Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The 10 Best MMOs of 2017 - The List - MMORPG.com

1468910

Comments

  • RedempRedemp Member UncommonPosts: 1,136
    Redemp said:
     It's wonderful -  every year this list comes out and every year the thread debates what is a "mmo". I remember getting bent out of shape the first time I saw a non-mmorpg appear here for coverage, I was put out too. I've since grown with the times. Please Mmorpg staff .. keep doing these lists, it's almost a holiday tradition for me, coffee and discussion. 
    Wondering when they'll start including FIFA on this list.  Heard the last release was highly successful, it's as multiplayer as many of the titles listed, and they've injected RPG-esque gameplay systems into the game.

    No logical reason not to include it, at this point.
    Wouldn't bug me - I just ignore games I'm not interested in or mad at. =)
    Torval
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited December 2017
    Redemp said:
    Redemp said:
     It's wonderful -  every year this list comes out and every year the thread debates what is a "mmo". I remember getting bent out of shape the first time I saw a non-mmorpg appear here for coverage, I was put out too. I've since grown with the times. Please Mmorpg staff .. keep doing these lists, it's almost a holiday tradition for me, coffee and discussion. 
    Wondering when they'll start including FIFA on this list.  Heard the last release was highly successful, it's as multiplayer as many of the titles listed, and they've injected RPG-esque gameplay systems into the game.

    No logical reason not to include it, at this point.
    Wouldn't bug me - I just ignore games I'm not interested in or mad at. =)
    Doesn't bug me if they cover other games, either- just call them what they are.  This paper-thin charade of "MMO means this now" is just insulting.  Only the ignorant and immature will sling mud at Bill and the gang covering similar genres.

    However, it's silly to try and carve out some irrational and inconsistent definition of the genre just because the genre proper isn't doing so hot.
    EponyxDamorForgrimmJean-Luc_PicardCecropia

    image
  • RedempRedemp Member UncommonPosts: 1,136


    However, it's silly to try and carve out some irrational and inconsistent definition of the genre just because the genre proper isn't doing so hot.
    Didn't they produce an article a few years ago laying out their definition and what they would be covering? I'll have to find that one again .. not sure if it's changed since then.

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited December 2017
    Redemp said:


    However, it's silly to try and carve out some irrational and inconsistent definition of the genre just because the genre proper isn't doing so hot.
    Didn't they produce an article a few years ago laying out their definition and what they would be covering? I'll have to find that one again .. not sure if it's changed since then.

    I would be interested to review that again myself.  However, the prevalent "new definition" in the industry is horridly inconsistent with itself which....  Is about the only way you can create an objectively shitty definition for a genre.

    image
  • RedempRedemp Member UncommonPosts: 1,136
    Here we go, this is the article I was thinking of. https://www.mmorpg.com/columns/mmo-rpg-1000008277

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Redemp said:
    Here we go, this is the article I was thinking of. https://www.mmorpg.com/columns/mmo-rpg-1000008277

    This article is inconsistent even with that one.  That article clearly denotes they would cover non-MMO games, but that doesn't excuse trying to pass non-MMO games off as MMO games.

    That's the issue with the "new definition"- there isn't really a new definition, just an amalgamation of media journalists using the term in reference to anything they need to apply a good buzzword (or buzz-acronym, in this case) to.

    The problem is the term hasn't evolved.  It's just being applied with zero consistency or logic today under the guise of "evolution."
    NildenCecropia

    image
  • CorileannaCorileanna Member UncommonPosts: 93
    Meh, MMO kinda just means multi-player of some sort now i guess. :/ But, the term changing is also because of the scope and size of games getting reduced and less actual MMOs being made or even staying around too i feel.
  • RedempRedemp Member UncommonPosts: 1,136
    Redemp said:
    Here we go, this is the article I was thinking of. https://www.mmorpg.com/columns/mmo-rpg-1000008277

    This article is inconsistent even with that one.  That article clearly denotes they would cover non-MMO games, but that doesn't excuse trying to pass non-MMO games off as MMO games.

