Now if people can get that, can't they get that Guild Wars isn't an mmo?
I just don't understand.
Well World of Tanks is a MMO.. Is it a MMORPG nope not quite so if they want to remove it for that reason oh well.
As for Guild Wars half the staff has a hard on for the games and the other half im pretty sure named there children after it so as for removal thats not happening they would sooner sell there sisters in a multi server auction house than remove it
My only question is how much content are they adding before release and does anything they add give it rpg elements i know they are adding guilds but any story leveling or character building in any way? if so keep it if not it probably good to delete it ( give them more time to look for gw info) and fans just keep up in the general forums
I challenged my reflection to a staring contest....4 days later i won
It's so strange people equate MMO with what they know. Make the proper distinction and everything falls into place and makes perfect sense. Most games aren't MMORPGs, but a lot of them are MMOs. Be more open to the rest of the world and you will see it in a different light. The world isn't just limited to Azeroth (or however you spell it).
I’m gonna make a strange comparison, but stick with me and have faith. It's relevant, I swear.
Everyone has heard the abbreviation BDSM in relation to folks who get their jollies with whips and chains, but what does the abbreviation actually stand for? Well, it has more than one meaning! BD stands for bondage and discipline, DS stands for dominance and submission, and SM stands for sadism and masochism.
Each of the middle letters serves 2 purposes. In much the same way, there are two accepted definitions of what MMOG stands for, and the confusion arises in that they are both similar sounding but mean two totally different things.
Definition 1: Massively-Multiplayer Online Game. This is the most commonly used definition. Here, Massively is an adverb enhancing an adjective. The phrase "massively-multiplayer" refers to the concept that a massive number of people can be playing together at one time. The problem arises here when trying to decide what a massive number of people is. We'll come back to that.
Definition 2: Massive, Multiplayer, Online Game. This definition is a bit less commonly used but just as relevant. Massive and Multiplayer are separate adjectives, both describing the subject noun, "Game". In this definition the emphasis is on the scope and scale of the game itself. Games are considered massive if they have persistent worlds spanning multiple zones capable of getting lost inside, multiple forms of progression and things to spend your time doing (PvE, PvP, Crafting, Gathering, Farming, Questing, Etc.).
So which definition are we officially using? The problem is, when defining MMOs, we're using both without really realizing it. Much like how a person can be a S in the DS but not the SM when talking about folks who only hit them because they love them, MMOs can be massive multiplayer games that are not massively multiplayer like guild wars, or it can be massively multiplayer without being massive like APBs single city capable of supporting 250 players. It's at these edges where the lines of an MMO and non-MMO blur. It then falls to the community to decide for itself, to what measure is a massive?
That cleared some things up, at least for me and my knowledge of english. I loved BDSM part XD You sure know a lot about it. I wish it was you who made an article such as this.
p.s. what do you think about a game where player can make an impact on the world itself? Can it be a requirement for a game to be called MMOG? Because I've been thinking, and more I do, more MMORPGs like WoW or others seem like a multiplayer games with a huge chat rooms.
I would love to write articles about video games and be taken seriously for them like some sort of snooty art critic who gets to talk down to everyone who paid money to see The Last Airbender, but alas, we're in a recession here.
I was actually having a conversation just recently with a friend about static versus dynamic worlds (unfortunately, the word "persistent" has come to mean something other than what it actually means, so you get flashes of brilliance like the paradoxical "dynamic persistent worlds") and came to some mixed conclusions.
First, and this is key here, dynamism is HARD. World of Warcraft is currently workin away at what could arguably be considered one of the first truly dynamic things since launch (or since AQ, but who's counting?) in its Cataclysm expansion. On the other hand, GW2 is being billed as a truly dynamic game where the INDIVIDUAL player greatly changes the look and feel of the world, but in order for that to be true you're going to either experience a lot of instanced solo play a la Tortage of AoC (in)fame or else have players playing together with radically different maps. That's if individuals are able to effect the world.
A more worthwhile strategy to explore in my mind would be a persistent world that responds dynamically to the body politic of the server. In this sense, expansion packs of new continents would be phased out in favor of expansion packs of new content, similar to a new "season" of a beloved TV show. Old characters would die, new characters would move in to fill the cast, and the story is progressed, rapidly. If there is one medium that should be vehemently pursued by novelists and screenwriters, it's MMOs. Never before has the opportunity to involve the audience with the cast been so blatantly obvious. Tell a good story, and people will preorder the expansion packs you haven't even made yet.
