Howdy, Stranger!

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

Player's Choice 2017 - The Best Overall MMO - MMORPG.com

124678

Comments

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,669

    Grimtuth said:







    Grimtuth said:








    I voted for Warframe, despite wanting to vote for ESO or GW2. I think Digital Extremes has had an amazing year with Warframe, and the open world direction they're going with the game is bound to make it an even better 2018.









    Really Bill? As managing editor of MMOrpg.com you vote for a non-mmorpg that is on a list for best MMORPG of 2017.





    Sheesh... I think your vote typifies the sad state of the genre at present.





    I, sadly, cannot vote for any simply because I don't play any of them anymore.




    This is for best MMO. Warframe is an MMO. :) 






    My apologies for the insertion of rpg in my previous post. I am very curious as to how a 4 person co-op game is a mmo. By this standard, wouldn't call of duty, overwatch, and virtually any fps and arpg be mmo's?



    Warframe is universe of planets where thousands of players gather, chat, play together (in instances) and in larger zones, and when they log off the worlds, characters, and everything persist. Literally the only thing it's missing is a unified world where more players can interact at once and Eidolon took a step in that direction. And it's the direction they plan on going for the future. If anything, Warframe is more MMO now than ever before.

    What I think stops CoD and Overwatch from being "MMO" in my eyes is that they don't have a real persistent state of being as a world. But yet, they do persist in the form of character progression and always being on. You have to face it, the term MMO is broader than we can ever prescribe. MMORPG, I am fine with being a bit more confined in its definition. But MMO can mean so very very much more.

    I may still do a best MMORPG player's choice, where some more candidates are included, and others excluded.
    Not sure why the MMO is needed to describe mere multiplayer gaming.

    It's confusing, it's arbitrary, and it's inconsistent.  All terrible traits for something that's supposed to describe something else.

    Just call the list the best multiplayer RPGs, then do the list with the MMOs that are, well, actually MMOs.

    Either that, or I look forward to your explaining how Divinity: Original Sin 2 didn't make this list.
    I do feel bad for some of you who are so easily confounded by these things. Is it difficult finding the right games to play?

    Although I noticed for someone who is confused you seem to clearly be able to differentiate between various ways that MMO works for each of these games (like how WoW and EVE aren't the same kind of MMO at all).

    So is it really that confusing? It doesn't seem so to me, especially with how clearly you explained it with the traits, and so succinctly too.
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Torval said:

    Grimtuth said:







    Grimtuth said:








    I voted for Warframe, despite wanting to vote for ESO or GW2. I think Digital Extremes has had an amazing year with Warframe, and the open world direction they're going with the game is bound to make it an even better 2018.









    Really Bill? As managing editor of MMOrpg.com you vote for a non-mmorpg that is on a list for best MMORPG of 2017.





    Sheesh... I think your vote typifies the sad state of the genre at present.





    I, sadly, cannot vote for any simply because I don't play any of them anymore.




    This is for best MMO. Warframe is an MMO. :) 






    My apologies for the insertion of rpg in my previous post. I am very curious as to how a 4 person co-op game is a mmo. By this standard, wouldn't call of duty, overwatch, and virtually any fps and arpg be mmo's?



    Warframe is universe of planets where thousands of players gather, chat, play together (in instances) and in larger zones, and when they log off the worlds, characters, and everything persist. Literally the only thing it's missing is a unified world where more players can interact at once and Eidolon took a step in that direction. And it's the direction they plan on going for the future. If anything, Warframe is more MMO now than ever before.

    What I think stops CoD and Overwatch from being "MMO" in my eyes is that they don't have a real persistent state of being as a world. But yet, they do persist in the form of character progression and always being on. You have to face it, the term MMO is broader than we can ever prescribe. MMORPG, I am fine with being a bit more confined in its definition. But MMO can mean so very very much more.

    I may still do a best MMORPG player's choice, where some more candidates are included, and others excluded.
    Not sure why the MMO is needed to describe mere multiplayer gaming.

    It's confusing, it's arbitrary, and it's inconsistent.  All terrible traits for something that's supposed to describe something else.

    Just call the list the best multiplayer RPGs, then do the list with the MMOs that are, well, actually MMOs.

    Either that, or I look forward to your explaining how Divinity: Original Sin 2 didn't make this list.
    I do feel bad for some of you who are so easily confounded by these things. Is it difficult finding the right games to play?

