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

1456810

Comments

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,203
    nate1980 said:

    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.




    With all due respect, and I mean that, I used to be a huge fan of your site over a decade ago, but since when can people start changing the definition of something? I mean, if tomorrows generation decides to re-define what we call cars to include anything with wheels as being cars, car enthusiasts everywhere would be up in arms.

    You all helped fuel the MMO movement during the EQ, DAoC, and SWG era. So you all know better than most on this site that we're a passionate bunch. People who are mainly MMORPG fans are looking for MMORPG's. Not games kind with online elements. We rank our favorite MMORPG's like fans of a football team do with their teams, and we defend our favorite games and root for them much the same way. By including non-MMORPG's to an annual ranking that we use to not only see how our games stack up against the competition, you've eliminated the chance for actual MMORPG's from getting any kind of spotlight, thus support from possible bored players of other MMORPG's from considering another game. I'm not sure if that makes sense, but it's a big deal to us.

    It's your site, not ours, so you'll do what you will. And we've swallowed the non-MMORPG coverage because honestly most of us aren't just pure MMORPG game fans, we're also RPG fans aswell, but the annual rankings is a once a year event that we get excited for and this year is blasphemy for us MMORPG purists.

    Very much agree, and so simply solved by having two lists, one MMORPG and one Multiplayer Co-op. There is a question of parity here, how do you compare Warframe to WoW? You might as put GTA on the same list of 10 Best Driving Games as Forza because you can drive in both of them.

     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

  • CanibalolerCanibaloler Member UncommonPosts: 136
    Firefall is dead btw :( I used to like and support this game.
  • FlyinDutchman87FlyinDutchman87 Member UncommonPosts: 327
    I would argue that the games on the list ARE MMO"s. They are not all RPG's, but I don't know if they really need to be.

    YES, this is an MMORPG website, but honestly... MMORPG's are dying out. Were a long way from the golden days of MMO's, and they've gotta keep the doors open. To drive traffic they need to bring in new games and new ideas in a time where there really just isn't much going on in the MMORPG genera. There are what... Maybe 3 or 4 traditional MMO's being developed right now? Most of the current MMO's on the market are only making a few major updates a year. There's just not that much happening in the MMO-verse.

    All the news and new games are MOBA's. Survival-shooters, and weird hybrid games. I'm pretty sure at this point we can all be fairly certain that the genera is moving more towards hybrids and less towards traditional MMO's.

    That's not saying there wont be some super-game that'll come along at some-point and push the market in another direction, or some tech break-through will allow a developer to create something that far surpasses anything else on the market like a crazy Litrpg story, but nothing I've seen indicates that's very likely.

    We're going to get more games that mix generas, more of the 'old guard' are going to be closed down, and we'll see more games like crowfall, and Star Citizen, and other games that gain a decent following but aren't really MMO's.



  • kjempffkjempff Member RarePosts: 1,635
    Games are changing and observers must change with it, I get that. However, in my humble opinion, I think it would be better to push for invention of new definitions rather than trying to obscure current ones.
    I assume we can agree that mmo is still short for mmorpg ? That Path of exile is an ARPG and not a mmo, that warframe & destiny are lobby based games and not mmos. They are all great multiplayer games and worth writing about, but they are not mmos. Massively does not mean "a huge amount of players", because if it did then Warcraft 3 would be a mmo, Microsoft hearts would be a mmo, and Clash of clans would be a mmo... and they aren't.
  • free2playfree2play Member UncommonPosts: 2,019
    The only ones I played in the list were BDO and FF14. I did try to return to EVE but I think my EVE days are done.