    That's the issue with the "new definition"- there isn't really a new definition, just an amalgamation of media journalists using the term in reference to anything they need to apply a good buzzword (or buzz-acronym, in this case) to.

    The problem is the term hasn't evolved.  It's just being applied with zero consistency or logic today under the guise of "evolution."
      You're not wrong - but the article does give itself enough room to maneuver around these types of  discussions. I also fall into the " grown with the times" camp .. after fighting it for years, to me if a game includes some form of large multiplayer in a open or persistent world then it's a mmo. I still hold out on the mmorpg tag though - regardless of rpg like mechanics in games like Destiny, Division, or Warframe I wouldn't call those mmorpgs. ( Standards are truly subjective)

     " The other side is that this means the genre's almost outgrown itself. More and more games are incorporating MMO-like features and online play into their core design. You'll have Bungie and Ubisoft claim often enough that Destiny or The Division "aren't really" MMOs. And perhaps, they're right. Destiny won't be a fully-on-all-the-time shared world in that you can't get away from other people. It has a core single-player narrative, but events happen in the massive game world that lead you into interacting and playing alongside others... and that almost sounds like the ideal theme park MMO, doesn't it?  "


  • EponyxDamorEponyxDamor Member RarePosts: 726
    To bring something new to the round-about discussion regarding MMOs/MMORPGs/Co-Ops, I don't specifically look for MMOs anymore, as I too have "grown with the times". I mostly look for games that I can enjoy with a few close friends I've made over the years (mostly the much older years, when playing ACTUAL MMORPs). And honestly, most of the games on this list I have enjoyed with friends, Warframe included.

    So, I give the article a pass when it comes to the list, but the title/premise is just a bit cringey. And its mostly cringey because I'm a bit of an old school snob when it comes to labeling games as MMOs. :D
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Redemp said:
    Redemp said:
    Here we go, this is the article I was thinking of. https://www.mmorpg.com/columns/mmo-rpg-1000008277

    This article is inconsistent even with that one.  That article clearly denotes they would cover non-MMO games, but that doesn't excuse trying to pass non-MMO games off as MMO games.

    That's the issue with the "new definition"- there isn't really a new definition, just an amalgamation of media journalists using the term in reference to anything they need to apply a good buzzword (or buzz-acronym, in this case) to.

    The problem is the term hasn't evolved.  It's just being applied with zero consistency or logic today under the guise of "evolution."
      You're not wrong - but the article does give itself enough room to maneuver around these types of  discussions. I also fall into the " grown with the times" camp .. after fighting it for years, to me if a game includes some form of large multiplayer in a open or persistent world then it's a mmo. I still hold out on the mmorpg tag though - regardless of rpg like mechanics in games like Destiny, Division, or Warframe I wouldn't call those mmorpgs. ( Standards are truly subjective)

     " The other side is that this means the genre's almost outgrown itself. More and more games are incorporating MMO-like features and online play into their core design. You'll have Bungie and Ubisoft claim often enough that Destiny or The Division "aren't really" MMOs. And perhaps, they're right. Destiny won't be a fully-on-all-the-time shared world in that you can't get away from other people. It has a core single-player narrative, but events happen in the massive game world that lead you into interacting and playing alongside others... and that almost sounds like the ideal theme park MMO, doesn't it?  "


    I get your point of view, but my argument regarding the "MMO" term is that games like Destiny already have an established term to describe them- multiplayer.  Using MMO is incredibly redundant in that instance.

