| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (31)

Posted: Nov 11th 2011 5:18PM CorwynnMaelstrom said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Headshots is not skill. PlanetSide's lack of headshots didn't stop it from being the single best squad-based game to date. Yes, to date. There's no better on the market. Even without headshots. Hopefully PlanetSide 2 will a) get released at some point (SOE is on shaky ground) and b) not fail.

Posted: Nov 11th 2011 5:21PM HokieKC said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You need to add Defiance to the list. Defiance looks as good if not better than most MMO shooters coming out.

Posted: Nov 11th 2011 5:31PM Jef Reahard said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@HokieKC

Yeah we'll be talking about that for sure.
Reply

Posted: Nov 11th 2011 5:37PM Raymac said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
GA is no more an MMO than Call of Duty, or Halo. Calling it an MMO is completely misleading. It's a cool game, but not an MMO. Just because you don't "usually" see hundreds of players in 1 spot doesn't mean having the potential for hundreds of players is meaningless.

Planetside is still the greatest MMOFPS ever, and it's sequel looks like it will set an extremely high bar for future MMOFPS games. Just looking at the pictures in the Massively gallery, and imagining the hundreds of players all fighting at once....the word "epic" gets thrown around alot, but that will be EPIC!

Posted: Nov 11th 2011 10:06PM Jef Reahard said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Raymac

I must've missed the quests, PvE, and raiding in CoD and Halo.
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2011 3:00AM DarthDan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Raymac

CoD and Halo are match-based shooters with no free roaming PvE content or themepark NPC quest structures. They in no way resemble GA, which is much more MMO-like.
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2011 7:37PM xKingdomHeartsx said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Raymac Agree, Battlefield 3 and MW3 should definitely make this list of MMOFPS............
Reply

Posted: Nov 13th 2011 11:42PM corpusc said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Raymac while not really the proper kind of MMOFPS i would like, i see an argument to be made for GA, because its city "lobby" is MMO, and there's ONE open world zone that is MMO. unfortunately thats a small part of the whole game, but it puts GA alot close to being an MMO than things such as Dragon Nest, and all the many many games that just have MMO city "lobbies" (and also a vast amount that don't even have THAT, but are just 2D room browsers, and yet have the gall to call themselves MMO).
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2011 3:42PM Raymac said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Jef Reahard
You've never played the single player campaigns? Or perhaps the co-op Spec Ops for COD?

Sure, I freely admit it's not a direct 1 to 1 comparison. I just think it takes more than just a Lobby to really be an MMO. But if the question is should GA be in the MMO conversation? Then sure why not. I just wouldn't call it an "MMO", maybe more MMO-light or MMO-ish.
Reply

Posted: Nov 11th 2011 5:37PM Ghostspeaker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't really care how you decide to define it so long as you cover games I find fun and/or interesting. The endless navel-gazing and arguments over what exactly constitutes "massively multiplayer" bores me to tears. If the game is purely online and played with other people I don't see why anyone cares whether it's called massively or just online multiplayer. How does that effect whether the game is fun, whether the graphics and sound design are good, or anything else that actually affects the quality of the game?

Posted: Nov 12th 2011 12:49PM JuliusSeizure said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ghostspeaker

Because this is a blog dedicated to games that lean towards the massive end of the spectrum, hence the name Massively?
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2011 7:45PM Ghostspeaker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@JuliusSeizure

Except the site's had a regular column on non-MMO online games for the past 7 months, and has covered games that some don't consider MMOs, e.g. CoX, for much longer. That ship has sailed. Its focus remains on games that are closer to MMO than not, but arguing whether the borderline cases technically qualify as MMOs is silly when other clearly-not-MMOs are covered.
Reply

Posted: Nov 13th 2011 11:57PM corpusc said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ghostspeaker

because people looking to be immersed in a virtual world often have ZERO interest in playing lobby/arena based small scale FPS games that abuse the term MMO.

