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

145679

Comments

  • ZhaoCChouZhaoCChou Member CommonPosts: 1

    Rhygarth said:

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



    you know whats mmo stand for right? Massively Multiplayer Online, so to be to be exact, they all mmos. :)
  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    ZhaoCChou said:

    Rhygarth said:

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



    you know whats mmo stand for right? Massively Multiplayer Online, so to be to be exact, they all mmos. :)
    If counting involves using your fingers, then yeah, massively can be a really low number.
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,785
    edited December 2017
    ZhaoCChou said:

    Rhygarth said:

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



    you know whats mmo stand for right? Massively Multiplayer Online, so to be to be exact, they all mmos. :)
    how do you define massively multiplayer?

    When the baseline minimum is 2 interacting players, and the term was coined referencing hundreds to thousands, how does 4 to 6 fit that term when the bar is already set with so much larger examples?

    We don't go "massively" in reverse and still say "massively". Wouldn't that cancel out the "massively" description?
    Phry
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,210
    edited December 2017
    ZhaoCChou said:

    Rhygarth said:

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



    you know whats mmo stand for right? Massively Multiplayer Online, so to be to be exact, they all mmos. :)
    how do you define massively multiplayer?

    When the baseline minimum is 2 interacting players, and the term was coined referencing hundreds to thousands, how does 4 to 6 fit that term when the bar is already set with so much larger examples?

    We don't go "massively" in reverse and still say "massively". Wouldn't that cancel out the "massively" description?

    Well first they dropped the 'RPG' of MMORPG. That way you could make out more games with very little "RPG" fitted the description as a "MMO". But the problem is they want to include everything and anything where you can play with at least one other person online. So I guess it is going to have to be shortened to "MO" Multiplayer Online. But you know that's not going far enough, what about games where you can play online getting dings and such but only as solo play? So lets just call them "O" Online games.

    That way we can have a best Online Games list that includes ESO, Warframe and Candy Crush Online. Which will enable the staff to tease out some really useful comparisons. :smile:

     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

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,785
    edited December 2017
    I don't understand why this is a diffucult concept.

    The term "massive" and subsequently "massively" carries an inherent meaning in the English Language. The context here is that it was meant to describe an increase in the number of players playing online together over the previous standard. taking the bare minimum baseline of 2 and increasing it by a single digit number would not make sense in any other area in our language based on that inherent meaning in English. Only here. Only referencing online gaming, do we see this "shift". And only because of marketing.  Outside of this, how many people in total are trying to make this claim to the evolution of this term? A few hundred? A few thousand? 

    There is no change in the meaning of the term "Massive" in the English Language in this century, or the last.

    "Hey, we used to be able to play games with 4 players. Now we can play with 8!"

    "Oh Wow!, that's a massive increase!"

    Really?


    EDIT:
    Now that I think about it, I think I am using the wrong base.......Wasn't it used to describe the increase from previous online games from the 80s and 90s like MUDS where players were already numbering in the double digits?

    So yeah, this "expanded definition" is definitely being used to describe a shrinkage from the previous standard. Not even an increase.
    Phrytimtrack
  • btdtbtdt Member RarePosts: 519
    I'm surprised there isn't a small thesis on the definition of good... because you can basically have an argument over any word if you so choose.  The government is the master of such useless discord.  They can debate nothing for years and still have years of debate left in them.


  • lahnmirlahnmir Member LegendaryPosts: 2,952
    edited December 2017
    I don't understand why this is a diffucult concept.

    The term "massive" and subsequently "massively" carries an inherent meaning in the English Language. The context here is that it was meant to describe an increase in the number of players playing online together over the previous standard. taking the bare minimum baseline of 2 and increasing it by a single digit number would not make sense in any other area in our language based on that inherent meaning in English. Only here. Only referencing online gaming, do we see this "shift". And only because of marketing.  Outside of this, how many people in total are trying to make this claim to the evolution of this term? A few hundred? A few thousand? 

