I care that people have to derail every topic with their pedantic wanking. I care that they have to bring their bitterness and sling barbs at the rest of the MMO playerbase for not doing it their way.
If I cared about the actual definition I would bring it up. But I don't so I don't.
Since people don't want to talk about actually playing games in the forums I'm not left with much to discuss with you all. And since clicks are important to the site and staff I've made it a little game to engage threads and see how much clicky stuff I can help generate.
That can be a lot of work and the easiest way to engage on that level is to pick out the most obviously horrible reasoning and deconstruct it.
You want Bill "and the gang" to do the work of making a definition for you, work that those who have a hangup with the definition can't do themselves. Bill doesn't apparently have a problem with wrapping his head around the idea so why should he be responsible for ensuring everyone else can. If you go into a 400 level mathematics class with 100 level knowledge, it's not the professor's job to get you up to speed. Bill isn't the inventor here. He's not responsible for making it all work for you. No one here is.
You don't have to accept it, but until you can clearly and consistently define the boundaries of your phrase and how others should follow it, then you're in no position to criticize them for not keeping in those boundaries. That's why it's up to your groups position to present that fact based definition.
The argument's aren't pedantic. There are rules that govern communication. When people deliberately break those rules, communication breaks down.
That is why we have 6 pages of arguing. People want to re establish the rules of communication so that we can have the proper discussions.
Really needed a "None of the above"/"I don't think these games should get any awards" choice.
I was "forced' to vote Destiny 2 just to select something. It's like voting one idiot so the other doesn't get into office, hint-hint, wink-wink?
So I'm really uncomfortable with my choice But other choices were just worse.
Retired: Anarchy Online, Archlord (beta), Auto Assault (beta), CoH/CoV, Dark Age of Camelot, Dungeon Runners, Elder Scrolls Online, Everquest, EVE, Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online (beta,live), Pathfinder Online (beta), Rift (beta,live), Secret World (beta,live), Star Wars Old Republic, Vanguard (beta), Warhammer (beta,live), World of Warcraft
best overall, WoW that's pretty simple. GW2, FF, Black Desert are right there, the rest are not even close, Eve is good but it's not a rounded game like the others I noted.
LOL at all the threads that pop up about this and the amount of people who still cant understand or accept that the term "MMO" is much broader than it was in the year 2001..and that it could mean something else entirely to a different generation of people.. you guys are in denial about times changing.
why cant you just let it grow? Its really sad..Why does "MMO" have to be confined to your little box? Nothing is immune to evolution. Imagine if you applied your approach to everything. There would be no progress in the world ever. Everything would remain the same.
MMOs have grown and morphed into something else and that's okay. Its not the end of the world and there are emulators out there for those that like old school style MMOs.
So tell me.. why are you so offended that people are calling these games MMO? Why aren't they MMO? Because they don't fit the box from 2001? wth? Why would they fit that box its 2018! Its laughable how narrow minded some people are. Its called Evolving. The Genre has evolved man. You can cry about the year EQ came out all you want, but its not coming back. You can deny all the new MMOs all you want, but its not going to make companies make more of those types of MMOs. The list above represents the future of what MMO gaming is going to be. I'm sure this isn't the final stop but its definitely a sign of change from the old way to create MMOs and that's exciting.
Mostly the world has moved on from all things year 2001 including those types of MMOS and at some point you should too or be stuck in the past.. but I guess its your choice.
I guess you guys are right, these games aren't MMOs... in the year 2001. But in 2018.. they are. Everything goes through change. Every industry. Its not new.
Its interesting how this community says "We want innovation" "We want new ideas" then they get it and they try to shit all over it.
I guess People have a strange thing where they reject change until they have to accept it because there is no other option.
Good list and my vote is for ESO
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
LOL at all the threads that pop up about this and the amount of people who still cant understand or accept that the term "MMO" is much broader than it was in the year 2001..and that it could mean something else entirely to a different generation of people.. you guys are in denial about times changing.
why cant you just let it grow? Its really sad..Why does "MMO" have to be confined to your little box? Nothing is immune to evolution. Imagine if you applied your approach to everything. There would be no progress in the world ever. Everything would remain the same.
MMOs have grown and morphed into something else and that's okay. Its not the end of the world and there are emulators out there for those that like old school style MMOs.
So tell me.. why are you so offended that people are calling these games MMO? Why aren't they MMO? Because they don't fit the box from 2001? wth? Why would they fit that box its 2018! Its laughable how narrow minded some people are. Its called Evolving. The Genre has evolved man. You can cry about the year EQ came out all you want, but its not coming back. You can deny all the new MMOs all you want, but its not going to make companies make more of those types of MMOs. The list above represents the future of what MMO gaming is going to be. I'm sure this isn't the final stop but its definitely a sign of change from the old way to create MMOs and that's exciting.
Mostly the world has moved on from all things year 2001 including those types of MMOS and at some point you should too or be stuck in the past.. but I guess its your choice.
I guess you guys are right, these games aren't MMOs... in the year 2001. But in 2018.. they are. Everything goes through change. Every industry. Its not new.
Its interesting how this community says "We want innovation" "We want new ideas" then they get it and they try to shit all over it.
I guess People have a strange thing where they reject change until they have to accept it because there is no other option.
Good list and my vote is for ESO
That would be because most are talking about mmoRPGs ... not just MMO in general which has always been a very broad category. Originally it was MMOG and not a wide spread term and only used for a small segment that inspired later, more successful games that became known as MMORPGs. The use of MMORPG came about specifically during Ultima Online.
In fact the actual term MMO is post mmorpg usage when the early gen games really started attracting large audiences and bigger developers started exploiting for profit "massively online" due to the combination of technical advancement and popularity.
So in order to stop confusingly inaccurate posts such as yours, please understand that when the term MMORPG is used to describe early gen MMORPGs it's as a specific sub-genre to the painfully generalized MMO genre. Fans of this sub-genre are tired of it being watered down and no longer identified and connected to it's true heritage ... which launched today's widespread MMOs.
Not knowing the history of the experiences people draw upon prior to communicating is an avenue to deep ignorance. MMORPGs can be included within lists of MMOs but there are many sub-genres with very large differences. MMOs do not just target one inclusive audience in general (but certainly can through meta-marketed strategies within individual companies ... the very thing that threatens genre specific gaming).
LOL at all the threads that pop up about this and the amount of people who still cant understand or accept that the term "MMO" is much broader than it was in the year 2001..and that it could mean something else entirely to a different generation of people.. you guys are in denial about times changing.
why cant you just let it grow? Its really sad..Why does "MMO" have to be confined to your little box? Nothing is immune to evolution. Imagine if you applied your approach to everything. There would be no progress in the world ever. Everything would remain the same.