On the other hand, static worlds are safe. Ever hear of the NGE? That's what is risked with every new update of a game seen as too dynamic; exodus, en masse. On the whole, people crave change, but they will pay for the status quo. The genre is about to reach the saturation point where all the possible iterations of medieval elves and sorcerers have been tried, and the only way to stand out is to make something progressive story-wise.
This post brought to you (and sponsored) by parenthetical statements.
We have all pointed out games listed on this site that were not ever mmorpg, or even mmos period. Hellgate: London anyone?
Yet everytime we've asked for a game that was or is not an mmorpg to be removed, the stock mmorpg.com answer has always been "Well, it doesn't really fit, but tons of people asked for it to be here so it will stay.".
So now all of a sudden, we have yet another game that is not an mmorpg, but it is here because people asked for it to be here. And those people are in this thread asking for it to be here. But now mmorpg.com has decided they're going to remove it becaus eit doesn't fit.
Here's my only real response to mmorpg.com on this:
Either remove every other game here that is not an mmorpg, or leave this one the fuck alone. You guys went too far into the rabbithole bringing in every game you could to "broaden your audience".
You don't get to play favorites now, unless you want to finally admit this site is not driven by what the members want, but by what you want. You don't get to let one game slide in while denying another just because you like one but not the other.
So much for your "impartiality", eh?
And for the record, I don't care about this game one way or the other. It doesn't interest me any more than CounterStrike or Battlefield would. To me, it's not an mmorpg. But that doesn't mean I can't disagree vehemently with how you are treating it compared to other similar games which you have listed here.
Edit: And for the record, I'll say it again: your site name is a misnomer. This site hasn't been solely about mmoRPGs for a long, long time.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
Tanks is an MMO, it is exactly what an MMO is. It has many people playing at one time in the same enviroment via the internet. Who cares if it progresses in maps instead of levels, or if its instanced, or the what the exact number of people that can play together at one time is. Any of those factor can change prior to launch btw.
Tanks is not an RPG. There is no role playing in a game about tanks. Unless everyone who drives a panzer types in german, its kind of difficult to role-play a tank.
So this website has to decide: does a game meet both the MMO and RPG to get recognition here, or is one or the other enough to justify it. I think most of the people on these forums are looking for both. So games that are single player RPG, or any other new sect of MMO, (MMORTS, MMOFPS, etc.) should not be on the site. I love Zelda, I love COD Modern Warfare, but they have plenty of other sites already covering them.
Finally!!! The staff of MMORPG are FINALLY omitting games that attempt to claim the "MMO" title but are actually more than 80% Matchmaking games.
Honestly I have to agree. Its important that when a site is defined as www.mmorpg.com that it actually only supports MMORPGs. Having every online game out there defeats the purpose and the site should just be called www.mmo.com.
Personaly I don't have a problem with the assement, perhaps when WoT gets enough content and persistance to be defined as an MMORPG then it can return to the roster.
Yea, it is. I know this can be a heated topic for some, but actually I never would have heard of WoT if it wasnt in this site. Like I said, were having a really good time with the game.. So i suppose I can't really bitch.
The game is Multiplaer, Many people can log on at the same time
The game is Online, that is where you play it
You play as a TANK, remind you of EVE a bit there so that makes it First Person
Also you Shoot other tanks, THAT IS IT!!! SO it is a shooter.
That should answer the question if it is an MMO right there, it is an MMO just not an MMORPG.
The term "Massively" ( not "massive" as you incorrectly assigned it ) in MMO means massive amounts of people, not a massive world. "Massively Multiplayer Online" = massive amounts of people playing together at the same time online.
No actually the term is Massive, not Massively. People incorrectly call it Massively due to the website by that name.
It´s a good game and should stay on the list here as long as GA stays.
period.
____________________ It`s alright
AC2,AO,D&L,Lotro,VsoH,SWG,Uo,HGL,Drunners,CoH,GW,Potbs,PWI Eq2,Dofus,WoW,WWIIO,Ryzom,Planetside,EvE,TR,DDO,RFonline,FOM,VC,..etc blabla also hobbies....staring at loadingbars
The correct term is MASSIVE. And don't even think about arguing with me..I'm proly way older than you..lol
You may be way older but that doesn't mean you know jack. Richard Garriott coined the term back in 1997 with Ultima Online. And it is indeed "Massively", not massive. Look it up, it's easy to find.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
I think this is more of a fps shooter, that being said, it does have rpg elements to it. The longer you play the more advanced you become. You progress through technology gaining stronger and stronger vehicles. Not only that the crews in your tanks are also gaining experience which drastically changes the outcome of how well your tank can perform.
