Is CoH v24 a MMORPG?

[ICKool]

I'm trying to answer whether late CoH--as designed--was a true MMORPG or not for "most players, most of the time." Almost any "MMORPG" out there can be played "right" according to the genre, but most games either begin or degrade into something "not-MMORPG." I'm not attacking whether or not CoH was or can be successful in any other sense. So here goes:

Overall score: Probably (Time distortion!->No)-> Yeah? But then, I really don't see many true MMORPG's out on the market these days. (Compare with early EQ and early-mid DDO).
    EDIT: Just realized I did not clearly include early CoH as a true MMORPG: It was... the truest and best, in fact!

Massively? Players: Yes. Content: Maybe.
  IMHO, Paragon/NCSOFT began obsoleting more key content with each update than they introduced--especially with the way they implemented and managed AE. (Should we accept this as an industry convention established by EQ's, WoW, etc.) Having tons of content that isn't worth playing anymore doesn't count as massive content...

Multiplayer (Grouping)? Mostly.
  Less so than earlier CoH. Similar to the horrid industry convention following WoW, CoH suffered some 'solofication' via super enhancements and inspirations.

Online? Yes.
  Retains the charm, flavor, and unpredictability of lag--I really do believe those are essential elements! The magic of grouping happens when things DON'T go as planned.

ROLEplaying? NO!
  Went from 4 combat roles (tank, healer, dps, controller), to 1.5 (a weak dps tank + random dps) for vast majority of grouping. Not even the justly maligned 'holy trinity.'

RolePLAYing? Maybe.
  Best core community in the industry. Best emotes in the industry. Best class & costume customization in the industry. Again, this is something Paragon/NCSOFT hurt. Much of the special-ness faded with free-to-play and the pay-to-customize marketplace.

Game? Maybe.
  As opposed to just a time-sink--a particularly grindy time-sink... Original CoH was a true MMORPG with fun but serious team & tactical challenge. It had both light and heavy hearted lore/story arcs. Playing smart mattered. All in all, people had to grow intellectually, socially, and coordination-wise in order to play long-term. That's what makes a 'game' to me: a fun way to grow, stay sharp, and stay connected. The fact that CoH seemed to have the SLOWEST LEVELING in the universe didn't make it grindy at all. But introduce the crafting and AE: now I HAVE to spend boring time crafting by myself to stay relevant, and since everyone is just running XP grinds in AE, I HAVE to grind xp with no social interaction to continue playing the game.

Happy to hear some critique of my critique! (And, oh, Lord! Don't get me started on what constitutes a "sport").

[Vee]

ROLEplaying? NO!
  Went from 4 combat roles (tank, healer, dps, controller), to 1.5 (a weak dps tank + random dps) for vast majority of grouping. Not even the justly maligned 'holy trinity.'

Are you sure you were playing the same game the rest of us were? Maybe stay out of atlas park on freedom if the game comes back.

[Castegyre]

I'm not impressed but reluctant to give a thorough critique without context of what this actually is and what it might be for.

[ICKool]

I'm not impressed but reluctant to give a thorough critique without context of what this actually is and what it might be for.

I'm not trying to bait or trick anyone into anything. I have an opinion about mmorpg's, the industry, and how coh fit into that landscape. If no one in the community gives a rip, that's fine. If I didn't properly present my ideas, that's ok too. If I'm factually wrong on one or more points (and you care), call me out. Whether or not CoH is a true MMORPG doesn't mean it wasn't/can't be a successful financial venture. I suppose my referring to "mistakes" (in the context of MMORPG's) on NCSOFT and Paragon's part could "stir the pot" unnecessarily. But really...

It's all just pixels to be soon forgotten.

[ICKool]

Are you sure you were playing the same game the rest of us were? Maybe stay out of atlas park on freedom if the game comes back.

Glad to see my experience wasn't universal. I guess I was referring to what "seemed" like the majority of gameplay for a majority of players. If that experience was only in low-level zones on free servers, I suppose I could concede your point. It's true, I did not play a lot of high level content in the waning years, though I tried to dive back in (sub'd) several times.

[chuckv3]

City of Heroes is an MMORPG based on the well-established definition. Luckily, everything you wrote after "whether ... CoH ... was a true MMORPG" was superfluous, since it was mostly unintelligible.

[ICKool]

City of Heroes is an MMORPG based on the well-established definition.

Feel free to expand on who, what, and when.

[GenericHero05]

(And, oh, Lord! Don't get me started on what constitutes a "sport").

Well it certainly ain't golf or chess or that redickulous spelling bee.

[Aggelakis]

Feel free to expand on who, what, and when.

"Bunches of people playing roles in a static online game world" is basically the definition of MMORPG. City of Heroes fits that to a "T".

The fact that you put stipulations and restrictions on that doesn't change City from being an MMORPG.

[ICKool]

Well it certainly ain't golf or chess or that redickulous spelling bee.

OMGROFL! GenericHero05, you are my... eh... hero.

[ICKool]

"Bunches of people playing roles in a static online game world" is basically the definition of MMORPG.