MMOs have grown and morphed into something else and that's okay. Its not the end of the world and there are emulators out there for those that like old school style MMOs.
So tell me.. why are you so offended that people are calling these games MMO? Why aren't they MMO? Because they don't fit the box from 2001? wth? Why would they fit that box its 2018! Its laughable how narrow minded some people are. Its called Evolving. The Genre has evolved man. You can cry about the year EQ came out all you want, but its not coming back. You can deny all the new MMOs all you want, but its not going to make companies make more of those types of MMOs. The list above represents the future of what MMO gaming is going to be. I'm sure this isn't the final stop but its definitely a sign of change from the old way to create MMOs and that's exciting.
Mostly the world has moved on from all things year 2001 including those types of MMOS and at some point you should too or be stuck in the past.. but I guess its your choice.
I guess you guys are right, these games aren't MMOs... in the year 2001. But in 2018.. they are. Everything goes through change. Every industry. Its not new.
Its interesting how this community says "We want innovation" "We want new ideas" then they get it and they try to shit all over it.
I guess People have a strange thing where they reject change until they have to accept it because there is no other option.
Good list and my vote is for ESO
That would be because most are talking about mmoRPGs ... not just MMO in general which has always been a very broad category. Originally it was MMOG and not a wide spread term and only used for a small segment that inspired later, more successful games that became known as MMORPGs. The use of MMORPG came about specifically during Ultima Online.
In fact the actual term MMO is post mmorpg usage when the early gen games really started attracting large audiences and bigger developers started exploiting for profit "massively online" due to the combination of technical advancement and popularity.
So in order to stop confusingly inaccurate posts such as yours, please understand that when the term MMORPG is used to describe early gen MMORPGs it's as a specific sub-genre to the painfully generalized MMO genre. Fans of this sub-genre are tired of it being watered down and no longer identified and connected to it's true heritage ... which launched today's widespread MMOs.
Not knowing the history of the experiences people draw upon prior to communicating is an avenue to deep ignorance. MMORPGs can be included within lists of MMOs but there are many sub-genres with very large differences. MMOs do not just target one inclusive audience in general (but certainly can through meta-marketed strategies within individual companies ... the very thing that threatens genre specific gaming).
Nothing about my post is confusing or inaccurate. People are saying "These are not MMOs" When they are in fact MMOs. All of them. What are you talking about? The title says literally "The Best Overall MMO 2017"
The list is about Best MMOs, not MMORPG. Are you offended that they didn't include a traditional styled MMORPG on the list or something? Why are you are assuming that because somebody calls these games MMOs, they don't know what an MMORPG is? All you keep doing is bringing up how it was before. Bro, we know. You aren't enlightening anyone with that information.
MMOFPS, MMORPG, are types of MMOGs. MMORPG was around 1st so people just assumed MMO means MMORPG but that's not what it means anymore. It used to yes, but again, let the past go. MMO has evolved. Nobody should be offended by that, we should be excited and seeking the innovation.
It's like everything that's not like DAoC/EQ is a non-MMO for you people. It's annoying and needs to stop, like old people complaining about the kid's fun today compared to the fun of the 60s.
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
LOL at all the threads that pop up about this and the amount of people who still cant understand or accept that the term "MMO" is much broader than it was in the year 2001..and that it could mean something else entirely to a different generation of people.. you guys are in denial about times changing.
why cant you just let it grow? Its really sad..Why does "MMO" have to be confined to your little box? Nothing is immune to evolution. Imagine if you applied your approach to everything. There would be no progress in the world ever. Everything would remain the same.
MMOs have grown and morphed into something else and that's okay. Its not the end of the world and there are emulators out there for those that like old school style MMOs.
So tell me.. why are you so offended that people are calling these games MMO? Why aren't they MMO? Because they don't fit the box from 2001? wth? Why would they fit that box its 2018! Its laughable how narrow minded some people are. Its called Evolving. The Genre has evolved man. You can cry about the year EQ came out all you want, but its not coming back. You can deny all the new MMOs all you want, but its not going to make companies make more of those types of MMOs. The list above represents the future of what MMO gaming is going to be. I'm sure this isn't the final stop but its definitely a sign of change from the old way to create MMOs and that's exciting.
Mostly the world has moved on from all things year 2001 including those types of MMOS and at some point you should too or be stuck in the past.. but I guess its your choice.
I guess you guys are right, these games aren't MMOs... in the year 2001. But in 2018.. they are. Everything goes through change. Every industry. Its not new.
Its interesting how this community says "We want innovation" "We want new ideas" then they get it and they try to shit all over it.
I guess People have a strange thing where they reject change until they have to accept it because there is no other option.
Good list and my vote is for ESO
Nothing about my post is confusing or inaccurate. People are saying "These are not MMOs" When they are in fact MMOs. All of them.
I don't see how some of the games on the list can be explained by the term "massively multiplayer online (game)". Some of them are clearly online co-op games, and that is a separate genre that has been around for a long time.
From the ones listed I would vote for ESO or EVE Online.
One Tamriel made ESO interesting to me. EVE Online is scifi so that gets bonus points from me just for that. And I really like skills instead of classes.
Both are very good at keeping content relevant. No obsolete regions because of a new EP like some other listed ones. Classes (in the case of ESO) also stay mostly relevant because of how easy it is to respec.
SWTOR and TSW (not legends) would be a tie for 3rd and 4th, but both are not on the list.
so many butthurtfanbois around here, yo theres the list, click and move on, noone cares about your rant nor will that by some kind of chance or magic add your favorite one on this list. so many traps and trump trumpets on this binary shet
LOL at all the threads that pop up about this and the amount of people who still cant understand or accept that the term "MMO" is much broader than it was in the year 2001..and that it could mean something else entirely to a different generation of people.. you guys are in denial about times changing.
why cant you just let it grow? Its really sad..Why does "MMO" have to be confined to your little box? Nothing is immune to evolution. Imagine if you applied your approach to everything. There would be no progress in the world ever. Everything would remain the same.
MMOs have grown and morphed into something else and that's okay. Its not the end of the world and there are emulators out there for those that like old school style MMOs.
