multiplayer → MMORPG → more bot → RMT → money
1 Like
Way to compare apples and grapes. I guess online chess games are multiplayer as well? If you want to be liberal with applying the terminology.
HoMM 3, I believe it was, introduced LAN/Dial-Up play. But no one would consider it multiplayer, and the developer even specifically calls it co-op.
If both players in only chess are human it’s multiplayer. 2 sec google search gives a dozen examples and all are the same ^^.
multiplayer
adjective
- Requiring or allowing multiple human players to play simultaneously.
So there is no need to go liberal just go with the definition 
then again chess might not get a pass here because people could argue you don’t play simultaneously.
the definition is not 100% correct. Doesn’t LE already allow multiple human players to play it simultaneously ?
There should be smth about players interaction
No, as (on live) your pc us the one doing all the server-y type stuff and nobody can join your game (it’s also offline excluding the chat). If you’ve got many people playing an offline game (eg, Civ 1 or the original Doom) at the same time across the world (or whatever), that doesn’t make those games multiplayer.
That’s assumed in the “requiring” bit.
Well this has backfired horribly. I was attempting to gather information on exactly where the line was for them, not spark a debate on the topic. I think it’s safe to say that it’s at least a little bit a subjective term in certain contexts. Yes it can be taken literally and as soon as you have two players involved, it’s technically multiplayer but we often used terms to describe games that fit into general genres that aren’t quite literal.
Take ARPG for example, it’s a different genre than Action RPG even though ARPG means Action RPG. These subtle differences in terminology tell us a lot about the game. In this case, most notably, the camera angle is generally completely different.
I’m sorry to have thrown this so far off topic.
I was pretty pissed back in the day when some donkys started to call isometric H&S games ARPGs 
. To me ARPG was everything not isometric ^^. Subjectivity is always a bad measurement if there are facts out there that make subjective oppinions or feelings obsolate.
1 Like
I was calling them “diablo-like” for a very long time. Not perfect but everybody understood what it meant.
Then people started talking about ARPGs and I got used to it. It is less clear, but it gives Blizzard less free advertisement. 
PS: Nice one Mike, now we’re still off topic, but about something else!
Yea, I’m just the worst sometimes eh?
1 Like
As much as it gives blizzard free advertisement, I like it so much better then ARPG.
like for me, Lost ark is not an arpg in the likes of PoE/Trochlight/Grimdawn etc. Its an rpg with action elements sure. but so is something like skyrim.
Diablo-like very much cements the games as really what they are, games styled and inspired after the diablo formula.
Arpg is such a bad term 
1 Like
People seem to disagree on this but I, and many others, consider the following to be MMOARPGs
- Lost Ark
- Marvel Heroes Online (RIP)
- Devilian
- Mu Legends
Some people hate that they are considered ARPGs, but they have action isometric based combat as opposed to the tab targeting of most MMOs. They are clearly inspired by Diablo clones but add in MMO systems.
2 Likes
but there’s no AND there’s OR. ‘Requiring’ is not required
On a basic level, RPG as an overarching term, I think, has to do with developing a story/character/party over multiple sessions.
I think the genre descriptions for games has gotten extremely nuanced.
RPG, aRPG, MMORPG, etc.
I think there are 2 pillars when grouping these things. Firstly, number of characters a player can play at the same time. Secondly, number of other players that can play at the same time.
To me, the RPG moniker is very general, but also, when someone talks about a game being ‘just a’ RPG, they are mostly talking about single player games where the player controls a party.
While some would still classify games of an action fantasy with only a main character as an RPG, that isn’t technically correct (anymore at least). These are the aRPGs. The games can belong to the “RPG” general category though.
*gets confusing since RPG has 2 different meanings for game categorization
Basically, games started as just RPG or Action/Adventure. As games became more complex, subgroups started to develop that peeled away from the general group. RPG as a genre is basically what is left after the subgroups have been peeled off. Ask anyone to give an example of a video game RPG (plain rpg) and you will almost always get people talking about Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior, Breath of Fire, etc. Whatever the newer RPG games are.
You have a long way to go young padawan…
At least it looks like people see that the name of the genre is more important then who get what loot… finaly 
.
1 Like
They repeatedly said they dont want to favor any form of gameplay over others. But then again, it’s not the first time they break promises, sooo…
Trade is a tool not gameplay. If they provide the right balance, a way for players to realize appropriate value for stuff they think is valueable but don’t want, and non game breaking alternate ways to get some items that rng has not otherwise provided. Then “trade” becomes moot.
Group gameplay vs single player
But hey, thanks for the vocabulary exercise.
What d you guys think about it?
Party play, like coop on those games are unrealistic to say the least the way the devs want to implement (Item Gifting system aka diablo 3 copy). People have their real life aspects: job, wife, children, friends, different time fuses, etc. A meeting to play it’s easier said than done. The game will still be the same solo experience we already have in majority of the cases. Now, that being said: What advantage? There is no advantage in a game without trade market. No trade, no competition. Why would you care about what other people item drops if it won’t affect you in any way?
Sad that they’re going to kill off MP before it’s even out. I would honestly hope that instead of killing trade fully they instead choose to never add an auction house and in turn allow trade. If someone doesn’t want to trade then allow them to choose solo which would be trade blocked.
I could be missing something but as long as the plan wasn’t to make solo a copy of PoE SSF then I don’t see why this can’t work. Both get what they want and both get multiplayer experience if they choose to. They already got masochist mode which could also just turn into PoEs SSF if it’s truly necessary.
There’s nothing exciting about being outperformed and restricted because you don’t have people to play with reliably. Trade allows a solo player to equalize that field.