out in the world, not dungeons with matchmaking. It took a lot more effort to make progress with no other effective recourse, so that's what you had to do. I'm glad making solo as an option is a thing.
Those are two completely different style of game, only share a name.
Very true. Didn't mean to suggest they were the same style of game. I guess what I was trying to say in that second paragraph that some online games were engineered every differently. I don't know what games today would be more community focused like FFXI was back when I played it over a decade ago.@@nerdSlayerstudioss
Tons of games, I recommend looking them up. Even Animal Crossing is largely unplayable without friends.
I watched both videos, and commented on the last one. I didn't mean to come off toxic last time if I did so let me clarify a few things.
I'm a long time viewer of your channel, and I felt like you were stating that people that don't engage in group play were mentally deranged and needed to seek professional help. As you stated at the end of this video you've played MMOs in the way that I described my hypothetical player in the previous video's comments. This hypothetical player is reflective of many people I know that eventually either became more social in game or stopped playing due to them not liking the game. An example of this is say someone's girlfriend that played Skyrim, so said boyfriend bought her WoW in order to play with her. We played on a PvP server, and she was not having a good time there. She had a blast in the lower level zones playing with us and questing, but once we got to the point that we needed to do dungeons she had a hard time keeping up. This was exacerbated once she started hitting Contested Territory zones and was ganked repeatedly. She stopped playing and so did her BF, cause he wanted to spend time with her. We wound up switching servers to a PvE server later down the road, and she had a much better time, and wound up becoming a main healer on our raid team, so happy ending.
I think you have great points in this video, and it's nice to have a both a short history of both genres, as well as a a better description of why both are good and bad in their own ways. My only critique here would be to please open the video with the same kind of message you had at the end. NGL, almost left, as I felt like you were snapping at your critics. I can see that you are trying to voice your opinion while defending your statements. I get it, its rough online when you feel like people are dogging you for stating your opinion. Sometimes it's best to take a step back and reassess how you're wording things. Delivery is key, and sometimes we all could use better packaging.
With all due respect, I don't have to tell every person I argue with my personal story. That's why I left it at the end so people wouldn't make it about that despite it being the onus for me. It's important as an educator that I'm educating people, which doesn't mean being nice nor doesn't mean coddling people. But I respect your opinion regardless
@@nerdSlayerstudioss I wouldn't imagine you would given your position. I just left mine figuring it would give my previous comment more context, and didn't really matter in the grand scheme considering its not uncommon. I'm not a known entity that has to worry about people bugging them over it, but yeah I suppose it would be a little weird. Still, a little kindness never hurts. As they say, you get more flies with honey than vinegar.
I am not trying to get people to like me, I am trying to get people to understand how life works. Which creates dislike. I get hundreds of comments from idiots, people proud they don't read, and more. So unfortunately, as I said in this video, blame the internet...I was raised on it. You can't retroactively make me care about being nice to willfully ignorant idiots, sorry. My programming doesn't work that way anymore. And if this video offends some sensibilities, it says more about you, your argumentation skills, and the fact that you aren't me IMO. Because this video...is me, all of me. I just put the sad story at the end because if people cared about sad stories, I wouldn't have to keep making the same video.
@@nerdSlayerstudioss Buddy, I'm not here to tell you what to do. It was a suggestion. I get that you must get that a lot, but it was meant as a gesture of kindness, not bitterness. The internet is an ever changing place. The internet of yesteryear is not the internet of today. Things change.
Regardless, do your thing though. I'm not here to stop you.
You need to be in a group to fully enjoy the game vs grouping is optional and not necessary. I think I get your point. I fall into the latter, grouping is optional, as I am the proverbial real life comes first. EVE online is fun. Certainly it can be played solo but there are aspects of it that cannot be fully enjoyed without being a group (Ah... how I miss TOG when they were active). Parties being optional and ad hoc are sometimes more entertaining for me than dedicated guilds or alliances - City of Heroes was fun for that despite Super Groups being a driver in the game. Good video, thanks Nerd.
Counter Strike to Diablo 2 to Guild Wars to FFXI, growing up on the Internet was an absolute blast. I agree if it weren't for those games being morpg or mmorpg, I might never have learned how to socialize. Awesome video - Thanks!
Thanks for sharing!
I feel like each time you post a video (I watched most of them, the DOAG are my favs), there will always going to be some form of emotional attachment to it from other people. Be them anguish, sadness, nostalgia or anger, there will always be something. I always attributed this to how blunt you are about what you talk about. Its a stark contrast to other video discussing the same things. I appreciate it.