So tell me.. why are you so offended that people are calling these games MMO? Why aren't they MMO? Because they don't fit the box from 2001? wth? Why would they fit that box its 2018! Its laughable how narrow minded some people are. Its called Evolving. The Genre has evolved man. You can cry about the year EQ came out all you want, but its not coming back. You can deny all the new MMOs all you want, but its not going to make companies make more of those types of MMOs. The list above represents the future of what MMO gaming is going to be. I'm sure this isn't the final stop but its definitely a sign of change from the old way to create MMOs and that's exciting.
Mostly the world has moved on from all things year 2001 including those types of MMOS and at some point you should too or be stuck in the past.. but I guess its your choice.
I guess you guys are right, these games aren't MMOs... in the year 2001. But in 2018.. they are. Everything goes through change. Every industry. Its not new.
Its interesting how this community says "We want innovation" "We want new ideas" then they get it and they try to shit all over it.
I guess People have a strange thing where they reject change until they have to accept it because there is no other option.
Good list and my vote is for ESO
That would be because most are talking about mmoRPGs ... not just MMO in general which has always been a very broad category. Originally it was MMOG and not a wide spread term and only used for a small segment that inspired later, more successful games that became known as MMORPGs. The use of MMORPG came about specifically during Ultima Online.
In fact the actual term MMO is post mmorpg usage when the early gen games really started attracting large audiences and bigger developers started exploiting for profit "massively online" due to the combination of technical advancement and popularity.
So in order to stop confusingly inaccurate posts such as yours, please understand that when the term MMORPG is used to describe early gen MMORPGs it's as a specific sub-genre to the painfully generalized MMO genre. Fans of this sub-genre are tired of it being watered down and no longer identified and connected to it's true heritage ... which launched today's widespread MMOs.
Not knowing the history of the experiences people draw upon prior to communicating is an avenue to deep ignorance. MMORPGs can be included within lists of MMOs but there are many sub-genres with very large differences. MMOs do not just target one inclusive audience in general (but certainly can through meta-marketed strategies within individual companies ... the very thing that threatens genre specific gaming).
Nothing about my post is confusing or inaccurate. People are saying "These are not MMOs" When they are in fact MMOs. All of them. What are you talking about? The title says literally "The Best Overall MMO 2017"
The list is about Best MMOs, not MMORPG. Are you offended that they didn't include a traditional styled MMORPG on the list or something? Why are you are assuming that because somebody calls these games MMOs, they don't know what an MMORPG is? All you keep doing is bringing up how it was before. Bro, we know. You aren't enlightening anyone with that information.
MMOFPS, MMORPG, are types of MMOGs. MMORPG was around 1st so people just assumed MMO means MMORPG but that's not what it means anymore. It used to yes, but again, let the past go. MMO has evolved. Nobody should be offended by that, we should be excited and seeking the innovation.
It's like everything that's not like DAoC/EQ is a non-MMO for you people. It's annoying and needs to stop, like old people complaining about the kid's fun today compared to the fun of the 60s.
The past is not something you let go. Those are the words of the clueless.
MMOs have not evolved. Their is only change. Change is caused by what preceded it so your own words contradict each other. Your words do no flatter you. Each new change causes new problems until such point your solutions repeat the problems you attempted to change. That is history ... those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it.
You miss the point. You repeat your own tired arguments with a complete unwillingness to understand what others are saying.
NOBODY wants clones of old school mmorpgs ... they merely want new games within the same sub-genre and the identity of that sub-genre to continue as THEY THEMSELVES are proof there is interest in it.
And NOWHERE did I say that people confuse MMOs with MMORPGs. That is some further proof your convoluted mind can't get a single thing straight. My point is that they ARE different by nature. There is NO growth of what an MMO is. It is a group of games that are massively online ... THAT IS IT! The growth of the industry as related to a business only means more games are included within the blanket identity. The argument supporting MMORPGs as it's own entity within that framework is the key issue here.
On a side note it continues to shock me when idiots continue to say MMOs have evolved to what we see today and imply consumers drove this evolution and change was for the better. This is the biggest load of bullshit on this site and more proof of the ignorance of the industry's history. You stand and watch freedom of choice being taken away, innovation being stagnated and genre gaming dissolved into meta-marketed strategies steering a sheepled audience toward RMT, design cycled games cloned off one another and you continue to think YOU drove it their by choice? Holy shit, just ... holy shit man.
EVOLUTION OF GAMING IS A MYTH!!! There is only change and history ALWAYS repeats so never diminish it's value. There are more games out there than ever before yet with less real choice than ever before. How the FUCK do so many people not see this?
I am harsh in my statements because I want you to WAKE UP! Take the red pill! As it stands, you have taken the blue pill and contribute nothing to forward the conversation.
LOL at all the threads that pop up about this and the amount of people who still cant understand or accept that the term "MMO" is much broader than it was in the year 2001..and that it could mean something else entirely to a different generation of people.. you guys are in denial about times changing.
why cant you just let it grow? Its really sad..Why does "MMO" have to be confined to your little box? Nothing is immune to evolution. Imagine if you applied your approach to everything. There would be no progress in the world ever. Everything would remain the same.
MMOs have grown and morphed into something else and that's okay. Its not the end of the world and there are emulators out there for those that like old school style MMOs.
So tell me.. why are you so offended that people are calling these games MMO? Why aren't they MMO? Because they don't fit the box from 2001? wth? Why would they fit that box its 2018! Its laughable how narrow minded some people are. Its called Evolving. The Genre has evolved man. You can cry about the year EQ came out all you want, but its not coming back. You can deny all the new MMOs all you want, but its not going to make companies make more of those types of MMOs. The list above represents the future of what MMO gaming is going to be. I'm sure this isn't the final stop but its definitely a sign of change from the old way to create MMOs and that's exciting.
Mostly the world has moved on from all things year 2001 including those types of MMOS and at some point you should too or be stuck in the past.. but I guess its your choice.
I guess you guys are right, these games aren't MMOs... in the year 2001. But in 2018.. they are. Everything goes through change. Every industry. Its not new.
Its interesting how this community says "We want innovation" "We want new ideas" then they get it and they try to shit all over it.
I guess People have a strange thing where they reject change until they have to accept it because there is no other option.
Good list and my vote is for ESO
That would be because most are talking about mmoRPGs ... not just MMO in general which has always been a very broad category. Originally it was MMOG and not a wide spread term and only used for a small segment that inspired later, more successful games that became known as MMORPGs. The use of MMORPG came about specifically during Ultima Online.
In fact the actual term MMO is post mmorpg usage when the early gen games really started attracting large audiences and bigger developers started exploiting for profit "massively online" due to the combination of technical advancement and popularity.