    It's something I don't see going away, but that doesn't make it correct or beneficial.  See microtransaction lootboxes.  Same kind of situation.  It isn't intuitive or logical, and the only party it benefits are the specific ones that stand to profit off of them.  I understand the desire to make a buck, but that doesn't excuse sleazy behavior to do so.  Be blunt, be honest, and be consistent with your consumers.  Doesn't mean you can't cover multiplayer games, doesn't mean you can't include microtransactions to make a buck, just means you call it what it is and stop trying to pass it off as something it isn't or sneak it by the consumer.
    Redemp

    image
  • PrehensileManPrehensileMan Member CommonPosts: 2
    The best MMO's that are not really MMO's but are actually paid games stinks like another paid advertising tactic to me AS none of those games are that appealing enough to make MMO of the year 2017
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,076
    Scot said:
    "Warframe, many would argue, is the best MMO that no one really talks about." Bill Murphy 2017

    I suppose if Warframe slip you some money to say so it must be true. Who knew that advertiser money could turn Warframe into an MMO, even though apparently many would argue it is only 1-8 player instanced battles. I think we need a new word for MMO or MMORPG so that they can't twist it into other genres and ride the false advertising wave like MMORPG has been doing for the last few years.
    Maybe call them Thousand Player RPGs (TPRPG). Massively or Massive as some people define it, is a very vague description and can be debated until the end of time. Bill Murphy's definition of MMORPG is Warframe, for example. Each to their own I guess, but I prefer TPRPGs

    Not this again, articles can have a different option to what you have without it being about money under the table. I don't think WF is a MMO, I think they should have two separate lists, one for MMO's, one for co-op games. But by Bill's definition that sort of game is a MMO, he is just wrong, not on the take.
    Maybe your right, maybe your wrong about MMORPG.com not being sell-outs (you can't know for sure), maybe Bill really doesn't know what an MMO is even though their site is called MMORPG.com, or maybe Bill is just trolling for clicks on his website.  I don't know or care about that part, I just wish this site would be more accurate with their top 10 MMOs title.  It's misleading when you are searching for a new MMORPG to play and takes a lot longer to find one because of articles like this.  It's like looking for a first person shooter and finding Minecraft and TESO on the Top 10 FPS of 2017 list.

    I think Bill is just trying to broaden the definition of the word "MMO" so he can include more games on the site. I think that's going the wrong way about it, MMORPG.com can be about MMO's and co-op games, the games don't need to come under the same banner. I agree It makes sense to keep them separate so people have a better idea on introduction to the game of what it is like.

    We have hardware articles, MMORPG.com is more than just about traditional MMOs. We don't need to change what that word means to have more games featured on the site.
    MadFrenchieEponyxDamor

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 13,051
    Redemp said:
    Redemp said:
    Here we go, this is the article I was thinking of. https://www.mmorpg.com/columns/mmo-rpg-1000008277

    This article is inconsistent even with that one.  That article clearly denotes they would cover non-MMO games, but that doesn't excuse trying to pass non-MMO games off as MMO games.

    That's the issue with the "new definition"- there isn't really a new definition, just an amalgamation of media journalists using the term in reference to anything they need to apply a good buzzword (or buzz-acronym, in this case) to.

    The problem is the term hasn't evolved.  It's just being applied with zero consistency or logic today under the guise of "evolution."
      You're not wrong - but the article does give itself enough room to maneuver around these types of  discussions. I also fall into the " grown with the times" camp .. after fighting it for years, to me if a game includes some form of large multiplayer in a open or persistent world then it's a mmo. I still hold out on the mmorpg tag though - regardless of rpg like mechanics in games like Destiny, Division, or Warframe I wouldn't call those mmorpgs. ( Standards are truly subjective)

     " The other side is that this means the genre's almost outgrown itself. More and more games are incorporating MMO-like features and online play into their core design. You'll have Bungie and Ubisoft claim often enough that Destiny or The Division "aren't really" MMOs. And perhaps, they're right. Destiny won't be a fully-on-all-the-time shared world in that you can't get away from other people. It has a core single-player narrative, but events happen in the massive game world that lead you into interacting and playing alongside others... and that almost sounds like the ideal theme park MMO, doesn't it?  "


    I get your point of view, but my argument regarding the "MMO" term is that games like Destiny already have an established term to describe them- multiplayer.  Using MMO is incredibly redundant in that instance.