As for the subject at hand, I agree that categorization of online games can only bring better games in the future. It makes making the next big online game a more focused endeavor from devs. And we severely need the next big online game be them MMO or MO. I really want to play MMO like EVE or ArchAge but goddamn... do I feel intimidated.
I always feel like commenting on your videos difficult because at one point in the video, I have some thing to say, but then at another point, it becomes moot because the comment doesn't have anything to do with the video.
P.S. I thought you've already learned how FFXIV players can sometimes be very protective and was expecting such backlash from the soloable mmo video. I mean... that thumbnail alone can bring about a calamity hehe
honestly a really good point
See i don't disagree with your points and having not seen the other video your tone comes off as slightly salty here ?
I think the problem with the Internet is we can only be clearer and clearer but never get 100% of people to understand
Wondering why you flew over FFXI? That game pretty much defined my love for MMOs
Because it would ruin his false narrative over Japanese MMO games.
FFXIV is my favorite game of all time and whatever it actually is doesn't affect that :)
To add on to this, it actually makes sense that I love it so much as PSO1 was my first real online game and I played it for a VERY long time. FFXIV kind of carries on a lot of its concepts
Embers Adrift is the only legit classic MMO out now, just nobody plays it. Could easily take the entire world over with a small group of friends. Stands out in the industry too, just the box price. No cash shop and an opt-in sub fee, think a patreon sub. Game is hard af too.
I'm surprised people care enough about this for 3 vides but if it works it works.
No one is obligated to play with you.
Humans are obligated to be social in a social world then
@@nerdSlayerstudioss
Make people avoid you less then.
Players aren't your pawn.
It's half an hour of "Cater to me!", nothing more.
I think it doesn't matter the slightest. Call it whatever, whichever, it's fine. In regards to FF14 though, there is a MMORPG portion of it. World Bosses, Bozja Battlefield, Firmament Festival to name a few. Also there are MORPG aspects of it. Story Quests, Raids and Dungeons for example.
So there comes the question: if it kept toggling between the two, is FF14 a MMORPG or is it MORPG? If one just engage the MMO aspect and the other just engage the MO aspect, what is FF14 for those people?
FF14 is MMORPG because it can be a MMORPG. But if people just playing it like a MORPG it can be that too. One doesn't invalid the other.
It can compliment too.
Thanks for the video and I was thinking about it a couple days ago. This is a little off topic but I really would like to have more games designed to be more coop, especially the RPG's.
Completely agree, I think couch co-op dying really hurt that market. Not that it's completely dead or ever did, but it took a major hit.
in WoW just going around and collecting mats or crafting and selling on the auction house is game enough sometimes, just paying a monthly fee to be a vendor
As a primarily solo guy, I actually wish more MMOs built more systems that depended on team play. The tradeoffs necessary to make these games dont make it worth it to a solo player or a social ones. Trying to please everyone will please no one
what was your thought on wow? mmo or mo? Im guessing started off as mmo and quickly moved mo
Exactly
Sick vid, I think a Sandbox vs Theme park video is in order as its almost synonymous with MMORPG vs MORPG topic and many modern gamers have only experienced Theme park mmo's 🙂
Great suggestion, I think that is next on the list! I will make it very detailed too.
I'd for sure not mind studying up on sandbox MMOs, as yeah I've only ever played themepark ones. I don't even think I'd enjoy sandboxes as I like structure (and why I don't enjoy most Open World RPGs that have come out this past decade that try to be a sandbox), but I still wanna learn what made them tick and why they aren't popular nowadays as much
th-cam.com/video/KIvKcPwUk8o/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=nerdSlayerStudios lul
@@heavensborne Its funny. I personally do not like open world offline RPGs, I rather my offline experience be linear, almost like a reading a book from finish to end, rather than writing my own book. When it comes to MMORPGs, I prefer sandboxes because it feels like a real world with real people where anything can change everytime I log in.
@@nerdSlayerstudioss hahah so prolific eh already forgetting past gems
I like your videos and share your opinion most of the time, but regarding this video, I'm curious about the sponsor, how was the process to accept the sponsorship based on the sort of product they sell and the claim about it being a healthier habit?
Because it doesn't have nicotine look no offense. It's not that complicated
You should totally make a case on the differences between other genres! Like rougelites and rougelikes
I would love to, and dear god would I be inviting so much excitement AND stress into my life LOL
@@nerdSlayerstudiossdo how smash isn’t a fighting game and watch the free engagement rain from the stars
PLEASE, also differentiating that certain popular game that plays itself isn't a roguelike
You're 100% correct.