I think that's 'persistent,' not 'static.' Wikipedia seems to have a decent treatment of the topic: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game

[chuckv3]

Feel free to expand on who, what, and when.

Gladly! I would just be cutting and pasting (or paraphrasing) what has already been done so well elsewhere, so I'll just link instead.

First, MMORPG already has a well-established meaning. You will probably find some of your own assertions in disagreement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game#Common_features

Second, your use of "real" as a modifier in front of MMORPG hints at the "No True Scotsman" argumentative fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

In other words, you seem to want your own definition of MMORPG just so you can exclude CoH from it. No thanks!

[Aggelakis]

I think that's 'persistent,' not 'static.' Wikipedia seems to have a decent treatment of the topic: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game

Now you're arguing semantics. ;) I used the wrong word but you knew the intent anyway.

[Ohioknight]

Overall score: Probably No. But then, I really don't see many true MMORPG's out on the market these days.

I believe you have fallen prey to the well-known "no true MMORPG" logical fallacy  ;D

[Castegyre]

I started to write out a long point by point response but decided against it. I feel it would be too aggressive and flame-baity to do this discussion justice. One note, though; Not one mention of Cryptic, any of the actual history of the game, the specifics about the changes it went through or how the devs and community responded to them, or how they fit into the evolution of the genre as a whole. I disagree with almost every point here, but I think this might be telling enough as to why.

[ICKool]

Sometimes you hug a teddy bear but it turns out to be a hornets nest.  ;)

I said wikipedia was decent in hopes of moving things into the realm of discussion. I think I said there actually were true MMORPG's on the market at one time (including CoH). I contend that the financial successes of WoW and DDO (first major F2P model???), took mmorpg developers down some ambiguously dark and evil paths.

I ain't the one that chose the adverb 'Massively' to modify the adjectives 'Multiplayer,' 'Online' and/or 'Roleplaying', which in turn modify the noun 'Game.' I'm just asking for the adverb 'Meaningfully'... otherwise, you just end up with a second-rate solo RPG that is online so that you see bunches of other players doing the same thing.   >:(

Is that so wrong?

Castegyre, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your almost-post. Really wish you would go ahead and post it (ooo, or message me? I'll sign an NDA)!

[Codewalker]

Massive? Check, by any standard other than the WoW standard (which is an outlier and should be discounted anyway)

Multiplayer? Check. The force multiplier effect strongly encourages casual team play, as does (super) sidekicking. Soloing as effectively requires high-end builds and degenerate tactics. Why should I bother IOing to the gills when I can get a few friends on SO'd defenders and controllers and we steamroll everything without even trying?

Online? Check. It's teh Internetz.

Roleplaying? Check. Strong bias towards creative character designs, moreso than most games where loot determines appearance. Space to write a background story. Atmosphere conducive to non-combat activities likes social gatherings, costume contests, showing off Supergroup bases, etc. You seem to be confusing this term with team roles, but that's not what it means. Go look up D&D.

Game? Check. You do tasks to get rewards.

[ICKool]

Paydirt, Codewalker!

Massive(ly): Ok. Massive has referred to both number of players and size of the virtual world, but most MMORP-like-G's have a habit of obsoleting more prior content with successive updates than they introduce. I maintain CoH was headed down that road, but I don't suggest it wasn't still massive.

Multiplayer: Ok. I suppose with the right community and a wary eye on solo-ability...

Online: Ok. You're thinking technically, not existentially? This is much more essential than technicians realize.

Roleplaying: Ok. Happy to concede the point regarding ROLEplay vs. rolePLAY because you roll my concern regarding combat roles under Multiplayer. I played AD&D and on... even though we didn't have the parlance, it was still generally tank, healer, rogue, and dps... maybe even a notion of crowd control? But the focus was still on rolePLAY: not sure exactly where you wanted me to end up with that. All I know is that there has always been both meanings of RolePlay in pnp, video-rpg's, and early MMORPG's (unless you include SecondLife as a MMORPG...)  :P

Game: Yeah, it's a pet peeve of mine. You just mean diversion.

I'll upgrade my overall score to Probably, probably.

[Ironwolf]

I will mention one thing you may not have been aware of - CoH came out BEFORE WoW.

The EQ trinity was not really replicated as such and as the game moved forward they tried very hard not to have any one way of playing the game.

I finished most of the TF's on all Controller, Blaster, Defender, Corrupter, Stalker, Scrapper teams. The reason why many of us want the game back is we aren't MMORPG players we are City of Heroes players. I have tried other games and they are static as hell, boring and predictable. There is no personality to the other games.

City of Heroes morphed into something it was not originally meant to be. The game became almost emtirely a player creation with direction from the Devs. Our form of gameplay was in stark contrast to what they expected.

[jjmgreen]

Regarding Item 1 and Obsoleting of content.  I don't recall much obsolete content.  The original sewer trial
seems to be the only thing that fits.  With set IOs, the marginally-useful hydra-o's became irrelevant.  Other
than for badging, it was more trouble than it was worth.