The big thing is, this isn't high fantasy. I think this is more along an eve type game where it's not based on an orc chasing you on his phantasmal steed or a dreaded troll chasing you with his gnome backup. I think so many people have just automatically decided an RPG is a WoW, EQ II, or FFXI. This is not a traditional RPG in any sense, and like I said I feel it is more of a FPS. But I think it would be a shame to remove games just because it didn't fit into some high fantasy box that we have just accepted because the developers tell us that's what we want to play.
There are sooo many games that are pushing the bounds of what an MMO and MMORPG can do. This is something that hasn't been seen. Not only that, as others have said, it is beta. There will be clan controlled point's clan's can form massive alliances to take over entire area's of the map. I mean if thousands of people forming massive alliances and raiding the opposing alliances territory isn't an MMORPG theme, then you mind as well take Warhammer off, because honestly i think WoT's beta has more people playing at this point.
Another big contention people have is that this isn't an MMO. That's utter crap. when thousands of people can play online at the same time it's 1) massive, 2) multiplayer and 3) online. It meets the criteria. Not only are there tons of people, they are all playing together through random matchmaking systems. And with the ability to join with friends, which should be in the next patch here this week or next, you are establishing the ability for certain guilds to control maps and play. I think the reasoning people don't like non AAA games being called MMO's is because most of the younger crowd assumes if it doesn't have 9 million people like WoW it isn't an MMO. The old farts here probably remember Ultima Online which boasted 250,000 people at max sub base. Even the mighty EQ, the reveloution itself only had around 250,000 for a long time reaching its max of 450,000 subs.
To give some perspective, WoT has at any one point from 7,000 to around 25,000 online at any point. Mind you this is a closed beta. The max amount of subs for any game online at any point for one server is 60,413 people. Also to put it in perspective those numbers for WoT are for the European beta ONLY, they are also concurrently running a russian beta (i'm sorry, I don't have the numbers on that beta). So WoT while it isn't WoW, certain is a pretty massive game in context.
Now as far as the persistent world argument goes, I don't know what to say to it. I mean they are planning on having a persistent world in some fashion at launch. One of the first recognized MMO's was a game called Air Warrior, this is important because it was a flight simulator. The world was even less persistent then WoT's is. So this argument is a bit tricky to argue for either side. I do think it is a bit hypocritical for people to automatically remove this game from any sort of list because of it's state of development in beta. I mean heck, look at FFX!V, I can't wait to play it, but let's be honest people, it's a turd in a box. Even fanboys are pissed at how craptastic it's going to be at release.
So in summation. This game does meet the criteria to be on this list. It may not be the editor's cup of tea and in all truth if they decide they don't like a game they have the right to display it or not. I do think though that this game is an MMO and does contain enough RPG elements to blur the line. While some people may scream it's not true and throw a tantrum of the technicalities they believe they see, there are a lot of people who are happy this game is displayed here. Those people are happy it has a place in a list with other games that may not fit any particular mold. I would think that waiting to judge the merits of this game, or to define what it is or isn't should at least be postponed until release of the game. One could argue that if you are going to take one beta off the list, you should take all beta's off the list, because by definition, non of them are ready for release.
Oh and there are two refrences there showing it is Massively Multiplay Online. Not Massive. Age has nothing to do with it, all the sources say it is the same thing. You can't redefine an acronym because what you believe or 'know' it to be. Google something if it's in doubt. The internet is our friend... we are nerds.
I don't understand why "shooter" types of games are now considered MMOs.
because 'shooter' has nothing to do with the amount of people that play it. The MMO is a modifier to what ever comes after it. If it has thousands of people playing at the same time it's an MMO. 'shooter' or I am assuming FPS (first person shooter) refers to the type of game. You can have a MMOFPS or just a FPS depending on if the game is online and how many people it hosts on a server at anypoint. In the early days of online games, games that had 50 people online at once were considered massive. For some reason people equate MMO with WoW. While WoW is an MMO, all MMO's are not WoW.
The correct term is MASSIVE. And don't even think about arguing with me..I'm proly way older than you..lol
If your age is correct at 45, you have a whole 7 years on me. I don't think you quite qualify for the "old sage" title yet.
