It wasn't debunked, 32 players is not massive in any sense of the word. It even says so in the Wikipedia. CS:S can support 128 players, if the server can handle it. I don't see how that isn't massively multiplayer if the server stability were achievable. It's certainly massively multiplayer.

The first graphical MMOG, and a major milestone in the creation of the genre, was the multiplayer flight combat simulation game Air Warrior by Kesmai on the GEnie online service, which first appeared in 1986.

If you think 32 players can compare to Air Warrior, Aces High or Warbirds to bring it into the MMOG market - you are very mistaken.

In addition, you have several 32 player maps. There won't be a persistent universe, the servers won't be interlinked like WoW which you keep using as an example. It won't be like WWIIOl where hundreds of players are involved in a persistent war on a single map.

WoP will have several individual servers running a map with 32 players.

All of which where the battle outcome affects the global war as a whole. This isn't the same as isolated servers ala CS or BF3. Persistent world = MMO - Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

Because having a persistent world that only allows 4 people to connect wouldn't be a MMO. There is a number of players involved there to get the massively multiplayer aspect. It's right there in the name.

32 player cap is only the individual battles. The actual persistent world has an infinite number of players, hence it is an MMO.

Those examples above has a persistent world, one individual world where all players play and can interact.

This is several individual worlds where players can only interact by leaving one server and joining another... if there's room.

Calling this a MMO is a marketing gimmick to get more people interested in it.

No it isn't. It is one global world war with individual battles in it. How is that not a persistent world? It's like saying Stalker isn't an open world game because you only play in one map at a time.

You can't go from one battle to another on the same map. You have to change servers. It's not a global war, it's a centrally maintained stats database that updates the conflict on each server to make it seem interlinked.

The day you can go from fighting in one area and fly to another to make an impact on that battle is the day it will cross to MMO.

And no, Stalker wasn't an open world. It tried it's best, but it still had boundaries for both the player and the NPCs. You could always expect one group of critters to be at the same spot every time and they were restricted on movement.

Go on moving those goalposts, boy.

Even if it indeed only is a centrally updated stats database that decides which battles get played when with what equipment that's still a persistent world and qualifies as an MMO because the actions of all players across all maps affect the global situation. Meanwhile even a 256-player BF or IL-2 COD server can never qualify as an MMO because none of the necessary systems needed for persistent world gameplay is present in either game.


Funny how all 3 Stalker games I have played from start to finish have had dynamically generated NPC's and critters engaging in impromptu battles, or how a corpse on one map is still there when I return to that map. Saying an open world game cannot have player boundaries is plain dishonest. In that case GTA isn't an open world game either. Oh look, 99% of gamers say it is one.