To the OP....I apologize for misunderstanding your reason for the post. The people responding however seemed to jump on the rankings with a lot of " X is ranked higher than Y?...no way!". I just wanted to clarify what the magazine article was really about, the 9 MMO's they considered worth trying, that's all. And to be honest I haven't read every page in this thread, so they discussion may have morphed by now, but the first page or two was all arguing about the rankings.
Exactly. Massive is about the number of people you are playing with and can access.
Using this logic, you could say a game like EVE is more massive than WoW.
WoW has 10,000,000 subscribers. Now we know not all of those accounts are being used AND we know that not everyone plays at the same time, or regularly. So I think 5,000,000 online at any given time is generous. WoW has 243 servers so if you average them out, you've got around 20,000 people on a server at any given time. Even if all accounts were logged in simultaneously, its still only an average of 41,000 per server.
Now look at EVE. One server with 55,000 online regualrly (you can see that on the login screen). So you could make the argument that EVE fits the MMO criteria better than WoW.
Remember, you only have access to the people you are playing with on your server. When you play WoW, you aren't playing with 10,000,000 others, you are playing with those on your server only. You have no access to the people on other servers, so as far as the game experience goes, they don't exist.
Apply the same logic to GW and you are talking about 100,000+ per server. Now that's massive. BTW, just because a game company says its NOT an MMO means nothing. If they fit the criteria:
1. Massive Multiplayer: Thousands sharing the same experience
2. Online Game: Over the internet involving a persisant world (that means a virtual world that continues to run even if no users are logged in).
then you got an MMO, baby!
BTW, MMO is a high-level game category. GW is massive, like WoW. Cooperative, RPG, FPS, RTS are game STYLES. They are still MMOs if they fit the criteria. I think too many people use the acronym too liberally and have forgotten the original meaning -- even game developers.
I find it more likely that GW not calling themselves an MMO is more of a marketing tactic than anything else. Distance youself from the competition and appear unique to the customer. One of the oldest marketing approaches in history.
Your comparison to WoW and EVE was correct, however the one in Guild Wars was not. The world is no longer persistent when you leave a town.
Apply the same logic to GW and you are talking about 100,000+ per server. Now that's massive. BTW, just because a game company says its NOT an MMO means nothing. If they fit the criteria: 1. Massive Multiplayer: Thousands sharing the same experience 2. Online Game: Over the internet involving a persisant world (that means a virtual world that continues to run even if no users are logged in). then you got an MMO, baby!
Wrong.
You are mixing up MMO and multi player game. These are 2 different things.
When I leave a city to go play the game I am completely alone and I will never, ever, see any other player. And If I am in a party I will never see anyone else.
GW is a fully instanced multi player game. But certainly not an MMO.
Counter Strike and Burnout Paradise and ... and ... and ... (there are dozens of games) .... have much more players than GW. Just the other day there were more than 1 million players online for that day in Burnout. My burnout friend list is about 300 people and I am deleting people who are adding me every day.
Does that make Burnout Paradise or Counter Strike, even if they have more players than GW, MMOs ? NO.
Is GW, a game were you will never meet anyone else when you are playing the game outside the cities in the game world an MMO ? Certainly not.
A max 6 player party and never meeting anyone else outside in the game world is MASSIVE ! Not !
Even the GW publisher has already said GW is not an MMO, but of course you know better
why is aoc behind swg ? and why is lotr so far up the list, i dont think the people at the magazine actually play many of the games listed. Lotr is a wow clone dumped in the tolkein universe and swg is just a big pile of poo. aoc is at least fun for a while as lotr is boring after level 20.
These are only your thoughts against the majority's.
Are people STILL arguing about whether or not Guild Wars is an MMO? My goodness...
Who the hell cares? It's an online game. Some of the games on this website are far, far worse than Guild Wars when it comes to adhering to the definition of an MMO.
I think they are arguing abnout it being an RPG, which it is not.
Massive = yes
Multiplayer = yes
Online = yes
so yes, it is an MMO game.
Its not massive.
There are 10 million people playing Counter-Strike, is it a MMO?
yes to be correct counter strike is an MMO, its an MMOFPS to be exact, get your meanings straight.
"Emotion, yet peace. Ignorance, yet knowledge. Passion, yet serenity. Chaos, yet harmony. Death, yet the Force" The Original Jedi Code
Are people STILL arguing about whether or not Guild Wars is an MMO? My goodness...
Who the hell cares? It's an online game. Some of the games on this website are far, far worse than Guild Wars when it comes to adhering to the definition of an MMO.
I think they are arguing abnout it being an RPG, which it is not.
Massive = yes
Multiplayer = yes
Online = yes
so yes, it is an MMO game.
Its not massive.
There are 10 million people playing Counter-Strike, is it a MMO?
yes to be correct counter strike is an MMO, its an MMOFPS to be exact, get your meanings straight.
