PC Version of GTA V Discussion

[Acek]

they might as well start learning about dx11 since "next gen" is coming in a few months..
also the trailer capped on the consoles was found:

[DymeDef]

 

 

 

So, which looks better, The Crew, or Watch Dogs. Because they both look good, and I'm wondering how V will look if closer.

I mean, of course trailer #1 looked nothing like it, but GTA V already looks very good. I'm just wondering how it would look on the next gen. Mods not included

 

Maybe an unexpected and apparent, if not intentional leak will surface the internet come October.

 

LOL....dude, just look at the above GTA IV screens I posted. If that's how good IV can look, a nearly 6 year old game, then just image what V will look like on PC with mods. It won't even be close. GTA V on PC >>> Watch Dogs or any other up and coming open world game.

 

 

Star Citizen

 

Lol, mad I talked sh*t about IV? Haha, I see now. No offense but you are coming off as a real strong Rockstar fanboi. You are making a claim about a version of a game that has not:

A- been even verified that it will ever come out (I know I know, all the evidence, yadda yadda, but we really do not know until Rockstar says it)

B- we have not seen anything from it, those promo shots could have been set up to look really good for still images and run like straight ass (See screenshot ENBs for Skyrim).

C- you are comparing it to 1. the next gen version which is not even up to snuff with the current tech and 2. It is an ENB vs a non modded Next Gen version.

 

And again, how many people can max IV WITH that ENB at 60 fps? Maybe like 3% of all PC gamers.

 

How many will likely be able to max WD and keep 60 fps? Likely most of the players with any decent rig.

 

A game can look as good as it wants but nothing is ensuring that it will run smooth. Any time you inject an ENB you instantly start losing frames. ENB features are heavy on computers and there is no way to avoid the inevitable frame loss that comes with them.

 

Why do I have to explain why this comparison is retarded? I shouldn't have to lol....

 

 

WTF? A R* fanboy? Dude, you're a f*cking moron. I decided to not even read everything else you wrote after seeing such a retarded accusation against me.

 

 

Lol. Almost as retarded as you claiming I ever said WD looks better than IV with an ENB.

 

If you actually read what I said, it says clearly:

 

I do not like how GTA IV looks, even with an ENB I think it looks like poo.

 

I am not sure where this implies that WD looks better.....

 

You should probably cool down and come back after smoking a cigarette (helps). All I said was that IV looks like ppoo to me and you threw some hissy fit.

 

Lel, and you then avoid all the good stuff. Whatever I don't care, continue to cry about me saying IV looks bad and runs even worse.

 

Also I never said you were a fanboi, just coming off as one. Man, you really are getting too heated or something idk. You weren't tripping over posts like this earlier, yet I say one thing about IV and your eyes turn red and glow.

 

Also don't forget about me challenging your claim that no open world game will look as good as V any time soon.

 

I will repost it:

 

Star Citizen

 

Now go sit the f*ck back down.

Edited September 24, 2013 by DymeDef

[_Kindled_]

they might as well start learning about dx11 since "next gen" is coming in a few months..

also the trailer capped on the consoles was found:

Silly. Nintendo aint no console.

 

@Xerukal: I'm fantasizing how it might look on the next gen. Not graphics dick measuring.

Edited September 24, 2013 by _Kindled_

[Acek]

 

they might as well start learning about dx11 since "next gen" is coming in a few months..

also the trailer capped on the consoles was found:

Silly. Nintendo aint no console.

 

that was caped on 360 wasnt it?

[DymeDef]

 

they might as well start learning about dx11 since "next gen" is coming in a few months..

also the trailer capped on the consoles was found:

Silly. Nintendo aint no console.

 

 

Honest question:

 

How is Nintendo still around? Lol... Like I said, honest question.

[Fireprufe15]

 

 

 

 

they might as well start learning about dx11 since "next gen" is coming in a few months..

also the trailer capped on the consoles was found:

Silly. Nintendo aint no console.

 

Honest question:

 

How is Nintendo still around? Lol... Like I said, honest question.

Same way Microsoft's gaming hardware division is still around - misplaced brand loyalty.

[Albert Kike]

 

 

 

 

So, which looks better, The Crew, or Watch Dogs. Because they both look good, and I'm wondering how V will look if closer.

I mean, of course trailer #1 looked nothing like it, but GTA V already looks very good. I'm just wondering how it would look on the next gen. Mods not included

 

Maybe an unexpected and apparent, if not intentional leak will surface the internet come October.

 

LOL....dude, just look at the above GTA IV screens I posted. If that's how good IV can look, a nearly 6 year old game, then just image what V will look like on PC with mods. It won't even be close. GTA V on PC >>> Watch Dogs or any other up and coming open world game.

 

 

Star Citizen

 

Lol, mad I talked sh*t about IV? Haha, I see now. No offense but you are coming off as a real strong Rockstar fanboi. You are making a claim about a version of a game that has not:

A- been even verified that it will ever come out (I know I know, all the evidence, yadda yadda, but we really do not know until Rockstar says it)

B- we have not seen anything from it, those promo shots could have been set up to look really good for still images and run like straight ass (See screenshot ENBs for Skyrim).

C- you are comparing it to 1. the next gen version which is not even up to snuff with the current tech and 2. It is an ENB vs a non modded Next Gen version.

 

And again, how many people can max IV WITH that ENB at 60 fps? Maybe like 3% of all PC gamers.

 

How many will likely be able to max WD and keep 60 fps? Likely most of the players with any decent rig.

 

A game can look as good as it wants but nothing is ensuring that it will run smooth. Any time you inject an ENB you instantly start losing frames. ENB features are heavy on computers and there is no way to avoid the inevitable frame loss that comes with them.

