so we are in he PPOToM genre now ? "People Playing Online Together on a Map"
Seriously why are World of Tanks/Warships/Warplanes (the last one got a full overhaul this year) not on the list ? The MMO term gets stretched very thin with everybody with a login screen and more than 2 people on a map call it an MMO these days.
We need new categories. We don't need to have MMO stretched to include things "Not so MMO".
It seems only single-player games do not classify as MMOs these days ....
Although you can argue about what number makes up massively until you are blue in the face, and even what that applies to (an instance, a raid, a chat channel perhaps), I think it would be a really positive thing if this site would cover everything which requires a constant internet connection, but clearly categorised. From MOBA to squad based shooter to MMORPG to Survival games. That way they could cover all bases but still have a common denomener.
Of course they could always make a side tour for some very special games like D:OS or games that borrow heavily from the genre like Xenoblade Chronicles 2.
MMORPG.com - For All Your Online Gaming
Easy.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
MMO has a strict definition. As all words, that are definitions for something, has some intrinsic undeniable characteristics.
So in order to use a word correctly for something, that something, has to compy with those characteristics.
At least 3 or 4 of the games in that list dont comply with the characteristics/attributes that define the use of the word MMO as is stated in its definition in every major source of information that was reached as a common one.
Use grammar properly and try not to expand the misuse of the language that is sadly common nowadays.
At least 3 or even 5 of those games dont comply with all the characteristics that define the words (wich is the description of those characteristics) MMO.
You could do 3 things:
Push to change the meaning of the MMO.
Stop using it incorrectly and spreading more iliteracy (we already have more than enough).
Keep using MMO or whatever made up word/definition incorrectly leaving patent your ignorance and iliteracy.
When I look at a game it matters not what the developer or publisher calls it. You can decide for yourself what the game is. May be some of you have a point when saying definitions matter but the gaming industry has changed so much and the tech involved including allowing people of different servers to play together. There is also the ability to play in instances.
I have never really felt the word massively multiplayer had a definite cut off for the number but saying 100 people is massive is definitely not so but like I said when the tech allows people to gather or communicate via chat in hubs and then go off and play in tinier instances could it be massively multiplayer because you do have the choice to play with potentially thousands of other players. This could mean Diablo is an MMO. I fell that the way games are played has changed and the definition is outdated to some extent and needs an upgrade.
No, ALL of these games are MMOs, but what an MMO is has changed greatly since the genre’s inception. And if you disagree, that’s fine. Just make your own list.
And this just shows how bad this site has become. Many or not massively multiplayer games in comparison to what MMO actually relates too.
And pretty much all of the "top" lists on this site are now written by everyone and their mothers. Ste has gone just as downhill as the MMO industry has. But at least you guys get paid to post these things.
Tell me why is this site MMORPG <--- when half teh games posted now are not RPG, not Massive and are barely Multiplayer in comparison to what this site actually stood for
you know whats mmo stand for right? Massively Multiplayer Online， so to be to be exact, they all mmos.
how do you define massively multiplayer?
When the baseline minimum is 2 interacting players, and the term was coined referencing hundreds to thousands, how does 4 to 6 fit that term when the bar is already set with so much larger examples?
We don't go "massively" in reverse and still say "massively". Wouldn't that cancel out the "massively" description?
you know whats mmo stand for right? Massively Multiplayer Online， so to be to be exact, they all mmos.
how do you define massively multiplayer?
When the baseline minimum is 2 interacting players, and the term was coined referencing hundreds to thousands, how does 4 to 6 fit that term when the bar is already set with so much larger examples?
We don't go "massively" in reverse and still say "massively". Wouldn't that cancel out the "massively" description?
Well first they dropped the 'RPG' of MMORPG. That way you could make out more games with very little "RPG" fitted the description as a "MMO". But the problem is they want to include everything and anything where you can play with at least one other person online. So I guess it is going to have to be shortened to "MO" Multiplayer Online. But you know that's not going far enough, what about games where you can play online getting dings and such but only as solo play? So lets just call them "O" Online games.
That way we can have a best Online Games list that includes ESO, Warframe and Candy Crush Online. Which will enable the staff to tease out some really useful comparisons.
I don't understand why this is a diffucult concept.
