Discussion History Main / MassivelyMultiplayerOnlineRolePlayingGame

--> \\\'\\\'\\\"I think having at least one or two hundred players able to interact directly with each other at any given time would be a good place to start, because that\\\'s generally well above the upper-limit for simultaneous player counts in games that are distinctly non-massive.\\\"\\\'\\\'

Your definition of what \\\"should be\\\" a massively multiplayer game only considers how many people are actively playing the game, not the kind of population the game\\\'s online mechanics are designed to handle. That means your criteria would award and strip games of the \\\"massively multiplayer\\\" title only by their current popularity, not by their game design. That\\\'s ... rather inadequate.

[[http://adultimum.net/studio/screenshots/psu20070523_101041_011_psow.jpg Especially when it\\\'s clear that these games]] [[http://adultimum.net/studio/screenshots/psu20061209_091331_386_goodoldays.jpg can and do attract a large crowd.]]

-->\\\'\\\'\\\"I\\\'m curious to see where these claims of PSO being massively-multiplayer are though. Could you show them to me?\\\"\\\'\\\'

You\\\'ve already seen some of them. For example, [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyEnJCgTZds Sega\\\'s own advertisement for PSO]]. The advertisement practically covers every critical aspect that makes a Massively Multiplayer Online Game what it is--and this was back in 2001, when the genre was young and only in its \\\"second generation.\\\"

Phantasy Star Online and Universe get billed as [=MMOs=] by a number of sources other than Sega--[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_massively_multiplayer_online_games Wikipedia]], which cites [[http://web.archive.org/web/20070429235432/http://www.acegamez.co.uk/reviews_x360/Phantasy_Star_Universe_Preview_X360.htm this article]].

There\\\'s also [[http://ps2.ign.com/articles/403/403483p2.html this interview]] with Hiroshi Matsuyama, developer of the DotHack series. Take note of what he said about the influences on the setting:

-> \\\"Not really [=RPGs=], but [=MMORPGs=], the online games, we\\\'ve researched almost all of them for this game; \\\'\\\'Phantasy Star Online\\\'\\\', Final Fantasy, Ultima Online. All of those.\\\"

My problem with what \\\'\\\'you\\\'re\\\'\\\' doing is twofold. One--you\\\'re trying to discredit games with obvious MMO elements and instead label them as Roguelikes.

Neither PSO, PSU, or PSZ are turn-based (with the exception of PSO Ep. III, which is clearly a MMOCCG instead). Dungeons and mission areas in all three games use random presets that contain already-set monster spawn information, not the wholly randomized dungeons and monsters that Roguelikes commonly feature. Most Roguelikes contain very little plot, while even PSO had a pretty involved story (and PSU and PSZ even more so). Death is not permanent in any of the three games, unlike Roguelikes where it often is. Apparently this has been done before, because there was discussion in the PhantasyStar article where other tropers disagreed with the Roguelike label, so I know I\\\'m not the only one who opposes this categorization.

Two--you overlook the condition of the entire article while trying to declare the Phantasy Star games something they\\\'re not.

If you\\\'re going to go by a strict \\\"an MMORPG is a cookie cutter clone of WorldOfWarcraft or {{Everquest}}\\\" definition, then you\\\'ll be ripping out a \\\'\\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\'\\\' of games tropers have listed on this article. Did you even take a look? Aside from GuildWars (whose developers define as a CORPG), this page also lists KingdomOfLoathing, UrbanRivals, GaiaOnline, PangYa (and quite a few others). You\\\'ll notice that this article\\\'s alternate title is \\\'\\\'\\\"MassivelyMultiplayer\\\"\\\'\\\', and the introduction makes clear that, to be listed on this index, the game \\\'\\\'need not be an RPG\\\'\\\'.

Yes, PSO, PSU, and PSZ are {{Action RPG}}s. So what? They contain enough elements of MassivelyMultiplayer to qualify as part of this index. A game\\\'s genre has no impact on whether or not it can\\\'t be included in this index, because whether or not it is MassivelyMultiplayer depends entirely on its online networking mechanics rather than its game mechanics.

If you honestly want to hear my \\\'\\\'personal\\\'\\\' criteria for whether or not a game is an MMO (separate from what\\\'s been established in this TV Tropes index), then understand that this is \\\'\\\'my\\\'\\\' personal criteria. What I have said just prior is going entirely on what has already been established by Sega, by others, or by TV Tropes.

Whether or not a game, to me, is MassivelyMultiplayer depends on whether or not it has some form of persistence.

All those FPS games you tried to equate to PhantasyStarZero lack something important: a persistent character (not \\\'\\\'player\\\'\\\', but \\\'\\\'character\\\'\\\'--that\\\'s important) who progresses, is customizable on some level, and can be taken through multiple online play sessions with many different people. In other words, \\\'\\\'everyone who has the game\\\'\\\' [[RequiredSecondaryPowers and an internet connection]] is a potential person with which to play the game, and you can use the same character(s) you\\\'ve been customizing and developing to play with others, however many times you like.

Persistence was something defined by the online mechanics of the game world, but too many MassivelyMultiplayer games now rely on instanced content for that to be a reliable definition--so it falls to the \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\', more constant aspect of [=MMOs=] to define them--the player\\\'s character(s). In theory, an [=MMO\\\'s=] character doesn\\\'t \\\"retire\\\" when the game\\\'s story reaches its conclusion (if it does). In single-player and many \\\"mere\\\" multi-player games, once the game reaches the ending, all the progress made on that character is moot. Once Mario rescues the princess, the game is over and all the coins and points he\\\'s gotten are irrelevant. Once [[ChronoTrigger Crono]]\\\'s {{nakama}} defeats Lavos and the credits roll, all their progress becomes irrelevant.

In many [=MMOs=], reaching the end of the story doesn\\\'t mean the character is no longer playable. They can still hang out in the game world, interacting with other players, partaking in other forms of content if the game has them, or simply held in reserve until an update comes out to provide more stuff to do (if the game receives content updates). They\\\'re only gone for good when the character is deleted by the player, or when the MMO closes down.

Thus, PhantasyStarZero \\\'\\\'would indeed\\\'\\\' be considered an MMO, while shooters like Half-Life, Quake, Duke Nukem, et al. would not. Most games like that just have a session-finding system where people play matches with preset characters whose appearance \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' be customizable, but they never actually progress or develop. Those games \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' record a player\\\'s progress, but it\\\'s all about the player, not any characters. \\\'\\\'Zero\\\'\\\', however, follows the PSO model of persistence for characters.

In that regard, yes, my MMO definition could (and does) apply to other games not commonly thought of as [=MMOs=]. TeamFortress2, for example, was clearly just another FPS when it launched--it runs on the same match making system as other [=FPSes=], it lacked any RPG elements, and all recorded personal data focused on the player, with no benefit to the characters--but Valve has been adding MMO aspects to the game over time--character progression, upgrading, [[http://www.hexkrak.com/?postID=28 item crafting]], customization. It\\\'s a GenreShift with each update that TF2 goes through.

Regardless, that\\\'s just my definition, independent of what TV Tropes considers an MMO. But even under TV Tropes\\\' definition, what you\\\'re trying to do is not cool.

--> \\\'\\\'\\\"I think having at least one or two hundred players able to interact directly with each other at any given time would be a good place to start, because that\\\'s generally well above the upper-limit for simultaneous player counts in games that are distinctly non-massive.\\\"\\\'\\\'

Your definition of what \\\"should be\\\" a massively multiplayer game only considers how many people are actively playing the game, not the kind of population the game\\\'s online mechanics are designed to handle. That means your criteria would award and strip games of the \\\"massively multiplayer\\\" title only by their current popularity, not by their game design. That\\\'s ... rather inadequate.