    BDO actually gave me the new player feels again. FF14 let me have the old player feels and but in the end I am playing Fallout 4 again so I don't know if any of them can reach the itchy spot for very long anymore.
  • OnecrazyguyOnecrazyguy Member UncommonPosts: 99
    edited December 2017
    Also, I wouldn't say PUBG/Fortnite Battle Royale games are "persistent" (part of this site's definition for this list), because they aren't. Nothing about those LEVELS (yes levels NOT worlds) remains the same. Hell they don't even exist between rounds.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 13,148
    cheyane said:
    I prefer having a place to come to than to have this place close down. Some of you don't want to live in the real world. There are not enough MMORPGs for this site to survive on them alone. I don't care about definitions. I like coming here.
    You're right in that there are not enough MMORPGs (nor are there enough MMOs that are not RPGs) for this site to survive on them alone.

    They should and do cover many other games that are outside the MMO scope. It's something I suspect most of us who come here on a regular basis enjoy.

    But I do care about definitions and I expect the premiere MMO coverage site on the internet to have more gravitas about how they use that definition and what games they include in it.

    I also expect that when an obligatory end of year top 10 whatever article is posted for discussion they phrase the title and the article's content in such a way that it focuses the discussion on the relative merit of the items included in the top 10 list.

    This article didn't do that. Instead of a discussion about how, for example, PUBG created a new way to do multiplayer battle royales that has become hugely popular, most of the discussion about it has simply been about how you could call PUBG an MMO.

    As some have said (jokingly I think) maybe it was just a deliberate miscategorization in order to generate hits and they didn't care about having the PUBG significance in 2017 discussed at all. A cheap tactic unworthy of the premiere MMO discussion site if so.
    MadFrenchieGeezerGamerConstantineMerusCecropia
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,873
    nate1980 said:

    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.




    With all due respect, and I mean that, I used to be a huge fan of your site over a decade ago, but since when can people start changing the definition of something? I mean, if tomorrows generation decides to re-define what we call cars to include anything with wheels as being cars, car enthusiasts everywhere would be up in arms.

    You all helped fuel the MMO movement during the EQ, DAoC, and SWG era. So you all know better than most on this site that we're a passionate bunch. People who are mainly MMORPG fans are looking for MMORPG's. Not games kind with online elements. We rank our favorite MMORPG's like fans of a football team do with their teams, and we defend our favorite games and root for them much the same way. By including non-MMORPG's to an annual ranking that we use to not only see how our games stack up against the competition, you've eliminated the chance for actual MMORPG's from getting any kind of spotlight, thus support from possible bored players of other MMORPG's from considering another game. I'm not sure if that makes sense, but it's a big deal to us.

    It's your site, not ours, so you'll do what you will. And we've swallowed the non-MMORPG coverage because honestly most of us aren't just pure MMORPG game fans, we're also RPG fans aswell, but the annual rankings is a once a year event that we get excited for and this year is blasphemy for us MMORPG purists.
    Word definitions evolve over time. There is even a word for studying that, etymology. One attribute of a "dead" language is that it doesn't evolve. Words often have multiple definitions and sometimes they're only related by their word origins and not their daily definition.

    Context is everything. Words rarely stand on their own.

    See you're not confused by the article. You don't suddenly think Destiny 2, Secret World Legends, WoW, and EVE are all the same kinds of MMOs. You even admitted, it's your sensibilities that are offended. You feel like your special MMO group of gamers isn't being served the recognition and respect it deserves.

    I don't want you or others here to feel disrespected but it's a bit presumptuous and narcissistic to think you or your group owns the genre and its evolution. A lot of different types of players like MMOs and want to see MMOs be and do different things and many want to see other genres adopt a more massively multiplayer mentality. That means MMO and an MMO game experience will mean a lot of different things to different people. There is room for everyone to have their MMO style, but their is not room for one MMO style to claim ownership of the entire genre.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    @Torval there is no ownership being discussed here.  There's clarity, then there's arbitrary and inconsistent "non-definitions" being claimed to generate hype and clicks.  Only, as I and others have pointed out, there's no reason for the change.