So in order to stop confusingly inaccurate posts such as yours, please understand that when the term MMORPG is used to describe early gen MMORPGs it's as a specific sub-genre to the painfully generalized MMO genre. Fans of this sub-genre are tired of it being watered down and no longer identified and connected to it's true heritage ... which launched today's widespread MMOs.
Not knowing the history of the experiences people draw upon prior to communicating is an avenue to deep ignorance. MMORPGs can be included within lists of MMOs but there are many sub-genres with very large differences. MMOs do not just target one inclusive audience in general (but certainly can through meta-marketed strategies within individual companies ... the very thing that threatens genre specific gaming).
Nothing about my post is confusing or inaccurate. People are saying "These are not MMOs" When they are in fact MMOs. All of them. What are you talking about? The title says literally "The Best Overall MMO 2017"
The list is about Best MMOs, not MMORPG. Are you offended that they didn't include a traditional styled MMORPG on the list or something? Why are you are assuming that because somebody calls these games MMOs, they don't know what an MMORPG is? All you keep doing is bringing up how it was before. Bro, we know. You aren't enlightening anyone with that information.
MMOFPS, MMORPG, are types of MMOGs. MMORPG was around 1st so people just assumed MMO means MMORPG but that's not what it means anymore. It used to yes, but again, let the past go. MMO has evolved. Nobody should be offended by that, we should be excited and seeking the innovation.
It's like everything that's not like DAoC/EQ is a non-MMO for you people. It's annoying and needs to stop, like old people complaining about the kid's fun today compared to the fun of the 60s.
I almost stopped reading at "in fact." You and others have an opinion that co-op multiplayer games are MMOs. Not everyone shares your opinion. There is no "in fact" about it.
And the RPG part has nothing to do with it. An MMORPG is both an MMO and an RPG just like an MMOFPS or MMOTPS or MMORTS each have two components that define them. But the second part doesn't define the first part that they all have in common.
Massively Multiplayer means what it always meant. If you want to say that the types of games that were once called MMOs have changed and evolved into something else, fair enough. That argument can be made. But FFS, come up with a new name that describes them instead of just trying to cram them into same old terminology long after it stopped describing them.
Some developers have started calling their games "shared world." Maybe you should take a long hard look at why they are doing that instead of saying MMO or neoMMO when there isn't a damn thing massively multiplayer about them.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Nothing about my post is confusing or inaccurate. People are saying "These are not MMOs" When they are in fact MMOs. All of them. What are you talking about? The title says literally "The Best Overall MMO 2017"
The list is about Best MMOs, not MMORPG. Are you offended that they didn't include a traditional styled MMORPG on the list or something? Why are you are assuming that because somebody calls these games MMOs, they don't know what an MMORPG is? All you keep doing is bringing up how it was before. Bro, we know. You aren't enlightening anyone with that information.
MMOFPS, MMORPG, are types of MMOGs. MMORPG was around 1st so people just assumed MMO means MMORPG but that's not what it means anymore. It used to yes, but again, let the past go. MMO has evolved. Nobody should be offended by that, we should be excited and seeking the innovation.
It's like everything that's not like DAoC/EQ is a non-MMO for you people. It's annoying and needs to stop, like old people complaining about the kid's fun today compared to the fun of the 60s.
The past is not something you let go. Those are the words of the clueless.
MMOs have not evolved. Their is only change. Change is caused by what preceded it so your own words contradict each other. Your words do no flatter you. Each new change causes new problems until such point your solutions repeat the problems you attempted to change. That is history ... those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it.
You miss the point. You repeat your own tired arguments with a complete unwillingness to understand what others are saying.
NOBODY wants clones of old school mmorpgs ... they merely want new games within the same sub-genre and the identity of that sub-genre to continue as THEY THEMSELVES are proof there is interest in it.
And NOWHERE did I say that people confuse MMOs with MMORPGs. That is some further proof your convoluted mind can't get a single thing straight. My point is that they ARE different by nature. There is NO growth of what an MMO is. It is a group of games that are massively online ... THAT IS IT! The growth of the industry as related to a business only means more games are included within the blanket identity. The argument supporting MMORPGs as it's own entity within that framework is the key issue here.
On a side note it continues to shock me when idiots continue to say MMOs have evolved to what we see today and imply consumers drove this evolution and change was for the better. This is the biggest load of bullshit on this site and more proof of the ignorance of the industry's history. You stand and watch freedom of choice being taken away, innovation being stagnated and genre gaming dissolved into meta-marketed strategies steering a sheepled audience toward RMT, design cycled games cloned off one another and you continue to think YOU drove it their by choice? Holy shit, just ... holy shit man.
EVOLUTION OF GAMING IS A MYTH!!! There is only change and history ALWAYS repeats so never diminish it's value. There are more games out there than ever before yet with less real choice than ever before. How the FUCK do so many people not see this?
I am harsh in my statements because I want you to WAKE UP! Take the red pill! As it stands, you have taken the blue pill and contribute nothing to forward the conversation.
I will never understand why people put words into other peoples mouths. I never said any of that bs you claim I said. Read again and read slowly. I said the MMO has evolved and it has. I didn't say it was for better I did not say it was for worse. I only implied that it is changing. I didn't imply WHAT drove the change, I personally think its a mixture of things, but I only pointed out that it changed. Stop lying and saying I said things I never said.
Why are you so mad? All those insults make you look very upset partly because you know what I'm saying has truth in it.
ALSO, I never said that YOU SAID "people confuse MMOs with MMORPGs" I asked you why you were assuming that I didn't know what the difference was between the two since you tried to give an entire history lesson on the terminology. yes, you did imply that I didn't know what an MMORPG was. As I said, you aren't enlightening anyone with that information.
You sound really mad that the games offered are not games you want to play.
In Your first paragraph, seriously wtf are you talking about? It literally makes no sense. It's not cogent at all. Just sounds like you mixed different arguments together and forgot what you wanted to say. Then you went on a tangent about business models etc..Please stay on topic.
I quoted you below.
"MMOs have not evolved. Their is only change. Change is caused by what preceded it so your own words contradict each other. Your words do no flatter you. Each new change causes new problems until such point your solutions repeat the problems you attempted to change. That is history ... those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it."
- You ACTUALLY wrote that (it contextually makes no sense, I didn't say how or why I only pointed out that there has been change and Evolution. I didn't say it was good/bad, I didn't even say what exactly it is that has changed. Again you might not like the how its evolved but denying it is just plain ignorance on your part. Again this whole part makes zero sense.)
"The past is not something you let go. Those are the words of the clueless."