    It's something I don't see going away, but that doesn't make it correct or beneficial.  See microtransaction lootboxes.  Same kind of situation.  It isn't intuitive or logical, and the only party it benefits are the specific ones that stand to profit off of them.  I understand the desire to make a buck, but that doesn't excuse sleazy behavior to do so.  Be blunt, be honest, and be consistent with your consumers.  Doesn't mean you can't cover multiplayer games, doesn't mean you can't include microtransactions to make a buck, just means you call it what it is and stop trying to pass it off as something it isn't or sneak it by the consumer.
    It's as if the store in the mall that only sells scotch tape decided they're not making enough money so they start selling hula hoops also... but they change the name of the hula hoop to "large round scotch tape" :)
    MadFrenchieEponyxDamorConstantineMerusCecropiaNilden
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,769
    The term MMO is not an opinion, nor is the definition subject to one. It cannot simply mean what you want it to simply because you want it to......Well, I suppose it can, but you would be wrong.

    MMO means Massively Multiplayer Online.

    The rules of the English Language define this. "Massively" is an Adverb. As such it can only be used to describe a verb, another adverb or an adjective. Not a noun. So, the only other word it can describe within this term is Multiplayer. (PERIOD) It's not subjective. This means that it must be the multiplayer aspect of the game must be massive. There has to be a "massive" number of players who can interact together.

    Now, the term massive is obviously not define and that term can be open to interpretation. But when used within the context of multi players............does 4-6 really sound like a massive number?

    Also, if we want to say that because of general public use, we have altered the term from Massively to Massive......as in Massive Multiplayer Online game........Go ahead and google that term......."Massive Multiplayer Online Game"

    There is not a single reference on page 1 that doesn't alter the term back to "Massively".
    The hole in your argument is that massively has no distinct quantitative meaning. It’s an emotional not rational term. It can’t be used in a rational definition. 

    Objectively speaking, 6 is massively more than 1 by a factor of six. A game with thirty people is massively more multiplayer than a game with six people by a factor of five, and so on.

    Massively can only show relativity to a baseline. It can’t stand as a constant on its own. It was never intended to be used that way. It was birthed as a marketing slogan by Garriott to pitch his new virtual world “Ultima Online “. 

    That is the depth of quality to the term. That’s why arguing over the minutiae of it is pointless. 
    DavodtheTutt
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Torval said:
    The term MMO is not an opinion, nor is the definition subject to one. It cannot simply mean what you want it to simply because you want it to......Well, I suppose it can, but you would be wrong.

    MMO means Massively Multiplayer Online.

    The rules of the English Language define this. "Massively" is an Adverb. As such it can only be used to describe a verb, another adverb or an adjective. Not a noun. So, the only other word it can describe within this term is Multiplayer. (PERIOD) It's not subjective. This means that it must be the multiplayer aspect of the game must be massive. There has to be a "massive" number of players who can interact together.

    Now, the term massive is obviously not define and that term can be open to interpretation. But when used within the context of multi players............does 4-6 really sound like a massive number?

    Also, if we want to say that because of general public use, we have altered the term from Massively to Massive......as in Massive Multiplayer Online game........Go ahead and google that term......."Massive Multiplayer Online Game"

    There is not a single reference on page 1 that doesn't alter the term back to "Massively".
    The hole in your argument is that massively has no distinct quantitative meaning. It’s an emotional not rational term. It can’t be used in a rational definition. 

    Objectively speaking, 6 is massively more than 1 by a factor of six. A game with thirty people is massively more multiplayer than a game with six people by a factor of five, and so on.

    Massively can only show relativity to a baseline. It can’t stand as a constant on its own. It was never intended to be used that way. It was birthed as a marketing slogan by Garriott to pitch his new virtual world “Ultima Online “. 