    Although I noticed for someone who is confused you seem to clearly be able to differentiate between various ways that MMO works for each of these games (like how WoW and EVE aren't the same kind of MMO at all).

    So is it really that confusing? It doesn't seem so to me, especially with how clearly you explained it with the traits, and so succinctly too.
    Please, do give me the objective definition being applied in this list that doesn't create more issues than it solves as a genre descriptor.

    Don't worry; I'll wait.
    KyleranIselinpantaroYashaX

    image
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 12,928
    Torval said:

    Grimtuth said:







    Grimtuth said:








    I voted for Warframe, despite wanting to vote for ESO or GW2. I think Digital Extremes has had an amazing year with Warframe, and the open world direction they're going with the game is bound to make it an even better 2018.









    Really Bill? As managing editor of MMOrpg.com you vote for a non-mmorpg that is on a list for best MMORPG of 2017.





    Sheesh... I think your vote typifies the sad state of the genre at present.





    I, sadly, cannot vote for any simply because I don't play any of them anymore.




    This is for best MMO. Warframe is an MMO. :) 






    My apologies for the insertion of rpg in my previous post. I am very curious as to how a 4 person co-op game is a mmo. By this standard, wouldn't call of duty, overwatch, and virtually any fps and arpg be mmo's?



    Warframe is universe of planets where thousands of players gather, chat, play together (in instances) and in larger zones, and when they log off the worlds, characters, and everything persist. Literally the only thing it's missing is a unified world where more players can interact at once and Eidolon took a step in that direction. And it's the direction they plan on going for the future. If anything, Warframe is more MMO now than ever before.

    What I think stops CoD and Overwatch from being "MMO" in my eyes is that they don't have a real persistent state of being as a world. But yet, they do persist in the form of character progression and always being on. You have to face it, the term MMO is broader than we can ever prescribe. MMORPG, I am fine with being a bit more confined in its definition. But MMO can mean so very very much more.

    I may still do a best MMORPG player's choice, where some more candidates are included, and others excluded.
    Not sure why the MMO is needed to describe mere multiplayer gaming.

    It's confusing, it's arbitrary, and it's inconsistent.  All terrible traits for something that's supposed to describe something else.

    Just call the list the best multiplayer RPGs, then do the list with the MMOs that are, well, actually MMOs.

    Either that, or I look forward to your explaining how Divinity: Original Sin 2 didn't make this list.
    I do feel bad for some of you who are so easily confounded by these things. Is it difficult finding the right games to play?

    Although I noticed for someone who is confused you seem to clearly be able to differentiate between various ways that MMO works for each of these games (like how WoW and EVE aren't the same kind of MMO at all).

    So is it really that confusing? It doesn't seem so to me, especially with how clearly you explained it with the traits, and so succinctly too.
    Please, do give me the objective definition being applied in this list that doesn't create more issues than it solves as a genre descriptor.

    Don't worry; I'll wait.
    I seem to recall a thread not all the long ago that made an attempt to define the genre descriptor. I noticed a conspicuous refusal by the genre benders to play along. So good luck with getting a straight answer.

    As best as I can make out, this site changes what they include in their MMO classifications on an almost daily basis and if there ever was an editorial with a comprehensive list of what their criteria is, I missed it.

    I think keeping it vague is deliberate.
    YashaX
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 34,013
    Well, since they still lack the resolve to put a None button on the poll (something their major competitor has no problem with) I went with EVE as it was the only game on the list I at least logged in on to watch Jita chat.

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • josko9josko9 Member RarePosts: 577
    Easy, ESO for the 4th year straight. I don't see anyone catching up in 2018 either.
    JamesGoblin
  • Mackaveli44Mackaveli44 Member RarePosts: 582
    Im sorry but Destiny 2 doesn't belong in the MMO category. Ontop of that, it was horrible. Doesn't belong on the list.

    uriel_mafessJamesGoblinYashaX
  • uriel_mafessuriel_mafess Member UncommonPosts: 77
    edited January 2018
    I dont understand why FIFA 17 isnt in the list. I mean seeing how any game with at least 4 co-op with lobby chats and saveable progression is considered MMO (wrongly by any definition of Massively Multiplayer Online) I think that it would be a pretty solid option.
    JamesGoblinYashaX
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited January 2018
    Iselin said:
    Torval said:

    Grimtuth said:







    Grimtuth said:








    I voted for Warframe, despite wanting to vote for ESO or GW2. I think Digital Extremes has had an amazing year with Warframe, and the open world direction they're going with the game is bound to make it an even better 2018.









