Talk:Massively multiplayer online first-person shooter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tabula Rasa

It would be worth mentioning Tabula Rasa, as it is a FPS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.20.69.237 (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless they changed it recently it is at best a MMOTPS (third person shooter). You are never in FPS style of gameplay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaon94 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Technical Limitations

This is a bit of a nitpick but the article states worst-case packet count increases at "(n-1)² + n" packets for each new player and then goes on to state "the 'cost' of each additional player becomes exponentially greater as numbers rise." This is a misnomer; (n-1)² + n means that it increases quadratically. An exponential increase would look like 2ⁿ, making the problem essentially intractable considering it's MMO.

• This is kind of moot, because I think most of the paragraph is too technical even for the typical gamer. It would probably be more informative to list the general problem (sounds like some type of graph traversal to me) along with a link to the corresponding page.Cj Gaconnet 02:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Incomprehensible

"Its gritty graphical style and gameplay mechanics are praised by its fans but have been heavily criticised by the community." Please improve the clarity of this sentence if you know what the original writer was trying to convey. Tommy.rousse 02:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Purge

Purge is NOT an MMOFPS. It's an FPS with RPG elements. More extended than Enemy Territory (you are able to save your EXP/Levels, but this also works on some ET Servers). There rest is exactly like an FPS. You log in to games over a Server Browser and I think everyone can start a server. The game is really cool! Try it! But it's no MMOFPS. Oh, btw. the character is saved on the own computer.. (no, its not that easy to cheat).

(I also think that Gunz, while it is a great game, is not an MMOFPS. You log in to games like in Diablo in Battlenet. They are on one server (kike in the battle net) but not in the same environment)

(Neocron and FoM should be counted as at least very near to MMOFPS. There are BIG enverionmets, like in a real MMORPG (Anarchy Online, Everquest, Ultima Online). Every player can interact with all other players of Server (not just game, like in GunZ - there are no "Games" in Neocron)). These games, Neocron mostly do share features of the MMORPG gerne... you can get more than 10 levels and the car is really evolving)

MMOFPS?

Question: The article on MMORPGs is at that page... shouldn't this article therefore be at MMOFPS instead of here? - Estel (talk) 16:57, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Answer:I believe that the MMORPG article had the title because that was what they were most widely known as. MMOFPS is not an as widely used term. Greeves 01:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

NEOCON IS MMOFPS ??

neocron is not justa rpg game with a fps view, like project entropia??

Should GunZ even be on this list? It's a third-person game not a first-person game and the article is about MMOFPSes. - DNewhall

Wth, there are a million different MM*** articles. Someone should do some serious merging.

Well the MMOFPS's I play nobody RP's in them.

Huxley and PlanetSide are MMOFPS, Face of Mankind and Neocron are MMORPG, so 4 of the 7 mentioned games are not even in this category(the other 3 I have not heard about, so I can't comment about them) and I hear about the term XORG for the first time. Also the company that "inventioned" the term, has no site or anything, if you google it's name it gives you only 1 result - this article, so the whole XORG "article" is more of a joke, than anything. It must not be merged, but DELETED.

Neocron is a nightmare. It's extremely picky about the system it's running on and the tech support is useless. It took me over 2 months to unsubscribe (during which they charged me). Don't go here.

Planetside is the only true SF MMOFPS I've found. Huxley looks OK, but the devs have already made a fatal mistake: "....and of course if players don't wish to engage in PvP battles, there is always a plentiful amount of NPC's to help their character level up..." That just SCREAMS MMORPG to me...

a new, MMOFPS is under developement... Versus: Conflict Defines Existence... www.versusthegame.com alpha version for q4 2006, retail q4 2007

WTF is this company trying to subvert MMOFPS.. Everyone knows what MMOFPS means this failed startup is trying to pirate the term and twist it to their own meanings. Why is this article meant to be merged with spam from some gay ass company?

The article on XORG should be deleted. Most of the playerbase in WWIIONLINE would (and probably planetside) would object violently to being catogorized into "Extreme" online roleplaying games. It's a marketing gimic not a genre. Perhaps a page on "Virtual Battlefields" could be added to replace it.

Uh wait, we want to invent a new term "virtual battlefield" (which really is a term used to mean something very different by the military) in an attempt to combat someone inventing another term "XORG"?

Fine, I was just thinking outloud. Created a page on virtural battlefields anyway. HAS xorg been deleted yet? Nhorning 11:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I think Huxley should be removed, the fps part of the game, the battles, will peak at 200 players(100 on each side). It's like some people are saying. companies try to brand there games MMOFPS, then way down on their page, if your lucky, it will say max 8 players. If you cant at least reach planetside's player numbers(per continent), then dont bother mentioning it.MMirkovic 12:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Battlefield series.

