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

12467

Comments

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    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: 708

    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: 1,809
    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: 310
    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

    Witty & Wicked >:)

  • pantaropantaro Member RarePosts: 515
    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.

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,855
    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: 8,505
    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: 70
    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: 8,914
    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
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    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
  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 8,914
    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: 8,505
    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
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,855
    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.
    Here's is where I take issue.
    I could give a crap about the purity of the genre. The dam genre is dying on the vine.

    What pisses me off is that a handful of people have taken it upon themselves to change something by "expanding" a part that is somewhat subjective to include something that doesn't fit. And because why? You cannot define the word Massively with an exact number? 

    You don't have to. You take it in it's accepted contexts within English and use it accordingly.

    This site has taken something out of it's normally used contexts and twisted it for it's own gain and is shoving that "opinion" down my throat and forcing me to accept it using arguments that frankly, don't exist. 

    You can take your "Please define the term" argument anywhere you want. But going from a number in history (2-6 players) then going to a number in the hundreds to thousands and establishing a term MMO using the word Massively fits in English's acceptable use of the context of Massively......Now, we want to revert back to our prior state of players and still call it Massively under an argument of subjectivity or expanded definition (If that doesn't sound ridiculous in itself, I don't know what does)? If this were the case, there would never have been a need for the term Massively in the 1st place since we already had 2-6 players interacting.
    IselinYashaXuriel_mafessCecropiaNilden
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,855
    edited January 2018
    See above

    Post edited by GeezerGamer on
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited January 2018
    Torval said:
    I didn't make the list so I can't answer that. I did answer why PUBG, Fortnite, and Path of Exile wouldn't be on the list if I had made it. Path should have been in my opinion. It had a great year. Why didn't it make the cut? I can't answer that either.

    Neither can Bill, because the designation is completely arbitrary and inconsistent.  Therein lies the problem, because you don't want your descriptors to be inconsistent.  That makes them incredibly shitty descriptors.
    YashaXCecropiaNilden

    image
  • postlarvalpostlarval Member EpicPosts: 2,003
    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

    You don't have to. You take it in it's accepted contexts within English and use it accordingly.
    Cool. 

    Massive = consisting of or forming a large mass. 

    Two hundred people in one place is massive in my opinion so any game that allows 200+ on a server is an MMO. 

    Thanks for helping to clear that up. 

    EDIT: Now that I’m thinking of it, ‘large’ is defined as:

    ”Greater than average in amount or size”

    In my rural lifestyle, ten people together is “average”

    So i ammend my previous statement. More than ten people in one place is massive so any game that allows more than ten people on a server is an MMO. 
    ______________________________________________________________________
    ~~ postlarval ~~

  • AeanderAeander Member LegendaryPosts: 7,820
    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

    You don't have to. You take it in it's accepted contexts within English and use it accordingly.
    Cool. 

    Massive = consisting of or forming a large mass. 

    Two hundred people in one place is massive in my opinion so any game that allows 200+ on a server is an MMO. 

    Thanks for helping to clear that up. 

    EDIT: Now that I’m thinking of it, ‘large’ is defined as:

    ”Greater than average in amount or size”

    In my rural lifestyle, ten people together is “average”

    So i ammend my previous statement. More than ten people in one place is massive so any game that allows more than ten people on a server is an MMO. 
    That's arbitrary though. Unless actively zerging or doing world bosses in most MMOs, most of a player's time will be spent solo or in small groups of 5 or less.

    To me, the experience that characterizes an MMO is the ability to dynamically, spontaneously encounter players outside of hub areas without needing to be in a party with them. That is something that no other genre normally offers. But then, by that definition, Destiny's patrols or Marvel Heroes's patrols would make them MMOs, or at least MMO like. And maybe that's the point. The difference between a game that feels like an MMO and an actual MMO is a fine line.
    YashaX
  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 8,914
    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

    You don't have to. You take it in it's accepted contexts within English and use it accordingly.
    Cool. 

    Massive = consisting of or forming a large mass. 

