5 ms·

In case anyone sees the (rather derogatory) term "ASSFAGGOTS" and is wondering why it's all caps, it's ostensibly short for "(A)eon of (S)trife (S)tyled (F)ortr

by jxf 13y ago

In case anyone sees the (rather derogatory) term "ASSFAGGOTS" and is wondering why it's all caps, it's ostensibly short for "(A)eon of (S)trife (S)tyled (F)ortress (A)ssault (G)ame (G)oing (O)n (T)wo (S)ides". No, I didn't make that up.

anonymoushn 13y ago
MOBA has essentially won as the acronym for this genre, despite having such a vague meaning that it also describes every MMO, every worms-style game, every online FPS, some MUDs, every online fighting game, every RTS, and probably some other stuff I haven't thought of.
- vectorpush 13y ago
  Genres are useful for categorizing but the category titles are all pretty arbitrary. Take RPG: a description that applies to just about every game out there. MMO tends to refer to games with a persistent overarching game world, but I think it's fair to describe games like Call of Duty and Battlefield as "massively multiplayer online" MUD is associated with text based games but "multi-user dungeon" aptly describes most MMOs 4x (Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate) describes just about every RTS game, they should really be called RT4x or something... I could go on all day, but I think you catch the drift.
  - chc 13y ago
    I don't think it is fair to call games like Call of Duty "massively multiplayer online." They are multiplayer, and they are online, but the scale isn't all that massive. Call of Duty allows, what? 20 players?
    - vectorpush 13y ago
      I think the global stat ledgers and unified multiplier progression paths lend themselves to qualities normally associated with other "massive" games. True, the maps are limited in player size, but the feeling that there is a huge world of individual characters of varying class/strength/expertise that you may randomly encounter is pretty similar. It's like WoW battelegrounds/instanced dungeons minus the persistent world.
      - chc 13y ago
        I have trouble following that thinking. If ledgers made something massively multiplayer, it seems like all those arcade games with miles-long high score lists in the '80s would have to be considered massively multiplayer. But a lot of them were actually single-player.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - staunch 13y ago
        C'mon that's just silly. The "massive" part of an MMO is kind of an important attribute and ~20 players is about as non-massive as you can get. Quake in 1996 supported 16 players and there were leaderboards and ladders. It's not an MMO and neither is COD.
        vectorpush 13y ago
        In practice you don't interact with more than a few dozen players when playing an MMO. Many of the most popular MMOs like WoW and Star Wars:TOR shove their best content into instanced zones styled in a format similar to many multiplayer FPS titles with similar player limits per instance. The core of MMO gameplay comes down to "RPG" style character progression that gives players a sense of complex and gradual character growth that is on display for other players in the community. The same is true of CoD and Battlefield, except there is only instanced content and no out-world. You might argue that games like EVE, where most of the content is non-instanced, are the only true MMOs, but the most popular "MMO" of all time has maximum player limit of 25 on 99% of the game's bosses, and similar limits in the PvP battlegrounds and arenas. Quake in 1996 supported 16 players and there were leaderboards and ladders If you're comparing the multiplayer experience of CoD and BF to Quake I have to wonder if you've ever played those titles. They aren't simply "leaderboards", they are detailed character RPGs that take a lot of grinding and deliberation over gear, just like an MMO, and that is what makes them stand out as blockbusters compared to other FPS games in the genre - your high level CoD character is on display to potentially any other player that participates in the CoD community, Quake leaderboards were just a list of kills, no persistent character growth.
- Kapura 13y ago
  A term only "wins" when you let it. I don't like the breadth of the term "MOBA;" I think ASSFAGGOTS better describes the specific subgenre that includes LoL, Dota, HoN, and Smite. To me, the separation is similar to using the term "backstroke" over the term "swimming."
  - saraid216 13y ago
    See, I use "LoL-style".
    - thedufer 13y ago
      DotA-like was fairly common in LoL's early days, and still seems fairly appropriate. There are not, to my knowledge, any games that compete with DotA for creating the genre.
      - anonymoushn 13y ago
        Defense of the Ancients, like Tides of Blood, Eve of the Apocalypse, and Advent of the Zenith, was an AoS-style map. If you say AoS, though, few people will know what you mean.
        crazypyro 13y ago
        AoS was the name everyone used in Starcraft and Warcraft 3 custom maps, but as new games become popular, the genre just keeps switching to popular game in genre-like.
  - sanskritabelt 13y ago
    Whenever someone tells me they are "a gamer", I think of posts like these and my opinion of them drops a little.
- VonGuard 13y ago
  I actually narrow the definition to include a broad set of these games. Here are the qualities I use to define it: 2 Teams of a set number of players on each side (5 on 5, 3v3, 10v10) A commitment by the players to play a full round of the game, start to finish. A full match, if you will. Players choose from a variety of playable character or customizations, which rely on player skill. Extreme emphasis on team work. By these definitions, World of Tanks is a MOBA, but WoW and Starcraft are not.
  - anonymoushn 13y ago
    Well, that is a useful definition, and perhaps we should pick an acronym that encodes it. The current acronym encodes "Multiplayer online battle arena."
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
crazypyro 13y ago
Might be good to note that this was made up as a joke back when people were arguing about what to call these style of games and just kind of stuck around.