 

Why do I have to explain why this comparison is retarded? I shouldn't have to lol....

 

 

WTF? A R* fanboy? Dude, you're a f*cking moron. I decided to not even read everything else you wrote after seeing such a retarded accusation against me.

 

 

Lol. Almost as retarded as you claiming I ever said WD looks better than IV with an ENB.

 

If you actually read what I said, it says clearly:

 

I do not like how GTA IV looks, even with an ENB I think it looks like poo.

 

I am not sure where this implies that WD looks better.....

 

You should probably cool down and come back after smoking a cigarette (helps). All I said was that IV looks like ppoo to me and you threw some hissy fit.

 

Lel, and you then avoid all the good stuff. Whatever I don't care, continue to cry about me saying IV looks bad and runs even worse.

 

Also I never said you were a fanboi, just coming off as one. Man, you really are getting too heated or something idk. You weren't tripping over posts like this earlier, yet I say one thing about IV and your eyes turn red and glow.

 

 

I can personally give two fat sh*ts what you think about anything. I never "threw a hissy fit" about anything, but it certainly looks like your ass is hurting right now. If you think GTA IV looks like ass, then fine, that's your opinion, and again, I don't really give a sh*t. Now stop derailing the thread with your idiocy.

 

Back to GTA V PC discussion:

 

Question, if I have the PS3 GTA V disc on hand, what do I need in order to view some of these coding files? Programs/software?

Edited September 24, 2013 by Albert Kike

[SilverRST]

 

they might as well start learning about dx11 since "next gen" is coming in a few months..

also the trailer capped on the consoles was found:

Silly. Nintendo aint no console.

 

@Xerukal: I'm fantasizing how it might look on the next gen. Not graphics dick measuring.

 

What is this all about dicks and graphics? People with tiny dicks plays GTAIV with ENB?

Good thing, my dick is large and I hate ENB. Gimme GTAV, ACIV and WD for PC and my dick will get bigger.

 

XD

Edited September 24, 2013 by SilverRST

[brian.]

 

It does not require many players in the same place for it to be an MMO.

CoD is an MMOFPS.

 

I've proven it very deeply in the online section here. Definition of MMO does not require many players, just many players who can be matched together.

Vindictus is an MMORPG and only supports 4 people per session AFAIK. Either way, it's not a lot of people at once.

 

Trust me on this - MMO does not mean "lots of players at once", it means "persistent characters that can all play together via matchmaking"

 

Dota2, league of legends - they are not many players at once, but the players are persistent and can be matched against each other.

 

Traditional MISCONCEPTION is that MMO means "many players on the same screen" - it's not the case, it means persistent ongoing world.

 

GTA Online has a global economy, stock markets - just because we're only 16 max at first on instances doesn't mean that the whole game isn't tied together. You'll hop "channels" all the time to join your other friends - it's a misconception that MMO requires an army of players in the same field at the same time - it is a misconception fueled by that being the norm, but like I said, even CoD is an MMO game. Vindictus. League/Dota/Champions games - all MMOs, without many players at once. Just able to play together and persistence of the world with or without you, and persistence of your character/accomplishments = mmo.

 

It does not take spells and many players in a session to be an mmo - it takes persistence between sessions and the opportunity for them all to interact, even in small scale player count sessions, I assure.

I have to disagree with you in that. An MMO is a massively multiplayer online game. By definition it's about having many players at the same time. COD is not a MMOFPS, it's just a multiplayer FPS. Planetside 2 is in fact a MMOFPS, because it has on hundreds of people in the same game.

 

I know we're arguing semantics here, but saying CoD is a MMOFPS is truly against the definition of what a MMO is. Dota 2, LoL? Nope, not MMO's. They are MOBA's. Multiplayer Online battle arena. If they were MMO'S, they would be MMOBAS and would include many people at the same time. (Excuse me, Im just gonna go make sure somebody makes this)

 

 

Pure and simply put, you're wrong.

 

Again: CoD is an MMOFPS, with levels, and persistent matchmaking and all players match in the same pool.

 

Again: Dota2, Vindictus, Legends/Champions games like DoTa- those are ALL mmos and have less players than CoD and GTA per match.

[DymeDef]

 

 

 

 

 

So, which looks better, The Crew, or Watch Dogs. Because they both look good, and I'm wondering how V will look if closer.

I mean, of course trailer #1 looked nothing like it, but GTA V already looks very good. I'm just wondering how it would look on the next gen. Mods not included

 

Maybe an unexpected and apparent, if not intentional leak will surface the internet come October.

 

LOL....dude, just look at the above GTA IV screens I posted. If that's how good IV can look, a nearly 6 year old game, then just image what V will look like on PC with mods. It won't even be close. GTA V on PC >>> Watch Dogs or any other up and coming open world game.

 

 

Star Citizen

 

Lol, mad I talked sh*t about IV? Haha, I see now. No offense but you are coming off as a real strong Rockstar fanboi. You are making a claim about a version of a game that has not:

A- been even verified that it will ever come out (I know I know, all the evidence, yadda yadda, but we really do not know until Rockstar says it)

B- we have not seen anything from it, those promo shots could have been set up to look really good for still images and run like straight ass (See screenshot ENBs for Skyrim).

C- you are comparing it to 1. the next gen version which is not even up to snuff with the current tech and 2. It is an ENB vs a non modded Next Gen version.

 

And again, how many people can max IV WITH that ENB at 60 fps? Maybe like 3% of all PC gamers.

 

How many will likely be able to max WD and keep 60 fps? Likely most of the players with any decent rig.

 

A game can look as good as it wants but nothing is ensuring that it will run smooth. Any time you inject an ENB you instantly start losing frames. ENB features are heavy on computers and there is no way to avoid the inevitable frame loss that comes with them.