[[http://adultimum.net/studio/screenshots/psu20070523_101041_011_psow.jpg Especially when it\\\'s clear that these games]] [[http://adultimum.net/studio/screenshots/psu20061209_091331_386_goodoldays.jpg can and do attract a large crowd.]]

-->\\\'\\\'\\\"I\\\'m curious to see where these claims of PSO being massively-multiplayer are though. Could you show them to me?\\\"\\\'\\\'

You\\\'ve already seen some of them. For example, [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyEnJCgTZds Sega\\\'s own advertisement for PSO]]. The advertisement practically covers every critical aspect that makes a Massively Multiplayer Online Game what it is--and this was back in 2001, when the genre was young and only in its \\\"second generation.\\\"

Phantasy Star Online and Universe get billed as [=MMOs=] by a number of sources other than Sega--[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_massively_multiplayer_online_games Wikipedia]], which cites [[http://web.archive.org/web/20070429235432/http://www.acegamez.co.uk/reviews_x360/Phantasy_Star_Universe_Preview_X360.htm this article]].

There\\\'s also [[http://ps2.ign.com/articles/403/403483p2.html this interview]] with Hiroshi Matsuyama, developer of the DotHack series. Take note of what he said about the influences on the setting:

-> \\\"Not really [=RPGs=], but [=MMORPGs=], the online games, we\\\'ve researched almost all of them for this game; \\\'\\\'Phantasy Star Online\\\'\\\', Final Fantasy, Ultima Online. All of those.\\\"

My problem with what \\\'\\\'you\\\'re\\\'\\\' doing is twofold. One--you\\\'re trying to discredit games with obvious MMO elements and instead label them as Roguelikes.

Neither PSO, PSU, or PSZ are turn-based (with the exception of PSO Ep. III, which is clearly a MMOCCG instead). Dungeons and mission areas in all three games use random presets that contain already-set monster spawn information, not the wholly randomized dungeons and monsters that Roguelikes commonly feature. Most Roguelikes contain very little plot, while even PSO had a pretty involved story (and PSU and PSZ even more so). Death is not permanent in any of the three games, unlike Roguelikes where it often is. Apparently this has been done before, because there was discussion in the PhantasyStar article where other tropers disagreed with the Roguelike label, so I know I\\\'m not the only one who opposes this categorization.

Two--you overlook the condition of the entire article while trying to declare the Phantasy Star games something they\\\'re not.

If you\\\'re going to go by a strict \\\"an MMORPG is a cookie cutter clone of WorldOfWarcraft or {{Everquest}}\\\" then you\\\'ll be ripping out a \\\'\\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\'\\\' of games tropers have listed on this article--did you even take a look? Aside from GuildWars (whose developers define as a CORPG), this page also lists KingdomOfLoathing, UrbanRivals, GaiaOnline, PangYa (and quite a few others). You\\\'ll notice that this article\\\'s alternate title is \\\'\\\'Massively Multiplayer\\\'\\\', and the introduction makes clear that, to be listed on this index, the game need not be an RPG.

Yes, PSO, PSU, and PSZ are {{Action RPG}}s. So what? They contain enough elements of MassivelyMultiplayer to qualify as part of this index. A game\\\'s genre has no impact on whether or not it can\\\'t be included in this index, because whether or not it is MassivelyMultiplayer depends entirely on its online networking mechanics rather than its game mechanics.

If you honestly want to hear my \\\'\\\'personal\\\'\\\' criteria for whether or not a game is an MMO (separate from what\\\'s been established in this TV Tropes index), then understand that this is \\\'\\\'my\\\'\\\' personal criteria. What I have said just prior is going entirely on what has already been established by Sega, by others, or by TV Tropes.

Whether or not a game, to me, is MassivelyMultiplayer depends on whether or not it has some form of persistence.

All those FPS games you tried to equate to PhantasyStarZero lack something important: a persistent character (not \\\'\\\'player\\\'\\\', but \\\'\\\'character\\\'\\\'--that\\\'s important) who progresses, is customizable on some level, and can be taken through multiple online play sessions with many different people (in other words, \\\'\\\'everyone who has the game\\\'\\\' [[RequiredSecondaryPowers and an internet connection]] is a possible person to party up with).

Persistence was something defined by the game world, but too many MassivelyMultiplayer games now rely on instanced content for that to be a reliable definition--so it falls to the \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\', more constant aspect of [=MMOs=] to define them--the player\\\'s character(s). In theory, an [=MMO\\\'s=] character doesn\\\'t \\\"retire\\\" when the game\\\'s story reaches its conclusion (if it does). In single-player and many \\\"mere\\\" multi-player games, once the game reaches the ending, all the progress made on that character is over. Once Mario rescues the princess, the game is over and all the coins and points he\\\'s gotten are irrelevant. Once Crono\\\'s {{nakama}} defeats Lavos and the credits roll, all their progress becomes irrelevant.

In many [=MMOs=], reaching the end of the story doesn\\\'t mean the character is no longer playable. They can still hang out in the game world, interacting with other players, partaking in other forms of content if the game has them, or simply held in reserve until an update comes out to provide more stuff to do (if the game receives content updates). They\\\'re only gone for good when the character is deleted by the player, or when the MMO closes down.

Thus, PhantasyStarZero \\\'\\\'would indeed\\\'\\\' be considered an MMO, while shooters like Half-Life, Quake, Duke Nukem, et al. would not. Most games like that just have a session-finding system where people play matches with preset characters who \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' be customizable, but they never actually progress or develop. Those games \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' record a player\\\'s progress, but it\\\'s all about the player, not any characters. \\\'\\\'Zero\\\'\\\', however, follows the PSO model of persistence.

In that regard, yes, my MMO definition could (and does) apply to other games not commonly thought of as [=MMOs=]. TeamFortress2, for example, was clearly just another FPS when it launched--it runs on the same match making system as other [=FPSes=], it lacked any RPG elements, and all recorded personal data focused on the player, with no benefit to the characters--but Valve has been adding MMO aspects to the game over time--character progression, upgrading, [[http://www.hexkrak.com/?postID=28 item crafting]], customization. It\\\'s a GenreShift with each update that TF2 goes through.

Regardless, that\\\'s just my definition, independent of what TV Tropes considers an MMO. But even under TV Tropes\\\' definition, what you\\\'re trying to do is not cool.

--> \\\'\\\'\\\"I think having at least one or two hundred players able to interact directly with each other at any given time would be a good place to start, because that\\\'s generally well above the upper-limit for simultaneous player counts in games that are distinctly non-massive.\\\"\\\'\\\'

Your definition of what \\\"should be\\\" a massively multiplayer game only considers how many people are actively playing the game, not the kind of population the game\\\'s online mechanics are designed to handle. That means your criteria would award and strip games of the \\\"massively multiplayer\\\" title only by their current popularity, not by their game design. That\\\'s ... rather inadequate.

[[http://adultimum.net/studio/screenshots/psu20070523_101041_011_psow.jpg Especially when it\\\'s clear that these games]] [[http://adultimum.net/studio/screenshots/psu20061209_091331_386_goodoldays.jpg can and do attract a large crowd.]]