Originally posted by Denron
Originally posted by eyeswideopen
The term "Massively" ( not "massive" as you incorrectly assigned it ) in MMO means massive amounts of people, not a massive world. "Massively Multiplayer Online" = massive amounts of people playing together at the same time online.
No actually the term is Massive, not Massively. People incorrectly call it Massively due to the website by that name.
You bumped your head dude. It's been "massively multiplayer" since Meridian 59/UO/EQ days, just a tad bit longer than massively.com has been around.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
"This is the same reason we struggled for so long with Global Agenda’s categorization, but as that game grew in scope and size, we were able to find reason to keep it listed on the site. World of Tanks would likely need the same sort development."
Even by Mr Murphy's own words they gave Global Agenda time to develop, this games still in Beta so why cant they at least allow it the chance to go into full release and with the features promised that would bring more into line with the title MMORPG and then decide if it still as a place on the site?
Like others have suggested why not remove the "other" games that dont fit MMORPG'S new rigid criteria the ones that are already released?
Comments
Well World of Tanks is a MMO.. Is it a MMORPG nope not quite so if they want to remove it for that reason oh well.
As for Guild Wars half the staff has a hard on for the games and the other half im pretty sure named there children after it so as for removal thats not happening they would sooner sell there sisters in a multi server auction house than remove it
My only question is how much content are they adding before release and does anything they add give it rpg elements i know they are adding guilds but any story leveling or character building in any way? if so keep it if not it probably good to delete it ( give them more time to look for gw info) and fans just keep up in the general forums
I challenged my reflection to a staring contest....4 days later i won
Ugh, this old speech again
It's so strange people equate MMO with what they know. Make the proper distinction and everything falls into place and makes perfect sense. Most games aren't MMORPGs, but a lot of them are MMOs. Be more open to the rest of the world and you will see it in a different light. The world isn't just limited to Azeroth (or however you spell it).
I would love to write articles about video games and be taken seriously for them like some sort of snooty art critic who gets to talk down to everyone who paid money to see The Last Airbender, but alas, we're in a recession here.
I was actually having a conversation just recently with a friend about static versus dynamic worlds (unfortunately, the word "persistent" has come to mean something other than what it actually means, so you get flashes of brilliance like the paradoxical "dynamic persistent worlds") and came to some mixed conclusions.
First, and this is key here, dynamism is HARD. World of Warcraft is currently workin away at what could arguably be considered one of the first truly dynamic things since launch (or since AQ, but who's counting?) in its Cataclysm expansion. On the other hand, GW2 is being billed as a truly dynamic game where the INDIVIDUAL player greatly changes the look and feel of the world, but in order for that to be true you're going to either experience a lot of instanced solo play a la Tortage of AoC (in)fame or else have players playing together with radically different maps. That's if individuals are able to effect the world.
A more worthwhile strategy to explore in my mind would be a persistent world that responds dynamically to the body politic of the server. In this sense, expansion packs of new continents would be phased out in favor of expansion packs of new content, similar to a new "season" of a beloved TV show. Old characters would die, new characters would move in to fill the cast, and the story is progressed, rapidly. If there is one medium that should be vehemently pursued by novelists and screenwriters, it's MMOs. Never before has the opportunity to involve the audience with the cast been so blatantly obvious. Tell a good story, and people will preorder the expansion packs you haven't even made yet.
On the other hand, static worlds are safe. Ever hear of the NGE? That's what is risked with every new update of a game seen as too dynamic; exodus, en masse. On the whole, people crave change, but they will pay for the status quo. The genre is about to reach the saturation point where all the possible iterations of medieval elves and sorcerers have been tried, and the only way to stand out is to make something progressive story-wise.
This post brought to you (and sponsored) by parenthetical statements.
Amazing.
We have all pointed out games listed on this site that were not ever mmorpg, or even mmos period. Hellgate: London anyone?
Yet everytime we've asked for a game that was or is not an mmorpg to be removed, the stock mmorpg.com answer has always been "Well, it doesn't really fit, but tons of people asked for it to be here so it will stay.".
So now all of a sudden, we have yet another game that is not an mmorpg, but it is here because people asked for it to be here. And those people are in this thread asking for it to be here. But now mmorpg.com has decided they're going to remove it becaus eit doesn't fit.
Here's my only real response to mmorpg.com on this:
Either remove every other game here that is not an mmorpg, or leave this one the fuck alone. You guys went too far into the rabbithole bringing in every game you could to "broaden your audience".