    That is the depth of quality to the term. That’s why arguing over the minutiae of it is pointless. 
    Quake was released prior to Ultima and featured 16 player multiplayer.  A little common sense goes a long way.  We can debate borderline titles, but anything like 16 is not even debatable.  Until Bill and the gang start covering Battlefield (not just lootbox controversy, but reviewing and such), 64 or less is not even debatable.
    Cecropia

    image
  • TrizarektopsTrizarektops Member CommonPosts: 1

    Zenislav said:



    SBFord said:




    Rhygarth said:


    Lol the first 4 are not even MMO's :P




    And so it begins....






    There is nothing to begin. They are not MMOs at all. Warframe is just Diablo style game in third person and PoE is top down hack and slash. You had to stretch this list by puting 5 extra games as there were no new MMOs worth mentioning and just old ones with some crappy DLC like patches except WoW and FF14 that actually get big content.


    An MMO is defined as "
    an online game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, on the same server." ...this list at no place says "Top MMORPGS" So...yeah. they are MMOs. Theres really no debate in this, its stated in the name MMO.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,769
    Torval said:
    The term MMO is not an opinion, nor is the definition subject to one. It cannot simply mean what you want it to simply because you want it to......Well, I suppose it can, but you would be wrong.

    MMO means Massively Multiplayer Online.

    The rules of the English Language define this. "Massively" is an Adverb. As such it can only be used to describe a verb, another adverb or an adjective. Not a noun. So, the only other word it can describe within this term is Multiplayer. (PERIOD) It's not subjective. This means that it must be the multiplayer aspect of the game must be massive. There has to be a "massive" number of players who can interact together.

    Now, the term massive is obviously not define and that term can be open to interpretation. But when used within the context of multi players............does 4-6 really sound like a massive number?

    Also, if we want to say that because of general public use, we have altered the term from Massively to Massive......as in Massive Multiplayer Online game........Go ahead and google that term......."Massive Multiplayer Online Game"

    There is not a single reference on page 1 that doesn't alter the term back to "Massively".
    The hole in your argument is that massively has no distinct quantitative meaning. It’s an emotional not rational term. It can’t be used in a rational definition. 

    Objectively speaking, 6 is massively more than 1 by a factor of six. A game with thirty people is massively more multiplayer than a game with six people by a factor of five, and so on.

    Massively can only show relativity to a baseline. It can’t stand as a constant on its own. It was never intended to be used that way. It was birthed as a marketing slogan by Garriott to pitch his new virtual world “Ultima Online “. 

    That is the depth of quality to the term. That’s why arguing over the minutiae of it is pointless. 
    Quake was released prior to Ultima and featured 16 player multiplayer.  A little common sense goes a long way.  We can debate borderline titles, but anything like 16 is not even debatable.  Until Bill and the gang start covering Battlefield (not just lootbox controversy, but reviewing and such), 64 or less is not even debatable.
    Sixteen isn’t debatable says who? Sixty four is a magical number you pulled out of where? What is so special about 64?

    Common sense has no place in math, science, or rational debate. It’s a subjective emotional term used to justify or eliminate uncomfortable arguments like arbitrarily asserting that a specific number is or is not open for debate. 
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited December 2017
    Torval said:
    Torval said:
    The term MMO is not an opinion, nor is the definition subject to one. It cannot simply mean what you want it to simply because you want it to......Well, I suppose it can, but you would be wrong.

    MMO means Massively Multiplayer Online.

    The rules of the English Language define this. "Massively" is an Adverb. As such it can only be used to describe a verb, another adverb or an adjective. Not a noun. So, the only other word it can describe within this term is Multiplayer. (PERIOD) It's not subjective. This means that it must be the multiplayer aspect of the game must be massive. There has to be a "massive" number of players who can interact together.

    Now, the term massive is obviously not define and that term can be open to interpretation. But when used within the context of multi players............does 4-6 really sound like a massive number?