    There is no change in the meaning of the term "Massive" in the English Language in this century, or the last.

    "Hey, we used to be able to play games with 4 players. Now we can play with 8!"

    "Oh Wow!, that's a massive increase!"

    Really?


    EDIT:
    Now that I think about it, I think I am using the wrong base.......Wasn't it used to describe the increase from previous online games from the 80s and 90s like MUDS where players were already numbering in the double digits?

    So yeah, this "expanded definition" is definitely being used to describe a shrinkage from the previous standard. Not even an increase.
    Its all relative though. If you were able to hold
    your breath for 2 minutes before but are now able to do it for 4 minutes, thats a massive increase.

    What is lacking is a base value to start with, massively was a hype word, it says nothing about an actual number. And even if it did, is that number based on players in the world, in an instance, in a chat channel, in a pvp match? With instancing and mega server tech its even harder to define. Discussing this is useless, there's no point of reference or starting point, only variables.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 


    But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.

    Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 6,914
    edited December 2017
    Well it was relative to an actual number , when Garriot coined the phrase he was asked to describe Ultima online ... And he described his game at the time .. a persistent world which thousands of players could interact (UO servers can handle (i think)up to 10K).. This was the (pun intended) Origin of MMORPG ... So when he coined the phrase "MMORPG"he was most ceratainly referencing his game and its server capabilties among other things ..
    Post edited by Scorchien on
  • FlyinDutchman87FlyinDutchman87 Member UncommonPosts: 327
    I'm just curious about what games all the "these arn't mmo's" people actually want this site to cover?

    Every single article would be about like... what 5 games? All the "Top" lists would be identical. 
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,785
    lahnmir said:
    I don't understand why this is a diffucult concept.

    The term "massive" and subsequently "massively" carries an inherent meaning in the English Language. The context here is that it was meant to describe an increase in the number of players playing online together over the previous standard. taking the bare minimum baseline of 2 and increasing it by a single digit number would not make sense in any other area in our language based on that inherent meaning in English. Only here. Only referencing online gaming, do we see this "shift". And only because of marketing.  Outside of this, how many people in total are trying to make this claim to the evolution of this term? A few hundred? A few thousand? 

    There is no change in the meaning of the term "Massive" in the English Language in this century, or the last.

    "Hey, we used to be able to play games with 4 players. Now we can play with 8!"

    "Oh Wow!, that's a massive increase!"

    Really?


    EDIT:
    Now that I think about it, I think I am using the wrong base.......Wasn't it used to describe the increase from previous online games from the 80s and 90s like MUDS where players were already numbering in the double digits?

    So yeah, this "expanded definition" is definitely being used to describe a shrinkage from the previous standard. Not even an increase.
    Its all relative though. If you were able to hold
    your breath for 2 minutes before but are now able to do it for 4 minutes, thats a massive increase.

    What is lacking is a base value to start with, massively was a hype word, it says nothing about an actual number. And even if it did, is that number based on players in the world, in an instance, in a chat channel, in a pvp match? With instancing and mega server tech its even harder to define. Discussing this is useless, there's no point of reference or starting point, only variables.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    I disagree. I don't think we would ever see the term "massive" as the descriptor in your example outside of this argument.
    MadFrenchie
  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 6,914
    edited December 2017

    Simple test ... lets play .. One of These things is not like the other.. 

        1.UO            2.Destiny       3.BDO     4.SWG    

    Tell me which one is different and give the most signifigant reason why


      and again    

    1. Destiny     2. Call of Duty     3.EQ    4.Ark

    These are rhetorical questions of course .. We all know which is different and why ...


          The problem we have is developers began sometime 2007 or so labeling there Multi player games as MMO/RPGs when they werent , to get to/appeal to a broader younger audience (ill add more gullible and easily suggestive audience also )

      Convoluting the phrase MMORPG to entire generation of gamers , I could take a dam condom , poke a hole in it and sell it as a condom , But the smart kids know its not doing what was intended to do , Just like games like LOL,Destiny ,Ark ,Destiny etc .. arent doing what an MMORPG was/is intended to do .