You don't get to play favorites now, unless you want to finally admit this site is not driven by what the members want, but by what you want. You don't get to let one game slide in while denying another just because you like one but not the other.
So much for your "impartiality", eh?
And for the record, I don't care about this game one way or the other. It doesn't interest me any more than CounterStrike or Battlefield would. To me, it's not an mmorpg. But that doesn't mean I can't disagree vehemently with how you are treating it compared to other similar games which you have listed here.
Edit: And for the record, I'll say it again: your site name is a misnomer. This site hasn't been solely about mmoRPGs for a long, long time.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
Is this an mmo? yes.
However, this game imo duz not comply with the "spirit" of what I thought this sight was about.
I play the game with my clan mates, and yea we have fun.. but its a time kill for the true mmorpg's we are waiting patiently for. JGE Earthrise ect.
Hmm... interesting.
Since there are a lot of non-MMOs here that are quite similar to the WoT, I can see several possible explanations.
The Top are:
1. The site is changing the policy and soon some games will go...
2. WoT simply did not pay the site (enough) money to stay on it.
Tanks is an MMO, it is exactly what an MMO is. It has many people playing at one time in the same enviroment via the internet. Who cares if it progresses in maps instead of levels, or if its instanced, or the what the exact number of people that can play together at one time is. Any of those factor can change prior to launch btw.
Tanks is not an RPG. There is no role playing in a game about tanks. Unless everyone who drives a panzer types in german, its kind of difficult to role-play a tank.
So this website has to decide: does a game meet both the MMO and RPG to get recognition here, or is one or the other enough to justify it. I think most of the people on these forums are looking for both. So games that are single player RPG, or any other new sect of MMO, (MMORTS, MMOFPS, etc.) should not be on the site. I love Zelda, I love COD Modern Warfare, but they have plenty of other sites already covering them.
MMO yes.. MMORPG no
Is that what you meant?
"When it comes to GW2 any game is fair game"
Honestly I have to agree. Its important that when a site is defined as www.mmorpg.com that it actually only supports MMORPGs. Having every online game out there defeats the purpose and the site should just be called www.mmo.com.
Personaly I don't have a problem with the assement, perhaps when WoT gets enough content and persistance to be defined as an MMORPG then it can return to the roster.
Yea, it is. I know this can be a heated topic for some, but actually I never would have heard of WoT if it wasnt in this site. Like I said, were having a really good time with the game.. So i suppose I can't really bitch.
No actually the term is Massive, not Massively. People incorrectly call it Massively due to the website by that name.
The correct term is MASSIVE. And don't even think about arguing with me..I'm proly way older than you..lol
Haven't I seen news on this site about Starcraft 2 and Dragon Age
It´s a good game and should stay on the list here as long as GA stays.
period.
____________________
It`s alright
AC2,AO,D&L,Lotro,VsoH,SWG,Uo,HGL,Drunners,CoH,GW,Potbs,PWI
Eq2,Dofus,WoW,WWIIO,Ryzom,Planetside,EvE,TR,DDO,RFonline,FOM,VC,..etc blabla
also hobbies....staring at loadingbars
You may be way older but that doesn't mean you know jack. Richard Garriott coined the term back in 1997 with Ultima Online. And it is indeed "Massively", not massive. Look it up, it's easy to find.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
I think this is more of a fps shooter, that being said, it does have rpg elements to it. The longer you play the more advanced you become. You progress through technology gaining stronger and stronger vehicles. Not only that the crews in your tanks are also gaining experience which drastically changes the outcome of how well your tank can perform.
The big thing is, this isn't high fantasy. I think this is more along an eve type game where it's not based on an orc chasing you on his phantasmal steed or a dreaded troll chasing you with his gnome backup. I think so many people have just automatically decided an RPG is a WoW, EQ II, or FFXI. This is not a traditional RPG in any sense, and like I said I feel it is more of a FPS. But I think it would be a shame to remove games just because it didn't fit into some high fantasy box that we have just accepted because the developers tell us that's what we want to play.
There are sooo many games that are pushing the bounds of what an MMO and MMORPG can do. This is something that hasn't been seen. Not only that, as others have said, it is beta. There will be clan controlled point's clan's can form massive alliances to take over entire area's of the map. I mean if thousands of people forming massive alliances and raiding the opposing alliances territory isn't an MMORPG theme, then you mind as well take Warhammer off, because honestly i think WoT's beta has more people playing at this point.