Battefield 1942, Battlefield 2, and Battlefield 2142 are all NOT MMOFPS. These games allow no more 60 people in the largest types of servers with the mode average being about 16 people per server. 216.165.16.184 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Exteel

I'll try to put my comment here instead, since it apparently was wrong to put it the main article. This game only support 16 players in FPS, and should not be in this article. A suggestion would be to put max number of players on each game, with max numbers of players I mean the actual FPS part of a game, not people logged in some kind of lobby. MMirkovic 15:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Gunz

I'm pretty sure Gunz falls into this category. anyone else agree?

Uhh... if it has a twitch factor (reticule to aim) with persitant environments and character development than yes.

(I think it's room-based style precludes persistant environs, and the round system. Ditto with War Rock...) 76.179.150.59 21:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

MMOFPS Criteria

The following are components beleived to create an MMOFPS game. Any component is open for rebuttal:

- The game must have a twitch factor: A reticule to aim is prefferable. Clicking on the character to commence in turn based attacks shouldn't count. Controlling the burst of your weapon should be a must.

- The game should have a persistant environment: Large amounts of characters should be on the same servers, log into the same environment, with the same community. If a story line is involved, ALL characters share the storyline.

- Persistant character devlopment: You should be able to log into the same character that you logged into the day before and have existing stats (represented in any form) that you have earned.

I don't believe that the 3rd point actually must be a factor. Obviously this type of game is most commonly compared to RPGs, however, this type of game in itself should not have to be one. For instance, having a Battlefield sort of spawn should still work; you don't neccesarily have to character. Also, considering how some of these games try to emulate real life situations (Like WWII)being the same character over and over wouldn't even make any sense. So really, I think that this is more of a characteristic of and FPS and RPG hybrid. 67.71.45.60 17:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

124.80.228.27 09:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC) massivefps.com

On the wikipedia entry for MMOFPS: Purge and DarkFall do not appear to be MMOFPS at all. Has anyone played either of thease games and can confirm or deny that they are MMOFPS?

Purge is no MMOFPS! It has a server browser like any other fps and doesn't allow many players per server. But it's a very nice FPS with some RPG elements. You can gain levels (like in Enemy Territory) and the char can be saved (or you play premade chars). But it's not an MMOFPS. There are also no NPCs. Just normal FPS maps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.127.108.143 (talk) 09:56:30, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

I have participated in the LostColony Alpha, and it is a real game developed by an independent development group. The game may be of poor quality upon release due to its very low funding, but does not constitue a hoax. Was there another game here that was believed to be a hoax? If not, can we remove that flag?

SniperSteve 02:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for an MMOFPS is that it be described as an MMOFPS in a reliable source. Marasmusine 00:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The lost colony alpha now seems to be open to anybody that wants to take a look. The download link is right on the main page. There are also regular updates to the forums and the game code. If it ships as advertised it should meet all requirements for MMOFPS. Can we add this game to the list now?--Dj245 05:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Has it had any independent coverage yet? If it does meet the notability guidelines, then go ahead and start an article and add it to the list. Marasmusine 07:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

War Rock?

Would War Rock be classified as an MMOFPS? After reading about it in EDGE, it sounded a lot like a persistently developing, online FPS. Any views on this? --Tr33zon 12:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The environment refreshes after each game ends. Look at XBOX 360 games and how they record player stats. The stats carry on and are displayed as a form of persistance, so... if the game offers only one small aspect of online persistance does it constitute as an MMOFPS? 124.80.228.27 16:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC) massivefps.com

There is no way War Rock is an mmofps. It only allows like 32 player on an instanced map that isn't persistent at all. The only thing that's persistent is character development. That doesn't count at all. Battlefield 2142. This is an FPS. Not an MMO. Multiplayer sure. I'm gonna remove it unless someone can honestly prove that it's an MMOFPS and this wasn't added by some fanboy. 70.230.234.195 (talk) 05:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WarRock itself is limited by only 32 players, because its target is at the mainstream society, thus they choose a somewhat weak engine than a modern engine, and because of that it can't handle more than 32 players. Most systems today can't handle more than 32 players in an FPS type games, because PCI Express technology is going on the same speed as to Parallel bus (e.g. AGP x4, x8) PCI Express (x1, x4, x16, x32...etc. and so forth). I think we might need to add WarRock and other games as a sub-category or as a "trend" or an "age" of gaming industry that is result from the computer limitations in either MMO / MMOG section or MMOFPS sub-category. What do you guys think of it? Or is this more of practice that developers choose in order of easier sustainance or maintainance of the cycle of organizaiton a company?