       And fortunatley for the MMORPG genre Devs/Publishers are now steering away from attaching what is seen as a stigma to them to there games ... That arent truly MMORPGs as recently as Destiny 2 and others which the devs are not/and do not want that label attached to there games ..

      They are leaving that label for games that truly fill those requirements which games like Destiny DO NOT 
    Phry
  • kjempffkjempff Member RarePosts: 1,635
    edited January 2018
    Massively Multiplayer means that a large amount of players can play at the same time in the same space (server, world, whatever). Massively Multiplayer does not include games where you can only play 4-6-8 players in the same space, regardless that there are a million possible players to form those smaller instances.
    There is your distinction between massively multiplayer and multiplayer.
    It is not a matter of the amount of players in the pool because then any mutiplayer game would be massively as they can all potentially connect a large amount of players. Therefore, lobby games like Diablo, Path of Exile, Warframe are not massively multiplayer, while games like WoW, GW2, ESO, EVE ARE massively multiplayer..seem pretty simple in my book.

    ----

    I'm just curious about what games all the "these arn't mmo's" people actually want this site to cover?

    Every single article would be about like... what 5 games? All the "Top" lists would be identical. 
    That is a valid point, and probably the reason behind trying to change the definition of mmo. This site should cover other genres for several reasons, one being that the mmos are on the decline, another is that mmo gamers also have interests in other multiplayer games, and obviously the writers here want to keep being relevant and change with game trends.
    But if you are a car magazine and suddenly claim motorbikes are cars, then your readers will react.
    Post edited by kjempff on
    Phry
  • brenthbrenth Member UncommonPosts: 293

    what I want to see more immersive MMO with  more organic worlds  instead of console games  of hack and slash arena or revolving door combat. 
    or an eve like universe where you have charactors  in an organic universe  that is built  for casual players not  pvp griefers  (planets with flight paths, stations with more expensive auto docking and with cheaper player piloted docking docking)  ships with components to be swaped repaired and jury rigged and maintence.    a base + mentality  like oxygen and fuel you will always have basic thrusting and base crew air  but no after burner and passengers (npc) may die.
    privateer comes to mind. so you can set up a fighter a explorer a trader  miner and so on and have plenty of room  for components,  also a ship has a NPC crew  where live players can assume their position so you always have a crew its just either npc or live. and you have factions  but also an independent faction  and factions are both npc and player  and there is non lethal PVP! as well as lethal pvp. players class races with special skills  that complement others that is something id like to see in the future.

    make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.

  • brenthbrenth Member UncommonPosts: 293
    MMORPG  has been abused as a definition  in recent years   to mean hack and slash, arena combat, arcade play, and amusement park that have nothing to do with lore or socialization and immersion  and being over all shallow and level/gear grind.

    make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.

  • nate1980nate1980 Member UncommonPosts: 1,930
    I'm just curious about what games all the "these arn't mmo's" people actually want this site to cover?

    Every single article would be about like... what 5 games? All the "Top" lists would be identical. 
    This website did just fine in 2003 when they only had a handful of MMO's to cover. Since then, less than 5 has shut down, and the genre has grown several times that size. Let's say there's only 50 MMORPG's deserving of the name, ranging from UO to whatever has recently released. In each of those games are patches, expansions, reviews and re-reviews that could be done. 
    SomeHuman
  • aligada8712aligada8712 Member CommonPosts: 7
    edited January 2018

    gervaise1 said:



    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 good content.






    "Some crappy DLC like patches" .... hmmm OK so you think Morrowind sucked maybe ....



    However - back in the day - a game like GW1 wasn't considered an mmo - by lots of people. My point being that games have - and continue - to change as technology, software development tools etc. have advanced.



    Dismissing a game because we don't believe it fits our definition of some label - I suggest - is stupid. Why not give the staff some credit and accept that they may actually know their stuff.