 

Why do I have to explain why this comparison is retarded? I shouldn't have to lol....

 

 

WTF? A R* fanboy? Dude, you're a f*cking moron. I decided to not even read everything else you wrote after seeing such a retarded accusation against me.

 

 

Lol. Almost as retarded as you claiming I ever said WD looks better than IV with an ENB.

 

If you actually read what I said, it says clearly:

 

I do not like how GTA IV looks, even with an ENB I think it looks like poo.

 

I am not sure where this implies that WD looks better.....

 

You should probably cool down and come back after smoking a cigarette (helps). All I said was that IV looks like ppoo to me and you threw some hissy fit.

 

Lel, and you then avoid all the good stuff. Whatever I don't care, continue to cry about me saying IV looks bad and runs even worse.

 

Also I never said you were a fanboi, just coming off as one. Man, you really are getting too heated or something idk. You weren't tripping over posts like this earlier, yet I say one thing about IV and your eyes turn red and glow.

 

 

I can personally give two fat sh*ts what you think about anything. I never "threw a hissy fit" about anything, but it certainly looks like your ass is hurting right now. If you think GTA IV looks like ass, then fine, that's your opinion, and again, I don't really give a sh*t. Now stop derailing the thread with your idiocy.

 

Back to GTA V PC discussion:

 

Question, if I have the PS3 GTA V disc on hand, what do I need in order to view some of these coding files? Programs/software?

 

 

Lol....

 

OK, do I need to quote your responses along with mine? Should I show just how childish your responses were? Nah I won't because it is pointless. You will continue to deflect it back at me, claiming I am trolling for saying IV looks like poo.

 

And continue to avoid the issues I brought up about the ENB comparison. I love how you deflect and dodge, can you teach me? You probably make one hell of a tank.

 

 

 

Also, I am waiting for you to link proof I said V (console version does, and that is not even debatable) looks like sh*t, and WD looks better than IV with ENB.

 

Hint: You can look all you want, but you will never find them. You flat out either did not read my posts or can not understand them.

Edited September 24, 2013 by DymeDef

[Fireprufe15]

 

 

 

It does not require many players in the same place for it to be an MMO.

CoD is an MMOFPS.

 

I've proven it very deeply in the online section here. Definition of MMO does not require many players, just many players who can be matched together.

Vindictus is an MMORPG and only supports 4 people per session AFAIK. Either way, it's not a lot of people at once.

 

Trust me on this - MMO does not mean "lots of players at once", it means "persistent characters that can all play together via matchmaking"

 

Dota2, league of legends - they are not many players at once, but the players are persistent and can be matched against each other.

 

Traditional MISCONCEPTION is that MMO means "many players on the same screen" - it's not the case, it means persistent ongoing world.

 

GTA Online has a global economy, stock markets - just because we're only 16 max at first on instances doesn't mean that the whole game isn't tied together. You'll hop "channels" all the time to join your other friends - it's a misconception that MMO requires an army of players in the same field at the same time - it is a misconception fueled by that being the norm, but like I said, even CoD is an MMO game. Vindictus. League/Dota/Champions games - all MMOs, without many players at once. Just able to play together and persistence of the world with or without you, and persistence of your character/accomplishments = mmo.

 

It does not take spells and many players in a session to be an mmo - it takes persistence between sessions and the opportunity for them all to interact, even in small scale player count sessions, I assure.

I have to disagree with you in that. An MMO is a massively multiplayer online game. By definition it's about having many players at the same time. COD is not a MMOFPS, it's just a multiplayer FPS. Planetside 2 is in fact a MMOFPS, because it has on hundreds of people in the same game.

 

I know we're arguing semantics here, but saying CoD is a MMOFPS is truly against the definition of what a MMO is. Dota 2, LoL? Nope, not MMO's. They are MOBA's. Multiplayer Online battle arena. If they were MMO'S, they would be MMOBAS and would include many people at the same time. (Excuse me, Im just gonna go make sure somebody makes this)

 

Pure and simply put, you're wrong.

 

Again: CoD is an MMOFPS, with levels, and persistent matchmaking and all players match in the same pool.

 

Again: Dota2, Vindictus, Legends/Champions games like DoTa- those are ALL mmos and have less players than CoD and GTA per match.

Pure and simply put, YOU are wrong. Lets look at the definition of an MMO. A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously.

 

Now, you are for some reason under the impression that a multiplayer game played online is automatically an MMO, but that is not the truth.

 

Im really not in the mood for this though, so just drop it.

[DymeDef]

 

 

 

It does not require many players in the same place for it to be an MMO.

CoD is an MMOFPS.

 

I've proven it very deeply in the online section here. Definition of MMO does not require many players, just many players who can be matched together.

Vindictus is an MMORPG and only supports 4 people per session AFAIK. Either way, it's not a lot of people at once.

 

Trust me on this - MMO does not mean "lots of players at once", it means "persistent characters that can all play together via matchmaking"

 

Dota2, league of legends - they are not many players at once, but the players are persistent and can be matched against each other.

 

Traditional MISCONCEPTION is that MMO means "many players on the same screen" - it's not the case, it means persistent ongoing world.

 

GTA Online has a global economy, stock markets - just because we're only 16 max at first on instances doesn't mean that the whole game isn't tied together. You'll hop "channels" all the time to join your other friends - it's a misconception that MMO requires an army of players in the same field at the same time - it is a misconception fueled by that being the norm, but like I said, even CoD is an MMO game. Vindictus. League/Dota/Champions games - all MMOs, without many players at once. Just able to play together and persistence of the world with or without you, and persistence of your character/accomplishments = mmo.

 

It does not take spells and many players in a session to be an mmo - it takes persistence between sessions and the opportunity for them all to interact, even in small scale player count sessions, I assure.