So if Counter-Strike is a MMOFPS, then what would you call World War II Online? What would you call Counter-Strike if once you started it up, you had to find other people in various bases, group up with them, and go around finding people to shoot..like you would in WoW or any other MMORPG?
Would that make Diablo 2 a MMORPG since there are many people playing it online? Massive is not a measurement of how many people are playing it.
Apply the same logic to GW and you are talking about 100,000+ per server. Now that's massive. BTW, just because a game company says its NOT an MMO means nothing. If they fit the criteria: 1. Massive Multiplayer: Thousands sharing the same experience 2. Online Game: Over the internet involving a persisant world (that means a virtual world that continues to run even if no users are logged in). then you got an MMO, baby!
Wrong.
You are mixing up MMO and multi player game. These are 2 different things.
When I leave a city to go play the game I am completely alone and I will never, ever, see any other player. And If I am in a party I will never see anyone else.
GW is a fully instanced multi player game. But certainly not an MMO.
Counter Strike and Burnout Paradise and ... and ... and ... (there are dozens of games) .... have much more players than GW. Just the other day there were more than 1 million players online for that day in Burnout. My burnout friend list is about 300 people and I am deleting people who are adding me every day.
Does that make Burnout Paradise or Counter Strike, even if they have more players than GW, MMOs ? NO.
Is GW, a game were you will never meet anyone else when you are playing the game outside the cities in the game world an MMO ? Certainly not.
A max 6 player party and never meeting anyone else outside in the game world is MASSIVE ! Not !
Even the GW publisher has already said GW is not an MMO, but of course you know better
Then I stand corrected on GW. Since I don't play the game, I'm making assumptions based on other gamer's information and comments.
I think some people are missing the point about the PC Gamer "MMOs You've Got To Try" list. I took another look at this month's PC Gamer, and in the fine print I saw the word "advertorial." Which means that all the big MMOG companies - Blizzard, NCSoft, Sony, EA, etc - paid PC Gamer money to get their games listed among the "best" MMOGs on the market. Really, PC Gamer is not making any true distinctions between the games, but hyping them equally since their developers essentially took out a giant ad. Heck, Guild Wars gets to be an "MMOG" because ArenaNet (or NCSoft) paid for their placement on the list.
In the very same issue, PC Gamer rates WOW as best massively multiplayer game of the year, and then goes on to list a crazy list of stats like how the WOW nation has more players than the country of Greece has citizens. It's obviously clear that the staff view WOW as the end all and be all of MMOG s.
i think the top game right now in term of not being able to log in got to be silkroad online gees this game as been full since the start never mind if its summer winter or any reason try to log in this game and its always full (at least 18 hour a day)even the new server get full very fast
now that my friend speak by it self no publicity no publicity run almost on anything
PC Gamer has been a horrible magazine for quit some time now. Ever since they took up 5-10 pages to advertise for cell phone games! Cell phone games, I mean really? And how many times have they changed editor in chief in the last few years?
Comments
To the OP....I apologize for misunderstanding your reason for the post. The people responding however seemed to jump on the rankings with a lot of " X is ranked higher than Y?...no way!". I just wanted to clarify what the magazine article was really about, the 9 MMO's they considered worth trying, that's all. And to be honest I haven't read every page in this thread, so they discussion may have morphed by now, but the first page or two was all arguing about the rankings.
Exactly. Massive is about the number of people you are playing with and can access.
Using this logic, you could say a game like EVE is more massive than WoW.
WoW has 10,000,000 subscribers. Now we know not all of those accounts are being used AND we know that not everyone plays at the same time, or regularly. So I think 5,000,000 online at any given time is generous. WoW has 243 servers so if you average them out, you've got around 20,000 people on a server at any given time. Even if all accounts were logged in simultaneously, its still only an average of 41,000 per server.
Now look at EVE. One server with 55,000 online regualrly (you can see that on the login screen). So you could make the argument that EVE fits the MMO criteria better than WoW.
Remember, you only have access to the people you are playing with on your server. When you play WoW, you aren't playing with 10,000,000 others, you are playing with those on your server only. You have no access to the people on other servers, so as far as the game experience goes, they don't exist.
Apply the same logic to GW and you are talking about 100,000+ per server. Now that's massive. BTW, just because a game company says its NOT an MMO means nothing. If they fit the criteria:
1. Massive Multiplayer: Thousands sharing the same experience
2. Online Game: Over the internet involving a persisant world (that means a virtual world that continues to run even if no users are logged in).
then you got an MMO, baby!
BTW, MMO is a high-level game category. GW is massive, like WoW. Cooperative, RPG, FPS, RTS are game STYLES. They are still MMOs if they fit the criteria. I think too many people use the acronym too liberally and have forgotten the original meaning -- even game developers.