-->\\\'\\\'\\\"I\\\'m curious to see where these claims of PSO being massively-multiplayer are though. Could you show them to me?\\\"\\\'\\\'

You\\\'ve already seen some of them. For example, [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyEnJCgTZds Sega\\\'s own advertisement for PSO]]. The advertisement practically covers every critical aspect that makes a Massively Multiplayer Online Game what it is--and this was back in 2001, when the genre was young and only in its \\\"second generation.\\\"

Phantasy Star Online and Universe get billed as [=MMOs=] by a number of sources other than Sega--[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_massively_multiplayer_online_games Wikipedia]], which cites [[http://web.archive.org/web/20070429235432/http://www.acegamez.co.uk/reviews_x360/Phantasy_Star_Universe_Preview_X360.htm this article]].

There\\\'s also [[http://ps2.ign.com/articles/403/403483p2.html this interview]] with Hiroshi Matsuyama, developer of the DotHack series. Take note of what he said about the influences on the setting:

-> \\\"Not really [=RPGs=], but [=MMORPGs=], the online games, we\\\'ve researched almost all of them for this game; \\\'\\\'Phantasy Star Online\\\'\\\', Final Fantasy, Ultima Online. All of those.\\\"

My problem with what \\\'\\\'you\\\'re\\\'\\\' doing is twofold. One--you\\\'re trying to discredit games with obvious MMO elements and instead label them as Roguelikes.

Neither PSO, PSU, or PSZ are turn-based (with the exception of PSO Ep. III, which is clearly a MMOCCG instead). Dungeons and mission areas in all three games use random presets that contain already-set monster spawn information, not the wholly randomized dungeons and monsters that Roguelikes commonly feature. Most Roguelikes contain very little plot, while even PSO had a pretty involved story (and PSU and PSZ even more so). Death is not permanent in any of the three games, unlike Roguelikes where it often is. Apparently this has been done before, because there was discussion in the PhantasyStar article where other tropers disagreed with the Roguelike label, so I know I\\\'m not the only one who opposes this categorization.

Two--you overlook the condition of the entire article while trying to declare the Phantasy Star games something they\\\'re not.

If you\\\'re going to go by a strict \\\"an MMORPG is a cookie cutter clone of WorldOfWarcraft or {{Everquest}}\\\" then you\\\'ll be ripping out a \\\'\\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\'\\\' of games tropers have listed on this article--did you even take a look? Aside from GuildWars (whose developers define as a CORPG), this page also lists KingdomOfLoathing, UrbanRivals, GaiaOnline, PangYa (and quite a few others). You\\\'ll notice that this article\\\'s alternate title is \\\'\\\'Massively Multiplayer\\\'\\\', and the introduction makes clear that, to be listed on this index, the game need not be an RPG.

Yes, PSO, PSU, and PSZ are {{Action RPG}}s. So what? They contain enough elements of MassivelyMultiplayer to qualify as part of this index. A game\\\'s genre has no impact on whether or not it can\\\'t be included in this index, because whether or not it is MassivelyMultiplayer depends entirely on its online networking mechanics rather than its game mechanics.

If you honestly want to hear my \\\'\\\'personal\\\'\\\' criteria for whether or not a game is an MMO (separate from what\\\'s been established in this TV Tropes index), then understand that this is \\\'\\\'my\\\'\\\' personal criteria. What I have said just prior is going entirely on what has already been established by Sega, by others, or by TV Tropes.

Whether or not a game, to me, is MassivelyMultiplayer depends on whether or not it has some form of persistence.

All those FPS games you tried to equate to PhantasyStarZero lack something important: a persistent character (not \\\'\\\'player\\\'\\\', but \\\'\\\'character\\\'\\\'--that\\\'s important) who progresses, is customizable on some level, and can be taken through multiple online play sessions with many different people. Traditionally, persistence was something defined by the game world, but too many MassivelyMultiplayer games now rely on instanced content for that to be a reliable definition--so it falls to the \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\', more constant aspect of [=MMOs=] to define them--the player\\\'s character(s). In theory, an [=MMO\\\'s=] character doesn\\\'t \\\"retire\\\" when the game\\\'s story reaches its conclusion (if it does). In single-player and many \\\"mere\\\" multi-player games, once the game reaches the ending, all the progress made on that character is over. Once Mario rescues the princess, the game is over and all the coins and points he\\\'s gotten are irrelevant. Once Crono\\\'s {{nakama}} defeats Lavos and the credits roll, all their progress becomes irrelevant.

In many [=MMOs=], reaching the end of the story doesn\\\'t mean the character is no longer playable. They can still hang out in the game world, interacting with other players, partaking in other forms of content if the game has them, or simply held in reserve until an update comes out to provide more stuff to do (if the game receives content updates).

Thus, PhantasyStarZero \\\'\\\'would indeed\\\'\\\' be considered an MMO, while shooters like Half-Life, Quake, Duke Nukem, et al. would not. Most games like that just have a session-finding system where people play matches with preset characters who \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' be customizable, but they never actually progress or develop. Those games \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' record a player\\\'s progress, but it\\\'s all about the player, not any characters. \\\'\\\'Zero\\\'\\\', however, follows the PSO model of persistence.

In that regard, yes, my MMO definition could (and does) apply to other games not commonly thought of as [=MMOs=]. TeamFortress2, for example, was clearly just another FPS when it launched--it runs on the same match making system as other [=FPSes=], it lacked any RPG elements, and all recorded personal data focused on the player, with no benefit to the characters--but Valve has been adding MMO aspects to the game over time--character progression, upgrading, [[http://www.hexkrak.com/?postID=28 item crafting]], customization. It\\\'s a GenreShift with each update that TF2 goes through.

Regardless, that\\\'s just my definition, independent of what TV Tropes considers an MMO. But even under TV Tropes\\\' definition, what you\\\'re trying to do is not cool.

--> \\\'\\\'\\\"I think having at least one or two hundred players able to interact directly with each other at any given time would be a good place to start, because that\\\'s generally well above the upper-limit for simultaneous player counts in games that are distinctly non-massive.\\\"\\\'\\\'

Your definition of what \\\"should be\\\" a massively multiplayer game only considers how many people are actively playing the game, not the kind of population the game\\\'s online mechanics are designed to handle. That means your criteria would award and strip games of the \\\"massively multiplayer\\\" title only by their current popularity, not by their game design. That\\\'s ... rather inadequate.

[[http://adultimum.net/studio/screenshots/psu20070523_101041_011_psow.jpg Especially when it\\\'s clear that these games]] [[http://adultimum.net/studio/screenshots/psu20061209_091331_386_goodoldays.jpg can and do attract a large crowd.]]

-->\\\'\\\'\\\"I\\\'m curious to see where these claims of PSO being massively-multiplayer are though. Could you show them to me?\\\"\\\'\\\'

You\\\'ve already seen some of them. For example, [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyEnJCgTZds Sega\\\'s own advertisement for PSO]]. The advertisement practically covers every critical aspect that makes a Massively Multiplayer Online Game what it is--and this was back in 2001, when the genre was young and only in its \\\"second generation.\\\"

Phantasy Star Online and Universe get billed as [=MMOs=] by a number of sources other than Sega--[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_massively_multiplayer_online_games Wikipedia]], which cites [[http://web.archive.org/web/20070429235432/http://www.acegamez.co.uk/reviews_x360/Phantasy_Star_Universe_Preview_X360.htm this article]].

