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

123578

Comments

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,780
    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.

    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,776
    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: 8,776
    edited January 2018
    See above

    Post edited by GeezerGamer on
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    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: 4,845
    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: 6,884
    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: 8,776
    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: 8,483
    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 UncommonPosts: 338
    funny I didn't play any of them last year
  • Viper482Viper482 Member EpicPosts: 2,770
    Yea this list is depressing :/
    Siug
    Make MMORPG's Great Again!
  • postlarvalpostlarval Member EpicPosts: 2,003
    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).
    It wasn't sarcasm. Between you and Scorchien, air traffic controllers must be having one hell of a day.
    ______________________________________________________________________
    ~~ postlarval ~~

  • NERVergoproxyNERVergoproxy Member UncommonPosts: 1,500
    Runescape still the best.
  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid Member EpicPosts: 10,070
    edited January 2018
    My default choice every year since 2012 is usually GW2, but IMO in 2017 Warframe had the biggest game transformation for good(from that list) and it's only the beginning.

    Warframe has my vote.




  • darkhalf357xdarkhalf357x Member UncommonPosts: 1,229
    ESO all the way for me. Fully voiced questing. Expansive content. Exciting locales to visit. Flexible builds (great for PvE). Different skill lines. Justice system. Deep crafting. Slow progression with character development leveraging over 700 (champion) points. Dungeons. Housing. Of course fishing and Transmog coming next month? I'm good.
    Torval

    image
  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus Member EpicPosts: 2,691
    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.
    With all respect mate, I haven't seen anyone who doesn't care about a definition yet everytime the topic comes around monopolize the forum pvp :)

    You do care, you want the definition to cover more games and you know in what way, there are some others who don't. 

    Now here's my piece, instead of calling whatever new hip game out an MMO, let's have Bill and the gang define the MMO term instead of doing vague statements like evolved. This is MMORPG.com, you set the definition (my apologies if you already have and I've missed it), this is how it works when it comes down to other stuff as well; either the inventor defines it or the critics. 

    I like to see a solid, clear, new definition and the logic behind it. That's be a step forward. Without that, the same pvp continues till one of us dies. I hope that's me, I can't stand the news of you passing by <3
    Constantine, The Console Poster

    • "One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
    • Song of the Week: Blackfield by Blackfield from Blackfield (2005)
    • Currently Playing: Devil May Cry 1
    • Favorite Drink: Bruichladdich Black Art 5th 1992
    • Gaming Timeline: Arcade, Commodore 64, Amiga 500, SEGA, IBM, PS, PC, PS2, More PCs, PS3, Giant PC, PS4, No More PCs, PS4 Pro.
  • ShadyLordxShadyLordx Member CommonPosts: 1
    Voted for ESO. With the recent release of Morrowind and Clockwork city it showed me how much effort and time the devs had put on to their game and both turned out very successful. I definitely recommend it to everyone!
    josko9
  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521

    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?



    If the difference is the "RPG" portion... You are correct, every online game is now an MMO because you're always playing the role of someone or something.

    role-play·ing game
    noun
    noun: role-playing game; plural noun: role-playing games; noun: rôle-playing game; plural noun: rôle-playing games; noun: role-play game; plural noun: role-play games

    a game in which players take on the roles of imaginary characters who engage in adventures, typically in a particular computerized fantasy setting overseen by a referee.

    Fact is online multiplayer games are really popular now and this site wants in on that. I get it and really like playing some of them. What bugs me is that instead of making a delineation based on function, which is where the acronym came from in the first place, where the definition has meaning it's now apparently based on marketing opportunities.
    Scot
  • josko9josko9 Member RarePosts: 577

    Tintagil said:

    Love it or hate it, I think it is pretty damn impressive that WoW still makes these lists.



    Yeah it sure does make the top 10 lists, but it still never ended up winning GOTY.
  • Molag_ZaalMolag_Zaal Member CommonPosts: 1
    FF XIV for sure, Stormblood was great.
  • stuart45stuart45 Member UncommonPosts: 6
    Bless Online even tho its not out yet, after playing the beta havent had so much fun :)
    Sovrath
  • chjumalievchjumaliev Member UncommonPosts: 9
    ESO
  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,213
    For those arguing about the definition of MMO. 

    Bill et al actually did an editorial on the definition of MMO a while back. 

    https://www.mmorpg.com/columns/mmorpgcoms-weekly-watercooler-whats-in-an-acronym-the-mmo-definition-debate-1000011697

    For this, they interviewed Richard Garriott, who said the definition is about the number of players within the same virtual space. Raph Koster also joins in in the comments section, and backs up what Garriott said - its all about the number of people with the same virtual space. 



    But, you can read through Bill's and the teams reasoning. They basically dismiss the experts opinions, dismiss the rules of english comprehension and seem to settle on "well, if it has similar features to other MMOs, then it's an MMO". 


    Bills exact definition:

    "To me, if I must put a definition - it's any persistent online game that hosts thousands of players and lets them play together. Even MOBAs could be considered MMOs of a kind. But they're certainly not MMORPGs."

    This should tell you everything you need to know. His own definition contradicts itself. 
    GeezerGameruriel_mafess
  • ShadanwolfShadanwolf Member UncommonPosts: 2,377
    Since there was NONE OF THE ABOVE....I'm refusing to select any of those awful options.(currently not playing any mmog).
Sign In or Register to comment.