    Also, if we want to say that because of general public use, we have altered the term from Massively to Massive......as in Massive Multiplayer Online game........Go ahead and google that term......."Massive Multiplayer Online Game"

    There is not a single reference on page 1 that doesn't alter the term back to "Massively".
    The hole in your argument is that massively has no distinct quantitative meaning. It’s an emotional not rational term. It can’t be used in a rational definition. 

    Objectively speaking, 6 is massively more than 1 by a factor of six. A game with thirty people is massively more multiplayer than a game with six people by a factor of five, and so on.

    Massively can only show relativity to a baseline. It can’t stand as a constant on its own. It was never intended to be used that way. It was birthed as a marketing slogan by Garriott to pitch his new virtual world “Ultima Online “. 

    That is the depth of quality to the term. That’s why arguing over the minutiae of it is pointless. 
    Quake was released prior to Ultima and featured 16 player multiplayer.  A little common sense goes a long way.  We can debate borderline titles, but anything like 16 is not even debatable.  Until Bill and the gang start covering Battlefield (not just lootbox controversy, but reviewing and such), 64 or less is not even debatable.
    Sixteen isn’t debatable says who? Sixty four is a magical number you pulled out of where? What is so special about 64?

    Common sense has no place in math, science, or rational debate. It’s a subjective emotional term used to justify or eliminate uncomfortable arguments like arbitrarily asserting that a specific number is or is not open for debate. 
    Because Battlefield has player progression, unlocking of higher-tiered equipment, and allows more players to interact simultaneously in the same game world (64+) than, say, DOTA 2.  If you're going to call DOTA 2 an MMO, logic dictates Battlefield will qualify.

    But folks don't include titles like Battlefield, because the "new definition" isn't a definition at all, but an attempt to attach the label to any game that might benefit the party using the label at that time.  As I mentioned before, that's about the only way to create an objectively terribad definition for a genre.
    IselinConstantineMerusCecropiauriel_mafesstimtrack

    image
  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 2,940

    Zenislav said:



    SBFord said:




    Rhygarth said:


    Lol the first 4 are not even MMO's :P




    And so it begins....






    There is nothing to begin. They are not MMOs at all. Warframe is just Diablo style game in third person and PoE is top down hack and slash. You had to stretch this list by puting 5 extra games as there were no new MMOs worth mentioning and just old ones with some crappy DLC like patches except WoW and FF14 that actually get big content.


    An MMO is defined as "
    an online game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, on the same server." ...this list at no place says "Top MMORPGS" So...yeah. they are MMOs. Theres really no debate in this, its stated in the name MMO.
    I could write a lengthy diatribe on this; I have in the past, but I'll try to keep it brief:

    Any difference in meaning between the terms "MMORPG" and "MMO" was ascribed after the fact.  It's not like someone sat down and said 'we need a new term to define these new games coming out so let's chop off the last three letters, voila!'; it's more that Richard Garriot didn't foresee that when one was standing in line talking to one's GameStop clerk saying "em-em-oh-ar-pee-gee" made one sound abstruse when three syllables would get the job done.

    MMO rolls off the tongue more easily, and while this term gained traction game design also changed.  It was more of an accident than anything else.  So easy to correlate the nouveau term with the daring new design(s).

    It bothers me because there never was supposed to be any difference.  MMO = MMORPG.

    Part of it is also that people play MMORPGs in unexpected ways; it's kind of in the term: you are supposed to be role-playing, but how many actually do?  Just being in the game space is compelling enough without muddying it up with "thee"s and "thou"s (necessarily).  That is actual roleplaying: believing the space, but this seems too difficult a concept for the young internet age.

    There is no reason a MMORPG can't have physics-based combat, instancing, a classless system, or even do away with the whole experience-points-leveling grind; none of those new additions take away anything from the heart of what makes a MMORPG a MMORPG.