There\\\'s also [[http://ps2.ign.com/articles/403/403483p2.html this interview]] with Hiroshi Matsuyama, developer of the DotHack series. Take note of what he said about the influences on the setting:

-> \\\"Not really [=RPGs=], but [=MMORPGs=], the online games, we\\\'ve researched almost all of them for this game; \\\'\\\'Phantasy Star Online\\\'\\\', Final Fantasy, Ultima Online. All of those.\\\"

My problem with what \\\'\\\'you\\\'re\\\'\\\' doing is twofold. One--you\\\'re trying to discredit games with obvious MMO elements and instead label them as Roguelikes.

Neither PSO, PSU, or PSZ are turn-based (with the exception of PSO Ep. III, which is clearly a MMOCCG instead). Dungeons and mission areas in all three games use random presets that contain already-set monster spawn information, not the wholly randomized dungeons and monsters that Roguelikes commonly feature. Most Roguelikes contain very little plot, while even PSO had a pretty involved story (and PSU and PSZ even more so). Death is not permanent in any of the three games, unlike Roguelikes where it often is. Apparently this has been done before, because there was discussion in the PhantasyStar article where other tropers disagreed with the Roguelike label, so I know I\\\'m not the only one who opposes this categorization.

Two--you overlook the condition of the entire article while trying to declare the Phantasy Star games something they\\\'re not.

If you\\\'re going to go by a strict \\\"an MMORPG is a cookie cutter clone of WorldOfWarcraft or {{Everquest}}\\\" then you\\\'ll be ripping out a \\\'\\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\'\\\' of games tropers have listed on this article--did you even take a look? Aside from GuildWars (whose developers define as a CORPG), this page also lists KingdomOfLoathing, UrbanRivals, GaiaOnline, PangYa (and quite a few others). You\\\'ll notice that this article\\\'s alternate title is \\\'\\\'Massively Multiplayer\\\'\\\', and the introduction makes clear that, to be listed on this index, the game need not be an RPG.

Yes, PSO, PSU, and PSZ are {{Action RPG}}s. So what? They contain enough elements of MassivelyMultiplayer to qualify as part of this index. A game\\\'s genre has no impact on whether or not it can\\\'t be included in this index, because whether or not it is MassivelyMultiplayer depends entirely on its online networking mechanics rather than its game mechanics.

If you honestly want to hear my \\\'\\\'personal\\\'\\\' criteria for whether or not a game is an MMO (separate from what\\\'s been established in this TV Tropes index), then understand that this is \\\'\\\'my\\\'\\\' personal criteria. What I have said just prior is going entirely on what has already been established by Sega, by others, or by TV Tropes.

Whether or not a game, to me, is MassivelyMultiplayer depends on whether or not it has some form of persistence.

All those FPS games you tried to equate to PhantasyStarZero lack something important: a persistent character (not \\\'\\\'player\\\'\\\', but \\\'\\\'character\\\'\\\'--that\\\'s important) who progresses, is customizable on some level, and can be taken through multiple online play sessions with many different people. Traditionally, persistence was something defined by the game world, but too many MassivelyMultiplayer games now rely on instanced content for that to be a reliable definition--so it falls to the \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\', more constant aspect of [=MMOs=] to define them--the player\\\'s character(s). In theory, an [=MMO\\\'s=] character doesn\\\'t \\\"retire\\\" when the game\\\'s story reaches its conclusion (if it does). In single-player and many \\\"mere\\\" multi-player games, once the game reaches the ending, all the progress made on that character is over. Once Mario rescues the princess, the game is over and all the coins and points he\\\'s gotten are irrelevant. Once Crono\\\'s {{nakama}} defeats Lavos and the credits roll, all their progress becomes irrelevant.

In many [=MMOs=], reaching the end of the story doesn\\\'t mean the character is no longer playable. They can still hang out in the game world, interacting with other players, partaking in other forms of content if the game has them, or simply held in reserve until an update comes out to provide more stuff to do (if the game receives content updates).

Thus, PhantasyStarZero \\\'\\\'would indeed\\\'\\\' be considered an MMO, while shooters like Half-Life, Quake, Duke Nukem, et al. would not. Most games like that just have a session-finding system where people play matches with preset characters who \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' be customizable, but they never actually progress or develop. Those games \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' record a player\\\'s progress, but it\\\'s all about the player, not any characters. \\\'\\\'Zero\\\'\\\', however, follows the PSO model of persistence.

In that regard, yes, my MMO definition could (and does) apply to other games not commonly thought of as [=MMOs=]. TeamFortress2, for example, was clearly just another FPS when it launched--it runs on the same match making system as other [=FPSes=], it lacked any RPG elements, and all recorded personal data focused on the player, with no benefit to the characters--but Valve has been adding MMO aspects to the game over time--character progression, upgrading, item crafting, customization. It\\\'s a GenreShift with each update that TF2 goes through.

Regardless, that\\\'s just my definition, independent of what TV Tropes considers an MMO. But even under TV Tropes\\\' definition, what you\\\'re trying to do is not cool.

--> \\\'\\\'\\\"I think having at least one or two hundred players able to interact directly with each other at any given time would be a good place to start, because that\\\'s generally well above the upper-limit for simultaneous player counts in games that are distinctly non-massive.\\\"\\\'\\\'

Your definition of what \\\"should be\\\" a massively multiplayer game only considers how many people are actively playing the game, not the kind of population the game\\\'s online mechanics are designed to handle. That means your criteria would award and strip games of the \\\"massively multiplayer\\\" title only by their current popularity, not by their game design. That\\\'s ... rather inadequate.

[[http://adultimum.net/studio/screenshots/psu20070523_101041_011_psow.jpg Especially when it\\\'s clear that these games]] [[http://adultimum.net/studio/screenshots/psu20061209_091331_386_goodoldays.jpg can and do attract a large crowd.]]

-->\\\'\\\'\\\"I\\\'m curious to see where these claims of PSO being massively-multiplayer are though. Could you show them to me?\\\"\\\'\\\'

You\\\'ve already seen some of them. For example, [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyEnJCgTZds Sega\\\'s own advertisement for PSO]]. The advertisement practically covers every critical aspect that makes a Massively Multiplayer Online Game what it is--and this was back in 2001, when the genre was young and only in its \\\"second generation.\\\"

Phantasy Star Online and Universe get billed as [=MMOs=] by a number of sources other than Sega--[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_massively_multiplayer_online_games Wikipedia]], which cites [[http://web.archive.org/web/20070429235432/http://www.acegamez.co.uk/reviews_x360/Phantasy_Star_Universe_Preview_X360.htm this article]].

There\\\'s also [[http://ps2.ign.com/articles/403/403483p2.html this interview]] with Hiroshi Matsuyama, developer of the DotHack series. Take note of what he said about the influences on the setting:

-> \\\"Not really [=RPGs=], but [=MMORPGs=], the online games, we\\\'ve researched almost all of them for this game; \\\'\\\'Phantasy Star Online\\\'\\\', Final Fantasy, Ultima Online. All of those.\\\"

My problem with what \\\'\\\'you\\\'re\\\'\\\' doing is twofold. One--you\\\'re trying to discredit games with obvious MMO elements and instead label them as Roguelikes.

Neither PSO, PSU, or PSZ are turn-based (with the exception of PSO Ep. III, which is clearly a MMOCCG instead). Dungeons and mission areas in all three games use random presets that contain already-set monster spawn information, not the wholly randomized dungeons and monsters that Roguelikes commonly feature. Most Roguelikes contain very little plot, while even PSO had a pretty involved story (and PSU and PSZ even more so). Death is not permanent in any of the three games, unlike Roguelikes where it often is. Apparently this has been done before, because there was discussion in the PhantasyStar article where other tropers disagreed with the Roguelike label, so I know I\\\'m not the only one who opposes this categorization.