by jxf 13y ago

anonymoushn 13y ago

MOBA has essentially won as the acronym for this genre, despite having such a vague meaning that it also describes every MMO, every worms-style game, every online FPS, some MUDs, every online fighting game, every RTS, and probably some other stuff I haven't thought of.

vectorpush 13y ago
Genres are useful for categorizing but the category titles are all pretty arbitrary. Take RPG: a description that applies to just about every game out there. MMO tends to refer to games with a persistent overarching game world, but I think it's fair to describe games like Call of Duty and Battlefield as "massively multiplayer online" MUD is associated with text based games but "multi-user dungeon" aptly describes most MMOs 4x (Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate) describes just about every RTS game, they should really be called RT4x or something... I could go on all day, but I think you catch the drift.
- chc 13y ago
  I don't think it is fair to call games like Call of Duty "massively multiplayer online." They are multiplayer, and they are online, but the scale isn't all that massive. Call of Duty allows, what? 20 players?
  - vectorpush 13y ago
    I think the global stat ledgers and unified multiplier progression paths lend themselves to qualities normally associated with other "massive" games. True, the maps are limited in player size, but the feeling that there is a huge world of individual characters of varying class/strength/expertise that you may randomly encounter is pretty similar. It's like WoW battelegrounds/instanced dungeons minus the persistent world.
    - chc 13y ago
      I have trouble following that thinking. If ledgers made something massively multiplayer, it seems like all those arcade games with miles-long high score lists in the '80s would have to be considered massively multiplayer. But a lot of them were actually single-player.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - staunch 13y ago
      C'mon that's just silly. The "massive" part of an MMO is kind of an important attribute and ~20 players is about as non-massive as you can get. Quake in 1996 supported 16 players and there were leaderboards and ladders. It's not an MMO and neither is COD.
      - vectorpush 13y ago
        In practice you don't interact with more than a few dozen players when playing an MMO. Many of the most popular MMOs like WoW and Star Wars:TOR shove their best content into instanced zones styled in a format similar to many multiplayer FPS titles with similar player limits per instance. The core of MMO gameplay comes down to "RPG" style character progression that gives players a sense of complex and gradual character growth that is on display for other players in the community. The same is true of CoD and Battlefield, except there is only instanced content and no out-world. You might argue that games like EVE, where most of the content is non-instanced, are the only true MMOs, but the most popular "MMO" of all time has maximum player limit of 25 on 99% of the game's bosses, and similar limits in the PvP battlegrounds and arenas. Quake in 1996 supported 16 players and there were leaderboards and ladders If you're comparing the multiplayer experience of CoD and BF to Quake I have to wonder if you've ever played those titles. They aren't simply "leaderboards", they are detailed character RPGs that take a lot of grinding and deliberation over gear, just like an MMO, and that is what makes them stand out as blockbusters compared to other FPS games in the genre - your high level CoD character is on display to potentially any other player that participates in the CoD community, Quake leaderboards were just a list of kills, no persistent character growth.
Kapura 13y ago
A term only "wins" when you let it. I don't like the breadth of the term "MOBA;" I think ASSFAGGOTS better describes the specific subgenre that includes LoL, Dota, HoN, and Smite. To me, the separation is similar to using the term "backstroke" over the term "swimming."
- saraid216 13y ago
  See, I use "LoL-style".
  - thedufer 13y ago
    DotA-like was fairly common in LoL's early days, and still seems fairly appropriate. There are not, to my knowledge, any games that compete with DotA for creating the genre.
    - anonymoushn 13y ago
      Defense of the Ancients, like Tides of Blood, Eve of the Apocalypse, and Advent of the Zenith, was an AoS-style map. If you say AoS, though, few people will know what you mean.
      - crazypyro 13y ago
        AoS was the name everyone used in Starcraft and Warcraft 3 custom maps, but as new games become popular, the genre just keeps switching to popular game in genre-like.
- sanskritabelt 13y ago
  Whenever someone tells me they are "a gamer", I think of posts like these and my opinion of them drops a little.
VonGuard 13y ago
I actually narrow the definition to include a broad set of these games. Here are the qualities I use to define it: 2 Teams of a set number of players on each side (5 on 5, 3v3, 10v10) A commitment by the players to play a full round of the game, start to finish. A full match, if you will. Players choose from a variety of playable character or customizations, which rely on player skill. Extreme emphasis on team work. By these definitions, World of Tanks is a MOBA, but WoW and Starcraft are not.
- anonymoushn 13y ago
  Well, that is a useful definition, and perhaps we should pick an acronym that encodes it. The current acronym encodes "Multiplayer online battle arena."
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

crazypyro 13y ago

Might be good to note that this was made up as a joke back when people were arguing about what to call these style of games and just kind of stuck around.