    Really Bill? As managing editor of MMOrpg.com you vote for a non-mmorpg that is on a list for best MMORPG of 2017.





    Sheesh... I think your vote typifies the sad state of the genre at present.





    I, sadly, cannot vote for any simply because I don't play any of them anymore.




    This is for best MMO. Warframe is an MMO. :) 






    My apologies for the insertion of rpg in my previous post. I am very curious as to how a 4 person co-op game is a mmo. By this standard, wouldn't call of duty, overwatch, and virtually any fps and arpg be mmo's?



    Warframe is universe of planets where thousands of players gather, chat, play together (in instances) and in larger zones, and when they log off the worlds, characters, and everything persist. Literally the only thing it's missing is a unified world where more players can interact at once and Eidolon took a step in that direction. And it's the direction they plan on going for the future. If anything, Warframe is more MMO now than ever before.

    What I think stops CoD and Overwatch from being "MMO" in my eyes is that they don't have a real persistent state of being as a world. But yet, they do persist in the form of character progression and always being on. You have to face it, the term MMO is broader than we can ever prescribe. MMORPG, I am fine with being a bit more confined in its definition. But MMO can mean so very very much more.

    I may still do a best MMORPG player's choice, where some more candidates are included, and others excluded.
    Not sure why the MMO is needed to describe mere multiplayer gaming.

    It's confusing, it's arbitrary, and it's inconsistent.  All terrible traits for something that's supposed to describe something else.

    Just call the list the best multiplayer RPGs, then do the list with the MMOs that are, well, actually MMOs.

    Either that, or I look forward to your explaining how Divinity: Original Sin 2 didn't make this list.
    I do feel bad for some of you who are so easily confounded by these things. Is it difficult finding the right games to play?

    Although I noticed for someone who is confused you seem to clearly be able to differentiate between various ways that MMO works for each of these games (like how WoW and EVE aren't the same kind of MMO at all).

    So is it really that confusing? It doesn't seem so to me, especially with how clearly you explained it with the traits, and so succinctly too.
    Please, do give me the objective definition being applied in this list that doesn't create more issues than it solves as a genre descriptor.

    Don't worry; I'll wait.
    I seem to recall a thread not all the long ago that made an attempt to define the genre descriptor. I noticed a conspicuous refusal by the genre benders to play along. So good luck with getting a straight answer.

    As best as I can make out, this site changes what they include in their MMO classifications on an almost daily basis and if there ever was an editorial with a comprehensive list of what their criteria is, I missed it.

    I think keeping it vague is deliberate.
    Well, if you attempt to pick out specific features that these games have in common, you find it doesn't differentiate them from other games you're trying to exclude.  So yea, specifics render the idea ludicrous; staying vague is probably best for the idea.
    YashaX

    image
  • sneakellamasneakellama Member CommonPosts: 1
    Voted for ESO. Only MMO I actually enjoy playing. But I wouldn't characterize The Division as an MMO. Not even Destiny 2...

    I find it interesting about all these haters complaining about how this list is shit, or how all these games suck... yet they don't offer their own choice in the mix. Just goes to show, people hate just feel relevant.
  • Mackaveli44Mackaveli44 Member RarePosts: 582

    Coolit said:

    I play both ESO and FFXIV and feel they both had a great year. Stormblood represented better value than Morrowind having vastly more content and I still think FFXIV is ahead on polish however that's not to say ESO isn't a polished experience, it's just not as polished.



    If Zenimax had focused a little more on polish and had a larger expansion/chapter that rivaled WoW or FFXIV's expansions then it would have been VERY VERY hard to call. As a result I voted for FFXIV this year.



    Yeah I agree man. As much as I love ESO, Morrowind was a huge disappointment for an "expansion". Why don't companies make actual fuckin expansion anymore... I love FFXIV as well and their latest expansion felt small as well which is unusual for FFXIV cause their content releases are usually huge.
    josko9pantaro
  • eddieg50eddieg50 Member UncommonPosts: 1,807
    If SWTOR was on the list I would have voted for them, in a list of mediocre games I voted for FF14, I do think that The division has come a long way though.
  • postlarvalpostlarval Member EpicPosts: 2,003
    Vantonx said:
    ESO really? I've never been so bored as when I breezed through eso. Ffxiv actually has difficult, fun group content.
    lulz

    There’s nothing “difficult” about FFXIV. 
    EponyxDamor
    ______________________________________________________________________
    ~~ postlarval ~~

  • v_Vev_Ve Member UncommonPosts: 288
    Guild wars 2. The game is just a really high quality MMO and I love so much about it. There's always something to do and you can do whatever, whenever and not feel behind. I definitely recommend it!
    YashaX

    Why are you so irrelevant? >:)

  • pantaropantaro Member RarePosts: 505
    Kyleran said:
    Well, since they still lack the resolve to put a None button on the poll (something their major competitor has no problem with) I went with EVE as it was the only game on the list I at least logged in on to watch Jita chat.

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,669
    Torval said:

    Grimtuth said:







    Grimtuth said:








    I voted for Warframe, despite wanting to vote for ESO or GW2. I think Digital Extremes has had an amazing year with Warframe, and the open world direction they're going with the game is bound to make it an even better 2018.









    Really Bill? As managing editor of MMOrpg.com you vote for a non-mmorpg that is on a list for best MMORPG of 2017.





    Sheesh... I think your vote typifies the sad state of the genre at present.





    I, sadly, cannot vote for any simply because I don't play any of them anymore.




    This is for best MMO. Warframe is an MMO. :) 






    My apologies for the insertion of rpg in my previous post. I am very curious as to how a 4 person co-op game is a mmo. By this standard, wouldn't call of duty, overwatch, and virtually any fps and arpg be mmo's?



    Warframe is universe of planets where thousands of players gather, chat, play together (in instances) and in larger zones, and when they log off the worlds, characters, and everything persist. Literally the only thing it's missing is a unified world where more players can interact at once and Eidolon took a step in that direction. And it's the direction they plan on going for the future. If anything, Warframe is more MMO now than ever before.

    What I think stops CoD and Overwatch from being "MMO" in my eyes is that they don't have a real persistent state of being as a world. But yet, they do persist in the form of character progression and always being on. You have to face it, the term MMO is broader than we can ever prescribe. MMORPG, I am fine with being a bit more confined in its definition. But MMO can mean so very very much more.

    I may still do a best MMORPG player's choice, where some more candidates are included, and others excluded.
    Not sure why the MMO is needed to describe mere multiplayer gaming.

    It's confusing, it's arbitrary, and it's inconsistent.  All terrible traits for something that's supposed to describe something else.

    Just call the list the best multiplayer RPGs, then do the list with the MMOs that are, well, actually MMOs.

    Either that, or I look forward to your explaining how Divinity: Original Sin 2 didn't make this list.
    I do feel bad for some of you who are so easily confounded by these things. Is it difficult finding the right games to play?

    Although I noticed for someone who is confused you seem to clearly be able to differentiate between various ways that MMO works for each of these games (like how WoW and EVE aren't the same kind of MMO at all).

    So is it really that confusing? It doesn't seem so to me, especially with how clearly you explained it with the traits, and so succinctly too.
    Please, do give me the objective definition being applied in this list that doesn't create more issues than it solves as a genre descriptor.

    Don't worry; I'll wait.
    What does that have to do with my response? How about you go first since you so clearly have this sorted out. What is an objective and indisputable fact-based definition of MMO? I don't need to have one because I don't care. You're the one who's upset that someone isn't using the phrase how you want.

    So clearly define the phrase MMO. Remember it must be
    - fact-based
    - indisputable
    - objective

    Then you can point out to Bill and the rest who "don't get it" exactly where they went wrong. It should be easy right since it's so obvious.
    postlarvalEponyxDamorYashaX
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,767
    edited January 2018
    Iselin said:

    I seem to recall a thread not all the long ago that made an attempt to define the genre descriptor. I noticed a conspicuous refusal by the genre benders to play along. So good luck with getting a straight answer.

    As best as I can make out, this site changes what they include in their MMO classifications on an almost daily basis and if there ever was an editorial with a comprehensive list of what their criteria is, I missed it.

    I think keeping it vague is deliberate.
    And the funny thing is, it's only this site that's doing it (near as I can tell). I've done some high level google searches on these "expanding definitions". They aren't there. Oh sure the questions come up. But the general consensus is basically the same as it was 10-15 years ago. Games like Destiny and Warframe are considered Co-Op games and not MMOs.  Other Gamer sites, Reddit, Steam....They all basically say the same thing. Not MMOs. The questions come up. And they are answered. Only here do we see this nonsense.

    Only here do we argue that an instance of 6 is 'massively"


    Post edited by GeezerGamer on
    ScorchienJamesGoblinYashaX
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Torval said:
    Torval said:

    Grimtuth said:







    Grimtuth said:








    I voted for Warframe, despite wanting to vote for ESO or GW2. I think Digital Extremes has had an amazing year with Warframe, and the open world direction they're going with the game is bound to make it an even better 2018.









    Really Bill? As managing editor of MMOrpg.com you vote for a non-mmorpg that is on a list for best MMORPG of 2017.





    Sheesh... I think your vote typifies the sad state of the genre at present.





    I, sadly, cannot vote for any simply because I don't play any of them anymore.




    This is for best MMO. Warframe is an MMO. :) 






    My apologies for the insertion of rpg in my previous post. I am very curious as to how a 4 person co-op game is a mmo. By this standard, wouldn't call of duty, overwatch, and virtually any fps and arpg be mmo's?



    Warframe is universe of planets where thousands of players gather, chat, play together (in instances) and in larger zones, and when they log off the worlds, characters, and everything persist. Literally the only thing it's missing is a unified world where more players can interact at once and Eidolon took a step in that direction. And it's the direction they plan on going for the future. If anything, Warframe is more MMO now than ever before.

    What I think stops CoD and Overwatch from being "MMO" in my eyes is that they don't have a real persistent state of being as a world. But yet, they do persist in the form of character progression and always being on. You have to face it, the term MMO is broader than we can ever prescribe. MMORPG, I am fine with being a bit more confined in its definition. But MMO can mean so very very much more.

    I may still do a best MMORPG player's choice, where some more candidates are included, and others excluded.
    Not sure why the MMO is needed to describe mere multiplayer gaming.

    It's confusing, it's arbitrary, and it's inconsistent.  All terrible traits for something that's supposed to describe something else.

    Just call the list the best multiplayer RPGs, then do the list with the MMOs that are, well, actually MMOs.

    Either that, or I look forward to your explaining how Divinity: Original Sin 2 didn't make this list.
    I do feel bad for some of you who are so easily confounded by these things. Is it difficult finding the right games to play?

    Although I noticed for someone who is confused you seem to clearly be able to differentiate between various ways that MMO works for each of these games (like how WoW and EVE aren't the same kind of MMO at all).

    So is it really that confusing? It doesn't seem so to me, especially with how clearly you explained it with the traits, and so succinctly too.
    Please, do give me the objective definition being applied in this list that doesn't create more issues than it solves as a genre descriptor.

    Don't worry; I'll wait.
    What does that have to do with my response? How about you go first since you so clearly have this sorted out. What is an objective and indisputable fact-based definition of MMO? I don't need to have one because I don't care. You're the one who's upset that someone isn't using the phrase how you want.

    So clearly define the phrase MMO. Remember it must be
    - fact-based
    - indisputable
    - objective

    Then you can point out to Bill and the rest who "don't get it" exactly where they went wrong. It should be easy right since it's so obvious.
    I can come up with one part of the definition that completely invalidates the list here.  Massively multiplayer.

    Again, it's the silly usage of MMO that creates the confusion and back and forth.  Stop attributing the problem to the response, as that's not where this issue originated.  And please, stop with the "I'm too good for this debate" spiel, or stop posting here.  Your continued attention ensures that air of high-and-mighty is patently false.
    YashaXNilden

    image
  • CambruinCambruin Member UncommonPosts: 45
    Some people are so sour. Just vote for whatever game you feel is best. And if you truly want the genre to be the best it can be, you vote for what you actually beleive to be good, not vote against something you don't want to 'win'.

    But I guess we all know how that'll go.
  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 6,874
    Grimtuth said:


    I voted for Warframe, despite wanting to vote for ESO or GW2. I think Digital Extremes has had an amazing year with Warframe, and the open world direction they're going with the game is bound to make it an even better 2018.



    Really Bill? As managing editor of MMOrpg.com you vote for a non-mmorpg that is on a list for best MMORPG of 2017.

    Sheesh... I think your vote typifies the sad state of the genre at present.

    I, sadly, cannot vote for any simply because I don't play any of them anymore.
    This is for best MMO. Warframe is an MMO. :) 
    It is as much an MMO as Destiny 2 is...................

      And strange how the Dev/Pub doesnt think its an MMO or countless other sites ..but here ..........
    YashaX
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,669
    Torval said:
    Torval said:
    Not sure why the MMO is needed to describe mere multiplayer gaming.

    It's confusing, it's arbitrary, and it's inconsistent.  All terrible traits for something that's supposed to describe something else.

    Just call the list the best multiplayer RPGs, then do the list with the MMOs that are, well, actually MMOs.

    Either that, or I look forward to your explaining how Divinity: Original Sin 2 didn't make this list.
    I do feel bad for some of you who are so easily confounded by these things. Is it difficult finding the right games to play?

    Although I noticed for someone who is confused you seem to clearly be able to differentiate between various ways that MMO works for each of these games (like how WoW and EVE aren't the same kind of MMO at all).

    So is it really that confusing? It doesn't seem so to me, especially with how clearly you explained it with the traits, and so succinctly too.
    Please, do give me the objective definition being applied in this list that doesn't create more issues than it solves as a genre descriptor.

    Don't worry; I'll wait.
    What does that have to do with my response? How about you go first since you so clearly have this sorted out. What is an objective and indisputable fact-based definition of MMO? I don't need to have one because I don't care. You're the one who's upset that someone isn't using the phrase how you want.

    So clearly define the phrase MMO. Remember it must be
    - fact-based
    - indisputable
    - objective

    Then you can point out to Bill and the rest who "don't get it" exactly where they went wrong. It should be easy right since it's so obvious.
    I can come up with one part of the definition that completely invalidates the list here.  Massively multiplayer.

    Again, it's the silly usage of MMO that creates the confusion and back and forth.  Stop attributing the problem to the response, as that's not where this issue originated.  And please, stop with the "I'm too good for this debate" spiel, or stop posting here.  Your continued attention ensures that air of high-and-mighty is patently false.
    So you dont have one and can't come up with one but you're criticizing other people for using it wrong. It's so simple. Just clearly state the definition. If you can't even do that then how can you criticize others?

    Why is it such a big deal to drive that point home? Is there an underlying fear that the ideological purity of the genre is at stake? That seems like the answer to me, which I can relate to on some levels. I think if the genre is relying on owning that phrase to keep its identity intact then it has some bigger problems to worry over.
    YashaX
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,669
    Iselin said:

    I seem to recall a thread not all the long ago that made an attempt to define the genre descriptor. I noticed a conspicuous refusal by the genre benders to play along. So good luck with getting a straight answer.

    As best as I can make out, this site changes what they include in their MMO classifications on an almost daily basis and if there ever was an editorial with a comprehensive list of what their criteria is, I missed it.

    I think keeping it vague is deliberate.
    And the funny thing is, it's only this site that's doing it (near as I can tell). I've done some high level google searches on these "expanding definitions". They aren't there. Oh sure the questions come up. But the general consensus is basically the same as it was 10-15 years ago. Games like Destiny and Warframe are considered Co-Op games and not MMOs.  Other Gamer sites, Reddit, Steam....They all basically say the same thing. Not MMOs. The questions come up. And they are answered. Only here do we see this nonsense.

    Only here do we argue that an instance of 6 is 'massively"


    So what is massively. Lay it down there authority figure. You sound like you know exactly what massively is. So what is the number?
    YashaX
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited January 2018
    Torval said:
    Torval said:
    Torval said:
    Not sure why the MMO is needed to describe mere multiplayer gaming.

    It's confusing, it's arbitrary, and it's inconsistent.  All terrible traits for something that's supposed to describe something else.

    Just call the list the best multiplayer RPGs, then do the list with the MMOs that are, well, actually MMOs.

    Either that, or I look forward to your explaining how Divinity: Original Sin 2 didn't make this list.
    I do feel bad for some of you who are so easily confounded by these things. Is it difficult finding the right games to play?

    Although I noticed for someone who is confused you seem to clearly be able to differentiate between various ways that MMO works for each of these games (like how WoW and EVE aren't the same kind of MMO at all).

    So is it really that confusing? It doesn't seem so to me, especially with how clearly you explained it with the traits, and so succinctly too.
    Please, do give me the objective definition being applied in this list that doesn't create more issues than it solves as a genre descriptor.