    It's just that some things do.  As someone else ITT mentioned, what about PUBG qualifies as a persistent space?  How is a player cap of 4 in Warframe massive?

    Judging by some of the comments here, some people really don't understand why it even matters.

    So there is this disconnect: people aren't playing MMORPGs the way they are "supposed" to be played, therefore it must be because some of them are "just" MMOs?  No: it's because people are unpredictable widgets and will interact with art in wonderful and emergent ways.

    ...and as @GeezerGamer mentions, some don't understand the difference between an adverb and an adjective.

    I agree with @Torval in spirit, but I fear in trying to stay so desperately abreast of the times some meaning in the value of MMORPGs will be lost.
    Torvalthighhighstimtrack

    "The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
    Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 4 tracks in Distance

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,776
    edited December 2017
    Torval said:
    The term MMO is not an opinion, nor is the definition subject to one. It cannot simply mean what you want it to simply because you want it to......Well, I suppose it can, but you would be wrong.

    MMO means Massively Multiplayer Online.

    The rules of the English Language define this. "Massively" is an Adverb. As such it can only be used to describe a verb, another adverb or an adjective. Not a noun. So, the only other word it can describe within this term is Multiplayer. (PERIOD) It's not subjective. This means that it must be the multiplayer aspect of the game must be massive. There has to be a "massive" number of players who can interact together.

    Now, the term massive is obviously not define and that term can be open to interpretation. But when used within the context of multi players............does 4-6 really sound like a massive number?

    Also, if we want to say that because of general public use, we have altered the term from Massively to Massive......as in Massive Multiplayer Online game........Go ahead and google that term......."Massive Multiplayer Online Game"

    There is not a single reference on page 1 that doesn't alter the term back to "Massively".
    The hole in your argument is that massively has no distinct quantitative meaning. It’s an emotional not rational term. It can’t be used in a rational definition. 

    Objectively speaking, 6 is massively more than 1 by a factor of six. A game with thirty people is massively more multiplayer than a game with six people by a factor of five, and so on.

    Massively can only show relativity to a baseline. It can’t stand as a constant on its own. It was never intended to be used that way. It was birthed as a marketing slogan by Garriott to pitch his new virtual world “Ultima Online “. 

    That is the depth of quality to the term. That’s why arguing over the minutiae of it is pointless. 
    I'm sorry but if we had Atari 2600 games in the late 70s that played four players on a console playing Pong. We then had the standard for multiplayer video games as 2-4(ish) that lasted for decades. We didn't call it a massive number of players. We called it "4". To add 2 more to an instance, put it online and call it "Massively Multiplayer" is just absurd. In what context does that make sense?

    Oddly enough, in your other post, I'd probably concede to 16 being within the definition. I probably wouldn't use the term myself at 16 players, but I can see enough of a grey area in that to give it a pass. But I would struggle under any context to apply the term Massively Multiplayer to any game where the number of players who can interact together is in the single digits.
    Post edited by GeezerGamer on
  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Member EpicPosts: 3,321
    edited December 2017
    And people argued and trolled me by saying many of these are not MMOs. Looks like I was right! Games like path of exile ARE MMOs, just not MMORPGs.

    Also, dungeons and dragons online has a very tiny server cluster...even at its peak I never saw more than 30 people in each server instance. Its also a hub based MMO. Its a very small hub. Its also VERY VERY instanced.

    Turbine (the developers themselves) and many players however called it an MMORPG.

    Why the double standards? Since Dungeons and Dragons Online is an MMO(RPG), and been called an MMO(RPG) for many years, and called that by Turbine themselves, so are the other similar games.
    Azaron_Nightblade

    My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB: 

    https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul



  • DavodtheTuttDavodtheTutt Member UncommonPosts: 402
    In my experience, it has nothing to do with the number of people on a server at a time. It's all about how the game is played and how other players interact -- what the game does to get them to interact, or how it controls or limits interaction. TLDR version: While I'm all for making and keeping distinctions between games, I don't think that an arbitrary number is the answer to what's an MMO or MMORPG. 