I'd actually argue that multiplayer online games have trended AWAY from "massive" for a couple of decades while most players in this conversation first tried them AFTER that trend began. WoW was a big part of that trend, and has only pushed towards smaller player interactions. The age of games where you genuinely have to consider the actions of more than 100 other people has essentially passed, represented only by a handful of niche legacy titles.
Massive or not, the heaviest factor in this clash of genres (to me obviously) is how often I find a *meaningful emergent interaction with another player* .
By far my most fond memory in an MMO started by playing solo for weeks, and then emergently finding a group with a requirement I could fill (we all NEEDED the extra hand, the game was hard but I was awkward about asking for help), and only then changing into a more group-based mindset.
I developed a loyalty to the group who adopted silly-me, siding with them during in-game politics between guilds, thus creating multiple rivals and allies. Suddenly I was part of the world, a loyal member of a small group who was playing a small part in a bigger political/economical/territorial game (Lineage 2 btw.)
This is why I don't like going around shouting that I'm looking for a group, why I value emergent interactions, why I value much more a 1-on-1 chat asking to do some content or to join a group... than applying to 15 guilds and automatically join the first to accept me.
I do get heavily disappointed if I get into mid/lategame without experiencing enough meaningful emergent interactions. Yes, I did fail to socialize, but the game also failed promote meaningful interactions (not hating / appreciating any individual user during my stay on that shared virtual world.)
I'll name a some examples of "meaningful emergent interaction" in MMOs / MOs:
* Random PK/PvP with no words exchange, real reasoning nor context behind it *is NOT meaningful* (also not emergent if it's a PvP-intended area.)
* A HUB with dozens / thousands users running around, each always doing their own thing *is NOT meaningful* (BDO).
* Queueing for a Party Raid instance *is NOT meaningful nor emergent* (it's even less exciting than a MOBA match.)
* Clans warring over in-game politics, economy or territory *IS meaningful* (but not emergent since this tends to be date-specific.)
* Saving / Getting saved by a random player when there is a high risk & death penalty for both *IS emergent AND meaningful* .
* Having to cooperate in tight sync with a random user to barely stand a chance *IS meaningful* (even League can provide this.)
* Invasions in Dark Souls are *much more meaningful and emergent* than ambushes/ganks in MMOs.
Slight off-topic:
Most MOs/MMOs nowadays try to have fast-phased gameplay to keep people busy and playing for longer (most people also like this), but I think slower-phased games had the underrated advantage of giving you some free windows of time to care about others, even during meaningful combat gameplay.
This is why I like Tab-Targetting MMOs with slower combat and less key-pressing (e.g. attack while moving.) Games like this allow you to play while still staying active in the social side of it.
Some games like BDO make it real hard to even press/hold the mic button if you are busy grinding or doing something challenging, further hindering the social aspect of it.
I'm kinda disappointed that Throne & Liberty is aiming towards a more action-based gameplay, but at least they are trying to remove the auto-play.
Ha, I loved L2 back in the day (until about C6) and I love invasions in souls games.
I don't play any modern MMOs anymore but I still play Souls games to invade/get invaded often. Too bad Fromsoft is getting kinda more and more lame about invasions with every game.
guild wars 1 wasn't an mmorpg, but guild wars 2 definitely is. guild wars 2 doesn't focus on small scale, the content that gets the most developer attention are large encounters on maps
lol I see Grandchase @ 13:11 I have some wild ass gamer memories from that one. Basically when the game first came to the west it.... didn't launch with a level cap I no lifed and grinded like crazy on launch and when they actually did add a level cap it was a lot lower than the lvl I had ended up grinding to. I spent like a good 3-6 months idr how long exactly bodying people in pvp because of this and was constantly called a hacker. Also other fun thing was I got a cape in the beta for being in the best clan which ended up being BIS for the entirety of the game. Simply because it was the only cape slot item that raised stats by a % instead of by a flat number.
So many people in the comments of this video and the other one are getting it wrong. The first M in MMO isn't "massive" in the sense that the game is massive or big in scope or scale. Its "Massively Multiplayer". So much confusion can be removed with a google search and some reading comprehension.
Yup massively is an adverb describing multiplayer, an adjective. Good luck getting people to care.
oof
Feels like there needs another term in between MMO and MO also perhaps a term for a solo based online rpg that still has social elements. It truly is fascinating that we used to have more genre titles or subgenres, yet now it seems to be shunned to better describe a game.