Two--you overlook the condition of the entire article while trying to declare the Phantasy Star games something they\\\'re not.

If you\\\'re going to go by a strict \\\"an MMORPG is a cookie cutter clone of WorldOfWarcraft or {{Everquest}}\\\" then you\\\'ll be ripping out a \\\'\\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\'\\\' of games tropers have listed on this article--did you even take a look? Aside from GuildWars (whose developers define as a CORPG), this page also lists KingdomOfLoathing, UrbanRivals, GaiaOnline, PangYa (and quite a few others). You\\\'ll notice that this article\\\'s alternate title is \\\'\\\'Massively Multiplayer\\\'\\\', and the introduction makes clear that, to be listed on this index, the game need not be an RPG.

Yes, PSO, PSU, and PSZ are {{Action RPG}}s. So what? They contain enough elements of MassivelyMultiplayer to qualify as part of this index. A game\\\'s genre has no impact on whether or not it can\\\'t be included in this index, because whether or not it is MassivelyMultiplayer depends entirely on its online networking mechanics rather than its game mechanics.

If you honestly want to hear my \\\'\\\'personal\\\'\\\' criteria for whether or not a game is an MMO (separate from what\\\'s been established in this TV Tropes index), then understand that this is \\\'\\\'my\\\'\\\' personal criteria. What I have said just prior is going entirely on what has already been established by Sega, by others, or by TV Tropes.

Whether or not a game, to me, is MassivelyMultiplayer depends on whether or not it has some form of persistence.

All those FPS games you tried to equate to PhantasyStarZero lack something important: a persistent character (not \\\'\\\'player\\\'\\\', but \\\'\\\'character\\\'\\\'--that\\\'s important) who progresses, is customizable on some level, and can be taken through multiple online play sessions with many different people. Traditionally, persistence was something defined by the game world, but too many MassivelyMultiplayer games now rely on instanced content for that to be a reliable definition--so it falls to the \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\', more constant aspect of [=MMOs=] to define them--the player\\\'s character(s). In theory, an [=MMO\\\'s=] character doesn\\\'t \\\"retire\\\" when the game\\\'s story reaches its conclusion (if it does). In single-player and many \\\"mere\\\" multi-player games, once the game reaches the ending, all the progress made on that character is over. Once Mario rescues the princess, the game is over and all the coins and points he\\\'s gotten are irrelevant. Once Crono\\\'s {{nakama}} defeats Lavos and the credits roll, all their progress becomes irrelevant.

In many [=MMOs=], reaching the end of the story doesn\\\'t mean the character is no longer playable. They can still hang out in the game world, interacting with other players, partaking in other forms of content if the game has them, or simply held in reserve until an update comes out to provide more stuff to do (if the game receives content updates).

Thus, PhantasyStarZero \\\'\\\'would indeed\\\'\\\' be considered an MMO, while shooters like Half-Life, Quake, Duke Nukem, et al. would not. Most games like that just have a session-finding system where people play matches with preset characters who \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' be customizable, but they never actually progress or develop. Those games \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' record a player\\\'s progress, but it\\\'s all about the player, not any characters. \\\'\\\'Zero\\\'\\\', however, follows the PSO model of persistence.

In that regard, yes, my MMO definition could (and does) apply to other games not commonly thought of as [=MMOs=]. TeamFortress2, for example, was clearly just another FPS when it launched--it runs on the same match making system as other FPSes, it lacked any RPG elements, and all recorded personal data focused on the player, with no benefit to the characters--but Valve has been adding MMO aspects to the game over time--character progression, upgrading, item crafting, customization. It\\\'s a GenreShift with each update that TF2 goes through.

Regardless, that\\\'s just my definition, independent of what TV Tropes considers an MMO. But even under TV Tropes\\\' definition, what you\\\'re trying to do is not cool.

--> \\\'\\\'\\\"I think having at least one or two hundred players able to interact directly with each other at any given time would be a good place to start, because that\\\'s generally well above the upper-limit for simultaneous player counts in games that are distinctly non-massive.\\\"\\\'\\\'

Your definition of what \\\"should be\\\" a massively multiplayer game only considers how many people are actively playing the game, not the kind of population the game\\\'s online mechanics are designed to handle. That means your criteria would award and strip games of the \\\"massively multiplayer\\\" title only by their current popularity, not by their game design. That\\\'s ... rather inadequate.

[[http://adultimum.net/studio/screenshots/psu20070523_101041_011_psow.jpg Especially when it\\\'s clear that these games]] [[http://adultimum.net/studio/screenshots/psu20061209_091331_386_goodoldays.jpg can and do attract a large crowd.]]

-->\\\'\\\'\\\"I\\\'m curious to see where these claims of PSO being massively-multiplayer are though. Could you show them to me?\\\"\\\'\\\'

You\\\'ve already seen some of them. For example, [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyEnJCgTZds Sega\\\'s own advertisement for PSO]]. The advertisement practically covers every critical aspect that makes a Massively Multiplayer Online Game what it is--and this was back in 2001, when the genre was young and only in its \\\"second generation.\\\"

Phantasy Star Online and Universe get billed as [=[=MMOs=]=] by a number of sources other than Sega--[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_massively_multiplayer_online_games Wikipedia]], which cites [[http://web.archive.org/web/20070429235432/http://www.acegamez.co.uk/reviews_x360/Phantasy_Star_Universe_Preview_X360.htm this article]].

There\\\'s also [[http://ps2.ign.com/articles/403/403483p2.html this interview]] with Hiroshi Matsuyama, developer of the DotHack series. Take note of what he said about the influences on the setting:

-> \\\"Not really [=RPGs=], but [=MMORPGs=], the online games, we\\\'ve researched almost all of them for this game; \\\'\\\'Phantasy Star Online\\\'\\\', Final Fantasy, Ultima Online. All of those.\\\"

My problem with what \\\'\\\'you\\\'re\\\'\\\' doing is twofold. One--you\\\'re trying to discredit games with obvious MMO elements and instead label them as Roguelikes.

Neither PSO, PSU, or PSZ are turn-based (with the exception of PSO Ep. III, which is clearly a MMOCCG instead). Dungeons and mission areas in all three games use random presets that contain already-set monster spawn information, not the wholly randomized dungeons and monsters that Roguelikes commonly feature. Most Roguelikes contain very little plot, while even PSO had a pretty involved story (and PSU and PSZ even more so). Death is not permanent in any of the three games, unlike Roguelikes where it often is. Apparently this has been done before, because there was discussion in the PhantasyStar article where other tropers disagreed with the Roguelike label, so I know I\\\'m not the only one who opposes this categorization.

Two--you overlook the condition of the entire article while trying to declare the Phantasy Star games something they\\\'re not.

If you\\\'re going to go by a strict \\\"an MMORPG is a cookie cutter clone of WorldOfWarcraft or {{Everquest}}\\\" then you\\\'ll be ripping out a \\\'\\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\'\\\' of games tropers have listed on this article--did you even take a look? Aside from GuildWars (whose developers define as a CORPG), this page also lists KingdomOfLoathing, UrbanRivals, GaiaOnline, PangYa (and quite a few others). You\\\'ll notice that this article\\\'s alternate title is \\\'\\\'Massively Multiplayer\\\'\\\', and the introduction makes clear that, to be listed on this index, the game need not be an RPG.