-Again you ACTUALLY wrote this. (What? The past is 100% something you want to let go of so that you can advance. I did not say ignore it, I did not say do not learn from it, I said let it go as in don't hold on to it. Now since you want to be a smart ass, let me break it down for you contextually.
Let go of the idea of classic MMORPGs. Does that work better? I didn't know I had to be that specific when I said let the past go.)
"On a side note it continues to shock me when idiots continue to say MMOs have evolved to what we see today and imply consumers drove this evolution and change was for the better."
(This is how I know you are mad. You called me an Idiot because I said MMOs have evolved. Again I never said a damn thing about consumers, market value, whether it was good or bad.. none of that extra shit you keep trying to intertwine in my argument. I only said it has evolved into what we have now.)
"EVOLUTION OF GAMING IS A MYTH!!! There is only change and history ALWAYS repeats so never diminish it's value. There are more games out there than ever before yet with less real choice than ever before. How the FUCK do so many people not see this?"
(Evolution of Gaming is a myth? Really? Then please explain to the class how we got from Pong to The Witcher 3 if not Evolution? How did we get from Legend of Zelda on NES to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild on Nintendo Switch? That's not Evolution?)
Stop.
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
LOL at all the threads that pop up about this and the amount of people who still cant understand or accept that the term "MMO" is much broader than it was in the year 2001..and that it could mean something else entirely to a different generation of people.. you guys are in denial about times changing.
why cant you just let it grow? Its really sad..Why does "MMO" have to be confined to your little box? Nothing is immune to evolution. Imagine if you applied your approach to everything. There would be no progress in the world ever. Everything would remain the same.
MMOs have grown and morphed into something else and that's okay. Its not the end of the world and there are emulators out there for those that like old school style MMOs.
So tell me.. why are you so offended that people are calling these games MMO? Why aren't they MMO? Because they don't fit the box from 2001? wth? Why would they fit that box its 2018! Its laughable how narrow minded some people are. Its called Evolving. The Genre has evolved man. You can cry about the year EQ came out all you want, but its not coming back. You can deny all the new MMOs all you want, but its not going to make companies make more of those types of MMOs. The list above represents the future of what MMO gaming is going to be. I'm sure this isn't the final stop but its definitely a sign of change from the old way to create MMOs and that's exciting.
Mostly the world has moved on from all things year 2001 including those types of MMOS and at some point you should too or be stuck in the past.. but I guess its your choice.
I guess you guys are right, these games aren't MMOs... in the year 2001. But in 2018.. they are. Everything goes through change. Every industry. Its not new.
Its interesting how this community says "We want innovation" "We want new ideas" then they get it and they try to shit all over it.
I guess People have a strange thing where they reject change until they have to accept it because there is no other option.
Good list and my vote is for ESO
That would be because most are talking about mmoRPGs ... not just MMO in general which has always been a very broad category. Originally it was MMOG and not a wide spread term and only used for a small segment that inspired later, more successful games that became known as MMORPGs. The use of MMORPG came about specifically during Ultima Online.
In fact the actual term MMO is post mmorpg usage when the early gen games really started attracting large audiences and bigger developers started exploiting for profit "massively online" due to the combination of technical advancement and popularity.
So in order to stop confusingly inaccurate posts such as yours, please understand that when the term MMORPG is used to describe early gen MMORPGs it's as a specific sub-genre to the painfully generalized MMO genre. Fans of this sub-genre are tired of it being watered down and no longer identified and connected to it's true heritage ... which launched today's widespread MMOs.
Not knowing the history of the experiences people draw upon prior to communicating is an avenue to deep ignorance. MMORPGs can be included within lists of MMOs but there are many sub-genres with very large differences. MMOs do not just target one inclusive audience in general (but certainly can through meta-marketed strategies within individual companies ... the very thing that threatens genre specific gaming).
Nothing about my post is confusing or inaccurate. People are saying "These are not MMOs" When they are in fact MMOs. All of them. What are you talking about? The title says literally "The Best Overall MMO 2017"
The list is about Best MMOs, not MMORPG. Are you offended that they didn't include a traditional styled MMORPG on the list or something? Why are you are assuming that because somebody calls these games MMOs, they don't know what an MMORPG is? All you keep doing is bringing up how it was before. Bro, we know. You aren't enlightening anyone with that information.
MMOFPS, MMORPG, are types of MMOGs. MMORPG was around 1st so people just assumed MMO means MMORPG but that's not what it means anymore. It used to yes, but again, let the past go. MMO has evolved. Nobody should be offended by that, we should be excited and seeking the innovation.
It's like everything that's not like DAoC/EQ is a non-MMO for you people. It's annoying and needs to stop, like old people complaining about the kid's fun today compared to the fun of the 60s.
I almost stopped reading at "in fact." You and others have an opinion that co-op multiplayer games are MMOs. Not everyone shares your opinion. There is no "in fact" about it.
And the RPG part has nothing to do with it. An MMORPG is both an MMO and an RPG just like an MMOFPS or MMOTPS or MMORTS each have two components that define them. But the second part doesn't define the first part that they all have in common.
Massively Multiplayer means what it always meant. If you want to say that the types of games that were once called MMOs have changed and evolved into something else, fair enough. That argument can be made. But FFS, come up with a new name that describes them instead of just trying to cram them into same old terminology long after it stopped describing them.
Some developers have started calling their games "shared world." Maybe you should take a long hard look at why they are doing that instead of saying MMO or neoMMO when there isn't a damn thing massively multiplayer about them.
Co-Op Multiplayer Games:
Divinity OS Gears of Wars Diablo 3 Borderlands LOTOR: War In The North Payday 2
Just want to throw that out there. There is a big difference between the games on the OP poll and co-op games.
The "in fact" line was a little much I admit because it's my opinion, not fact but My opinion remains that those games in the OP poll are MMOs in 2018. Just how not everyone shares my opinion, not everyone shares your opinion either that the games aren't MMO's.
And ftr I have been saying "Shared World" for the longest time, look at the many threads on this topic.
What I don't get, is why are people so upset by this? It's my opinion, you don't need to agree. It's just a point of view.
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
LOL at all the threads that pop up about this and the amount of people who still cant understand or accept that the term "MMO" is much broader than it was in the year 2001..and that it could mean something else entirely to a different generation of people.. you guys are in denial about times changing.
why cant you just let it grow? Its really sad..Why does "MMO" have to be confined to your little box? Nothing is immune to evolution. Imagine if you applied your approach to everything. There would be no progress in the world ever. Everything would remain the same.