    Cover PUBG, more power to you.  No need to try and force it into a genre it's clearly not to do so.
    ConstantineMerusScotkjempffCecropia

    image
  • jonp200jonp200 Member UncommonPosts: 453
    Certainly MMOs have morphed from what they were at the outset; MUDs, PBM, MMORPG - Anything multiplayer. We really need the "next big thing" to inject some life into the genre (No VR isn't it)

    I really saw a turn when multiplayer games degerated into "multiple players playing solo games alongside each other." What I always enjoyed in the genre was working and playing with others. Here's hoping some of the upcoming titles will bring that back.

    Seaspite
    Playing ESO on my X-Box


  • mindmeldmindmeld Member UncommonPosts: 229
    edited December 2017
    I have to agree with a bunch of people in the comments.

    I really dont appreciate a clickbait title on a article.

    Please dont mix mmo and mmorpg in the same list its just confusing and unfair to compare them to eachother .

    Im not gonna argue if some of the games is mmo game or not.

    But im sure as blood can argue that mmo and mmorpg game shouldnt be on the same list.


    -Semper ubi sub ubi!
    always wear underwear

  • aCi11i3saCi11i3s Member UncommonPosts: 54
    “It’s good to be a Tamriel fan these days.” Any true Tamriel fan would not be a fan of ESO. Broken console game that smacks you in the face as soon as you hit max level. As if max level means anything anyway in this god awful pretend mmo
  • DarkestOverlordDarkestOverlord Member UncommonPosts: 555
    I dont understand how secret world is on the list for worst combat controles.
    The game quest line is great tho..but then the rest fails.

    and btw its a shitty list




  • SephrinxSephrinx Member UncommonPosts: 83
    What a terrible list.

    imageimageimageimage

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,780
    edited December 2017
    Torval said:
    nate1980 said:

    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.




    With all due respect, and I mean that, I used to be a huge fan of your site over a decade ago, but since when can people start changing the definition of something? I mean, if tomorrows generation decides to re-define what we call cars to include anything with wheels as being cars, car enthusiasts everywhere would be up in arms.

    You all helped fuel the MMO movement during the EQ, DAoC, and SWG era. So you all know better than most on this site that we're a passionate bunch. People who are mainly MMORPG fans are looking for MMORPG's. Not games kind with online elements. We rank our favorite MMORPG's like fans of a football team do with their teams, and we defend our favorite games and root for them much the same way. By including non-MMORPG's to an annual ranking that we use to not only see how our games stack up against the competition, you've eliminated the chance for actual MMORPG's from getting any kind of spotlight, thus support from possible bored players of other MMORPG's from considering another game. I'm not sure if that makes sense, but it's a big deal to us.

    It's your site, not ours, so you'll do what you will. And we've swallowed the non-MMORPG coverage because honestly most of us aren't just pure MMORPG game fans, we're also RPG fans aswell, but the annual rankings is a once a year event that we get excited for and this year is blasphemy for us MMORPG purists.
    Word definitions evolve over time. There is even a word for studying that, etymology. One attribute of a "dead" language is that it doesn't evolve. Words often have multiple definitions and sometimes they're only related by their word origins and not their daily definition.

    Context is everything. Words rarely stand on their own.

    See you're not confused by the article. You don't suddenly think Destiny 2, Secret World Legends, WoW, and EVE are all the same kinds of MMOs. You even admitted, it's your sensibilities that are offended. You feel like your special MMO group of gamers isn't being served the recognition and respect it deserves.

    I don't want you or others here to feel disrespected but it's a bit presumptuous and narcissistic to think you or your group owns the genre and its evolution. A lot of different types of players like MMOs and want to see MMOs be and do different things and many want to see other genres adopt a more massively multiplayer mentality. That means MMO and an MMO game experience will mean a lot of different things to different people. There is room for everyone to have their MMO style, but their is not room for one MMO style to claim ownership of the entire genre.
    There is no evolution here. This is a very small group of people forcing a definition that society doesn't otherwise subscribe to outside of online gaming.

