GameSkinny

We Love Games!

Why World of Tanks Shouldn't Have Won the Golden Joystick for Best MMO

Lobby
Games development studios seem to covet the Massively Multiplayer label, but what is the true definition of an MMO?

by

Nailing down a solid definition of a Massively Multiplayer Online game is surprisingly tricky. I'd not given the concept a moment's thought until I read that World of Tanks had won the Best MMO Award at the Golden Joysticks.

Without doubt World of Tanks is an outstanding game worthy of recognition and it is certainly an online game. But massively multiplayer? Thirty random players repeatedly fighting in teams of strangers for ten minutes is stretching the definition, surely?

Battlefield 3, which scooped the Best Shooter award, boasts 64 players per match. So according to the Golden Joystick definition, that's more of an MMO than World of Tanks by a factor of two (and a bit). Why were the two games not competing for the same awards? Really, they should both fall under the Shooter category, with the only real difference being aesthetic – in one the player is represented by a tank, in the other a soldier (who sometimes gets in a tank). This doesn't seem very consistent.

The continuation of this logic would mean that any game with large player support and even the vaguest online multiplayer element (and these days, few games ship without some kind of multiplayer mode) could potentially qualify as massively multiplayer. For example, Magic: The Gathering – Duels of the Planeswalkers only allows four-player online games but is played by hundreds of thousands. So does that make it an MMO too?

Narrowing the Field

According to Wikipedia, an MMO is a “multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously.” Whilst this statement is open to interpretation, the essence of the definition is clear. In my opinion, supporting “hundreds or thousands of players” in a pre-match lobby environment doesn't qualify unless those same hundreds or thousands can all interact in the same active game environment at the same time. Parcelling them off into small groups to take part in closed matches instantly removes the massively element of the MMO label.

It's not simply a numbers game either. There's little sense in drawing a line in the sand and claiming that any game that provides an environment in which X number of players can interact qualifies as an MMO. The massively concept equally applies to the environment as much as to the number of players. Closed maps and time-limited matches surely negate the principles of the massively label. There needs to be a degree of persistence and a massive world environment. Wikipedia's definition states that an MMO should "feature at least one persistent world".

Granted, technological limitations present a development barrier to providing truly singular persistent environments, with common workarounds for this being dividing worlds into zones or repeating identical versions of the game environment on multiple shards. Although not perfect, this still provides massive gaming spaces for those “hundreds or thousands” of players and goes some way toward Wikipedia's MMO definition of enabling players to “cooperate and compete with each other on a large scale, and sometimes to interact meaningfully with people around the world.” The key phrase is “large scale”. Aside from meaning 'very heavy', the Oxford Dictionary definition of massively is “exceptionally large, substantial, impressive”.  

When Could a Shooter Qualify?

Gaming environments which provide a wider backdrop and meaning to the outcome of small-scale player engagements as found in World of Tanks and other shooters could provide strong arguments for qualification as MMOs, the upcoming Planetside 2 and DUST 514 being perfect examples. If every battle between small groups of players affected a grander campaign map in some persistent way, then certainly that could be seen as a massive concept.

But to claim that a pick-up-and-play shooter is an MMO renders the whole definition meaningless. As much as I love World of Tanks, winning the Golden Joystick for Best MMO makes as much sense as giving Star Wars an Academy Award for Best Period Drama.

Originally Published Nov. 9th 2012

Featured Columnist

Broken paramedic and coffee-drinking Englishman whose favourite dumb animal is an oxymoron. After over a decade of humping and dumping the fat... more »

Related


View All Top Videos
Comments
  • 1
    smith101 2 weeks ago
    Agreed completely, yet it continues to be marketed as an MMO! It's quite annoying as companies attempt to blur the definition of an MMO to reduce the cost of a game.
  • 1
    RothTest 5 months ago
    Test
  • 1
    Gamer0991 7 months ago
    I've never played WoT but I've heard from my friends who have that everything you've said about it is true. It seems several games these days are branding themselves as MMOs when they're not, I think to boost sales but I don't know.
    Last edited 7 months ago
  • 1
    Greg_6129 8 months ago
    I have no idea what you are talking about. Battlefield is a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER. World of Tanks is an ARCADE tank game. There's a big difference. 'Battlefield 3, which scooped the Best Shooter award, boasts 64 players per match'

    >Per match
    >Matches that restart on the same map every time you win/lose

    And those matches can last up to an hour (1000 ticket servers). World of Tanks' style is pick up and play. Most battles last only 7 minutes, in which people whittle the numbers down to a victory. You have no reason to compare Battlefield and WoT. They are 2 completely different games. One involves running around and shooting people, and the other requires strategy and timing your shots.

    Basically, you can't compare Battlefield and WoT. Don't like it? Don't play. I for one like both games. On the contrary, what you're saying makes as much sense as giving Call of Duty the award for "Best shooter of all time". Seriously, get your facts right.
  • 1
    Gamer0991 7 months ago
    You completely missed the point of this article.

    The claim being made in this article was that WoT should not have won a 'Best MMO' award because it's not an MMO, not because it's a bad game. This claim actually has nothing to do with the quality of the game(s) brought up. Essentially Mat brought up two properties of MMOs; a persistent world, and thousands of players interacting simultaneously. Since WoT lacks both of these properties Mat claims it's not an MMO.

    When comparing Battlefield and WoT Mat only included one property; the quantity of players. His assertion is simple; both games make use of arena style matchmaking game-play, but since Battlefield hosts bigger matches it's more like an MMO than WoT. This comparison concerning ONE PROPERTY is perfectly valid. Everything you mentioned is off-topic. The fact that one game is an FPS and the other an arcade-style is not relevant to the comparison. Whether or not the matches in one game last longer than the other is also irrelevant. Whether or not one game takes more strategy than the other is irrelevant as well. None of that has anything to do with Mat's assertion.

    Your false analogy betrays your misinterpretation of this article. CoD could potentially win a 'Best Shooter' award, if good enough, because it IS a shooter. WoT should never have the potential to win the 'Best MMO' award, regardless of quality, because it's not an MMO.

    Why do you choose to present such a bad attitude? "Don't like it. Don't play." Mat didn't say he disliked WoT, in fact he said he loved WoT. Seriously, before you tell someone to "Get your facts straight." you might want to at least read the title of the article before you present a post of irrelevant babble to attack the author. Your opening sentence, "I have no idea what you are talking about." describes yourself quite well. Perhaps next time you have no idea what someone is talking about you should ask them what they're talking about.

    TL;DR - A game should never win a genre award if it's not part of the genre.
    Last edited 7 months ago

Advertisement