Number of players involved for X type of content could be a good measuring stick. Be PvE content, PvP Content, Crafting content, and even content that is more strictly Social.
That part in the intro saying that players knows more about a game than their creator remembers me of masahiro ito that to this day, people continue to argue with him in twitter about his lore lol
Protip: Yoshi-P did not develop FFXIV, you are confusing him with Nobuaki Komoto.
You sir just put a term to my conundrum. I always felt odd playing GW2, FFXIV, SWTOR, Retail WoW, Black Desert, Etc. but never could quite put my finger on it until this video. I played these games LIKE mmorpgs because that's how they're constantly refereed. That only put an unfair expectation on them since they aren't MMOs, they're MOs. I felt like I was going crazy trying to figure out what retail wow does so wrong while classic, TBC and WotLK did right. It's how the games were meant to be played. It's why I hold such a special place in my heart for ArcheAge since that was an MMORPG in every sense of the word.
After what they did to Archeage, then the crypto Archeage game, ArcheAge 2 is gonna be so bad why can't I get a good MMO
Glad I get explain a phenomenon you found personally relevant!
Can someone list the games shown. Sources were shown but would have rather the name of the game be… seen a few I wouldn’t mind playing.
As a side note to the main point, I think a lot of the pushback in the previous video was because (some) people equated being told their gameplay was ‘not optimal’ with it being ‘bad’ when that’s not the case at all.
I totally agree and I actually didn't really account for that here, but it's something that i noticed a lot with players. Is that don't like being told they're not optimal even if it's pretty much always true. That's why I tried to make real loan analogies that actually just ended up making people more offended
Who the fuck called YoshiP devisive? Is there some weird subset of the XIV fanbase I've never seen that thinks he's not cool?
Spend a couple days checking /r/ffxivdiscussion on a regular basis and it will start to become apparent that there actually are a lot of unhappy ffxiv players around.
This just made me more convinced at how poorly conceived the 'soloable mmo' video was. You spend half that video theorizing about how solo play doesn't prepare you enough for real life, and literally use ff14 as an example of a game being a worse mmo because it's catering to solo players.
Now you spend the first third explaining you have no problem with MORPG and both have their place. Please keep the new nerdslayer studios, I like him much better than the one from three weeks ago.
By the way, you just demonstrated you didn't watch that video because in that video I never said it made the game worse in any way shape or form. So I'll be honest, I don't have much interest in anything else you have to say. Hopefully you'll see that I'm a principal person. I don't care that you just like me now.
As far as im aware, it doesn't matter what people say about the best way to smoke, putting anything into your lungs other than what you naturally should be is inherently dangerous.
Irrelevant to if it is a better option than smoking literal cigarettes, it's still harmful to a body over a long course of time.
As long as you understand and accept that idea, I think It's fine to go along wiith sponsors like that.
But, I think this type of sponsor can seem a bit messy to promote.
I suppose if you would promote a cigarette then maybe it's not a big deal but,
figured I'd say something anyway.
All love, great video!
very true and good points discussing the differences of these as most today are in fact just solo able MORPGs that being said my monkey brain usually lumps them all together and I just end up saying MMOs but what I mean is both MORPGs and MMORPGs. But my First MMORPG was Everquest online adventures, and it got closed down many years ago, that was not a game you could solo or beat by yourself lol, and I miss that.
I really don't think that people understand just how hilariously often people just call games things that they aren't and, if anyone doesn't get the base idea of what Nerdslayer is getting at, the easiest way to sum it up in modern context would be to say something like...
Destiny 2 is not an MMOFPS just because BUNGiE and D2 players call it one.
Is it online? Yes.
Is it an FPS? Yes.
But is it Massive? No.
In Destiny 2 you are unable to engage with more than 10 other players outside of the social hubs nor is the scale of the game anything more than what I would call a "City Sized Map" at any given moment.
How about how, for a long while there, people wanted to call Overwatch a MOBA when it was always and very clearly a Class Based Arena Shooter?
That's sorta the point here. The distinctions matter because, without them, the concepot of knowing the "genre" of a game loses basically all of its meaning and that's a really dumb concept when all it really takes is for someone to put in a modicum of effort to clarify what is and is not accurate.
It was a marketing term to me, long ago it lost meaning/accuracy. Its like, "organic food." 🤑
Shout out to the Guild Wars 2 background music in this video!
this was a great follow-up to the previous video. I definitely struggled to understand some of the points there but it was much clearer to understand with the examples and other parts here. thanks for the video!
this is just asinine, it seems like your distinction is just how many people can be displayed at once that makes it "massive" and spending 90% of the video telling other people how they are wrong or ignorant if they don't use that same metric.