    Nowhere in any other context will we see the use of words like "massive" used to describe an increase from the minimum base of 2-4 to 6. Especially not when we already have examples of that increase in the numbers of players in the hundreds and in some cases thousands. As I said in my prior post, We started with a multiplayer game at 2. My console would allow up to 4. So 2 min, 4 max for a multiplayer game. That was 30 years ago. Now decades later, we are going to call an increase from the baseline minimum by a fraction of that number, a massive increase? To force a definition to fit a personal desire to make it fit only within a very small group (Online video game players) is not etymology. This is not a paradigm shift. Not in any other context anywhere else in our society do we see the "evolution" of these terms.
    Scot
  • Cybersig211Cybersig211 Member UncommonPosts: 128
    Oh man where to start...

    first of all most of the listing are old games, or barely mmo.

    then you put destiny 2 on that list which tells me you read a few professional reviews circa september right around the launch honeymoon and havent seen anything about it since...that game is a trainwreck. Stipped out everything everyone loved about Destiny 1 and then got caught in...im not shitting you...at least 7 scummy as hell developer acts most of which were designed to funnel you into the cash shop. I mean they were showing you XP earned on the screen then giving you sometimes as low as 4% of that in reality...because you get cash shop loot boxes every time you level after level cap and they dont want you getting too many freebies...then they apologized and fixed the issue then the next day doubled the XP. Thats just two of the issues.

    Anywhoo...can vouch Path of Exile and Warframe are great and had great years

    Sad there are zero new mmorpgs on that list because theres been zero mmorpgs made this year (well im sure some buggy indy games and a few ports from asia that probably didnt sit well with anyone)

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,203
    edited December 2017
    Torval said:
    nate1980 said:

    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.




    With all due respect, and I mean that, I used to be a huge fan of your site over a decade ago, but since when can people start changing the definition of something? I mean, if tomorrows generation decides to re-define what we call cars to include anything with wheels as being cars, car enthusiasts everywhere would be up in arms.

    You all helped fuel the MMO movement during the EQ, DAoC, and SWG era. So you all know better than most on this site that we're a passionate bunch. People who are mainly MMORPG fans are looking for MMORPG's. Not games kind with online elements. We rank our favorite MMORPG's like fans of a football team do with their teams, and we defend our favorite games and root for them much the same way. By including non-MMORPG's to an annual ranking that we use to not only see how our games stack up against the competition, you've eliminated the chance for actual MMORPG's from getting any kind of spotlight, thus support from possible bored players of other MMORPG's from considering another game. I'm not sure if that makes sense, but it's a big deal to us.

    It's your site, not ours, so you'll do what you will. And we've swallowed the non-MMORPG coverage because honestly most of us aren't just pure MMORPG game fans, we're also RPG fans aswell, but the annual rankings is a once a year event that we get excited for and this year is blasphemy for us MMORPG purists.
    Word definitions evolve over time. There is even a word for studying that, etymology. One attribute of a "dead" language is that it doesn't evolve. Words often have multiple definitions and sometimes they're only related by their word origins and not their daily definition.

    Context is everything. Words rarely stand on their own.

    See you're not confused by the article. You don't suddenly think Destiny 2, Secret World Legends, WoW, and EVE are all the same kinds of MMOs. You even admitted, it's your sensibilities that are offended. You feel like your special MMO group of gamers isn't being served the recognition and respect it deserves.

    I don't want you or others here to feel disrespected but it's a bit presumptuous and narcissistic to think you or your group owns the genre and its evolution. A lot of different types of players like MMOs and want to see MMOs be and do different things and many want to see other genres adopt a more massively multiplayer mentality. That means MMO and an MMO game experience will mean a lot of different things to different people. There is room for everyone to have their MMO style, but their is not room for one MMO style to claim ownership of the entire genre.
    Etymology is the study of how words have changed during the course of history, not over a decade. Such a short time span would be meaningless in an etymological sense. Also acronyms are not studied by this academic discipline, to my knowledge. I feel it is necessary to point this out if you are trying to enlist academia to your side of the argument.

