racketboy.com

dunpeal2064 wrote:When did you try? I downloaded it a few years back, so hopefully this isn't a more recent problem. If so, that would be pretty disappointing

That was several years ago

Sload Soap wrote:Why did you play Urban strike over Desert and Jungle? Boggles the mind.

Urban was chosen because it was the title that the fewest number of people polled about had played it.

fastbilly1 wrote:Urban was chosen because it was the title that the fewest number of people polled about had played it.

and because Dave had roped in an interview for the podcast too, I believe?

pierrot wrote:PSO was originally advertised as the first console MMO. I'm not exactly sure what criteria people are using to say that it isn't an MMO.

Isn't the structure of it that the town hubs are there to (possibly) group up and all, but once you head out to actually do stuff you're entirely in instances?

Other games using that, like Diablo, Guild Wars, and so on aren't considered by their developers or players to be MMOs. Effectively, they're multiplayer games with a fancy lobby server system.

"True" MMOs are those where the playerbase shares a persistent world for at least much more of the content.

I'm pretty sure in combat situations you are in instances in PSO at all times more or less.

I dont think it has an open world where everyone on the server can be in the same place fighting.

I'd say that is the most notable trope that would stop a game like Diablo from being considered an MMO.


I only played it offline/split screen, but there is no "massive multiplayer" component to PSO from what I remember, though that was a very long time.

Regardless, I think PSO vs FFXI is similar enough to head to head in a poll like this. They are both online RPGs.

noiseredux wrote:

fastbilly1 wrote:Urban was chosen because it was the title that the fewest number of people polled about had played it.

and because Dave had roped in an interview for the podcast too, I believe?

That makes sense. I was going through the list of past games you'd played and I did a double take on Urban Strike. It was never considered a great game even on release.

MMO: Massively Multi-player Online.

That says nothing about, 'Yeah, well only in this case,' or 'only if it's an RPG.' I'd call things like LoL or Battlefield MMO also.

PSO is an RPG. It's predicated on internet based multi-player that at times has more than 20 player characters from all over the world, roaming around, and interacting with each other. It's an MMORPG.

My criteria for MMO vs. non-MMO is that to me the keyword MASSIVE means the possibility of hundreds or thousands of players existing in a persistent environment/world. I always felt like PSO was more like Diablo in which a limited number of players party together through instanced environments.

That said IT TOTALLY DOESN'T MATTER if PSO is an MMORPG or not! It's totally a fine pick for Together Retro and completely fair compare it to FFXI!

pierrot wrote:PSO is an RPG. It's predicated on internet based multi-player that at times has more than 20 player characters from all over the world, roaming around, and interacting with each other. It's an MMORPG.

Setting aside that "more than 20" is paltry compared to the hundreds or thousands of players typically on individual MMO servers...

The key difference is persistent online areas versus what are often termed instances.

If I'm playing Guild Wars, and step outside of a town, a new copy of the combat area I've entered is created just for me (and whoever might be in my party) to occupy. When I zone back into town, poof, it's gone.
Practically speaking, the same thing happens with Battlefield, or LoL, or Diablo III, and so on. You might have 20 people playing together, but you're exclusively playing in your own copy of that game content that ceases to be once it's not being used.

An MMO has a persistent world. You step outside of town in FFXI, and you enter a zone that's there and running whether there are zero people in it or hundreds. It's not your own special little copy of that zone, it's the same one everyone else on that server will be a part of if that's where they are in the game world.

Practically speaking, instances are often preferable - MMOs tend to still use them in limited amounts to ensure that players have equal access to certain things, to restrict access to content, and so on.
In a persistent world, you may have players trying to do the same content, which can create competition for in-game resources...though it can also result in teamwork or other assistance too. For better or worse, it creates a different dynamic.

I feel like you guys might be basing your definitions of MMO on what is generally considered an MMORPG today, and excluding instances of MMO where RPG is not applicable. I think the definition is far more intuitive than level of persistence in the game world.

I digress. This conversation has run aground a bit, and doesn't really serve the voting process.

Thank goodness I have no interest in any of these. I don't really think it's a genre conducive to an isolated month-long format.

The MMO I'll be doing the month this is being played



Seriously, this seems to have a lot of support behind it. Enjoy whichever one it is all.