Because in other genre of games, Bomber Online & another game that is another that is almost same as bomber online (but more interactively, known as Crazy Arcade) <---it have several names, I forgot the most current ones. Anyhow they are played in "rooms." 02:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC) by ramu50 Sorry that I keep adding it back in, I thought somebody have some sorted of hatred against that game, I am new to Wikipedia contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramu50 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Tribes 2 was able to handle 64 players on mid range hardware eight years ago, and IIRC Planetside does several hundred per continent. Warrock's player cap is a design decision, not a hardware limitation. It's not a MMOFPS. - MrOllie (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line; WP:V. If multiple reliable sources call it a MMOFPS, then we do. If they don't, we don't. Marasmusine (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line, you guys have no proof, K2Network, the designer of WarRock DOES target the mainstream society, not the high-end market, since it services started at 2001 (its obivious choice would to be servicing the AGP age, since that is the best at year 2001). But after Feb 2004 when PCI Express was introduced, K2Network still didn't consider high-end Geforce 4~6+ (which is the high end market for MMO). All the games you see are around Geforce 3 (e.g. Mu Online [DirectX8], Knight Online & WarRock[Geforce 3]. Grando Esapda was an exception, introduced at around 2007, so that is a new decision and can't be taken into consideration of hardware limitation. Also MrOllie, PlanetSide is a COMMUNITY, similar to GameSpy not a company,. The high end market today is Geforce 4~6 for minimum requirement such as MMO games by WebZen [e.g. Soul of the Ultimate Nation].

Even if graphic isn't a limitation, in order for "fast pace" games in a massive map that can hold hundreds of people (which isn't what WarRock is designed for), you require at least a 1.7GHz Dual Core or 2.8GHz+ [minimum at Pentium 4], which is not possible during 2001. Earliest Dual Core introduced is "around" Quarter 2 of 2006 (Turion x2, Core 2 Duo). If are going argue on that part, then I think only Wolfstein has not features, no other FPS has that feature, as far as I know, which I totally think sound ridiculous, this is a matter of Buisness Decision which affect hardware limitation and has no indication of not an MMOFPS.

Does it work only online, yes Is it maintain, upgrade and survillance under one company for a length of period, yes again. Just because there is one "fault" doesn't mean its not a MMOFPS, not every company is perfect, and there clearly isn't a defintion in FPS that state it has to be open range combat. 19:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Anything with an MMOG or MMORPG status has to have a Persistent world, meaning a single server which is always on. The mere fact that online play is always going on does NOT make it an MMOFPS, if play takes places in widespread game arenas for 32 players. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Absoutely none of the any group of professional or a collective group of people state or agree on MMO/MMOG or MMOFPS, FPS must not be with in a room. WarRock is in a Persistent World, just because you choose only parts of the area within a certain world for players to play, doesn't make it that it isn't a persistant world. The Persistent World defination never stated that all parts of the world must be playable, the WarRock maps are based on storyline, what is situable for players due to the limitation of hardware limitation technologies doesn't dictate that it isn't a MMOFPS.

NOTE: I don't want to keep on FLAMING for no reason, but you guys need to specific valid evidience. 22:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramu50 (talk • contribs)

Oh I should explain more in depth why I deleted it. The reason was because War Rock is instanced. It's the same reason why BattleField 2142 isn't an MMOFPS. The game ends also at a time interval. This constant restarting takes away any persistence within the control point system of gameplay. The only thing persistent about it is the player scores. Take Planetside for instance. It has 7 continent or something with a persistent control point gameplay. At it's prime it could support 300+ person battles. Also if you notice if you've ever played Warrock is that its maps are ridiculously small and could never suitably scale for many players. Without access to the actual server code I have no clear way to tell if it's scalable. I'm almost 100% certain however that their engine doesn't support multi server clustering as is seen in zone based client-server architecture. The 32 player limitation is one of the larger reasons I did remove it. Putting such a low cap instantly kills off the chance it s gonna gain the title of an mmog.

I think the player store thing might be confusing you though. There are tons of games which allow users to buy things and level up while they play. This character creation is seen in games like Gunz (3rd person shooter) and Gunbound (turn based game). It doesn't make it an mmo. Also as mentioned before Battlefield 2142 has character progression and isn't an mmofps. Also one thing to note about warrock is that players have control over the instances. A single player decides when to start the instance and can kick other players and such. This is not seen an MMO games. If you had seen Planetside at its peak you'd know what an mmofps was.

