Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Mmorpg.com's top list : kind of weird
Snikes
Member UncommonPosts: 76
I wonder if that's a sign that the MMO market is going bad but if you look at the most voted games 4 out of 7 are quite old games now, Lotro is an established game not really a new one and that leaves us with Atlantica Online and War as the brand new ones.
Of course EQII and DAOC are both great games but that's a pity that 5 years later there are no games good enough to get these two oldies out of the top list.
Comments
Your first mistake is assuming that the list is a measure of how good games are. When Ndoors can create a zillion accounts to vote Atlantica high and the others low to take the top spot, what it measures isn't game quality.
It measures the dedication of the developer or community for keeping their game's score high.
Most WoW players for example, couldn't give a toss what score you give the game because they enjoy it and that is all that matters to them.
So that toplist would be a fanboyism meter in fact ?
Atlantica might be a good game for lots of Asian, who are unwilling to pay for quaility. but it doesn't mean it's good to everyone.
Asians don't mind grinding and neither do a lot of kids with plenty of free time. I am not even thinking of giving that game a try, as I already know what F2P games are. And I would never rate a F2P game so high, but people are different.
And usually such toplists are a measure of fanboyism, the true measure how good a game is, is the number of its ACTIVE subscriptions.
No, that's a measure of how popular a game is, not how good it is--unless you believe that McDonald's is the restaurant that serves the best food, since they serve the most.
A game that targets a narrow niche demographic will never have millions of subscriptions, no matter how good the game is. And some games, by virtue of their business model, have no concept of active subscriptions.
No, that's a measure of how popular a game is, not how good it is--unless you believe that McDonald's is the restaurant that serves the best food, since they serve the most.
A game that targets a narrow niche demographic will never have millions of subscriptions, no matter how good the game is. And some games, by virtue of their business model, have no concept of active subscriptions.
That depends entirely on how you define good. Active subscriptions are the only objective measure of how many people enjoy the game, and how many people enjoy the game is the only objective measure of how good a game is to the general public.
I'm getting so sick of the McDonald's analogy , there is more to it than just numbers sold - while stupid it can be considered accurate. Their food taste good (to many people), is extremely conveniently placed and is extremely affordable. Those three things could combine to make them the best overall, not the best for you maybe or not the best to the individual, but again you must define it first - and taste, convenience and affordability are definately factors to consider.
Venge Sunsoar
And I'm getting sick of WoW players declaring that their game must be the best because of subscription numbers. Pick any game at random from the list to the left, market it as heavily as WoW has been, and it would probably have at least several times its current playerbase (though nearly all would probably still be shy of WoW's playerbase). That would change the actual quality of the game not one iota.
you cant stabd the fact that atlantica online is actualy higher and better then some garbage like darkfall? whos sad now:P
And I'm getting sick of WoW players declaring that their game must be the best because of subscription numbers. Pick any game at random from the list to the left, market it as heavily as WoW has been, and it would probably have at least several times its current playerbase (though nearly all would probably still be shy of WoW's playerbase). That would change the actual quality of the game not one iota.
Actually it would change several things. 1. More players means more people to play with, often this is more fun (not always) than playing alone. 2. More players usually means a bigger economy, more loot, more craft, more things available - again which helps to make a game more fun. 3. This is an assumption but not necessarily invalid, more people means more income which can mean more resources being put into the game.
However all of that is a moot point. Best is subjective. However the only Objective measure of best is how many people enjoy it. If not by subscriptions how would you rate which is game is better to the general public?
Venge Sunsoar
"Better than Darkfall" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Tell someone he's taller than a midget, skinner than a whale, or faster than a turtle, and it might be taken as an insult.
1. Not if all it means is more servers, with the same number of players per server. In the handful of games that don't partition the playerbase that way, you might have a point, but that's about it.
2. See point 1.
3. The only reason to spend more money on a game is if you think that the additional revenue that you can bring in that way exceeds the additional costs. The goal is to maximize profits, not merely to maximize revenue.
"Better than Darkfall" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Tell someone he's taller than a midget, skinner than a whale, or faster than a turtle, and it might be taken as an insult.
Best line I've read all day...
There we are again, wow fanboism...
"Better than Darkfall" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Tell someone he's taller than a midget, skinner than a whale, or faster than a turtle, and it might be taken as an insult.
Best line I've read all day...
Best line I've seen in ages.
Nice one Quizzical
mmorpg fans are fond of their little routes of mmorpgs that they think more accurately represent a mmorpg as they see it. This is why older mmos are rated higher, and newer theme-park mmos are not so highly regarded- despite for instance, the rabid mainstream popularity of say WoW.
other than atlantica....i kinda agree with the list.
There we are again, wow fanboism...
Call it what you want but it's closest to objective you can get. Everything else requires you to put "imo" at the end of the statment.
It doesen't have to be THE BEST according to your subjective tastes, but all those paying accounts have to account for something. (skip the McDs analogy please, or music, mmorpgs are not food nor music)
And I'm getting sick of WoW players declaring that their game must be the best because of subscription numbers. Pick any game at random from the list to the left, market it as heavily as WoW has been, and it would probably have at least several times its current playerbase (though nearly all would probably still be shy of WoW's playerbase). That would change the actual quality of the game not one iota.
That's because both you and them use very subjective definitions of what 'good' is. That word needs to be used within a defined context. A Ferrari might be a 'good' or 'bad' car depending on the context it is to be used in. As such people using the '11 million players' argument are as much idiots as those using the McDonald's comparison.