The term "massive" and subsequently "massively" carries an inherent meaning in the English Language. The context here is that it was meant to describe an increase in the number of players playing online together over the previous standard. taking the bare minimum baseline of 2 and increasing it by a single digit number would not make sense in any other area in our language based on that inherent meaning in English. Only here. Only referencing online gaming, do we see this "shift". And only because of marketing. Outside of this, how many people in total are trying to make this claim to the evolution of this term? A few hundred? A few thousand?
There is no change in the meaning of the term "Massive" in the English Language in this century, or the last.
"Hey, we used to be able to play games with 4 players. Now we can play with 8!"
"Oh Wow!, that's a massive increase!"
Really?
EDIT: Now that I think about it, I think I am using the wrong base.......Wasn't it used to describe the increase from previous online games from the 80s and 90s like MUDS where players were already numbering in the double digits?
So yeah, this "expanded definition" is definitely being used to describe a shrinkage from the previous standard. Not even an increase.
I'm surprised there isn't a small thesis on the definition of good... because you can basically have an argument over any word if you so choose. The government is the master of such useless discord. They can debate nothing for years and still have years of debate left in them.
I don't understand why this is a diffucult concept.
The term "massive" and subsequently "massively" carries an inherent meaning in the English Language. The context here is that it was meant to describe an increase in the number of players playing online together over the previous standard. taking the bare minimum baseline of 2 and increasing it by a single digit number would not make sense in any other area in our language based on that inherent meaning in English. Only here. Only referencing online gaming, do we see this "shift". And only because of marketing. Outside of this, how many people in total are trying to make this claim to the evolution of this term? A few hundred? A few thousand?
There is no change in the meaning of the term "Massive" in the English Language in this century, or the last.
"Hey, we used to be able to play games with 4 players. Now we can play with 8!"
"Oh Wow!, that's a massive increase!"
Really?
EDIT: Now that I think about it, I think I am using the wrong base.......Wasn't it used to describe the increase from previous online games from the 80s and 90s like MUDS where players were already numbering in the double digits?
So yeah, this "expanded definition" is definitely being used to describe a shrinkage from the previous standard. Not even an increase.
Its all relative though. If you were able to hold your breath for 2 minutes before but are now able to do it for 4 minutes, thats a massive increase.
What is lacking is a base value to start with, massively was a hype word, it says nothing about an actual number. And even if it did, is that number based on players in the world, in an instance, in a chat channel, in a pvp match? With instancing and mega server tech its even harder to define. Discussing this is useless, there's no point of reference or starting point, only variables.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Well it was relative to an actual number , when Garriot coined the phrase he was asked to describe Ultima online ... And he described his game at the time .. a persistent world which thousands of players could interact (UO servers can handle (i think)up to 10K).. This was the (pun intended) Origin of MMORPG ... So when he coined the phrase "MMORPG"he was most ceratainly referencing his game and its server capabilties among other things ..
I don't understand why this is a diffucult concept.
The term "massive" and subsequently "massively" carries an inherent meaning in the English Language. The context here is that it was meant to describe an increase in the number of players playing online together over the previous standard. taking the bare minimum baseline of 2 and increasing it by a single digit number would not make sense in any other area in our language based on that inherent meaning in English. Only here. Only referencing online gaming, do we see this "shift". And only because of marketing. Outside of this, how many people in total are trying to make this claim to the evolution of this term? A few hundred? A few thousand?
There is no change in the meaning of the term "Massive" in the English Language in this century, or the last.
"Hey, we used to be able to play games with 4 players. Now we can play with 8!"
"Oh Wow!, that's a massive increase!"
Really?
EDIT: Now that I think about it, I think I am using the wrong base.......Wasn't it used to describe the increase from previous online games from the 80s and 90s like MUDS where players were already numbering in the double digits?
So yeah, this "expanded definition" is definitely being used to describe a shrinkage from the previous standard. Not even an increase.
Its all relative though. If you were able to hold your breath for 2 minutes before but are now able to do it for 4 minutes, thats a massive increase.