Yes, PSO, PSU, and PSZ are {{Action RPG}}s. So what? They contain enough elements of MassivelyMultiplayer to qualify as part of this index. A game\\\'s genre has no impact on whether or not it can\\\'t be included in this index, because whether or not it is MassivelyMultiplayer depends entirely on its online networking mechanics rather than its game mechanics.

If you honestly want to hear my \\\'\\\'personal\\\'\\\' criteria for whether or not a game is an MMO (separate from what\\\'s been established in this TV Tropes index), then understand that this is \\\'\\\'my\\\'\\\' personal criteria. What I have said just prior is going entirely on what has already been established by Sega, by others, or by TV Tropes.

Whether or not a game, to me, is MassivelyMultiplayer depends on whether or not it has some form of persistence.

All those FPS games you tried to equate to PhantasyStarZero lack something important: a persistent character (not \\\'\\\'player\\\'\\\', but \\\'\\\'character\\\'\\\'--that\\\'s important) who progresses, is customizable on some level, and can be taken through multiple online play sessions with many different people. Traditionally, persistence was something defined by the game world, but too many MassivelyMultiplayer games now rely on instanced content for that to be a reliable definition--so it falls to the \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\', more constant aspect of [=[=MMOs=]=] to define them--the player\\\'s character(s). In theory, an [=MMO\\\'s=] character doesn\\\'t \\\"retire\\\" when the game\\\'s story reaches its conclusion (if it does). In single-player and many \\\"mere\\\" multi-player games, once the game reaches the ending, all the progress made on that character is over. Once Mario rescues the princess, the game is over and all the coins and points he\\\'s gotten are irrelevant. Once Crono\\\'s {{nakama}} defeats Lavos and the credits roll, all their progress becomes irrelevant.

In many [=MMOs=], reaching the end of the story doesn\\\'t mean the character is no longer playable. They can still hang out in the game world, interacting with other players, partaking in other forms of content if the game has them, or simply held in reserve until an update comes out to provide more stuff to do (if the game receives content updates).

Thus, PhantasyStarZero \\\'\\\'would indeed\\\'\\\' be considered an MMO, while shooters like Half-Life, Quake, Duke Nukem, et al. would not. Most games like that just have a session-finding system where people play matches with preset characters who \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' be customizable, but they never actually progress or develop. Those games \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' record a player\\\'s progress, but it\\\'s all about the player, not any characters. \\\'\\\'Zero\\\'\\\', however, follows the PSO model of persistence.

In that regard, yes, my MMO definition could (and does) apply to other games not commonly thought of as [=MMOs=]. TeamFortress2, for example, was clearly just another FPS when it launched--it runs on the same match making system as other FPSes, it lacked any RPG elements, and all recorded personal data focused on the player, with no benefit to the characters--but Valve has been adding MMO aspects to the game over time--character progression, upgrading, item crafting, customization. It\\\'s a GenreShift with each update that TF2 goes through.

Regardless, that\\\'s just my definition, independent of what TV Tropes considers an MMO. But even under TV Tropes\\\' definition, what you\\\'re trying to do is not cool.

--> \\\'\\\'\\\"I think having at least one or two hundred players able to interact directly with each other at any given time would be a good place to start, because that\\\'s generally well above the upper-limit for simultaneous player counts in games that are distinctly non-massive.\\\"\\\'\\\'

Your definition of what \\\"should be\\\" a massively multiplayer game only considers how many people are actively playing the game, not the kind of population the game\\\'s online mechanics are designed to handle. That means your criteria would award and strip games of the \\\"massively multiplayer\\\" title only by their current popularity, not by their game design. That\\\'s ... rather inadequate.

[[http://adultimum.net/studio/screenshots/psu20070523_101041_011_psow.jpg Especially when it\\\'s clear that these games can and do attract a large crowd.]]

-->\\\'\\\'\\\"I\\\'m curious to see where these claims of PSO being massively-multiplayer are though. Could you show them to me?\\\"\\\'\\\'

You\\\'ve already seen some of them. For example, [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyEnJCgTZds Sega\\\'s own advertisement for PSO]]. The advertisement practically covers every critical aspect that makes a Massively Multiplayer Online Game what it is--and this was back in 2001, when the genre was young and only in its \\\"second generation.\\\"

Phantasy Star Online and Universe get billed as [=[=MMOs=]=] by a number of sources other than Sega--[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_massively_multiplayer_online_games Wikipedia]], which cites [[http://web.archive.org/web/20070429235432/http://www.acegamez.co.uk/reviews_x360/Phantasy_Star_Universe_Preview_X360.htm this article]].

There\\\'s also [[http://ps2.ign.com/articles/403/403483p2.html this interview]] with Hiroshi Matsuyama, developer of the DotHack series. Take note of what he said about the influences on the setting:

-> \\\"Not really [=RPGs=], but [=MMORPGs=], the online games, we\\\'ve researched almost all of them for this game; \\\'\\\'Phantasy Star Online\\\'\\\', Final Fantasy, Ultima Online. All of those.\\\"

My problem with what \\\'\\\'you\\\'re\\\'\\\' doing is twofold. One--you\\\'re trying to discredit games with obvious MMO elements and instead label them as Roguelikes.

Neither PSO, PSU, or PSZ are turn-based (with the exception of PSO Ep. III, which is clearly a MMOCCG instead). Dungeons and mission areas in all three games use random presets that contain already-set monster spawn information, not the wholly randomized dungeons and monsters that Roguelikes commonly feature. Most Roguelikes contain very little plot, while even PSO had a pretty involved story (and PSU and PSZ even more so). Death is not permanent in any of the three games, unlike Roguelikes where it often is. Apparently this has been done before, because there was discussion in the PhantasyStar article where other tropers disagreed with the Roguelike label, so I know I\\\'m not the only one who opposes this categorization.

Two--you overlook the condition of the entire article while trying to declare the Phantasy Star games something they\\\'re not.

If you\\\'re going to go by a strict \\\"an MMORPG is a cookie cutter clone of WorldOfWarcraft or {{Everquest}}\\\" then you\\\'ll be ripping out a \\\'\\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\'\\\' of games tropers have listed on this article--did you even take a look? Aside from GuildWars (whose developers define as a CORPG), this page also lists KingdomOfLoathing, UrbanRivals, GaiaOnline, PangYa (and quite a few others). You\\\'ll notice that this article\\\'s alternate title is \\\'\\\'Massively Multiplayer\\\'\\\', and the introduction makes clear that, to be listed on this index, the game need not be an RPG.

Yes, PSO, PSU, and PSZ are {{Action RPG}}s. So what? They contain enough elements of MassivelyMultiplayer to qualify as part of this index. A game\\\'s genre has no impact on whether or not it can\\\'t be included in this index, because whether or not it is MassivelyMultiplayer depends entirely on its online networking mechanics rather than its game mechanics.

If you honestly want to hear my \\\'\\\'personal\\\'\\\' criteria for whether or not a game is an MMO (separate from what\\\'s been established in this TV Tropes index), then understand that this is \\\'\\\'my\\\'\\\' personal criteria. What I have said just prior is going entirely on what has already been established by Sega, by others, or by TV Tropes.

Whether or not a game, to me, is MassivelyMultiplayer depends on whether or not it has some form of persistence.