I have to disagree with you in that. An MMO is a massively multiplayer online game. By definition it's about having many players at the same time. COD is not a MMOFPS, it's just a multiplayer FPS. Planetside 2 is in fact a MMOFPS, because it has on hundreds of people in the same game.

 

I know we're arguing semantics here, but saying CoD is a MMOFPS is truly against the definition of what a MMO is. Dota 2, LoL? Nope, not MMO's. They are MOBA's. Multiplayer Online battle arena. If they were MMO'S, they would be MMOBAS and would include many people at the same time. (Excuse me, Im just gonna go make sure somebody makes this)

 

Pure and simply put, you're wrong.

 

Again: CoD is an MMOFPS, with levels, and persistent matchmaking and all players match in the same pool.

 

Again: Dota2, Vindictus, Legends/Champions games like DoTa- those are ALL mmos and have less players than CoD and GTA per match.

Pure and simply put, YOU are wrong. Lets look at the definition of an MMO. A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously.

 

Now, you are for some reason under the impression that a multiplayer game played online is automatically an MMO, but that is not the truth.

 

Im really not in the mood for this though, so just drop it.

 

 

Honestly, MMO does not need for everyone to be playing in the same world or server. D2 is considered an MMO and that is IMO not even close. Hell even APB is considered an MMO and the most amount of players available to play with at once? 100, 50 of which are on your team.

 

MMO is pretty much every online game nowdays. It is more of what the online is and not so much how many players are playing at once together.

Edited September 24, 2013 by DymeDef

[_Kindled_]

Since GTA V is already handcrafted and doesn't really have repeated textures. I'm sure it will look superior on the next gen.

Look at the grass, bottom right. Repeated textures wasn't the beauty.

 

Luckily, GTA V saves the day.

As you can see, textures are separated and not recycled unlike GTA IV.

[Xerukal]

 

 

they might as well start learning about dx11 since "next gen" is coming in a few months..

also the trailer capped on the consoles was found:

Silly. Nintendo aint no console.

 

@Xerukal: I'm fantasizing how it might look on the next gen. Not graphics dick measuring.

 

What is this all about dicks and graphics? People with tiny dicks plays GTAIV with ENB?

Good thing, my dick is large and I hate ENB. Gimme GTAV, ACIV and WD for PC and my dick will get bigger.

 

XD

 

I believe the accurate metaphor is the actual graphics themselves representing the penises. And how sharp/good they look representing length. Debating over which is better/bigger is the equivalent of measuring.

 

Thus, graphics dick measuring.

 

I was not addressing genuine interest and fantasizing (Kindled). More of, the overheated argument between the two gentlemen above. It is unnecessary and too hostile for anyone's good.

 

EDIT: To clarify, by gentlemen; i am indirectly pointing my finger at Dyme and Albert. Not so indirect anymore now. But better to clear up the confusion rather than stir up more with vagueness.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Xerukal

[DymeDef]

Since GTA V is already handcrafted and doesn't really have repeated textures. I'm sure it will look superior on the next gen.

Look at the grass, bottom right. Repeated textures wasn't the beauty.

 

Luckily, GTA V saves the day.

 

 

As you can see, textures are separated and not recycled unlike GTA IV.

 

Removed the pics to reduce quote pyramids.

 

But yeah, I agree. The textures repeated constantly in IV and really made the game feel like a game and not something you really got immersed into.

 

 

Xerukal you can thank the gentleman who took an amazing amount of offense to me saying I thought IV looked like poo. That's when he began throwing accusations and false information and making terrible comparisons.

 

Any game modded will likely look better than a console version no matter how up to date the tech is..... Plain and simple. Especially with ENB. Not to mention his claims that V will be the best looking open world game for a while. Star Citizen is open world and that game makes V look like an aging console game from the first wave of launch titles on xbox 360. This is what happens when a game is designed for only PC and a game is designed with several platforms in mind.

Edited September 24, 2013 by DymeDef

[Acek]

 

 

 

It does not require many players in the same place for it to be an MMO.

CoD is an MMOFPS.

 

I've proven it very deeply in the online section here. Definition of MMO does not require many players, just many players who can be matched together.

Vindictus is an MMORPG and only supports 4 people per session AFAIK. Either way, it's not a lot of people at once.

 

Trust me on this - MMO does not mean "lots of players at once", it means "persistent characters that can all play together via matchmaking"

 

Dota2, league of legends - they are not many players at once, but the players are persistent and can be matched against each other.

 

Traditional MISCONCEPTION is that MMO means "many players on the same screen" - it's not the case, it means persistent ongoing world.

 

GTA Online has a global economy, stock markets - just because we're only 16 max at first on instances doesn't mean that the whole game isn't tied together. You'll hop "channels" all the time to join your other friends - it's a misconception that MMO requires an army of players in the same field at the same time - it is a misconception fueled by that being the norm, but like I said, even CoD is an MMO game. Vindictus. League/Dota/Champions games - all MMOs, without many players at once. Just able to play together and persistence of the world with or without you, and persistence of your character/accomplishments = mmo.

 

It does not take spells and many players in a session to be an mmo - it takes persistence between sessions and the opportunity for them all to interact, even in small scale player count sessions, I assure.

I have to disagree with you in that. An MMO is a massively multiplayer online game. By definition it's about having many players at the same time. COD is not a MMOFPS, it's just a multiplayer FPS. Planetside 2 is in fact a MMOFPS, because it has on hundreds of people in the same game.

 

I know we're arguing semantics here, but saying CoD is a MMOFPS is truly against the definition of what a MMO is. Dota 2, LoL? Nope, not MMO's. They are MOBA's. Multiplayer Online battle arena. If they were MMO'S, they would be MMOBAS and would include many people at the same time. (Excuse me, Im just gonna go make sure somebody makes this)

 

Pure and simply put, you're wrong.

