While this is something I started thinking about back during the ill-fated mmorpg.com campaign, it's been on my mind a lot more in the past couple months. As some of you know, I've been trying to help out with TBW-related proofreading for a while now, so I've spent a bit of time reading over (and reading over... and over... and re-reading over, and over-reading, and...) the text on the various campaign-related sites[1], and something that keeps nagging at me are the comparisons of TBW to an MMO. I'm curious about what other people's thoughts are on the matter, and what people think of when they read that something is an MMO, or a variety of MMO. In the AMA today, Anashel brought on Christian Fonnesbech, the director of Cloud Chamber, and he made a related comment: My thoughts were running along similar lines - that we'd tried crowdfunding in the middle of a major MMO site and rather than being helped by it, we were met with confusion and outright hostility. My fear of pushing TBW as a sort of MMO is twofold: Assuming MMO fans are convinced enough by the comparisons to sign up, what happens when they realize that no, it really isn't anything like an MMO? Will any significant number be converted, or do we just have a bunch of angry gamers demanding refunds, writing ugly reviews, and just generally being unpleasant? Will traditional ARG fans look at those comparisons and think "damn, I wish they were making this as a real ARG, instead of trying to turn it into some sort of MMO"? Yes, TBW technically matches all three letters in the acronym - it's (mostly) online, it's multiplayer, and it's pretty massive... but is that actually what people think when they read that something is (or is like) an "MMO"? Cloud Chamber also fits all three, and it even has the persistent-online-virtual-space thing going for it, but the label still seems to be causing them headaches. How far can that definition be stretched before people start feeling deceived, or like a game is trying to be something it's not? Conversely, can you see ways where making these comparisons is likely to be beneficial? Is my thinking wrong, and this is something that we should try to make more of a selling point? -Bats [1] No, I don't do story/game stuff, just the bits related to making the game happen. Now please stop hitting my knees with that pipe wrench and demanding secrets.
I agree, basically. Analysing the issue: I think the topic is best viewed in light of another problem related to it; RPGs. The term "RPG" has become so commonplace, that it has lost the meaning that used to define it. It's no longer a genre that you look for when you want certain gameplay elements, but something that got so popular, that every game tried to shoe-horn it in as a descriptor, despite the fact that very little "role playing" was taking place, and only superficially could be said to be the goal, or even main feature, of the games. A good example of this, is how games used to know as "Dungeon Crawlers" (Diablo and the like), are now largely referenced to as "Action Role Playing Games" (ARPG). But the point of them is not so much that of developing a characters story, or experiencing the story about them, but more that of having fun smashing every other moving entity on the screen to bits, and hope you find fancy new toys in the process. This malpractice in terminology, has meant that looking for an "RPG" yields everything from the aforementioned Dungeon Crawlers, to First Person Shooters, to God games. (There's a rather nice article about it found here.) Defining MMO: I think this is also becoming an issue with the "MMO" term. I often find games that are so far from what I understand an MMO to be. Games that use server-based instancing, with a maximum of 64 players per server, are suddenly "MMO" games - in which case "Tribes" was an MMO. If I were to pick the prototypical "MMO", I'd have to say it would be "EVE-Online", primarily because there is no splitting of its community by way of servers or isolated shards. The Secret World also somewhat fits as a prototypical example, but to a slightly lesser degree, seeing as you might very well be able to talk to anyone you like, but you need to get into the right instance to bump into them. In that sense, The Black Watchmen does fall under my prototypical definition of an MMO, and I would initially appear to be contradicting my very first statement as a result. However: Because of this dilution of the definition regarding what makes a game an "MMO" or not, the general consensus of the genre is, I dare assume, not equivalent to my own. Where my criteria for prototypicality is that of interaction, I suspect for others it is that of "Huge world to play in (with numerous things to do)". In other words, I suspect my definition hinges more heavily on the "Massive multiplayer", and the more common definition more heavily on the "massive" part of the definition. As such, people expect a profound virtual world when they think "MMO", and this is where the disparity between what The Black Watchmen aims to be, and what people understand MMOs to be, comes into play, and warrants attention. Based on what I've written so far, I'd say that, in general terms, calling The Black Watchmen an MMO is, in view of general usage of the term, bordering on unfitting. I think that, in order to help explain my own point of view the last bit of the stretch, I'd have to approach the term "ARG", how I understand it, and how I suspect most people understand it (blasted subjectivity!): Defining ARG: In its most base terms, I'd define an ARG not as something that helps me escape reality, but something that encourages me to question reality - which I coincidentally also think is the same, boiled down definitions most others would give it. However, when comparing "MMO" and "ARG", the question of "what differentiates the two?" arises. Comparing MMO & ARG: - Does a game fall outside the category of "ARG" when the amount of simultaneous players reaches a certain amount, thereby encroaching on my previous definition of "MMO"? No, in my opinion. Regardless of whether or not 10 people, or 10.000 people play the game, it could still be called an ARG. Again, refering back to one of my previous ramblings in this post; MMOs main descriptor is, more often than not, "huge virtual world", so: - Does a game fall outside the category of "ARG" when it has a huge virtual world? Yes, I'd very much think so. By "Huge Virtual World", I of course refer to the interface, mainly. If you're running around in a virtual copy of New York City, the fact that it's virtual, moves the game from "questioning" to "escaping". I hope this helps to illustrate why I feel "MMO" is a misnomer for The Black Watchmen, despite how apt my own understanding of the term may be in describing it. I do, however, understand the urge to highlight the fact that TBW will involve a lot of players, and that the term "ARG" on its own is insufficient to describe this, in view of how number of players isn't a deciding factor as to whether something is an ARG or not. Suggestions: To avoid drawing in the wrong crowd - because as much as their money would nice, their disgruntled word-of-mouth would not - I think dropping the "MMO" definition would be for the best. As much as I dislike inventing new genres without good cause, I agree that it may be needed in this case, because ARGs have by and large been very isolated entities beforehand, banished to the dark corners of the web, and living in happy obscurity (which some would argue is the very definition of an ARG). "Persistent Augmented Reality Game" is okay, but other ARGs have also been persistent - to my knowledge. "Massive Augmented Reality Game" is one marriage of the two terms I can think of, that neither alludes too heavily to the aforementioned definition of "MMO", and aptly identifies the game as an "ARG". But it still smells somewhat like saying "this is a sub-genre to MMO", which I think would still be the wrong impression to give. The definition for Ingress (Augmented Reality Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game) would also be amiss, and an overly obnoxious definition to try and understand, let alone explain. In the end, I suppose something that would both draw in newcommers as well as veterans, while aptly defining the game, would be "Global Augmented Reality Game". Yes, all ARGs are essentially "global" thanks to the virtues of the net, but unlike (most) other ARGs, TBW aims to bring the "Augmented Reality" to players world-wide, as part of it's core mechanics. It not only highlights the fact that you are just as likely to question your reality regardless of where you are, but also that this is being done with an (inferred) massive amount of players. (Sorry Bats, I'm not after secrets, but I'll switch out the pipe wrench with a wiffle bat)
Good analysis of the question and the verbiage. About all I can add to it is my opinion that MMO is not an apt description and likely to be misunderstood. Myself, I think PARG is perhapse more fitting. Here's why: What I intended to say is not necessarily what you think I meant. When people hear me say a term they think they understand (like MMO) - it doesn't matter what I said, it meant to them what they think it means, along with all the connotations and baggage the term means to them. MMO has become so widely used in so many contexts that it is now virtually undefinitive as to meaning. Basically, starting with a narrower definition like PARG and then describing what TBW is is better than starting with MMO and then have to describe what TBW is while differentiating it from a WoW player's idea of what an MMO is.
I do not see any benefit in identifying with the MMO designation. I prefer, simply, ARG, because, well, that's what this is. ARG alone can encompass PARG, GARG etc. If that makes us fringe...I am ok with that. I don't think we need to try and make ourselves fit into the mass consciousness of gaming or use/shoehorn ourselves into using problematic/misnomic terms just so the majority of gamers can kind of understand us and what this is. Do we WANT to have a 'regular' gaming community? I don't, personally. I like us, and how we are different. That's rather the point, isn't it? If I wanted a regular MMO with 'regular' gamers, I'd still be playing WoW. I don't have anything against those games or gamers, but I am devoted to TBW because they aren't anything like that mass consciousness or those other games. Yes, more people would be nice, and more money...but not at the cost of who we are and what we really stand for and value. I also don't think ARG and it's definition needs to have anything at all to do with the number of players, whether it's 10 or a 10,000. ARG is ARG is ARG. If we must give it a flavor, I suggest we take our cue from the kickstarter site itself: "science Fiction/Mature/Horror ARG".
Yeah I agree with Asariel on this. When people think about an MMOs they don't think Massive Multiplayer Online, but instead we mostly think about thinks like: An online world that is accessed by controlling an avatar (we won't have this) Levels and classes (granted TBW has this) Repetitive tasks (hope TBW doesn't have too much of those) Grinding (pretty certain we won't have this) So yes this is a Massivegame Multiplayer Online game as far as the definition goes, but I don't see it as an MMO and it doesn't have all the elements that people think about when thinking about an MMO. It's an Alternate Reality Game first an foremost, or maybe a Persistant Alternate Reality Game. PARG has quite grown on me actually.