MMOs have grown and morphed into something else and that's okay. Its not the end of the world and there are emulators out there for those that like old school style MMOs.
So tell me.. why are you so offended that people are calling these games MMO? Why aren't they MMO? Because they don't fit the box from 2001? wth? Why would they fit that box its 2018! Its laughable how narrow minded some people are. Its called Evolving. The Genre has evolved man. You can cry about the year EQ came out all you want, but its not coming back. You can deny all the new MMOs all you want, but its not going to make companies make more of those types of MMOs. The list above represents the future of what MMO gaming is going to be. I'm sure this isn't the final stop but its definitely a sign of change from the old way to create MMOs and that's exciting.
Mostly the world has moved on from all things year 2001 including those types of MMOS and at some point you should too or be stuck in the past.. but I guess its your choice.
I guess you guys are right, these games aren't MMOs... in the year 2001. But in 2018.. they are. Everything goes through change. Every industry. Its not new.
Its interesting how this community says "We want innovation" "We want new ideas" then they get it and they try to shit all over it.
I guess People have a strange thing where they reject change until they have to accept it because there is no other option.
Good list and my vote is for ESO
That would be because most are talking about mmoRPGs ... not just MMO in general which has always been a very broad category. Originally it was MMOG and not a wide spread term and only used for a small segment that inspired later, more successful games that became known as MMORPGs. The use of MMORPG came about specifically during Ultima Online.
In fact the actual term MMO is post mmorpg usage when the early gen games really started attracting large audiences and bigger developers started exploiting for profit "massively online" due to the combination of technical advancement and popularity.
So in order to stop confusingly inaccurate posts such as yours, please understand that when the term MMORPG is used to describe early gen MMORPGs it's as a specific sub-genre to the painfully generalized MMO genre. Fans of this sub-genre are tired of it being watered down and no longer identified and connected to it's true heritage ... which launched today's widespread MMOs.
Not knowing the history of the experiences people draw upon prior to communicating is an avenue to deep ignorance. MMORPGs can be included within lists of MMOs but there are many sub-genres with very large differences. MMOs do not just target one inclusive audience in general (but certainly can through meta-marketed strategies within individual companies ... the very thing that threatens genre specific gaming).
Nothing about my post is confusing or inaccurate. People are saying "These are not MMOs" When they are in fact MMOs. All of them. What are you talking about? The title says literally "The Best Overall MMO 2017"
The list is about Best MMOs, not MMORPG. Are you offended that they didn't include a traditional styled MMORPG on the list or something? Why are you are assuming that because somebody calls these games MMOs, they don't know what an MMORPG is? All you keep doing is bringing up how it was before. Bro, we know. You aren't enlightening anyone with that information.
MMOFPS, MMORPG, are types of MMOGs. MMORPG was around 1st so people just assumed MMO means MMORPG but that's not what it means anymore. It used to yes, but again, let the past go. MMO has evolved. Nobody should be offended by that, we should be excited and seeking the innovation.
It's like everything that's not like DAoC/EQ is a non-MMO for you people. It's annoying and needs to stop, like old people complaining about the kid's fun today compared to the fun of the 60s.
I almost stopped reading at "in fact." You and others have an opinion that co-op multiplayer games are MMOs. Not everyone shares your opinion. There is no "in fact" about it.
And the RPG part has nothing to do with it. An MMORPG is both an MMO and an RPG just like an MMOFPS or MMOTPS or MMORTS each have two components that define them. But the second part doesn't define the first part that they all have in common.
Massively Multiplayer means what it always meant. If you want to say that the types of games that were once called MMOs have changed and evolved into something else, fair enough. That argument can be made. But FFS, come up with a new name that describes them instead of just trying to cram them into same old terminology long after it stopped describing them.
Some developers have started calling their games "shared world." Maybe you should take a long hard look at why they are doing that instead of saying MMO or neoMMO when there isn't a damn thing massively multiplayer about them.
Co-Op Multiplayer Games:
Divinity OS Gears of Wars Diablo 3 Borderlands LOTOR: War In The North Payday 2
Just want to throw that out there. There is a big difference between the games on the OP poll and co-op games.
Yeah? What's the big difference?
Correct me if I'm wrong but Destiny Public Events have a 9 player cap don't they? I think the max for the division in the Dark Zone is 24 and isn't it 8 in Warframe?
What exactly is massively multiplayer about those numbers? That it's more than 4?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
What I don't get, is why are people so upset by this? It's my opinion, you don't need to agree. It's just a point of view.
I get quite vocal on this subject, so perhaps if I explain my reasoning it will make you a little clearer on why you are wrong.
1) Being massively multiplayer is a feature
This is the absolute most important point I can make. If your game can support 500+ players within the same virtual environment, that is a genuine feature of the game. It is a feature that I, personally, value very highly and is something I factor into my purchasing decisions.
For some reason, you don't seem to understand that this is a genuine feature that other people want. You completely dismiss this argument whenever it comes up, falling back on the fallacious style of argument that "well, its just like Destiny but with bigger instances".
Being an MMO means having a massive amount of players within the same virtual environment. That is it's only meaning, it is a genuine feature and to some of us, that feature means the difference between buying a game or passing on it. The fact that you, personally, don't give a shit about that feature doesn't matter, that doesn't give you a license to ignore the feature and corrupt it's meaning.
2) It's disrespectful of other people's playstyles
In most of your posts about the definition of "MMO", you invariably end up dismissing other people's enjoyment of massively-multiplayer environments. You usually say that it has no impact on the gameplay or on player's enjoyment of the game. You dismiss it as petty.
That is directly insulting other people's playstyles and opinions, myself included. Just because you don't understand the appeal of a massively multiplayer game, doesn't mean that it doesn't have appeal for other people. By trying to corrupt the meaning of MMO, you are indirectly saying "your preference doesn't matter". You can see why this would make some people angry.
3) Corruption of the English Language
This is the weakest of my arguments. Words have meanings, languages have rules. When you apply the rules of the English language to the term "massively multiplayer online game" you come out with a fairly clear definition, the only thing that's missing is an absolute number.
So, when you try to change the meaning of "MMO", you are deliberately ignoring the rules of the English language. It seems completely illogical to me to take a term which has a clear meaning, then completely discard that meaning and replace it with something else. Especially when your new meaning has no logical reason behind it and contradicts the English language.
4) You have minimal support.