I find it more likely that GW not calling themselves an MMO is more of a marketing tactic than anything else. Distance youself from the competition and appear unique to the customer. One of the oldest marketing approaches in history.
Your comparison to WoW and EVE was correct, however the one in Guild Wars was not. The world is no longer persistent when you leave a town.
Wrong.
You are mixing up MMO and multi player game. These are 2 different things.
When I leave a city to go play the game I am completely alone and I will never, ever, see any other player. And If I am in a party I will never see anyone else.
GW is a fully instanced multi player game. But certainly not an MMO.
Counter Strike and Burnout Paradise and ... and ... and ... (there are dozens of games) .... have much more players than GW. Just the other day there were more than 1 million players online for that day in Burnout. My burnout friend list is about 300 people and I am deleting people who are adding me every day.
Does that make Burnout Paradise or Counter Strike, even if they have more players than GW, MMOs ? NO.
Is GW, a game were you will never meet anyone else when you are playing the game outside the cities in the game world an MMO ? Certainly not.
A max 6 player party and never meeting anyone else outside in the game world is MASSIVE ! Not !
Even the GW publisher has already said GW is not an MMO, but of course you know better
These are only your thoughts against the majority's.
I think they are arguing abnout it being an RPG, which it is not.
Massive = yes
Multiplayer = yes
Online = yes
so yes, it is an MMO game.
Its not massive.
There are 10 million people playing Counter-Strike, is it a MMO?
yes to be correct counter strike is an MMO, its an MMOFPS to be exact, get your meanings straight.
"Emotion, yet peace.
Ignorance, yet knowledge.
Passion, yet serenity.
Chaos, yet harmony.
Death, yet the Force"
The Original Jedi Code
I think they are arguing abnout it being an RPG, which it is not.
Massive = yes
Multiplayer = yes
Online = yes
so yes, it is an MMO game.
Its not massive.
There are 10 million people playing Counter-Strike, is it a MMO?
yes to be correct counter strike is an MMO, its an MMOFPS to be exact, get your meanings straight.
So if Counter-Strike is a MMOFPS, then what would you call World War II Online? What would you call Counter-Strike if once you started it up, you had to find other people in various bases, group up with them, and go around finding people to shoot..like you would in WoW or any other MMORPG?
Would that make Diablo 2 a MMORPG since there are many people playing it online? Massive is not a measurement of how many people are playing it.
Wrong.
You are mixing up MMO and multi player game. These are 2 different things.
When I leave a city to go play the game I am completely alone and I will never, ever, see any other player. And If I am in a party I will never see anyone else.
GW is a fully instanced multi player game. But certainly not an MMO.
Counter Strike and Burnout Paradise and ... and ... and ... (there are dozens of games) .... have much more players than GW. Just the other day there were more than 1 million players online for that day in Burnout. My burnout friend list is about 300 people and I am deleting people who are adding me every day.
Does that make Burnout Paradise or Counter Strike, even if they have more players than GW, MMOs ? NO.
Is GW, a game were you will never meet anyone else when you are playing the game outside the cities in the game world an MMO ? Certainly not.
A max 6 player party and never meeting anyone else outside in the game world is MASSIVE ! Not !
Even the GW publisher has already said GW is not an MMO, but of course you know better
Then I stand corrected on GW. Since I don't play the game, I'm making assumptions based on other gamer's information and comments.
I think some people are missing the point about the PC Gamer "MMOs You've Got To Try" list. I took another look at this month's PC Gamer, and in the fine print I saw the word "advertorial." Which means that all the big MMOG companies - Blizzard, NCSoft, Sony, EA, etc - paid PC Gamer money to get their games listed among the "best" MMOGs on the market. Really, PC Gamer is not making any true distinctions between the games, but hyping them equally since their developers essentially took out a giant ad. Heck, Guild Wars gets to be an "MMOG" because ArenaNet (or NCSoft) paid for their placement on the list.
In the very same issue, PC Gamer rates WOW as best massively multiplayer game of the year, and then goes on to list a crazy list of stats like how the WOW nation has more players than the country of Greece has citizens. It's obviously clear that the staff view WOW as the end all and be all of MMOG s.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
lol...my thoughts exactly.
i think the top game right now in term of not being able to log in got to be silkroad online gees this game as been full since the start never mind if its summer winter or any reason try to log in this game and its always full (at least 18 hour a day)even the new server get full very fast
now that my friend speak by it self no publicity no publicity run almost on anything
This list is pretty sad. I've tried most of the games on that list and the only game that kept my interest for more than a month was wow.
PBBG List.
PC Gamer has been a horrible magazine for quit some time now. Ever since they took up 5-10 pages to advertise for cell phone games! Cell phone games, I mean really? And how many times have they changed editor in chief in the last few years?