    All the games on their list that I have tried are "good solid games"; not all to my taste but that is different. So I am happy to accept that the ones I haven't tried are as well and if I get time I will check them out. Life is to short to worry about labels.



    I'm not saying warframe is a bad game and all. But as to the poster all he is saying is that warframe isn't an mmo and it was just put on the list because they had nothing else to put there. I agree with that guy simply b3cause mmo are massively multi online. Having 100 player base is not consider an mmo I'm not saying they had 100 but I'm speaking of the server. To be considered an mmo u need to be able to SUPPORT 100-million player base on 1 server which is broken up into different realms to spread population. Second for you to be even consider an mmo u would need to have a population within the game itself. Warframe doesn't offer this. Games that are co sided mmos are gw2, ffxiv, wow, eso, destiny, swtor etc. The division I don't even co sidereal it an mmo because u r limited to how much players u can have on the same channel and 2 u don't get to see anyone until u enter a dark zone or pt up with someone or 3 u are in safe zon3. But if u was randomly to shoot things as soon as u log on all u would see are npc. Dark zonr is just another word for a pvp lobby. They don't gotta que up, but they do enter some sort of different server aka realm that's separated from your pve channel.

    U would probably say dota has millions of players or even lol again they aren't massive multi online game because in the end the game only host 8v 8 or whatever. Warframe does look dope and I am wanting to try it out. I just wish it was way more open. Like how firewall did.
  • aligada8712aligada8712 Member CommonPosts: 7
    Warframe although it may look like it wouldn't be consider an mmo. It falls under the multi player section. Multiplayer are servers that limits u to 100 players. Also you wouldn't be able to see these other players less they party with you. Dust 514 and firewall and destiny is the closest third person mmo I know of. Even the division I don't consider an mmo since u r on your own server until u get into a safe zone or u r in a dark zonr. Again that's just entering another lobby to meet people. But if u was to walk around nyc freely and try to look for players. All you will see is npc
    Multiplayer is games that are less then 1000 players. Eve online, star citizen, destiny, ffxiv wow, aion, gw2, eso and many more. Those are considered mmos because they have 1000s of player base within the server all at once. Thus why it's called mmo massively multi online.

    sgel said:

    Could the people who say that some of the games on the list aren't mmos, defind what an mmo is?

    Just curious what each person's definition is.



    I would suggest playing diff games before make another comment like that. You sir obviously don't know the meanings between moba mmorpg mmo mmorts and etc...
  • aligada8712aligada8712 Member CommonPosts: 7





    DMKano said:





    “In no particular order, here are our 10 Best MMOs of 2017. Note, not all of these are MMORPG’s, but rather prime examples of the changing landscape of persistent online games.”








    Then just change the list to 10 best Multiplayer Online games.





    Sort of like making a list 10 best sports cars - but then saying "note not all of these are cars - some are bicycles and there's a pair of running shoes in the list too"







    This.  The list is idiotic.


    Unnecessary, man.



    There is no such this as massive multiplayer online it's just massively multiplayer online. Reason why warframe isn't one is because it doesn't have those elements. It's within 1 server. Supporting 40+players on one channel isn't considered massive. Also it's more of a lobby really then anything else because there isn't really any kind of open world explorati9n. Massively multi are usually refers to online rpg elements. Now this is more of a multi online. But pls before u post stop making your own 2 separate word when they both have the same meaning. It will confuse others who thinks they know what they are talking about lol.
  • adam_noxadam_nox Member UncommonPosts: 2,121
    Despite its demise, Marvel heroes deserves to be in the top five, and elder scrolls online should probably be number 1.
    Phry
  • Vunak23Vunak23 Member UncommonPosts: 633
    I haven't visited this site in ages. Thanks Bill for reminding me why I left years ago. The people here at MMORPG.com have absolutely no clue what they are doing.

    Those games are not MMO's no matter how much you claim they are.

    Player Unknowns.... I cant even.

    Instead of using your outlet as a way to push ACTUAL MMOs into the spotlight, you push two battle arena games and an OARPG. I knew you guys were clueless.