What is lacking is a base value to start with, massively was a hype word, it says nothing about an actual number. And even if it did, is that number based on players in the world, in an instance, in a chat channel, in a pvp match? With instancing and mega server tech its even harder to define. Discussing this is useless, there's no point of reference or starting point, only variables.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I disagree. I don't think we would ever see the term "massive" as the descriptor in your example outside of this argument.
Simple test ... lets play .. One of These things is not like the other..
1.UO 2.Destiny 3.BDO 4.SWG
Tell me which one is different and give the most signifigant reason why
and again
1. Destiny 2. Call of Duty 3.EQ 4.Ark
These are rhetorical questions of course .. We all know which is different and why ...
The problem we have is developers began sometime 2007 or so labeling
there Multi player games as MMO/RPGs when they werent , to get to/appeal
to a broader younger audience (ill add more gullible and easily
suggestive audience also )
Convoluting the phrase MMORPG to entire generation
of gamers , I could take a dam condom , poke a hole in it and sell it
as a condom , But the smart kids know its not doing what was intended to
do , Just like games like LOL,Destiny ,Ark ,Destiny etc .. arent doing what an
MMORPG was/is intended to do .
And fortunatley for the MMORPG genre Devs/Publishers are now steering away from attaching what is seen as a stigma to them to there games ... That arent truly MMORPGs as recently as Destiny 2 and others which the devs are not/and do not want that label attached to there games ..
They are leaving that label for games that truly fill those requirements which games like Destiny DO NOT
Massively Multiplayer means that a large amount of players can play at the same time in the same space (server, world, whatever). Massively Multiplayer does not include games where you can only play 4-6-8 players in the same space, regardless that there are a million possible players to form those smaller instances. There is your distinction between massively multiplayer and multiplayer. It is not a matter of the amount of players in the pool because then any mutiplayer game would be massively as they can all potentially connect a large amount of players. Therefore, lobby games like Diablo, Path of Exile, Warframe are not massively multiplayer, while games like WoW, GW2, ESO, EVE ARE massively multiplayer..seem pretty simple in my book.
I'm just curious about what games all the "these arn't mmo's" people actually want this site to cover?
Every single article would be about like... what 5 games? All the "Top" lists would be identical.
That is a valid point, and probably the reason behind trying to change the definition of mmo. This site should cover other genres for several reasons, one being that the mmos are on the decline, another is that mmo gamers also have interests in other multiplayer games, and obviously the writers here want to keep being relevant and change with game trends. But if you are a car magazine and suddenly claim motorbikes are cars, then your readers will react.
what I want to see more immersive MMO with more organic worlds instead of console games of hack and slash arena or revolving door combat. or an eve like universe where you have charactors in an organic universe that is built for casual players not pvp griefers (planets with flight paths, stations with more expensive auto docking and with cheaper player piloted docking docking) ships with components to be swaped repaired and jury rigged and maintence. a base + mentality like oxygen and fuel you will always have basic thrusting and base crew air but no after burner and passengers (npc) may die. privateer comes to mind. so you can set up a fighter a explorer a trader miner and so on and have plenty of room for components, also a ship has a NPC crew where live players can assume their position so you always have a crew its just either npc or live. and you have factions but also an independent faction and factions are both npc and player and there is non lethal PVP! as well as lethal pvp. players class races with special skills that complement others that is something id like to see in the future.
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
MMORPG has been abused as a definition in recent years to mean hack and slash, arena combat, arcade play, and amusement park that have nothing to do with lore or socialization and immersion and being over all shallow and level/gear grind.
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
I'm just curious about what games all the "these arn't mmo's" people actually want this site to cover?
Every single article would be about like... what 5 games? All the "Top" lists would be identical.
This website did just fine in 2003 when they only had a handful of MMO's to cover. Since then, less than 5 has shut down, and the genre has grown several times that size. Let's say there's only 50 MMORPG's deserving of the name, ranging from UO to whatever has recently released. In each of those games are patches, expansions, reviews and re-reviews that could be done.
There is nothing to begin. They are not MMOs at all. Warframe is just Diablo style game in third person and PoE is top down hack and slash. You had to stretch this list by puting 5 extra games as there were no new MMOs worth mentioning and just old ones with some crappy DLC like patches except WoW and FF14 that actually get good content.
"Some crappy DLC like patches" .... hmmm OK so you think Morrowind sucked maybe ....