Most of the MMO community disagrees with you Most developers disagree with you Most publishers disagree with you Most journalists disagree with you The history of the genre disagrees with you The English language disagrees with you
If you look around, there are actually very few people who use the term incorrectly. There are some journalists who get it wrong. Most of these admit they get it wrong deliberately in order to generate more clicks (this site and MOP have admitted this at some point over the last 3 years, as has superdata), but some of them are simply ignorant of what an MMO is (PCGamer regularly gets it wrong).
But then we get people like you. You've been a part of the community for a long time, so you've played actual MMOs. You're not dumb, so presumably you can apply English comprehension to the words "massively multiplayer online game". But, you are insisting on twisting the meaning of the term to something non-sensical. Why? That's what doesn't make sense to me. Pretty much everyone is telling you that you are wrong, even the developers of games you call MMOs are telling you that they aren't. So why are you trying to change it? Does a diluted meaning benefit you in some way? Does it make it easier for you to find games? Have you developed an online game that doesn't qualify for MMO status, but you want to call it an MMO?
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Comments
That is why we have 6 pages of arguing. People want to re establish the rules of communication so that we can have the proper discussions.
This list suck ....
Active: D&D Online (alpha,beta,&unlimited)
Retired: Anarchy Online, Archlord (beta), Auto Assault (beta), CoH/CoV, Dark Age of Camelot, Dungeon Runners, Elder Scrolls Online, Everquest, EVE, Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online (beta,live), Pathfinder Online (beta), Rift (beta,live), Secret World (beta,live), Star Wars Old Republic, Vanguard (beta), Warhammer (beta,live), World of Warcraft
why cant you just let it grow? Its really sad..Why does "MMO" have to be confined to your little box? Nothing is immune to evolution. Imagine if you applied your approach to everything. There would be no progress in the world ever. Everything would remain the same.
MMOs have grown and morphed into something else and that's okay. Its not the end of the world and there are emulators out there for those that like old school style MMOs.
So tell me.. why are you so offended that people are calling these games MMO? Why aren't they MMO? Because they don't fit the box from 2001? wth? Why would they fit that box its 2018! Its laughable how narrow minded some people are. Its called Evolving. The Genre has evolved man. You can cry about the year EQ came out all you want, but its not coming back. You can deny all the new MMOs all you want, but its not going to make companies make more of those types of MMOs. The list above represents the future of what MMO gaming is going to be. I'm sure this isn't the final stop but its definitely a sign of change from the old way to create MMOs and that's exciting.
Mostly the world has moved on from all things year 2001 including those types of MMOS and at some point you should too or be stuck in the past.. but I guess its your choice.
I guess you guys are right, these games aren't MMOs... in the year 2001. But in 2018.. they are. Everything goes through change. Every industry. Its not new.
Its interesting how this community says "We want innovation" "We want new ideas" then they get it and they try to shit all over it.
I guess People have a strange thing where they reject change until they have to accept it because there is no other option.
Good list and my vote is for ESO
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
In fact the actual term MMO is post mmorpg usage when the early gen games really started attracting large audiences and bigger developers started exploiting for profit "massively online" due to the combination of technical advancement and popularity.
So in order to stop confusingly inaccurate posts such as yours, please understand that when the term MMORPG is used to describe early gen MMORPGs it's as a specific sub-genre to the painfully generalized MMO genre. Fans of this sub-genre are tired of it being watered down and no longer identified and connected to it's true heritage ... which launched today's widespread MMOs.
Not knowing the history of the experiences people draw upon prior to communicating is an avenue to deep ignorance. MMORPGs can be included within lists of MMOs but there are many sub-genres with very large differences. MMOs do not just target one inclusive audience in general (but certainly can through meta-marketed strategies within individual companies ... the very thing that threatens genre specific gaming).
You stay sassy!
The list is about Best MMOs, not MMORPG. Are you offended that they didn't include a traditional styled MMORPG on the list or something? Why are you are assuming that because somebody calls these games MMOs, they don't know what an MMORPG is? All you keep doing is bringing up how it was before. Bro, we know. You aren't enlightening anyone with that information.
MMOFPS, MMORPG, are types of MMOGs. MMORPG was around 1st so people just assumed MMO means MMORPG but that's not what it means anymore. It used to yes, but again, let the past go. MMO has evolved. Nobody should be offended by that, we should be excited and seeking the innovation.
It's like everything that's not like DAoC/EQ is a non-MMO for you people. It's annoying and needs to stop, like old people complaining about the kid's fun today compared to the fun of the 60s.
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
One Tamriel made ESO interesting to me. EVE Online is scifi so that gets bonus points from me just for that. And I really like skills instead of classes.
Both are very good at keeping content relevant. No obsolete regions because of a new EP like some other listed ones. Classes (in the case of ESO) also stay mostly relevant because of how easy it is to respec.
SWTOR and TSW (not legends) would be a tie for 3rd and 4th, but both are not on the list.
MMOs have not evolved. Their is only change. Change is caused by what preceded it so your own words contradict each other. Your words do no flatter you. Each new change causes new problems until such point your solutions repeat the problems you attempted to change. That is history ... those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it.
You miss the point. You repeat your own tired arguments with a complete unwillingness to understand what others are saying.
NOBODY wants clones of old school mmorpgs ... they merely want new games within the same sub-genre and the identity of that sub-genre to continue as THEY THEMSELVES are proof there is interest in it.
And NOWHERE did I say that people confuse MMOs with MMORPGs. That is some further proof your convoluted mind can't get a single thing straight. My point is that they ARE different by nature. There is NO growth of what an MMO is. It is a group of games that are massively online ... THAT IS IT! The growth of the industry as related to a business only means more games are included within the blanket identity. The argument supporting MMORPGs as it's own entity within that framework is the key issue here.
On a side note it continues to shock me when idiots continue to say MMOs have evolved to what we see today and imply consumers drove this evolution and change was for the better. This is the biggest load of bullshit on this site and more proof of the ignorance of the industry's history. You stand and watch freedom of choice being taken away, innovation being stagnated and genre gaming dissolved into meta-marketed strategies steering a sheepled audience toward RMT, design cycled games cloned off one another and you continue to think YOU drove it their by choice? Holy shit, just ... holy shit man.
EVOLUTION OF GAMING IS A MYTH!!! There is only change and history ALWAYS repeats so never diminish it's value. There are more games out there than ever before yet with less real choice than ever before. How the FUCK do so many people not see this?
I am harsh in my statements because I want you to WAKE UP! Take the red pill! As it stands, you have taken the blue pill and contribute nothing to forward the conversation.
You stay sassy!
And the RPG part has nothing to do with it. An MMORPG is both an MMO and an RPG just like an MMOFPS or MMOTPS or MMORTS each have two components that define them. But the second part doesn't define the first part that they all have in common.