i have been playing GOOD versions of those types of games since 1996. its time to bring that gameplay into a VW. no VW? then why the fudge would i want to look at your game that offers nothing new?

most of them offer lackluster shooting mechanics even if you COULD manage to be excited by the same ole same old 1996 level technology.

its like asking "why would anyone listen to symphonic metal"? there have been great symphonies created by the thousands for the last x hundred years. what does it matter, as long as the music is good, whether or not it has crunchy guitars and drums in it?
Reply

Posted: Nov 11th 2011 6:03PM Kaffis said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The thing, I think, to really use to differentiate what is and is not an MMO is the type and quality of activity outside of the instancing. Are there enemies that can be fought outside of dungeons or arranged, team-balanced matches? Or is the "massive" part of the game nothing but a glorified lobby system? Features like queueing and automatic matchmaking make the glorified lobby label even more apt.

This, I feel, is where Guild Wars and Global Agenda fail to justify a "massive" title. It could potentially be argued that WoW and/or Rift may be losing a tenuous grip on the status, as well.

If you don't look to this kind of "shared space" content as the dividing line, there's really nothing to say that, for instance, Modern Warfare, Battlefield, or even going back to the old Gamespy days where you're clearly selecting privately run 3rd party servers to play on weren't "Massively Multiplayer."

Posted: Nov 14th 2011 12:12AM corpusc said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Kaffis

exactly.

Quake 1 and every multiplayer shooter since 1996 has been an MMOFPS if you people wanna abuse the term and act like its meaningless. it was just "heavily instanced". 8) but there were THOUSANDS of servers * 8 or so (average out) players "concurrently online, fighting other internet players".

that dividing line to me is, that AT LEAST over half of the gameplay space must be OPEN WORLD environments where 150+ players can interact with each other IN THE WORLD (not just via text chatting, or browsing lists of players, etc, but being able to walk up to each others avatars and interact in the 2D/3D gameplay space.

i don't even like to be that lenient, but its a losing battle since WoW came out and made everyone think they HAVE to make significant use of instancing. to me, WoW & the like aren't true MMOs, but hybrids. due to the dungeons being instances. and dungeons being a significant part of the a game world's content. but i have to let that slide, because at least the majority of their gamespace is open world. and thats a total losing battle, to argue that there can't be instancing. and i'm not against instancing %100, just %95 or so. 8)

having ZERO instancing for an FPS game in particular would be a bad idea, but i think people who don't like it shouldn't have to be forced into it either. They should have plenty of open world areas they could live and fight in without feeling like they are missing out on a big part of the game.

that is my only concern with Firefall. that all (or even almost all) PVP will be small scale instance battles
Reply

Posted: Nov 11th 2011 6:14PM Tristik said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
~~
I would consider Global Agenda a MMOFPS lite. It does have a central kind of hub where players can interact in a non-combat setting, it has crafting, and character progression. It does have an open PvE zone, even though it doesn't take you to max level.

Because of those things, I think it's a perfect example of a blurring of the lines between a straight up Shooter, and an MMOFPS. It has more than a typical shooter, but less than a typical MMORPG type game.
~~

Posted: Nov 11th 2011 6:54PM Pingles said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm up for keeping the definition as liberal as possible. Keep the articles coming!

Posted: Nov 11th 2011 8:05PM Rioghal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'd love it if you did some coverage for Black Prophecy. The game is still finding it's feet but it's really a quite unique mmo shooter with some mmorpg aspects. Plus, it's in space!

Posted: Nov 11th 2011 10:07PM Jef Reahard said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Rioghal

Yeah that fits for sure, I'll add it to the list.
Reply

Posted: Nov 11th 2011 11:54PM theinternetman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's a rather sad day when an honored and time-worn initialism "MMO" loses its older meaning. Perhaps we could find another term that describes what many of us consider to be a standard and a personal definition. A game in which hundreds of players may occupy one instance and interact in PvP or PvE with or against each other.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW