You guys can argue with the mmorpg staff about how they can't write articles properly anymore but I'll be playing Space Waifu Online .. I mean Phantasy Star Online 2. It's easier arguing with Japanese players then with the mmorpg staff. lol
"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.
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.
I could not disagree more . 50 people playing on a server is not massive..
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".
It's sad when a site has to resort to trolling its own members.
Trolling? I saw it more as sighing. :grin
Putting out the games they did as MMO's they knew what the reaction was going to be from the majority of people.....hence trolling. She was just waiting to post that lol.
My favorite part in all this is you can clearly see who the arse kissers are on these forums.
I went in figuring that half the list would be padded with nonMMOs and expansions...
On the bright side I think people will get tired of posting doom and gloom threads when the lists here make it abundantly clear how the MMORPG genre is doing.
So I think they did an awesome job mentioning some good games for what they had to work with.
Here's to seeing a single player game in 2018!
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
"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.
"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 agree with @Nilden. I just don't think they had much to work with from the start. This list is what it is because, 2017 just didn't offer much. 2012 - 2014 was probably the last time we had any anticipated releases with a number of smaller titles and expansions in the wings. Most didn't fare as well as hoped. Since then, big publishers don't want to touch the genre.
Soon StarCraft will be classified as an MMORPG. Laughable and a pretty clear indication of just how awful this genre has fallen. Games like Destiny 2, PUBG, Path of Exile on a "Best of the Year" list.
And leaving WoW off. A lot of people dislike WoW, but it not being on this list is beyond laughable.
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.
Clearly a truly DEEPLY $hitty year! (in oh so many disastrous ways)
As for Secret World Legends, I couldn't get that thing to even run on my brand-new very fine system, which says a lot to me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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? "
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.
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.
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
"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.
Comments
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.
I could not disagree more . 50 people playing on a server is not massive..
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".
My favorite part in all this is you can clearly see who the arse kissers are on these forums.
I went in figuring that half the list would be padded with nonMMOs and expansions...
On the bright side I think people will get tired of posting doom and gloom threads when the lists here make it abundantly clear how the MMORPG genre is doing.
So I think they did an awesome job mentioning some good games for what they had to work with.
Here's to seeing a single player game in 2018!
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/And leaving WoW off. A lot of people dislike WoW, but it not being on this list is beyond laughable.
As for Secret World Legends, I couldn't get that thing to even run on my brand-new very fine system, which says a lot to me.
No logical reason not to include it, at this point.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.