 

Again: CoD is an MMOFPS, with levels, and persistent matchmaking and all players match in the same pool.

 

Again: Dota2, Vindictus, Legends/Champions games like DoTa- those are ALL mmos and have less players than CoD and GTA per match.

Pure and simply put, YOU are wrong. Lets look at the definition of an MMO. A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously.

 

Now, you are for some reason under the impression that a multiplayer game played online is automatically an MMO, but that is not the truth.

 

Im really not in the mood for this though, so just drop it.

 

I'm with brian on this one..

[r34ld34l]

 

 

It does not require many players in the same place for it to be an MMO.

CoD is an MMOFPS.

 

I've proven it very deeply in the online section here. Definition of MMO does not require many players, just many players who can be matched together.

Vindictus is an MMORPG and only supports 4 people per session AFAIK. Either way, it's not a lot of people at once.

 

Trust me on this - MMO does not mean "lots of players at once", it means "persistent characters that can all play together via matchmaking"

 

Dota2, league of legends - they are not many players at once, but the players are persistent and can be matched against each other.

 

Traditional MISCONCEPTION is that MMO means "many players on the same screen" - it's not the case, it means persistent ongoing world.

 

GTA Online has a global economy, stock markets - just because we're only 16 max at first on instances doesn't mean that the whole game isn't tied together. You'll hop "channels" all the time to join your other friends - it's a misconception that MMO requires an army of players in the same field at the same time - it is a misconception fueled by that being the norm, but like I said, even CoD is an MMO game. Vindictus. League/Dota/Champions games - all MMOs, without many players at once. Just able to play together and persistence of the world with or without you, and persistence of your character/accomplishments = mmo.

 

It does not take spells and many players in a session to be an mmo - it takes persistence between sessions and the opportunity for them all to interact, even in small scale player count sessions, I assure.

I have to disagree with you in that. An MMO is a massively multiplayer online game. By definition it's about having many players at the same time. COD is not a MMOFPS, it's just a multiplayer FPS. Planetside 2 is in fact a MMOFPS, because it has on hundreds of people in the same game.

 

I know we're arguing semantics here, but saying CoD is a MMOFPS is truly against the definition of what a MMO is. Dota 2, LoL? Nope, not MMO's. They are MOBA's. Multiplayer Online battle arena. If they were MMO'S, they would be MMOBAS and would include many people at the same time. (Excuse me, Im just gonna go make sure somebody makes this)

 

 

Pure and simply put, you're wrong.

 

Again: CoD is an MMOFPS, with levels, and persistent matchmaking and all players match in the same pool.

 

Again: Dota2, Vindictus, Legends/Champions games like DoTa- those are ALL mmos and have less players than CoD and GTA per match.

 

What?

 

You are wrong. CoD is NOT an MMOFPS. As neither is Battlefield 3, nor will be Battlefield 4.

 

Planetside is, as well as Dust 514 will be.

But CoD Online is and Battlefield Play4Free is also MMOFPS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game

Edited September 24, 2013 by r34ld34l

[mogwaimon]

Just chiming in to disagree with the MMO argument. Just because there's a persistence in advancing one's character doesn't mean it's an MMO. Nor does a persistent world make for an MMO. To me MMO means there's tons of players in the world you're playing in, with a minimum of instancing. World of Warcraft, Planetside 2, those are MMOs. Games like Dungeon Fighter Online or I guess Diablo 2 where everyone meets in a town and then goes off into a closed off instance to quest or whatever, those are really just fancy lobby systems, IMO.

 

I would concede that games like MAG and Battlefield 3 where there are like 128-256 players in a game are pretty close to MMO, though. But stuff like DotA, League of Legends, or CoD being considered MMO? Nah, not in the slightest, IMO.

 

Alright, I'mma go back to lurking and waiting for this PC version to get announced. Or at least online to be enabled on consoles, haha.

[DymeDef]

 

 

 

It does not require many players in the same place for it to be an MMO.

CoD is an MMOFPS.

 

I've proven it very deeply in the online section here. Definition of MMO does not require many players, just many players who can be matched together.

Vindictus is an MMORPG and only supports 4 people per session AFAIK. Either way, it's not a lot of people at once.

 

Trust me on this - MMO does not mean "lots of players at once", it means "persistent characters that can all play together via matchmaking"

 

Dota2, league of legends - they are not many players at once, but the players are persistent and can be matched against each other.

 

Traditional MISCONCEPTION is that MMO means "many players on the same screen" - it's not the case, it means persistent ongoing world.

 

GTA Online has a global economy, stock markets - just because we're only 16 max at first on instances doesn't mean that the whole game isn't tied together. You'll hop "channels" all the time to join your other friends - it's a misconception that MMO requires an army of players in the same field at the same time - it is a misconception fueled by that being the norm, but like I said, even CoD is an MMO game. Vindictus. League/Dota/Champions games - all MMOs, without many players at once. Just able to play together and persistence of the world with or without you, and persistence of your character/accomplishments = mmo.

 

It does not take spells and many players in a session to be an mmo - it takes persistence between sessions and the opportunity for them all to interact, even in small scale player count sessions, I assure.

I have to disagree with you in that. An MMO is a massively multiplayer online game. By definition it's about having many players at the same time. COD is not a MMOFPS, it's just a multiplayer FPS. Planetside 2 is in fact a MMOFPS, because it has on hundreds of people in the same game.

 

I know we're arguing semantics here, but saying CoD is a MMOFPS is truly against the definition of what a MMO is. Dota 2, LoL? Nope, not MMO's. They are MOBA's. Multiplayer Online battle arena. If they were MMO'S, they would be MMOBAS and would include many people at the same time. (Excuse me, Im just gonna go make sure somebody makes this)

 

 

Pure and simply put, you're wrong.