    Don't worry; I'll wait.
    What does that have to do with my response? How about you go first since you so clearly have this sorted out. What is an objective and indisputable fact-based definition of MMO? I don't need to have one because I don't care. You're the one who's upset that someone isn't using the phrase how you want.

    So clearly define the phrase MMO. Remember it must be
    - fact-based
    - indisputable
    - objective

    Then you can point out to Bill and the rest who "don't get it" exactly where they went wrong. It should be easy right since it's so obvious.
    I can come up with one part of the definition that completely invalidates the list here.  Massively multiplayer.

    Again, it's the silly usage of MMO that creates the confusion and back and forth.  Stop attributing the problem to the response, as that's not where this issue originated.  And please, stop with the "I'm too good for this debate" spiel, or stop posting here.  Your continued attention ensures that air of high-and-mighty is patently false.
    So you dont have one and can't come up with one but you're criticizing other people for using it wrong. It's so simple. Just clearly state the definition. If you can't even do that then how can you criticize others?

    Why is it such a big deal to drive that point home? Is there an underlying fear that the ideological purity of the genre is at stake? That seems like the answer to me, which I can relate to on some levels. I think if the genre is relying on owning that phrase to keep its identity intact then it has some bigger problems to worry over.
    One, nobody is making some argument that the genre is relying on owning the phrase to survive or something.  That's only been brought to the conversation by your posts.

    Two, your arguments about the magical numbers and such would be valid if we were looking at even a borderline title, we aren't, so it's not.  Not having a single, stated number threshold does nothing to make Warframe a massively multiplayer game.

    Hundreds of players being able to interact simultaneously as character entities in the same, persistent game world is a pretty succinct requirement for massively multiplayer.  And, with that sentence alone, the list is destroyed.
    YashaXCecropiaNilden

    image
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,669
    A borderline title to what? If there is a border then define it. You can't make an objective argument about it. Your definition isn't fact based, it's your opinion. Others don't share your opinion, some do, but that doesn't make you right. That is all any of you bring to the argument, your opinions. You have yet to post anything fact based. Why is getting a fact based argument so hard in this climate.
    YashaX
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 6,874
    edited January 2018
    Torval said:
    Iselin said:

    I seem to recall a thread not all the long ago that made an attempt to define the genre descriptor. I noticed a conspicuous refusal by the genre benders to play along. So good luck with getting a straight answer.

    As best as I can make out, this site changes what they include in their MMO classifications on an almost daily basis and if there ever was an editorial with a comprehensive list of what their criteria is, I missed it.

    I think keeping it vague is deliberate.
    And the funny thing is, it's only this site that's doing it (near as I can tell). I've done some high level google searches on these "expanding definitions". They aren't there. Oh sure the questions come up. But the general consensus is basically the same as it was 10-15 years ago. Games like Destiny and Warframe are considered Co-Op games and not MMOs.  Other Gamer sites, Reddit, Steam....They all basically say the same thing. Not MMOs. The questions come up. And they are answered. Only here do we see this nonsense.

    Only here do we argue that an instance of 6 is 'massively"


    So what is massively. Lay it down there authority figure. You sound like you know exactly what massively is. So what is the number?
       Its simple , an MMO has the ability to have many players( over 500 IMO) on in the same Persistent World at the same time , and able to directly  effect the same world and play  as the other 499 players that are living in it .. ..

      ex...  UO, Asherons Call,  Anarchy Online , Everquest, DAOC, Eve .. etc ... These are the games that defined the genre , That set the standards for the genre ..

               D2 was never an MMO it was coop all these years .. but now its an MMO accorcding to these erhmmm NEW standards.. .. We all know its not one ..

      I can poke a hole in a condom ,and sell it as a condom .. But the smart kids know its not doing what it was intended to do ..

      As Warframe and Destinly and the like are NOT doing what an MMO is intended  to do .. They are coop games ..

            My question is why is THAT a problem for some .. Quake was coop .. etc...


    Post edited by Scorchien on
    Mowzer
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited January 2018
    Torval said:
    A borderline title to what? If there is a border then define it. You can't make an objective argument about it. Your definition isn't fact based, it's your opinion. Others don't share your opinion, some do, but that doesn't make you right. That is all any of you bring to the argument, your opinions. You have yet to post anything fact based. Why is getting a fact based argument so hard in this climate.
    Then go ahead and let us know why Original Sin 2 wasn't included on this list.  Objectively or subjectively.
    ScorchienYashaX

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.