    MMO is a nice shorthand way of saying MMORPG, in the right context, but obviously it has merit as simply meaning MMO without the RPG, too. Writers should just be clear what they're talking about. 
     
    Also, there were lots of games that had multiple players long before MMORPGS or even computers came out, but nobody called them multiplayer games -- they were "team sports" and such. So games like Overwatch, which involve 12 players at a time, I don't think of as MMOs, or MOs for that matter. On the other hand, if I play a game that has thousands of people online at a time, but the only way to play (or play successfully) is to get 5 of my friends to group up with me, and we're probably only going to run into one other team of 4 to 6 or so at a time... it's pretty much the same thing. 
     
    On the other hand, if I'm playing a game and I've got a freely variable 10 to 30 or so people joining me in a quest to defeat a giant monster, I'm getting all the "massively multiplayer" experience that's going to make any difference to me. And if I'm playing a character who has distinctly different appearance, abilities, or powers from the other players' characters, that's about all the RPG I'm going to get in most games, sadly. 
     
    Now, some kind of persistence also moves the game away from a mere team e-sport, but again, if you've got 500 people attacking a monster or an NPC army, or going through a dungeon or "open world" quest... and 5 minutes after defeating your enemy, you do it again because you're farming for XP or loot or whatever... kind of kills the RPG experience, doesn't it? And how much difference does it make to the gameplay experience, whether its 500 or 50? How many other players do you interact with or see at any one time? I guess if what you're looking for is an epic battle with army-sized armies that goes on for hours, it would make a significant difference, but that seems like a special kind of MMORPG to me, and something I wouldn't be interested in. 
    Phaserlightthighhighs
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,387
    edited December 2017
    Mirandel said:
    <snip>
    ....

    Even developers did not dear to call it Massive Multiplayer games
    Developers - by default - do not "pigeon hole" their games. 

    They don't use labels because they don't want to appeal to the largest number of potential purchasers. Sticking a label on their game will limit the sales potential.

    Nor do they want complaints (bad press) because they call it an "X" and that results in posts by people saying it doesn't have x, y and z and gets called a failed X. So no labels. Even if it dots every i and crosses every t as an X calling it one will limit sales.

    About all they will admit to are a) multiplayer if it has no single player mode and b) online is an online connection is needed to run the game. Beyond that its all about the features - hype basically. 

    So - going by what developers say-  there are no mmos. Well except for UO since RG used the term mmo to "hype" sales.

    What we have are "clones" of e.g. WoW or GW2. Since comparing something to an established game is precise. Callig something an "mmo" open to interpretation; calling something a "WoW or GW2 clone without x and y but with z" is precise. 

    So - perhaps - the next article should be the top WoW clones; or the top LoL clones etc.

    Post edited by gervaise1 on
    Torval
  • MitaraMitara Member UncommonPosts: 755
    Murphy's Law = When Murphy makes a list, it is just a list of games, never ever a list of MMORPGs
  • WastingSanityWastingSanity Member UncommonPosts: 9
    I've noticed in recent years that the lines have blurred between MMOs and Multiplayer games. Battlefield used to be called an Online Multiplayer game, but in recent years people started to call it an MMO. Traditionally MMOs were only associated with MMORPGs. Games like EverQuest, City of Heroes and WoW. As it was possible for players on a server to crowd one area of a map with thousands of people.

    When Guild Wars was released things changed, it was a section or instanced based game. I used to refer to it as a pseudo MMO or fake MMO. As it pretends to be something it actually is not. And I enjoyed GW, sinking a lot of free time into that game back in the day. Didn't change what it was. Guild Wars 2 on the other hand was a full blown MMO.

    The birth of the blurred lines probably lies in the younger generations of gamers. As they mislabeled games and were probably never corrected or simply argued the point believing that they are indeed correct.

    My 2 bits.

Sign In or Register to comment.