However - back in the day - a game like GW1 wasn't considered an mmo - by lots of people. My point being that games have - and continue - to change as technology, software development tools etc. have advanced.
Dismissing a game because we don't believe it fits our definition of some label - I suggest - is stupid. Why not give the staff some credit and accept that they may actually know their stuff.
All the games on their list that I have tried are "good solid games"; not all to my taste but that is different. So I am happy to accept that the ones I haven't tried are as well and if I get time I will check them out. Life is to short to worry about labels.
I'm not saying warframe is a bad game and all. But as to the poster all he is saying is that warframe isn't an mmo and it was just put on the list because they had nothing else to put there. I agree with that guy simply b3cause mmo are massively multi online. Having 100 player base is not consider an mmo I'm not saying they had 100 but I'm speaking of the server. To be considered an mmo u need to be able to SUPPORT 100-million player base on 1 server which is broken up into different realms to spread population. Second for you to be even consider an mmo u would need to have a population within the game itself. Warframe doesn't offer this. Games that are co sided mmos are gw2, ffxiv, wow, eso, destiny, swtor etc. The division I don't even co sidereal it an mmo because u r limited to how much players u can have on the same channel and 2 u don't get to see anyone until u enter a dark zone or pt up with someone or 3 u are in safe zon3. But if u was randomly to shoot things as soon as u log on all u would see are npc. Dark zonr is just another word for a pvp lobby. They don't gotta que up, but they do enter some sort of different server aka realm that's separated from your pve channel.
U would probably say dota has millions of players or even lol again they aren't massive multi online game because in the end the game only host 8v 8 or whatever. Warframe does look dope and I am wanting to try it out. I just wish it was way more open. Like how firewall did.
Warframe although it may look like it wouldn't be consider an mmo. It falls under the multi player section. Multiplayer are servers that limits u to 100 players. Also you wouldn't be able to see these other players less they party with you. Dust 514 and firewall and destiny is the closest third person mmo I know of. Even the division I don't consider an mmo since u r on your own server until u get into a safe zone or u r in a dark zonr. Again that's just entering another lobby to meet people. But if u was to walk around nyc freely and try to look for players. All you will see is npc
Multiplayer is games that are less then 1000 players. Eve online, star citizen, destiny, ffxiv wow, aion, gw2, eso and many more. Those are considered mmos because they have 1000s of player base within the server all at once. Thus why it's called mmo massively multi online.
Could the people who say that some of the games on the list aren't mmos, defind what an mmo is?
Just curious what each person's definition is.
I would suggest playing diff games before make another comment like that. You sir obviously don't know the meanings between moba mmorpg mmo mmorts and etc...
“In no particular order, here are our 10 Best MMOs of 2017. Note, not all of these are MMORPG’s, but rather prime examples of the changing landscape of persistent online games.”
Then just change the list to 10 best Multiplayer Online games.
Sort of like making a list 10 best sports cars - but then saying "note not all of these are cars - some are bicycles and there's a pair of running shoes in the list too"
This. The list is idiotic.
Unnecessary, man.
There is no such this as massive multiplayer online it's just massively multiplayer online. Reason why warframe isn't one is because it doesn't have those elements. It's within 1 server. Supporting 40+players on one channel isn't considered massive. Also it's more of a lobby really then anything else because there isn't really any kind of open world explorati9n. Massively multi are usually refers to online rpg elements. Now this is more of a multi online. But pls before u post stop making your own 2 separate word when they both have the same meaning. It will confuse others who thinks they know what they are talking about lol.
Comments
Seriously why are World of Tanks/Warships/Warplanes (the last one got a full overhaul this year) not on the list ? The MMO term gets stretched very thin with everybody with a login screen and more than 2 people on a map call it an MMO these days.
We need new categories. We don't need to have MMO stretched to include things "Not so MMO".
It seems only single-player games do not classify as MMOs these days ....
Of course they could always make a side tour for some very special games like D:OS or games that borrow heavily from the genre like Xenoblade Chronicles 2.
MMORPG.com - For All Your Online Gaming
Easy.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I will be less honest in this one.
MMO has a strict definition. As all words, that are definitions for something, has some intrinsic undeniable characteristics.