    But what this is really about, is comparing like with like. Do you honestly think there is anything to be gained from comparing ESO to Warframe? Because that's what you do when you put them on the same list.

    My position in a nutshell about the acronym MMORPG is this. There are many new types of multiplayer online games that have come out since MMORPGs began. Putting them all under the same banner without thought to gameplay and content is rather silly. Call them Co-op games, or come up with something better. It should not be beyond the wit of journalists and publishers in the gaming industry to do so.

    Knowledge is power, describe things aptly and we all benefit.
    Post edited by Scot on
    Nilden

     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

  • nate1980nate1980 Member UncommonPosts: 1,930
    Scot said:
    Torval said:
    nate1980 said:

    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.




    With all due respect, and I mean that, I used to be a huge fan of your site over a decade ago, but since when can people start changing the definition of something? I mean, if tomorrows generation decides to re-define what we call cars to include anything with wheels as being cars, car enthusiasts everywhere would be up in arms.

    You all helped fuel the MMO movement during the EQ, DAoC, and SWG era. So you all know better than most on this site that we're a passionate bunch. People who are mainly MMORPG fans are looking for MMORPG's. Not games kind with online elements. We rank our favorite MMORPG's like fans of a football team do with their teams, and we defend our favorite games and root for them much the same way. By including non-MMORPG's to an annual ranking that we use to not only see how our games stack up against the competition, you've eliminated the chance for actual MMORPG's from getting any kind of spotlight, thus support from possible bored players of other MMORPG's from considering another game. I'm not sure if that makes sense, but it's a big deal to us.

    It's your site, not ours, so you'll do what you will. And we've swallowed the non-MMORPG coverage because honestly most of us aren't just pure MMORPG game fans, we're also RPG fans aswell, but the annual rankings is a once a year event that we get excited for and this year is blasphemy for us MMORPG purists.
    Word definitions evolve over time. There is even a word for studying that, etymology. One attribute of a "dead" language is that it doesn't evolve. Words often have multiple definitions and sometimes they're only related by their word origins and not their daily definition.

    Context is everything. Words rarely stand on their own.

    See you're not confused by the article. You don't suddenly think Destiny 2, Secret World Legends, WoW, and EVE are all the same kinds of MMOs. You even admitted, it's your sensibilities that are offended. You feel like your special MMO group of gamers isn't being served the recognition and respect it deserves.

    I don't want you or others here to feel disrespected but it's a bit presumptuous and narcissistic to think you or your group owns the genre and its evolution. A lot of different types of players like MMOs and want to see MMOs be and do different things and many want to see other genres adopt a more massively multiplayer mentality. That means MMO and an MMO game experience will mean a lot of different things to different people. There is room for everyone to have their MMO style, but their is not room for one MMO style to claim ownership of the entire genre.
    Etymology is the study of how words have changed during the course of history, not over a decade. Such a short time span would be meaningless in an etymological sense. Also acronyms are not studied by this academic discipline, to my knowledge. I feel it is necessary to point this out if you are trying to enlist academia to your side of the argument.

    But what this is really about, is comparing like with like. Do you honestly think there is anything to be gained from comparing ESO to Warframe? Because that's what you do when you put them on the same list.

    My position in a nutshell about the acronym MMOROG is this. There are many new types of multiplayer online games that have come out since MMORPGs began. Putting them all under the same banner without thought to gameplay and content is rather silly. Call them Co-op games, or come up with something better. It should not be beyond the wit of journalists and publishers in the gaming industry to do so.

    Knowledge is power, describe things aptly and we all benefit.
    Agreed. Most of us are fans of multiple genres, not just MMORPG's, so I don't think as a whole we're upset about mmorpg.com branching out to keep their enterprise afloat. I manage a business myself, so I do understand. However, it would win a lot of respect and trust from your community if you kept games with their genres when comparing them. I'd love to have a MMORPG exclusive game of the year awards, just as I'd love to see an exclusive CO-OP game list, and one for RPG's, FPS's etc. 