All those FPS games you tried to equate to PhantasyStarZero lack something important: a persistent character (not \\\'\\\'player\\\'\\\', but \\\'\\\'character\\\'\\\'--that\\\'s important) who progresses, is customizable on some level, and can be taken through multiple online play sessions with many different people. Traditionally, persistence was something defined by the game world, but too many MassivelyMultiplayer games now rely on instanced content for that to be a reliable definition--so it falls to the \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\', more constant aspect of [=[=MMOs=]=] to define them--the player\\\'s character(s). In theory, an [=MMO\\\'s=] character doesn\\\'t \\\"retire\\\" when the game\\\'s story reaches its conclusion (if it does). In single-player and many \\\"mere\\\" multi-player games, once the game reaches the ending, all the progress made on that character is over. Once Mario rescues the princess, the game is over and all the coins and points he\\\'s gotten are irrelevant. Once Crono\\\'s {{nakama}} defeats Lavos and the credits roll, all their progress becomes irrelevant.

In many [=MMOs=], reaching the end of the story doesn\\\'t mean the character is no longer playable. They can still hang out in the game world, interacting with other players, partaking in other forms of content if the game has them, or simply held in reserve until an update comes out to provide more stuff to do (if the game receives content updates).

Thus, PhantasyStarZero \\\'\\\'would indeed\\\'\\\' be considered an MMO, while shooters like Half-Life, Quake, Duke Nukem, et al. would not. Most games like that just have a session-finding system where people play matches with preset characters who \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' be customizable, but they never actually progress or develop. Those games \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' record a player\\\'s progress, but it\\\'s all about the player, not any characters. \\\'\\\'Zero\\\'\\\', however, follows the PSO model of persistence.

In that regard, yes, my MMO definition could (and does) apply to other games not commonly thought of as [=MMOs=]. TeamFortress2, for example, was clearly just another FPS when it launched--it runs on the same match making system as other FPSes, it lacked any RPG elements, and all recorded personal data focused on the player, with no benefit to the characters--but Valve has been adding MMO aspects to the game over time--character progression, upgrading, item crafting, customization. It\\\'s a GenreShift with each update that TF2 goes through.

Regardless, that\\\'s just my definition, independent of what TV Tropes considers an MMO. But even under TV Tropes\\\' definition, what you\\\'re trying to do is not cool.

--> \\\'\\\'\\\"I think having at least one or two hundred players able to interact directly with each other at any given time would be a good place to start, because that\\\'s generally well above the upper-limit for simultaneous player counts in games that are distinctly non-massive.\\\"\\\'\\\'

Your definition of what \\\"should be\\\" a massively multiplayer game only considers how many people are actively playing the game, not the kind of population the game\\\'s online mechanics are designed to handle. That means your criteria would award and strip games of the \\\"massively multiplayer\\\" title only by their current popularity, not by their game design. That\\\'s ... rather inadequate.

[[http://adultimum.net/studio/screenshots/psu20070523_101041_011_psow.jpg Especially when it\\\'s clear that these games can and do attract a large crowd.]]

-->\\\'\\\'\\\"I\\\'m curious to see where these claims of PSO being massively-multiplayer are though. Could you show them to me?\\\"\\\'\\\'

You\\\'ve already seen some of them. For example, [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyEnJCgTZds Sega\\\'s own advertisement for PSO]]. The advertisement practically covers every critical aspect that makes a Massively Multiplayer Online Game what it is--and this was back in 2001, when the genre was young and only in its \\\"second generation.\\\"

Phantasy Star Online and Universe get billed as [=[=MMOs=]=] by a number of sources other than Sega--[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_massively_multiplayer_online_games Wikipedia]], which cites [[http://web.archive.org/web/20070429235432/http://www.acegamez.co.uk/reviews_x360/Phantasy_Star_Universe_Preview_X360.htm this article]].

There\\\'s also [[http://ps2.ign.com/articles/403/403483p2.html this interview]] with Hiroshi Matsuyama, developer of the DotHack series. Take note of what he said about the influences on the setting:

-> \\\"Not really [=RPGs=], but [=MMORPGs=], the online games, we\\\'ve researched almost all of them for this game; \\\'\\\'Phantasy Star Online\\\'\\\', Final Fantasy, Ultima Online. All of those.\\\"

My problem with what \\\'\\\'you\\\'re\\\'\\\' doing is twofold. One--you\\\'re trying to discredit games with obvious MMO elements and instead label them as Roguelikes.

Neither PSO, PSU, or PSZ are turn-based (with the exception of PSO Ep. III, which is clearly a MMOCCG instead). Dungeons and mission areas in all three games use random presets that contain already-set monster spawn information, not the wholly randomized dungeons and monsters that Roguelikes commonly feature. Most Roguelikes contain very little plot, while even PSO had a pretty involved story (and PSU and PSZ even more so). Death is not permanent in any of the three games, unlike Roguelikes where it often is. Apparently this has been done before, because there was discussion in the PhantasyStar article where other tropers disagreed with the Roguelike label, so I know I\\\'m not the only one who opposes this categorization.

Two--you overlook the condition of the entire article while trying to declare the Phantasy Star games something they\\\'re not.

If you\\\'re going to go by a strict \\\"an MMORPG is a cookie cutter clone of WorldOfWarcraft or {{Everquest}}\\\" then you\\\'ll be ripping out a \\\'\\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\'\\\' of games tropers have listed on this article--did you even take a look? Aside from GuildWars (whose developers define as a CORPG), this page also lists KingdomOfLoathing, UrbanRivalz, GaiaOnline, PangYa (and quite a few others). You\\\'ll notice that this article\\\'s alternate title is \\\'\\\'Massively Multiplayer\\\'\\\', and the introduction makes clear that, to be listed on this index, the game need not be an RPG.

Yes, PSO, PSU, and PSZ are {{Action RPG}}s. So what? They contain enough elements of MassivelyMultiplayer to qualify as part of this index. A game\\\'s genre has no impact on whether or not it can\\\'t be included in this index, because whether or not it is MassivelyMultiplayer depends entirely on its online networking mechanics rather than its game mechanics.

If you honestly want to hear my \\\'\\\'personal\\\'\\\' criteria for whether or not a game is an MMO (separate from what\\\'s been established in this TV Tropes index), then understand that this is \\\'\\\'my\\\'\\\' personal criteria. What I have said just prior is going entirely on what has already been established by Sega, by others, or by TV Tropes.

Whether or not a game, to me, is MassivelyMultiplayer depends on whether or not it has some form of persistence.

All those FPS games you tried to equate to PhantasyStarZero lack something important: a persistent character (not \\\'\\\'player\\\'\\\', but \\\'\\\'character\\\'\\\'--that\\\'s important) who progresses, is customizable on some level, and can be taken through multiple online play sessions with many different people. Traditionally, persistence was something defined by the game world, but too many MassivelyMultiplayer games now rely on instanced content for that to be a reliable definition--so it falls to the \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\', more constant aspect of [=[=MMOs=]=] to define them--the player\\\'s character(s). In theory, an [=MMO\\\'s=] character doesn\\\'t \\\"retire\\\" when the game\\\'s story reaches its conclusion (if it does). In single-player and many \\\"mere\\\" multi-player games, once the game reaches the ending, all the progress made on that character is over. Once Mario rescues the princess, the game is over and all the coins and points he\\\'s gotten are irrelevant. Once Crono\\\'s {{nakama}} defeats Lavos and the credits roll, all their progress becomes irrelevant.

In many [=MMOs=], reaching the end of the story doesn\\\'t mean the character is no longer playable. They can still hang out in the game world, interacting with other players, partaking in other forms of content if the game has them, or simply held in reserve until an update comes out to provide more stuff to do (if the game receives content updates).