Another big contention people have is that this isn't an MMO. That's utter crap. when thousands of people can play online at the same time it's 1) massive, 2) multiplayer and 3) online. It meets the criteria. Not only are there tons of people, they are all playing together through random matchmaking systems. And with the ability to join with friends, which should be in the next patch here this week or next, you are establishing the ability for certain guilds to control maps and play. I think the reasoning people don't like non AAA games being called MMO's is because most of the younger crowd assumes if it doesn't have 9 million people like WoW it isn't an MMO. The old farts here probably remember Ultima Online which boasted 250,000 people at max sub base. Even the mighty EQ, the reveloution itself only had around 250,000 for a long time reaching its max of 450,000 subs.
To give some perspective, WoT has at any one point from 7,000 to around 25,000 online at any point. Mind you this is a closed beta. The max amount of subs for any game online at any point for one server is 60,413 people. Also to put it in perspective those numbers for WoT are for the European beta ONLY, they are also concurrently running a russian beta (i'm sorry, I don't have the numbers on that beta). So WoT while it isn't WoW, certain is a pretty massive game in context.
Now as far as the persistent world argument goes, I don't know what to say to it. I mean they are planning on having a persistent world in some fashion at launch. One of the first recognized MMO's was a game called Air Warrior, this is important because it was a flight simulator. The world was even less persistent then WoT's is. So this argument is a bit tricky to argue for either side. I do think it is a bit hypocritical for people to automatically remove this game from any sort of list because of it's state of development in beta. I mean heck, look at FFX!V, I can't wait to play it, but let's be honest people, it's a turd in a box. Even fanboys are pissed at how craptastic it's going to be at release.
So in summation. This game does meet the criteria to be on this list. It may not be the editor's cup of tea and in all truth if they decide they don't like a game they have the right to display it or not. I do think though that this game is an MMO and does contain enough RPG elements to blur the line. While some people may scream it's not true and throw a tantrum of the technicalities they believe they see, there are a lot of people who are happy this game is displayed here. Those people are happy it has a place in a list with other games that may not fit any particular mold. I would think that waiting to judge the merits of this game, or to define what it is or isn't should at least be postponed until release of the game. One could argue that if you are going to take one beta off the list, you should take all beta's off the list, because by definition, non of them are ready for release.
Here are some source's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Online
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Online
http://geekdictionary.computing.net/define/mmorpg
Oh and there are two refrences there showing it is Massively Multiplay Online. Not Massive. Age has nothing to do with it, all the sources say it is the same thing. You can't redefine an acronym because what you believe or 'know' it to be. Google something if it's in doubt. The internet is our friend... we are nerds.
I meant to include these sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Online
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EverQuest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Warrior
for some reason copy and paste were holding a revolution and didn't bother to tell me.
I don't understand why "shooter" types of games are now considered MMOs.
because 'shooter' has nothing to do with the amount of people that play it. The MMO is a modifier to what ever comes after it. If it has thousands of people playing at the same time it's an MMO. 'shooter' or I am assuming FPS (first person shooter) refers to the type of game. You can have a MMOFPS or just a FPS depending on if the game is online and how many people it hosts on a server at anypoint. In the early days of online games, games that had 50 people online at once were considered massive. For some reason people equate MMO with WoW. While WoW is an MMO, all MMO's are not WoW.
So this sight is taking down a game that is actually fun, stable, and will have a costing structure at release which is not a blatent rip-off?
Well done!
Please be sure to leave the crap dripping F2P Asian grinders that you folks so love to shill!
If your age is correct at 45, you have a whole 7 years on me. I don't think you quite qualify for the "old sage" title yet.
You bumped your head dude. It's been "massively multiplayer" since Meridian 59/UO/EQ days, just a tad bit longer than massively.com has been around.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
... Its only a joke for only "3 letters"
"This is the same reason we struggled for so long with Global Agenda’s categorization, but as that game grew in scope and size, we were able to find reason to keep it listed on the site. World of Tanks would likely need the same sort development."
Even by Mr Murphy's own words they gave Global Agenda time to develop, this games still in Beta so why cant they at least allow it the chance to go into full release and with the features promised that would bring more into line with the title MMORPG and then decide if it still as a place on the site?
Like others have suggested why not remove the "other" games that dont fit MMORPG'S new rigid criteria the ones that are already released?
That is great, if it is not a mmo that makes it better than ever mmo on the market.
FUncom putting the FU in fun since 1993.