I always assumed FFXIV was more Online RPG as opposed to MMO. FFXI is closer to an MMO (Atleast back in the day) than 14 is. XD
Good video! ^_^ Keep up the hard work.
Pretty much!
I've watched all your videos and I still don't get the difference. Like, I get the distinction of MORPG, and the games that fall under that, but I don't get what makes something massive or not, or no longer massive.
I am a huge fan of FF14 and I never thought of it as an MMORPG myself. When I think MMORPG, I think a huge community mostly making their own fun in the game with few theme park-like elements constructed by the developers. For some reason, people seem to think being labeled as an MMORPG is "more prestigious" than being an MORPG or some other online game, and these people think calling FF14 what it is, a MORG, make it "lesser". It's a weird phenomenon.
I have noticed it's non massive RPGs in general, to not pick too much on FFXIV...but I do notice it the most with FFXIV, and I blame cultural differences.
So under your definition would a theme park mmo just have a bigger ammount of theme park like features? but still be focused on sandbox even as a theme park mmo?
@@darensgw2 Honestly, I'm not a game designer, so I'm probably way off the mark with my terms. I just think a true MMORPG needs to give players more agency to interact with one another instead of getting distracted by quests one can just do on their own.
@@omegaxtrigun Neither NS or I said we "look down" on theme-park MMORPGs or MORPG. Neither of us said any game is "Lesser" for being an MORPG instead of an MMORPG. In FF14 you might see a few hundred people milling about in major cities or areas, but the majority of quests and content can be done on your own. For the most part, in MMORPGs, you need to cooperate with other players to do much of the content.
@@omegaxtrigun bro did you see the video lol, they say even then than just because you are not an MMORPG and instead and Morpg its still fine, none is superior
A lot of the comments might come from people thinking "Yeah but my game has this specific content that requires XXX amount of players, so it must be massive, right?".
Taking the example of Black Desert, most of the content is designed to be completed by 5 players maximum but a few specific content piece are more massive oriented (being world bosses and nodewars/conquest wars). But appart from that, the game is mostly just a MORPG. If the game was designed with the massive part in mind, nowadays, they clearly opted out of it being the most important part of the game and focused almost entirely on the single player experience (tho the next content coming is like a 300v300, it has been years the massive parts was pretty much on hold).
👍🏽
So would it be correct to say, that the big success of Classic WoW, other than nostalgia, was due to it being a true MMORPG with 2 Ms in a period where there is a great shortage of them?
Reasons "other than nostalgia" is like looking for reasons that a bruckheimer movie made money and then saying "besides the SFX"
It's not a reason, it's THE reason
I'm really big into FF14, and I never took issue with your previous video. I only disagree about some very minor and specific elements, but I support the general sentiment :)
I personally believe most of the misunderstandings on your videos is that you do not provide a visual explanation on a 20~30 min video, so some people end up not paying attention halfway in the video.
In my personal case though, most of the times I just put the video on the background to listen stuff while doing something else :P
Ok, I'm not crazy. This was a similar topic from a year ago.
I've always had this thought: Move one of those M's around and expectations will greatly change, at least in my book.
As someone who played FF14 since day 1, and many many hours in other MMOs (;p), I couldn’t agree more with literally everything you said!
I'm play Phantasy Star Online 2 New Genesis for my MORPG needs. For MMORPG? I'm waiting for Camelot Unchained. XD
Ive been arguing with people for decades about what a mmo and mo is and why they are difderent and every time its been like talking to a bruck wall. They all just think if it connects to the internet its just automatically a mmo, you simply can talk sense into a person who makes the active choice to be dumb.
not sure i would call Warframe a MMO , it used to have 8 man raids , but those are gone , and now adays its just a 4 man squad looter
Now I have watched to the very end, I can argue with you! you are wrong because, x,y,z, so there! Cant remember which part you are wrong about but I am sure it was in there.
I have been soloing MMO's and MO since EQ1 and somedays I feel like I want to rp in the world, somedays I want to team up and kill big thingies.
Good vid as always.
I just want a wildstar reboot or the riot mmo to play. Can't really understand people butthurting so much about ff14 being a singleplayer rpg with the mmo elements or other mmos not really being MMO. Great vid.
hot take: runescpae isn't an mmorpg, it's a mud
When it comes to people misunderstanding your points, especially ff14 fans, in my experience ff14 fans are extremely defensive and ready to be offended. You can't even make observations of the game without them assuming you're saying its a bad thing.
So true