Thus, PhantasyStarZero \\\'\\\'would indeed\\\'\\\' be considered an MMO, while shooters like Half-Life, Quake, Duke Nukem, et al. would not. Most games like that just have a session-finding system where people play matches with preset characters who \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' be customizable, but they never actually progress or develop. Those games \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' record a player\\\'s progress, but it\\\'s all about the player, not any characters. \\\'\\\'Zero\\\'\\\', however, follows the PSO model of persistence.

In that regard, yes, my MMO definition could (and does) apply to other games not commonly thought of as [=MMOs=]. TeamFortress2, for example, was clearly just another FPS when it launched--it runs on the same match making system as other FPSes, it lacked any RPG elements, and all recorded personal data focused on the player, with no benefit to the characters--but Valve has been adding MMO aspects to the game over time--character progression, upgrading, item crafting, customization. It\\\'s a GenreShift with each update that TF2 goes through.

Regardless, that\\\'s just my definition, independent of what TV Tropes considers an MMO. But even under TV Tropes\\\' definition, what you\\\'re trying to do is not cool.

--> \\\'\\\'\\\"I think having at least one or two hundred players able to interact directly with each other at any given time would be a good place to start, because that\\\'s generally well above the upper-limit for simultaneous player counts in games that are distinctly non-massive.\\\"\\\'\\\'

Your definition of what \\\"should be\\\" a massively multiplayer game only considers how many people are actively playing the game, not the kind of population the game\\\'s online mechanics are designed to handle. That means your criteria would award and strip games of the \\\"massively multiplayer\\\" title only by their current popularity, not by their game design. That\\\'s ... rather inadequate.

[[http://adultimum.net/studio/screenshots/psu20070523_101041_011_psow.jpg Especially when it\\\'s clear that these games can and do attract a large crowd.]]

-->\\\'\\\'\\\"I\\\'m curious to see where these claims of PSO being massively-multiplayer are though. Could you show them to me?\\\"\\\'\\\'

You\\\'ve already seen some of them. For example, [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyEnJCgTZds Sega\\\'s own advertisement for PSO]]. The advertisement practically covers every critical aspect that makes a Massively Multiplayer Online Game what it is--and this was back in 2001, when the genre was young and only in its \\\"second generation.\\\"

Phantasy Star Online and Universe get billed as [=MMOs=] by a number of sources other than Sega--[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_massively_multiplayer_online_games Wikipedia]], which cites [[http://web.archive.org/web/20070429235432/http://www.acegamez.co.uk/reviews_x360/Phantasy_Star_Universe_Preview_X360.htm this article]].

There\\\'s also [[http://ps2.ign.com/articles/403/403483p2.html this interview]] with Hiroshi Matsuyama, developer of the DotHack series. Take note of what he said about the influences on the setting:

-> \\\"Not really [=RPGs=], but [=MMORPGs=], the online games, we\\\'ve researched almost all of them for this game; \\\'\\\'Phantasy Star Online\\\'\\\', Final Fantasy, Ultima Online. All of those.\\\"

My problem with what \\\'\\\'you\\\'re\\\'\\\' doing is twofold. One--you\\\'re trying to discredit games with obvious MMO elements and instead label them as Roguelikes.

Neither PSO, PSU, or PSZ are turn-based (with the exception of PSO Ep. III, which is clearly a MMOCCG instead). Dungeons and mission areas in all three games use random presets that contain already-set monster spawn information, not the wholly randomized dungeons and monsters that Roguelikes commonly feature. Most Roguelikes contain very little plot, while even PSO had a pretty involved story (and PSU and PSZ even more so). Death is not permanent in any of the three games, unlike Roguelikes where it often is. Apparently this has been done before, because there was discussion in the PhantasyStar article where other tropers disagreed with the Roguelike label, so I know I\\\'m not the only one who opposes this categorization.

Two--you overlook the condition of the entire article while trying to declare the Phantasy Star games something they\\\'re not.

If you\\\'re going to go by a strict \\\"an MMORPG is a cookie cutter clone of WorldOfWarcraft or {{Everquest}}\\\" then you\\\'ll be ripping out a \\\'\\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\'\\\' of games tropers have listed on this article--did you even take a look? Aside from GuildWars (whose developers define as a CORPG), this page also lists KingdomOfLoathing, UrbanRivalz, GaiaOnline, PangYa (and quite a few others). You\\\'ll notice that this article\\\'s alternate title is \\\'\\\'Massively Multiplayer\\\'\\\', and the introduction makes clear that, to be listed on this index, the game need not be an RPG.

Yes, PSO, PSU, and PSZ are {{Action RPG}}s. So what? They contain enough elements of MassivelyMultiplayer to qualify as part of this index. A game\\\'s genre has no impact on whether or not it can\\\'t be included in this index, because whether or not it is MassivelyMultiplayer depends entirely on its online networking mechanics rather than its game mechanics.

If you honestly want to hear my \\\'\\\'personal\\\'\\\' criteria for whether or not a game is an MMO (separate from what\\\'s been established in this TV Tropes index), then understand that this is \\\'\\\'my\\\'\\\' personal criteria. What I have said just prior is going entirely on what has already been established by Sega, by others, or by TV Tropes.

Whether or not a game, to me, is MassivelyMultiplayer depends on whether or not it has some form of persistence.

All those FPS games you tried to equate to PhantasyStarZero lack something important: a persistent character (not \\\'\\\'player\\\'\\\', but \\\'\\\'character\\\'\\\'--that\\\'s important) who progresses, is customizable on some level, and can be taken through multiple online play sessions with many different people. Traditionally, persistence was something defined by the game world, but too many MassivelyMultiplayer games now rely on instanced content for that to be a reliable definition--so it falls to the \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\', more constant aspect of [=MMOs=] to define them--the player\\\'s character(s). In theory, an [=MMO\\\'s=] character doesn\\\'t \\\"retire\\\" when the game\\\'s story reaches its conclusion (if it does). In single-player and many \\\"mere\\\" multi-player games, once the game reaches the ending, all the progress made on that character is over. Once Mario rescues the princess, the game is over and all the coins and points he\\\'s gotten are irrelevant. Once Crono\\\'s {{nakama}} defeats Lavos and the credits roll, all their progress becomes irrelevant.

In many MMOs, reaching the end of the story doesn\\\'t mean the character is no longer playable. They can still hang out in the game world, interacting with other players, partaking in other forms of content if the game has them, or simply held in reserve until an update comes out to provide more stuff to do (if the game receives content updates).

Thus, PhantasyStarZero \\\'\\\'would indeed\\\'\\\' be considered an MMO, while shooters like Half-Life, Quake, Duke Nukem, et al. would not. Most games like that just have a session-finding system where people play matches with preset characters who \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' be customizable, but they never actually progress or develop. Those games \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' record a player\\\'s progress, but it\\\'s all about the player, not any characters. \\\'\\\'Zero\\\'\\\', however, follows the PSO model of persistence.

In that regard, yes, my MMO definition could (and does) apply to other games not commonly thought of as MMOs. TeamFortress2, for example, was clearly just another FPS when it launched--it runs on the same match making system as other FPSes, it lacked any RPG elements, and all recorded personal data focused on the player, with no benefit to the characters--but Valve has been adding MMO aspects to the game over time--character progression, upgrading, item crafting, customization. It\\\'s a GenreShift with each update that TF2 goes through.

Regardless, that\\\'s just my definition, independent of what TV Tropes considers an MMO. But even under TV Tropes\\\' definition, what you\\\'re trying to do is not cool.