Massively Multiplayer means what it always meant. If you want to say that the types of games that were once called MMOs have changed and evolved into something else, fair enough. That argument can be made. But FFS, come up with a new name that describes them instead of just trying to cram them into same old terminology long after it stopped describing them.
Some developers have started calling their games "shared world." Maybe you should take a long hard look at why they are doing that instead of saying MMO or neoMMO when there isn't a damn thing massively multiplayer about them.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Why are you so mad? All those insults make you look very upset partly because you know what I'm saying has truth in it.
ALSO, I never said that YOU SAID "people confuse MMOs with MMORPGs" I asked you why you were assuming that I didn't know what the difference was between the two since you tried to give an entire history lesson on the terminology. yes, you did imply that I didn't know what an MMORPG was. As I said, you aren't enlightening anyone with that information.
You sound really mad that the games offered are not games you want to play.
In Your first paragraph, seriously wtf are you talking about? It literally makes no sense. It's not cogent at all. Just sounds like you mixed different arguments together and forgot what you wanted to say. Then you went on a tangent about business models etc..Please stay on topic.
I quoted you below.
"MMOs have not evolved. Their is only change. Change is caused by what preceded it so your own words contradict each other. Your words do no flatter you. Each new change causes new problems until such point your solutions repeat the problems you attempted to change. That is history ... those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it."
- You ACTUALLY wrote that
(it contextually makes no sense, I didn't say how or why I only pointed out that there has been change and Evolution. I didn't say it was good/bad, I didn't even say what exactly it is that has changed. Again you might not like the how its evolved but denying it is just plain ignorance on your part. Again this whole part makes zero sense.)
"The past is not something you let go. Those are the words of the clueless."
-Again you ACTUALLY wrote this.
(What? The past is 100% something you want to let go of so that you can advance. I did not say ignore it, I did not say do not learn from it, I said let it go as in don't hold on to it. Now since you want to be a smart ass, let me break it down for you contextually.
Let go of the idea of classic MMORPGs. Does that work better? I didn't know I had to be that specific when I said let the past go.)
"On a side note it continues to shock me when idiots continue to say MMOs have evolved to what we see today and imply consumers drove this evolution and change was for the better."
(This is how I know you are mad. You called me an Idiot because I said MMOs have evolved. Again I never said a damn thing about consumers, market value, whether it was good or bad.. none of that extra shit you keep trying to intertwine in my argument. I only said it has evolved into what we have now.)
"EVOLUTION OF GAMING IS A MYTH!!! There is only change and history ALWAYS repeats so never diminish it's value. There are more games out there than ever before yet with less real choice than ever before. How the FUCK do so many people not see this?"
(Evolution of Gaming is a myth? Really? Then please explain to the class how we got from Pong to The Witcher 3 if not Evolution? How did we get from Legend of Zelda on NES to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild on Nintendo Switch? That's not Evolution?)
Stop.
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
Divinity OS
Gears of Wars
Diablo 3
Borderlands
LOTOR: War In The North
Payday 2
Just want to throw that out there. There is a big difference between the games on the OP poll and
co-op games.
The "in fact" line was a little much I admit because it's my opinion, not fact but My opinion remains that those games in the OP poll are MMOs in 2018. Just how not everyone shares my opinion, not everyone shares your opinion either that the games aren't MMO's.
And ftr I have been saying "Shared World" for the longest time, look at the many threads on this topic.
What I don't get, is why are people so upset by this? It's my opinion, you don't need to agree. It's just a point of view.
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Destiny Public Events have a 9 player cap don't they? I think the max for the division in the Dark Zone is 24 and isn't it 8 in Warframe?
What exactly is massively multiplayer about those numbers? That it's more than 4?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
1) Being massively multiplayer is a feature
This is the absolute most important point I can make. If your game can support 500+ players within the same virtual environment, that is a genuine feature of the game. It is a feature that I, personally, value very highly and is something I factor into my purchasing decisions.
For some reason, you don't seem to understand that this is a genuine feature that other people want. You completely dismiss this argument whenever it comes up, falling back on the fallacious style of argument that "well, its just like Destiny but with bigger instances".
Being an MMO means having a massive amount of players within the same virtual environment. That is it's only meaning, it is a genuine feature and to some of us, that feature means the difference between buying a game or passing on it. The fact that you, personally, don't give a shit about that feature doesn't matter, that doesn't give you a license to ignore the feature and corrupt it's meaning.
2) It's disrespectful of other people's playstyles
In most of your posts about the definition of "MMO", you invariably end up dismissing other people's enjoyment of massively-multiplayer environments. You usually say that it has no impact on the gameplay or on player's enjoyment of the game. You dismiss it as petty.
That is directly insulting other people's playstyles and opinions, myself included. Just because you don't understand the appeal of a massively multiplayer game, doesn't mean that it doesn't have appeal for other people. By trying to corrupt the meaning of MMO, you are indirectly saying "your preference doesn't matter". You can see why this would make some people angry.
3) Corruption of the English Language
This is the weakest of my arguments. Words have meanings, languages have rules. When you apply the rules of the English language to the term "massively multiplayer online game" you come out with a fairly clear definition, the only thing that's missing is an absolute number.
So, when you try to change the meaning of "MMO", you are deliberately ignoring the rules of the English language. It seems completely illogical to me to take a term which has a clear meaning, then completely discard that meaning and replace it with something else. Especially when your new meaning has no logical reason behind it and contradicts the English language.
4) You have minimal support.
Most of the MMO community disagrees with you
Most developers disagree with you
Most publishers disagree with you
Most journalists disagree with you
The history of the genre disagrees with you
The English language disagrees with you
If you look around, there are actually very few people who use the term incorrectly. There are some journalists who get it wrong. Most of these admit they get it wrong deliberately in order to generate more clicks (this site and MOP have admitted this at some point over the last 3 years, as has superdata), but some of them are simply ignorant of what an MMO is (PCGamer regularly gets it wrong).
But then we get people like you. You've been a part of the community for a long time, so you've played actual MMOs. You're not dumb, so presumably you can apply English comprehension to the words "massively multiplayer online game". But, you are insisting on twisting the meaning of the term to something non-sensical. Why? That's what doesn't make sense to me. Pretty much everyone is telling you that you are wrong, even the developers of games you call MMOs are telling you that they aren't. So why are you trying to change it? Does a diluted meaning benefit you in some way? Does it make it easier for you to find games? Have you developed an online game that doesn't qualify for MMO status, but you want to call it an MMO?