    Now a website that did all that would have me reading their articles on a daily basis again instead of when I remember that the website even exists.
    ScotMadFrenchie
  • haplo602haplo602 Member UncommonPosts: 234
    edited December 2017
    so we are in he PPOToM genre now ? "People Playing Online Together on a Map"

    Seriously why are World of Tanks/Warships/Warplanes (the last one got a full overhaul this year) not on the list ? The MMO term gets stretched very thin with everybody with a login screen and more than 2 people on a map call it an MMO these days.

    We need new categories. We don't need to have MMO stretched to include things "Not so MMO".

    It seems only single-player games do not classify as MMOs these days ....
    Cecropia
  • lahnmirlahnmir Member LegendaryPosts: 2,946
    Although you can argue about what number makes up massively until you are blue in the face, and even what that applies to (an instance, a raid, a chat channel perhaps), I think it would be a really positive thing if this site would cover everything which requires a constant internet connection, but clearly categorised. From MOBA to squad based shooter to MMORPG to Survival games. That way they could cover all bases but still have a common denomener.

    Of course they could always make a side tour for some very special games like D:OS or games that borrow heavily from the genre like Xenoblade Chronicles 2.

    MMORPG.com - For All Your Online Gaming

    Easy.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    MadFrenchie
    '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...
  • RobokappRobokapp Member RarePosts: 6,122
    another poor year for MMOs.

    image

  • uriel_mafessuriel_mafess Member UncommonPosts: 84
    edited December 2017
    It seems my previous post was censured.

    I will be less honest in this one.

    MMO has a strict definition. As all words, that are definitions for something, has some intrinsic undeniable characteristics.

    So in order to use a word correctly for something, that something, has to compy with those characteristics.

    At least 3 or 4 of the games in that list dont comply with the characteristics/attributes that define the use of the word MMO as is stated in its definition in every major source of information that was reached as a common one.

    Use grammar properly and try not to expand the misuse of the language that is sadly common nowadays.
  • uriel_mafessuriel_mafess Member UncommonPosts: 84
    MMO stands for Massively not Massive.

    At least 3 or even 5 of those games dont comply with all the characteristics that define the words (wich is the description of those characteristics) MMO.

    You could do 3 things:

    Push to change the meaning of the MMO.
    Stop using it incorrectly and spreading more iliteracy (we already have more than enough).
    Keep using MMO or whatever made up word/definition incorrectly leaving patent your ignorance and iliteracy.
  • cheyanecheyane Member EpicPosts: 6,429
    edited December 2017
    When I look at a game it matters not what the developer or publisher calls it. You can decide for yourself what the game is. May be some of you have a point when saying definitions matter but the gaming industry has changed so much and the tech involved including allowing people of different servers to play together. There is also the ability to play in instances.

     I have never really felt the word massively multiplayer had a definite cut off for the number but saying 100 people is massive is definitely not so but like I said when the tech allows people to gather or communicate via chat in hubs and then go off and play in tinier instances could it be massively multiplayer because you do have the choice to play with potentially thousands of other players. This could mean Diablo is an MMO. I fell that the way games are played has changed and the definition is outdated to some extent and needs an upgrade.
    Post edited by cheyane on
    image
  • noll1ngtonnoll1ngton Member UncommonPosts: 32


    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.



    And this just shows how bad this site has become. Many or not massively multiplayer games in comparison to what MMO actually relates too.
    And pretty much all of the "top" lists on this site are now written by everyone and their mothers. Ste has gone just as downhill as the MMO industry has. But at least you guys get paid to post these things.
    Tell me why is this site MMORPG <--- when half teh games posted now are not RPG, not Massive and are barely Multiplayer in comparison to what this site actually stood for
Sign In or Register to comment.