    "In the immediate future, we have this one, and then we’ve got another one that is actually going to be – so we’re going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what we’re targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you can’t hold me to it. But what we’re targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo

  • aligada8712aligada8712 Member CommonPosts: 7


    No, ALL of these games are MMOs, but what an MMO is has changed greatly since the genre’s inception. And if you disagree, that’s fine. Just make your own list.



    No it only has changed in your vocabulary but mmo and ultimately players are 2 diff things. Just saying as a writer you should know the diff between the 2. The same rules still applies nothing has changed. Lobby games are considered multi player. You can argue that destiny only has 100 players on their server but this isn't true. Within 1 server are different realms. The word massively multiplayer online. See the word massively. Even if you say massive that's isn't big. Eve online ffxiv bdo swtor eso. These are what you call massively. Warframe has never reached that because it doesn't support it. Find me a video of warframe having a 500vs 500 player then I'll take my statement back. But what you should've named the title of your post should be top multiplayer. Again u just wanted to drag your post and include these none mmo games into the list.
  • aligada8712aligada8712 Member CommonPosts: 7
    edited January 2018

    SBFord said:

    Geez, people, lighten up. It's not like Bill said these were all MMORPGs, simply "MMOs".

    I dunno...."M" (MASSIVE) "M" (MULTIPLAYER) "O" (ONLINE) all seem to fit each of these games. The definition of massive has changed. The days of 1000s of players sharing a single game are mostly gone and if you consider "servers" -- most of which host fewer than 500 players -- these games all fit. 

    The "new" MMO is 50+ to whatever number of players together in one place. People need to adapt with the times. Someday maybe the more "traditional" version of MMO will come back, but for now, times have changed. It's not 2007 any more.




    What you said is false because the first mmo ragnorak online had thousands. That is where mmorpg really originated from. Multiplayer originated from consoles and gameboys. Also your third statement is wrong. Eve online an old school mmo is no where near 50 players lol on one server. Oh u want rpg? Black desert online has more then 100 on 1 server lol.
  • Darklighter1Darklighter1 Member UncommonPosts: 250
    I always enjoy coming to this site for a good laugh. Don't even list WoW in your Top 10.....but tell me more about how wonderful PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds is....
  • aligada8712aligada8712 Member CommonPosts: 7

    Gisrie said:

    wait, were calling BDO a sandbox game now? i mean, sorta i guess.



    have to agree with most that some of these games are not what the traditional definition of 'MMO' is, but at this point i think its no longer an acronym and instead just used to define any type of online game.



    No it needs to be fix lol because kids now days are comming out with new slangs. I mean take the word edgy. They define it as an emo or gothic. Growing up that was never the case now kids even using words the already has meaning I to something dumb. Same with mmo. Through public needs to be corrected but it's writers ahem like Bill Murphy who create new definition for mmos and have loyal fans follow him like he wrote the bible. It's a simple world to understand and it's a simple word to figure out if that game is considered an mmo.
  • DarkswormDarksworm Member RarePosts: 990
    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.

    MMO is generally understood to mean "MMORPG."  People took the RPG off, because it's long as f**k to say with it in there.  It's the same reason why people say Rob instead of Robert.  I think this argument is based on awful semantics.  We all know what people mean when they ask something like "Do you play any MMOs?"

    Very, very few of us would expect anyone to reply "Yea, I play Path of Exile" to that question.  What an "MMO" is, is fairly widely understood by gamers - and even non-gamers.

    The only argument in their favor is that they are trying to redefine the term, which IS the flavor of the times...  That's most likely what is going on.  They're basically misusing it, purposely, in hopes that the newer - overly-broad - definition takes hold.  This may or may not happen.

    Right now, I never come here to read about anything but MMORPG development and release schedules (and frankly, the fanboy wars are so strong that Wikipedia is often a much better place to consult first).  The non-MMORPG forums are generally fairly dead, anyways, as people have moved onto Reddit and other forums..

Sign In or Register to comment.