So in order to use a word correctly for something, that something, has to compy with those characteristics.
At least 3 or 4 of the games in that list dont comply with the characteristics/attributes that define the use of the word MMO as is stated in its definition in every major source of information that was reached as a common one.
Use grammar properly and try not to expand the misuse of the language that is sadly common nowadays.
At least 3 or even 5 of those games dont comply with all the characteristics that define the words (wich is the description of those characteristics) MMO.
You could do 3 things:
Push to change the meaning of the MMO.
Stop using it incorrectly and spreading more iliteracy (we already have more than enough).
Keep using MMO or whatever made up word/definition incorrectly leaving patent your ignorance and iliteracy.
I have never really felt the word massively multiplayer had a definite cut off for the number but saying 100 people is massive is definitely not so but like I said when the tech allows people to gather or communicate via chat in hubs and then go off and play in tinier instances could it be massively multiplayer because you do have the choice to play with potentially thousands of other players. This could mean Diablo is an MMO. I fell that the way games are played has changed and the definition is outdated to some extent and needs an upgrade.
And this just shows how bad this site has become. Many or not massively multiplayer games in comparison to what MMO actually relates too.
And pretty much all of the "top" lists on this site are now written by everyone and their mothers. Ste has gone just as downhill as the MMO industry has. But at least you guys get paid to post these things.
Tell me why is this site MMORPG <--- when half teh games posted now are not RPG, not Massive and are barely Multiplayer in comparison to what this site actually stood for
you know whats mmo stand for right? Massively Multiplayer Online， so to be to be exact, they all mmos.
When the baseline minimum is 2 interacting players, and the term was coined referencing hundreds to thousands, how does 4 to 6 fit that term when the bar is already set with so much larger examples?
We don't go "massively" in reverse and still say "massively". Wouldn't that cancel out the "massively" description?
Well first they dropped the 'RPG' of MMORPG. That way you could make out more games with very little "RPG" fitted the description as a "MMO". But the problem is they want to include everything and anything where you can play with at least one other person online. So I guess it is going to have to be shortened to "MO" Multiplayer Online. But you know that's not going far enough, what about games where you can play online getting dings and such but only as solo play? So lets just call them "O" Online games.
That way we can have a best Online Games list that includes ESO, Warframe and Candy Crush Online. Which will enable the staff to tease out some really useful comparisons.
The term "massive" and subsequently "massively" carries an inherent meaning in the English Language. The context here is that it was meant to describe an increase in the number of players playing online together over the previous standard. taking the bare minimum baseline of 2 and increasing it by a single digit number would not make sense in any other area in our language based on that inherent meaning in English. Only here. Only referencing online gaming, do we see this "shift". And only because of marketing. Outside of this, how many people in total are trying to make this claim to the evolution of this term? A few hundred? A few thousand?
There is no change in the meaning of the term "Massive" in the English Language in this century, or the last.
"Hey, we used to be able to play games with 4 players. Now we can play with 8!"
"Oh Wow!, that's a massive increase!"
Really?
EDIT:
Now that I think about it, I think I am using the wrong base.......Wasn't it used to describe the increase from previous online games from the 80s and 90s like MUDS where players were already numbering in the double digits?
So yeah, this "expanded definition" is definitely being used to describe a shrinkage from the previous standard. Not even an increase.
your breath for 2 minutes before but are now able to do it for 4 minutes, thats a massive increase.
What is lacking is a base value to start with, massively was a hype word, it says nothing about an actual number. And even if it did, is that number based on players in the world, in an instance, in a chat channel, in a pvp match? With instancing and mega server tech its even harder to define. Discussing this is useless, there's no point of reference or starting point, only variables.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Every single article would be about like... what 5 games? All the "Top" lists would be identical.
Simple test ... lets play .. One of These things is not like the other..
1.UO 2.Destiny 3.BDO 4.SWG
Tell me which one is different and give the most signifigant reason why
and again
1. Destiny 2. Call of Duty 3.EQ 4.Ark
These are rhetorical questions of course .. We all know which is different and why ...