I think the OP has a major flaw in how he's viewing things. He assumes that because a game is older it must not be as good. How many card/board games have been played for generations? How many people would rate DOOM as one of the best shooters?
How long ago a game came out has nothing to do with it, it has to do with how good it was when it came out. DAoC was a ton of fun in it's prime, so does that mean it should be rated poorly because time has passed and technology has changed? Or should it be rated of how fun it was (and still is to many) at the time people played it. You can't assume that just because a game is 5 years old that it makes it crap. That's the same let's jump to each new game that comes out to get slightly better graphics even though it might be a worse game mentality that doesn't make sense. I've never tried Atlantica so I can't speak for that one, but I can understand most of the rest of that list.
By that same logic you'd be amazed that E.T. and Star Wars are still on the top 10 grossing movies list since they're old.
I dunno, I played Atlantica Online out of curiosity and it's a pretty decent game with new ideas. The whole Turn Based MMORTS is a pretty neat thing. Every battle is a little different, and always engaging. Plus the amazing new feature that streamlines questing. Sure It gets a bit repetitive at times, but then...what doesn't?
I'd definitely rate it above LOTRO, LOTRO's combat felt slow and uninteresting. Though, I can't say much about the other games such as EQ2 or whatnot because I have not played them.
Mne eto nado kak zuby v zadnitse.
And I'm getting sick of WoW players declaring that their game must be the best because of subscription numbers. Pick any game at random from the list to the left, market it as heavily as WoW has been, and it would probably have at least several times its current playerbase (though nearly all would probably still be shy of WoW's playerbase). That would change the actual quality of the game not one iota.
Ok, lets compare EQ2/WoW. Both launched within weeks of each other. Both had lots of hype and advertising. Blizzard had a fanbase and soe had a fanbase.
Wow was breaking sales records in its first year (long before the tv ads and such). Adding servers to meet demand, selling out of copies, etc.
EQ2 was LOSING subscribers and merging servers within a year.
EQ2 was a aweful in comparison at release and soundly lost the battle for subscribers, because overall wow was a much better product. This wasn't some comparison of a fast food burger to a fine dining steak dinner or some other flawed analogy comparing dissimilar products. This was a head to head direct competition of two products from the exact same category with nearly identical feature sets. Same price to buy, same price to subscribe, same style, same mmo model, etc.
In the end warcraft took huge chunks of subscribers away from not only eq2, but every soe title and just about every single mmo on the market. You can advertise any game until you are blue in the face, but it will not get people to resubscribe if the gameplay sucks. See vanguard, eq2, swg-nge, conan, warhammer and others for more than enough proof of that concept. Huge hype, huge expectations, huge sales and then massive dropoff leading to server mergers. If your logic were true, then those games would be giants right now.
It is nonsense to think you can actually advertise your mmo into huge successful numbers.
/agree Quizzical
The list doesn't indicate which games are "best". The scores, in general, are just indications of what the people who've voted for the games (whether they've actually played the games, or not) think of them and they only apply to the each of their respective games. Unless a balanced scorecard ratings metric is put in place and every voter has played and voted on every game in the list, there's no way you can comparitively rank the games.. The score is just a general indication of popularity and perceived quality by those who've voted for them. Take the ratings with a grain of salt.
~Ripper
It's more a list of the Hated and the overrated.
And I'm getting sick of WoW players declaring that their game must be the best because of subscription numbers. Pick any game at random from the list to the left, market it as heavily as WoW has been, and it would probably have at least several times its current playerbase (though nearly all would probably still be shy of WoW's playerbase). That would change the actual quality of the game not one iota.
Ok, lets compare EQ2/WoW. Both launched within weeks of each other. Both had lots of hype and advertising. Blizzard had a fanbase and soe had a fanbase.
Wow was breaking sales records in its first year (long before the tv ads and such). Adding servers to meet demand, selling out of copies, etc.
EQ2 was LOSING subscribers and merging servers within a year.
EQ2 was a aweful in comparison at release and soundly lost the battle for subscribers, because overall wow was a much better product. This wasn't some comparison of a fast food burger to a fine dining steak dinner or some other flawed analogy comparing dissimilar products. This was a head to head direct competition of two products from the exact same category with nearly identical feature sets. Same price to buy, same price to subscribe, same style, same mmo model, etc.
In the end warcraft took huge chunks of subscribers away from not only eq2, but every soe title and just about every single mmo on the market. You can advertise any game until you are blue in the face, but it will not get people to resubscribe if the gameplay sucks. See vanguard, eq2, swg-nge, conan, warhammer and others for more than enough proof of that concept. Huge hype, huge expectations, huge sales and then massive dropoff leading to server mergers. If your logic were true, then those games would be giants right now.
It is nonsense to think you can actually advertise your mmo into huge successful numbers.
The problem here is that you are comparing a SOE game to a game that was released by Blizzard....who already had legions of fans via Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft, Battle.net, etc.
EQ1 fans couldn't stand EQ2, and the very name "SOE" tends to spell doom for a game...so the game was screwed from the beginning.
Combined with the fact that WoW was designed to be playable by people who are stupified by a calculator...well...you can figure it out from here.
WoW, like McD's, pop music, and Walmart, isn't better...but it's cheap, fast and easy.
I agree. Atlantica on top when most of the comments say something like, "A nice game with an interesting idea but JUST ANOTHER GRINDER"? LotRO, WAR, and EVE are the only worthy choices that are actually there, in my opinion. Shrug, ratings mean nothing.
Edit: And DAoC hiding there at the bottom
!