 

Again: CoD is an MMOFPS, with levels, and persistent matchmaking and all players match in the same pool.

 

Again: Dota2, Vindictus, Legends/Champions games like DoTa- those are ALL mmos and have less players than CoD and GTA per match.

 

What?

 

You are wrong. CoD is NOT an MMOFPS. As neither is Battlefield 3, nor willb e Battlefield 4.

 

Planetside is, as well as Dust 514 will be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game

 

 

Nowhere does that say anything about it requiring all players to play on the same server and same instance. The MMO world is different now.

 

 

An MMO does not just mean how WoW works. Or requiring the ability to host thousands upon thousands of individuals on a single instance or server. Not even close. D2 is considered an MMO, how the f*ck is that anything like the typical MMO you guys keep describing?

 

If thousands of people are playing together in some fashion over the internet, the game is likely considered an MMO. Nowhere does it say in MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online game):

 

Massively Multiplayer all in one server online game

 

or

 

Massively multiplayer all across two or three servers online game

 

or

 

massively all in one game multiplayer online game

 

 

It doesn't, why? Because that is not how you define an MMO.

Edited September 24, 2013 by DymeDef

[Fireprufe15]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It does not require many players in the same place for it to be an MMO.

CoD is an MMOFPS.

 

I've proven it very deeply in the online section here. Definition of MMO does not require many players, just many players who can be matched together.

Vindictus is an MMORPG and only supports 4 people per session AFAIK. Either way, it's not a lot of people at once.

 

Trust me on this - MMO does not mean "lots of players at once", it means "persistent characters that can all play together via matchmaking"

 

Dota2, league of legends - they are not many players at once, but the players are persistent and can be matched against each other.

 

Traditional MISCONCEPTION is that MMO means "many players on the same screen" - it's not the case, it means persistent ongoing world.

 

GTA Online has a global economy, stock markets - just because we're only 16 max at first on instances doesn't mean that the whole game isn't tied together. You'll hop "channels" all the time to join your other friends - it's a misconception that MMO requires an army of players in the same field at the same time - it is a misconception fueled by that being the norm, but like I said, even CoD is an MMO game. Vindictus. League/Dota/Champions games - all MMOs, without many players at once. Just able to play together and persistence of the world with or without you, and persistence of your character/accomplishments = mmo.

 

It does not take spells and many players in a session to be an mmo - it takes persistence between sessions and the opportunity for them all to interact, even in small scale player count sessions, I assure.

I have to disagree with you in that. An MMO is a massively multiplayer online game. By definition it's about having many players at the same time. COD is not a MMOFPS, it's just a multiplayer FPS. Planetside 2 is in fact a MMOFPS, because it has on hundreds of people in the same game.

 

I know we're arguing semantics here, but saying CoD is a MMOFPS is truly against the definition of what a MMO is. Dota 2, LoL? Nope, not MMO's. They are MOBA's. Multiplayer Online battle arena. If they were MMO'S, they would be MMOBAS and would include many people at the same time. (Excuse me, Im just gonna go make sure somebody makes this)

 

Pure and simply put, you're wrong.

 

Again: CoD is an MMOFPS, with levels, and persistent matchmaking and all players match in the same pool.

 

Again: Dota2, Vindictus, Legends/Champions games like DoTa- those are ALL mmos and have less players than CoD and GTA per match.

 

What?

 

You are wrong. CoD is NOT an MMOFPS. As neither is Battlefield 3, nor willb e Battlefield 4.

 

Planetside is, as well as Dust 514 will be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game

 

Nowhere does that say anything about it requiring all players to play on the same server and same instance. The MMO world is different now.

 

 

An MMO does not just mean how WoW works. Or requiring the ability to host thousands upon thousands of individuals on a single instance or server. Not even close. D2 is considered an MMO, how the f*ck is that anything like the typical MMO you guys keep describing?

Please, please show me any website or article at all ever refering to Diablo 1, 2 or 3 as an MMO.

[dephyre]

MMO / MMORPG are blanket terms currently, it's no use debating a term even the industry had trouble defining. Not to mention that debating semantics is simply pointless.

I like many others joined merely for this thread, keep up the good work!

[DymeDef]

 

 

 

 

 

It does not require many players in the same place for it to be an MMO.

CoD is an MMOFPS.

 

I've proven it very deeply in the online section here. Definition of MMO does not require many players, just many players who can be matched together.

Vindictus is an MMORPG and only supports 4 people per session AFAIK. Either way, it's not a lot of people at once.

 

Trust me on this - MMO does not mean "lots of players at once", it means "persistent characters that can all play together via matchmaking"

 

Dota2, league of legends - they are not many players at once, but the players are persistent and can be matched against each other.

 

Traditional MISCONCEPTION is that MMO means "many players on the same screen" - it's not the case, it means persistent ongoing world.

 

GTA Online has a global economy, stock markets - just because we're only 16 max at first on instances doesn't mean that the whole game isn't tied together. You'll hop "channels" all the time to join your other friends - it's a misconception that MMO requires an army of players in the same field at the same time - it is a misconception fueled by that being the norm, but like I said, even CoD is an MMO game. Vindictus. League/Dota/Champions games - all MMOs, without many players at once. Just able to play together and persistence of the world with or without you, and persistence of your character/accomplishments = mmo.

 

It does not take spells and many players in a session to be an mmo - it takes persistence between sessions and the opportunity for them all to interact, even in small scale player count sessions, I assure.

I have to disagree with you in that. An MMO is a massively multiplayer online game. By definition it's about having many players at the same time. COD is not a MMOFPS, it's just a multiplayer FPS. Planetside 2 is in fact a MMOFPS, because it has on hundreds of people in the same game.