    Two hundred people in one place is massive in my opinion so any game that allows 200+ on a server is an MMO. 

    Thanks for helping to clear that up. 

    EDIT: Now that I’m thinking of it, ‘large’ is defined as:

    ”Greater than average in amount or size”

    In my rural lifestyle, ten people together is “average”

    So i ammend my previous statement. More than ten people in one place is massive so any game that allows more than ten people on a server is an MMO. 
    Sorry Post but your word is wrong ..
     
      its Massively  .. which means,,,,,,,,,,,,, On vast scale

      And your opinion on 200 is subjective and doesnt coincide with the games that defined the genre
  • postlarvalpostlarval Member EpicPosts: 2,003
    Scorchien said:
    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

    You don't have to. You take it in it's accepted contexts within English and use it accordingly.
    Cool. 

    Massive = consisting of or forming a large mass. 

    Two hundred people in one place is massive in my opinion so any game that allows 200+ on a server is an MMO. 

    Thanks for helping to clear that up. 

    EDIT: Now that I’m thinking of it, ‘large’ is defined as:

    ”Greater than average in amount or size”

    In my rural lifestyle, ten people together is “average”

    So i ammend my previous statement. More than ten people in one place is massive so any game that allows more than ten people on a server is an MMO. 
    Sorry Post but your word is wrong ..
     
      its Massively  .. which means,,,,,,,,,,,,, On vast scale

      And your opinion on 200 is subjective and doesnt coincide with the games that defined the genre
    Wow, my post sailed over your head so high it must have invaded commercial airspace. 
    ______________________________________________________________________
    ~~ postlarval ~~

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,855
    Scorchien said:
    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

    You don't have to. You take it in it's accepted contexts within English and use it accordingly.
    Cool. 

    Massive = consisting of or forming a large mass. 

    Two hundred people in one place is massive in my opinion so any game that allows 200+ on a server is an MMO. 

    Thanks for helping to clear that up. 

    EDIT: Now that I’m thinking of it, ‘large’ is defined as:

    ”Greater than average in amount or size”

    In my rural lifestyle, ten people together is “average”

    So i ammend my previous statement. More than ten people in one place is massive so any game that allows more than ten people on a server is an MMO. 
    Sorry Post but your word is wrong ..
     
      its Massively  .. which means,,,,,,,,,,,,, On vast scale

      And your opinion on 200 is subjective and doesnt coincide with the games that defined the genre
    On this site, it seems if you want Massively to mean 200, it means 200. If you want massively to mean 6 it means 6.

    I propose we put the number we want massively to mean in parentheses when we communicate so everyone knows what we mean by massively since it is subjective and thus means nothing what so ever.


    M(several)MORPG=Destiny
    Since it is an M(several)MO after all.
    YashaX
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited January 2018
    Cool. 

    Massive = consisting of or forming a large mass. 

    Two hundred people in one place is massive in my opinion so any game that allows 200+ on a server is an MMO. 

    Thanks for helping to clear that up. 

    EDIT: Now that I’m thinking of it, ‘large’ is defined as:

    ”Greater than average in amount or size”

    In my rural lifestyle, ten people together is “average”

    So i ammend my previous statement. More than ten people in one place is massive so any game that allows more than ten people on a server is an MMO. 
    I get the sarcasm post, but plucking numbers from a random other issue to try and measure relativity doesn't really fit.

    We had and have the baseline to compare.  It's not a mystery.  You can play the Battlefield franchise and interact with 63 other gamers simultaneously in the "game world," for example.  Acting as if 4-16 is Massively, when you still won't include Battlefield itself, isn't even close to rational (not submitting that's what you're doing, this is counterpoint to the argument in general).
    YashaX

    image
  • GroqstrongGroqstrong Member RarePosts: 815
    funny I didn't play any of them last year
  • Viper482Viper482 Member LegendaryPosts: 4,056
    Yea this list is depressing :/
    Siug
    Make MMORPG's Great Again!
Sign In or Register to comment.