kibasnowpaw
Well-Known Member
I disagree about Diablo IV. I agree that Diablo II does not belong in an MMORPG discussion merely because it has online multiplayer. Diablo II is fundamentally a session-based action RPG: somebody creates a limited game instance, a small number of players join it, and that particular world disappears when the session ends.
Diablo IV is built very differently. Blizzard officially calls it an action RPG, but I am not arguing about the marketing label printed on the box. I am talking about how the game actually works.
Diablo IV has a continuously connected shared open world where other players are automatically placed into your world without anyone hosting a traditional multiplayer session. You encounter strangers in towns and outdoor zones, fight beside them during public events and Helltides, and gather with them for world bosses. The game also has clans, parties, trading, seasonal characters and centrally stored progression. It requires both a Battle.net account and an internet connection, even when you intend to play alone. Blizzard itself describes Sanctuary as an open world.
That is much closer to MMO design than traditional Diablo multiplayer. The world uses multiple instances or shards so that only a limited number of players appear together at one time, while dungeons and certain story areas are separately instanced. However, sharding does not automatically stop something from being an MMO. Full MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft also use layers, shards and private dungeon instances. “Massively multiplayer” does not mean every player must exist on one physical server or appear on the same screen simultaneously.
The strongest argument against calling Diablo IV an MMO is the scale. Its individual world shards contain relatively few visible players, grouping is generally limited to four people, most content remains solo-friendly, and its character building and combat are still designed primarily as an action RPG. It also lacks some traditional MMORPG systems, such as large social hubs containing hundreds of visible players, conventional MMO professions and large persistent guild-controlled worlds.
That is why I would describe Diablo IV as an MMO-lite, shared-world ARPG or an action RPG built with MMO-style infrastructure. But saying it has no place in an MMORPG discussion at all is too absolute. It has a persistent online service, shared public zones, automatic encounters with strangers, public events, world bosses, clans, social systems, seasons and server-controlled progression. Those are major MMO characteristics, not merely ordinary online co-op.
I called Diablo IV an MMO when it released, and I still consider it one at the edge of the definition. It may not be a traditional full-scale MMORPG like World of Warcraft, but it is about as close as an action RPG can get to being an MMO without Blizzard officially using the label.
So yes, Diablo II was a poor example for an MMORPG thread. Diablo IV is a much more defensible example, and dismissing it simply because Blizzard calls it an “action RPG” ignores how the game and its servers are actually structured.
I made this aroudn when D4 came out that why is so bad.
so we can debate if it do or do not belong mmo.