 

I know we're arguing semantics here, but saying CoD is a MMOFPS is truly against the definition of what a MMO is. Dota 2, LoL? Nope, not MMO's. They are MOBA's. Multiplayer Online battle arena. If they were MMO'S, they would be MMOBAS and would include many people at the same time. (Excuse me, Im just gonna go make sure somebody makes this)

 

Pure and simply put, you're wrong.

 

Again: CoD is an MMOFPS, with levels, and persistent matchmaking and all players match in the same pool.

 

Again: Dota2, Vindictus, Legends/Champions games like DoTa- those are ALL mmos and have less players than CoD and GTA per match.

 

What?

 

You are wrong. CoD is NOT an MMOFPS. As neither is Battlefield 3, nor willb e Battlefield 4.

 

Planetside is, as well as Dust 514 will be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game

 

Nowhere does that say anything about it requiring all players to play on the same server and same instance. The MMO world is different now.

 

 

An MMO does not just mean how WoW works. Or requiring the ability to host thousands upon thousands of individuals on a single instance or server. Not even close. D2 is considered an MMO, how the f*ck is that anything like the typical MMO you guys keep describing?

Please, please show me any website or article at all ever refering to Diablo 1, 2 or 3 as an MMO.

 

 

It has been listed on several MMO and MMORPG sites. I am not going to sift through the sh*t heap that is google today, I already went through the first few pages and just get a list of MMOs or some topic in a random thread in a random website about D1-3 (God search engines suck these days). I am sure many of the MMO sites still have Diablo 2 up there. IDK about the others as I only really ever liked 2, 3 was sh*t imo.

[r34ld34l]

Nowhere does that say anything about it requiring all players to play on the same server and same instance. The MMO world is different now.

 

An MMO does not just mean how WoW works. Or requiring the ability to host thousands upon thousands of individuals on a single instance or server. Not even close. D2 is considered an MMO, how the f*ck is that anything like the typical MMO you guys keep describing?

 

If thousands of people are playing together in some fashion over the internet, the game is likely considered an MMO. Nowhere does it say in MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online game):

 

Massively Multiplayer all in one server online game

 

or

 

Massively multiplayer all across two or three servers online game

 

or

 

massively all in one game multiplayer online game

 

 

It doesn't, why? Because that is not how you define an MMO.

 

Did I say anything about amount of players? No I did not. Where did I mention WoW? Where did I say I define an MMO? World is defining what is MMO and Call of Duty is not an MMOFPS. Period. If it was, its genre would be MMOFPS and not FPS. You will argue with devs?

Ok then lick brian. ass.

 

Why did I say that? Because it seems so, you just want to argue with anybody that oppose him. Are you his clone? Can mods check IP?

Edited September 24, 2013 by r34ld34l

[DymeDef]

MMO / MMORPG are blanket terms currently, it's no use debating a term even the industry had trouble defining. Not to mention that debating semantics is simply pointless.

 

I like many others joined merely for this thread, keep up the good work!

 

 

This guy has it spot on.

 

There is no definition for an MMO anymore, like I said, almost any online game these days is considered an MMO.

[Acek]

Just chiming in to disagree with the MMO argument. Just because there's a persistence in advancing one's character doesn't mean it's an MMO. Nor does a persistent world make for an MMO. To me MMO means there's tons of players in the world you're playing in, with a minimum of instancing. World of Warcraft, Planetside 2, those are MMOs. Games like Dungeon Fighter Online or I guess Diablo 2 where everyone meets in a town and then goes off into a closed off instance to quest or whatever, those are really just fancy lobby systems, IMO.

 

I would concede that games like MAG and Battlefield 3 where there are like 128-256 players in a game are pretty close to MMO, though. But stuff like DotA, League of Legends, or CoD being considered MMO? Nah, not in the slightest, IMO.

 

Alright, I'mma go back to lurking and waiting for this PC version to get announced. Or at least online to be enabled on consoles, haha.

 

times are changing.. theres more multiplayer modes and games now, so the definition is like brian said....even cod s really like an mmo.. in cod 2 you had a match, you played it and it was done. no levelling up and unlocking stuff but now its all about the coolest unlocks and highest ranks..

 

massively multiplayer online - lots of players playing all the time, collecting stats that can be compared to many other stats and its still massive even tho there cannot be more than 60 (or whatever the number) in one match.. hell they are not even mmofps.. you can just call them mmorpg's (levelling and customizing)

 

the term MMO needs branching into subsections if you really want to put different games in different tags..

[chickenkiller]

I thought mmo was massive multiplayer? I don't think bf3 is mmo been playing that since bf 1942 and that has same amount of players and that was never considered mmo then. I would think something like 256 or more. minecraft is an mmo.

[DymeDef]

 

Nowhere does that say anything about it requiring all players to play on the same server and same instance. The MMO world is different now.

 

An MMO does not just mean how WoW works. Or requiring the ability to host thousands upon thousands of individuals on a single instance or server. Not even close. D2 is considered an MMO, how the f*ck is that anything like the typical MMO you guys keep describing?

 

If thousands of people are playing together in some fashion over the internet, the game is likely considered an MMO. Nowhere does it say in MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online game):

 

Massively Multiplayer all in one server online game

 

or

 

Massively multiplayer all across two or three servers online game

 

or

 

massively all in one game multiplayer online game

 

 

It doesn't, why? Because that is not how you define an MMO.

 

Did I say anything about amount of players? No I did not. Where did I mention WoW? Where did I say I define an MMO? World is defining what is MMO and Call of Duty is not an MMOFPS. Period. If it was, its genre would be MMOFPS and not FPS. You will argue with devs?

