The Theory Of
Here you'll find discussion of all manner of topics relating to the theory of multiplayer games. As I see it, anyway. A note to commentors: if you stray off-topic or if your reply contains ad hominem attacks, your comment will be deleted.

t0nyd just observed how odd it was to publicly suggest that a certain mechanic be part of an MMORPG, only to have people respond that he doesn't want an MMORPG, he wants an FPS.  I commented that a part of the problem is the MMORPG acronym itself.  I wanted to expand on that idea here because it's important.

Ask 1000 people on this site what an MMORPG is, and you'll get 1000 different answers.  The acronym MMORPG is pretty much useless because all it does is refer to a broad space of software application that people use online for entertainment.  MMO is even more broad, and even more useless, even though I use that acronym myself quite a bit.

Massively

Multiplayer

Online

Roleplaying

Game

If you look at each word in the acronym, you and your friends could spend weeks arguing over what each one means.

Is "massively" pertinent to simultaneous connections to the server, or just the number of people who can connect to it.  Must they be able to interact with each other, or just connect at the same time?  Is 100 "massive" or must it be 500 or more?  A thousand or more?

Just the word "game" can cause conniption fits among the intelligentsia of the gaming world.  Does a game require competition?  Must there be defined rules, such that a sandbox implementation (whatever that means) cannot be termed a game?  These debates just go on and on and on.

I tend to try to dodge the labeling wars by going with generic words and phrases such as "entertainment software".  It's rather more boring terminology than using acronyms such as MMORPG, but it permits people to think about a bigger picture than that afforded by the more restrictive acronym.

Is it important to say that an MMORPG is a program that lets 1000 people or more simultaneously connect to a server where they can move a humanoid avatar around that can own virtual objects, advance in levels, attack computer-controlled avatars and chat with other players who are connected to the same server?  I say that it's not important the least bit.  Because if I then want to create a game that is a variation on that theme and that players would love to play, do I want to run into a stone wall simply because people won't slap the MMORPG label onto it?

Consider Will Wright's upcoming game Spore.  Is it an MMORPG?  I don't know.  I suspect most people won't label it that way.  Does it matter?  Not a whit.  Is it fun to play?  That's the important thing.  Will it be fun because it can or cannot be labelled MMORPG?  No.  It will be fun to play because of the structure that Will Wright and his talented developers and artists put into place.

Arguing over whether or not something is an MMORPG or FPS is ludicrous.  Argue over whether or not a given construct or combination of features is fun.  If you don't think it would be fun, just say as much and move on.  Don't claim ownership of a meaningless acronym as a means of attempting to dismiss somebody else's idea.  If you have the design talents, tackle the challenge of figuring out what segment of the population out there would be interested in playing a game with that construct.  Then provide feedback.  Going a step beyond, work with the original idea to come up with something that works perhaps even better than the original idea.