The problem we have is developers began sometime 2007 or so labeling there Multi player games as MMO/RPGs when they werent , to get to/appeal to a broader younger audience (ill add more gullible and easily suggestive audience also )
Convoluting the phrase MMORPG to entire generation of gamers , I could take a dam condom , poke a hole in it and sell it as a condom , But the smart kids know its not doing what was intended to do , Just like games like LOL,Destiny ,Ark ,Destiny etc .. arent doing what an MMORPG was/is intended to do .
And fortunatley for the MMORPG genre Devs/Publishers are now steering away from attaching what is seen as a stigma to them to there games ... That arent truly MMORPGs as recently as Destiny 2 and others which the devs are not/and do not want that label attached to there games ..
They are leaving that label for games that truly fill those requirements which games like Destiny DO NOT
There is your distinction between massively multiplayer and multiplayer.
It is not a matter of the amount of players in the pool because then any mutiplayer game would be massively as they can all potentially connect a large amount of players. Therefore, lobby games like Diablo, Path of Exile, Warframe are not massively multiplayer, while games like WoW, GW2, ESO, EVE ARE massively multiplayer..seem pretty simple in my book.
----
That is a valid point, and probably the reason behind trying to change the definition of mmo. This site should cover other genres for several reasons, one being that the mmos are on the decline, another is that mmo gamers also have interests in other multiplayer games, and obviously the writers here want to keep being relevant and change with game trends.
But if you are a car magazine and suddenly claim motorbikes are cars, then your readers will react.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
what I want to see more immersive MMO with more organic worlds instead of console games of hack and slash arena or revolving door combat.
or an eve like universe where you have charactors in an organic universe that is built for casual players not pvp griefers (planets with flight paths, stations with more expensive auto docking and with cheaper player piloted docking docking) ships with components to be swaped repaired and jury rigged and maintence. a base + mentality like oxygen and fuel you will always have basic thrusting and base crew air but no after burner and passengers (npc) may die.
privateer comes to mind. so you can set up a fighter a explorer a trader miner and so on and have plenty of room for components, also a ship has a NPC crew where live players can assume their position so you always have a crew its just either npc or live. and you have factions but also an independent faction and factions are both npc and player and there is non lethal PVP! as well as lethal pvp. players class races with special skills that complement others that is something id like to see in the future.
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
I'm not saying warframe is a bad game and all. But as to the poster all he is saying is that warframe isn't an mmo and it was just put on the list because they had nothing else to put there. I agree with that guy simply b3cause mmo are massively multi online. Having 100 player base is not consider an mmo I'm not saying they had 100 but I'm speaking of the server. To be considered an mmo u need to be able to SUPPORT 100-million player base on 1 server which is broken up into different realms to spread population. Second for you to be even consider an mmo u would need to have a population within the game itself. Warframe doesn't offer this. Games that are co sided mmos are gw2, ffxiv, wow, eso, destiny, swtor etc. The division I don't even co sidereal it an mmo because u r limited to how much players u can have on the same channel and 2 u don't get to see anyone until u enter a dark zone or pt up with someone or 3 u are in safe zon3. But if u was randomly to shoot things as soon as u log on all u would see are npc. Dark zonr is just another word for a pvp lobby. They don't gotta que up, but they do enter some sort of different server aka realm that's separated from your pve channel.
U would probably say dota has millions of players or even lol again they aren't massive multi online game because in the end the game only host 8v 8 or whatever. Warframe does look dope and I am wanting to try it out. I just wish it was way more open. Like how firewall did.
Multiplayer is games that are less then 1000 players. Eve online, star citizen, destiny, ffxiv wow, aion, gw2, eso and many more. Those are considered mmos because they have 1000s of player base within the server all at once. Thus why it's called mmo massively multi online.
I would suggest playing diff games before make another comment like that. You sir obviously don't know the meanings between moba mmorpg mmo mmorts and etc...
There is no such this as massive multiplayer online it's just massively multiplayer online. Reason why warframe isn't one is because it doesn't have those elements. It's within 1 server. Supporting 40+players on one channel isn't considered massive. Also it's more of a lobby really then anything else because there isn't really any kind of open world explorati9n. Massively multi are usually refers to online rpg elements. Now this is more of a multi online. But pls before u post stop making your own 2 separate word when they both have the same meaning. It will confuse others who thinks they know what they are talking about lol.