Ok then lick brian. ass.

 

Why did I say that? Because it seems so, you just want to argue with anybody that oppose him. Are you his clone? Can mods check IP?

 

Lol, yes I am brians clone and I have never once disagreed with anything he has ever said.

 

No I don't disagree with what he says when it is true. I have contested his posts before and had differing opinions. But then again, this is coming from you who thought those Rockstar Promo shots were from console (LOLOLOL).

 

No you say that because you can not prove you are correct and then turn to just claiming it is right because the industry claims it is only an FPS. Guess what? APB is not an MMO by your definition, yet it is classed as an MMO on every gaming site and anything gaming related.

 

 

You have just been trumped.

 

 

The amount of players has nothing to do with it above poster. Technically there are probably hundreds of thousands of players playingBF3 right now. That is massive in any way you look at it.... The only player count that matters to consider about an MMO is the total number, not how many are playing together at once (Even Wow most players are playing solo or "single player"). Basically what Acek said.

Edited September 24, 2013 by DymeDef

[chickenkiller]

ha I just looked up mmo on urban dictionary and it said money making opportunity maybe cod is mmo ha ha

[r34ld34l]

 

 

Nowhere does that say anything about it requiring all players to play on the same server and same instance. The MMO world is different now.

 

An MMO does not just mean how WoW works. Or requiring the ability to host thousands upon thousands of individuals on a single instance or server. Not even close. D2 is considered an MMO, how the f*ck is that anything like the typical MMO you guys keep describing?

 

If thousands of people are playing together in some fashion over the internet, the game is likely considered an MMO. Nowhere does it say in MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online game):

 

Massively Multiplayer all in one server online game

 

or

 

Massively multiplayer all across two or three servers online game

 

or

 

massively all in one game multiplayer online game

 

 

It doesn't, why? Because that is not how you define an MMO.

 

Did I say anything about amount of players? No I did not. Where did I mention WoW? Where did I say I define an MMO? World is defining what is MMO and Call of Duty is not an MMOFPS. Period. If it was, its genre would be MMOFPS and not FPS. You will argue with devs?

Ok then lick brian. ass.

 

Why did I say that? Because it seems so, you just want to argue with anybody that oppose him. Are you his clone? Can mods check IP?

 

Lol, yes I am brains clone and I have never once disagreed with anything he has ever said.

 

No I don't disagree with what he says when it is true. I have contested his posts before and had differing opinions. But then again, this is coming from you who thought those Rockstar Promo shots were from console (LOLOLOL).

 

No you say that because you can not prove you are correct and then turn to just claiming it is right because the industry claims it is only an FPS. Guess what? APB is not an MMO by your definition, yet it is classed as an MMO on every gaming site and anything gaming related.

 

 

You have just been trumped.

 

Where did I mention APB?

 

And I posted back about those screenshots... Go check it. Neither did you post any proof, only claims. At least I posted some source and have backing from industry.

 

But yeah, then we can remove MMO, because every game with MP is MMO.

Edited September 24, 2013 by r34ld34l

[mogwaimon]

 

Just chiming in to disagree with the MMO argument. Just because there's a persistence in advancing one's character doesn't mean it's an MMO. Nor does a persistent world make for an MMO. To me MMO means there's tons of players in the world you're playing in, with a minimum of instancing. World of Warcraft, Planetside 2, those are MMOs. Games like Dungeon Fighter Online or I guess Diablo 2 where everyone meets in a town and then goes off into a closed off instance to quest or whatever, those are really just fancy lobby systems, IMO.

 

I would concede that games like MAG and Battlefield 3 where there are like 128-256 players in a game are pretty close to MMO, though. But stuff like DotA, League of Legends, or CoD being considered MMO? Nah, not in the slightest, IMO.

 

Alright, I'mma go back to lurking and waiting for this PC version to get announced. Or at least online to be enabled on consoles, haha.

 

times are changing.. theres more multiplayer modes and games now, so the definition is like brian said....even cod s really like an mmo.. in cod 2 you had a match, you played it and it was done. no levelling up and unlocking stuff but now its all about the coolest unlocks and highest ranks..

 

massively multiplayer online - lots of players playing all the time, collecting stats that can be compared to many other stats and its still massive even tho there cannot be more than 60 (or whatever the number) in one match.. hell they are not even mmofps.. you can just call them mmorpg's (levelling and customizing)

 

the term MMO needs branching into subsections if you really want to put different games in different tags..

 

 

I'm not about to call any game with a leaderboard an MMO, if we're talking about 'collecting stats'. If the only qualification for being an MMO is that the game has a stat tracking system of some sort and there's lots of players playing all the time, we might as well start calling Mario an MMO. I'm sure there are a ton of people playing that all the time, and the latest games do have stat tracking, plus I'm pretty sure there are ways to play it online using certain utilities.

 

I said it once, I'll say it again. MMO on its own does not imply persistence. There are a metric sh*tton of games out right now; just because they have stat tracking and a lot of people play the game on different servers and level their characters or unlock guns doesn't make it an MMO. Borderlands 2 is not an MMO, it is an FPS RPG. I would not consider Diablo 2 or Torchlight 2 to be MMOs, I would consider them to be action RPGs with an online component. I would consider World of Warcraft or Everquest to be MMOs, because there are anywhere between 1000 to 3000 people playing on a server simultaneously, and each players actions can have an effect on any other player on that server.

 

What MMO does imply, however, is a high player count per server. GTA Online may have persistent elements and your character may remain the same across many servers, but with a max player count of 32 I would not consider it to be MMO. Up that count to 256+, then yea, I would consider it to be MMO. 128 at the very least.

 

I think some of you guys are confusing the idea of community with what MMO actually stands for, which is massively multiplayer online.