//Oh yeah check this out: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm <--- you'll notice all MMOFPS games are listed. Warrock isn't one of them. 69.221.246.5 (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there were certainly a lot of points put forwards there, but I'll reiterate that WP:Verifiability is the bottom line, because that is Wikipedia policy. If there are no multiple, reliable sources describing the game as being a particular genre, then we don't either. Marasmusine (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've never seen any reputable organizations label it as an mmofps. Also the official site doesn't even say it's an mmofps. It clearly says FPS.

"War Rock is a tactical online multiplayer FPS (first-person shooter) with a modern military theme. Players side with either the Derbaran Military or the NIU forces, and participate in a variety of scenarios across a wide range of maps and gameplay modes."

Easy enough. The largest point I think is that people actually go to the discussion page and understand why it isn't there. Easier than arguing with people trying to add games that are obviously not an mmofps. 69.221.246.5 (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Gunz clear-up (don't discuss further in this section, just copy my words to other section if you want to discuss it and then delete it) Don't bring in Gunz to this section, Gunz itself is a MMORPG + MMOFPS together. It is MMORPG because the basis of RPG is defined by creation using science fiction / non-generation, horror-related genre, at some rare ocassion it include serial killer. The facr that Gunz using martial arts and horror-related monsters clearly defined it is MMORPG. It is also a MMORPG since there is utilization of using items that is collectable. It is very clear it is an MMOFPS, it just have different elements of killing.

As previous said before, the MMOFPS is still limited by current technologies today, so you can't say that they are not MMOFPS. The problem the industry is facing today is medium-high graphic DirectX9 quality such as those of Sword of the New World, Soul of the Ultimate Nations and Halo.

in order for you to have such big Persistent World, and have such action-experience you have to use a IA-86 or MAJC-based architecture with HPC.

---(action-expereince refering to medium-high graphic quality and regular physics processing) However, since HPC are way too expensive, many game companies choose not to use a Persistent World. They are currently ABSOULTELY NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE and if you want to provide such high quality services, you have no choice to use HPC which cost way too much for a company. Also a Persistent World require way too many players participant and this is a huge problem it is hard for the companies, to have events, promotion. Therefore WarRock, Gunz and all the other games are still consider MMOFPS no matter what.

By the way Wikipedia is the only community that define MMO as a Persistent World, so it is not accepted by the mainstream therefore your claiming of Persistent World doesn't make any difference.

Note:

• • Most HPC companies are governement funded today. [1] (still gathering sources.)

Prove (the problem, technical) IA-86 processor is currently the only processor that is capable of fast IOPS process and provide stabiliy the virtualizaiton, but it is not design for efficient management, which is what is expected by the mainstream. You can see this that Intel doesn't pursue on speed, because as each generation continues, they are adding more technologies to each processor, instead just pure increasing speed. (e.g. Superthreading to Multithreading, Single Channel memory to Dual Channel & Tri-Channel)

The CPU today currently is not accepted by the Open Source community (Sun Microsystem, MAJC & Cydrome [1984], VLIW) as an true processor, it is considered more of a microprocessor. The reason being is that CPU means "Central" Processing Unit and Central meaning Management. However, when CPU process it is unbalance sometimes you get (80% FPU, 2% ALU, 18 NPU), unable to balance it and thus resulting overheating up to 50 degree Celsius isn't efficient management. Therefore a CPU is really not that much different from GPU, PPU, APU...etc. This limitation actually make the CPU unable to achieve stability and fast pace interaction as in normal FPS game, it is even hard for the comptuer to estability it in a peer-to-peer commmunity, nevermind in a MMO community, it would be impossible, you WILL get very high lag.

Thus all Persistent World based games use for very low detail graphics, as seen in World War II online only require 1.2GHz PowerPC G4 processor or higher (source: from Mac)

However, even if you make the subunit have the ability to be shared (like in GPU where shader, vector, electrical engineer are still bottlenecked by the problem of topological design.

That is why Sun Microsystems is currently still trying to develop MAJC, MAJC doesn't require subunit, that the entire processor is capable of handling any type of data, and reschedule interlocks. Interlocks are two things that can't be separated (e.g. for example if Process 1 is C = A + B, E = C + D require 2 clock cycles and both threads have to be read before able to process, then the MAJC will try to reschedule something that will take exactly 2 clock cycles or less making it efficient process. However, there is still a barrier in speed achievement, that is why MAJC hasn't appeared in the market yet.

So that doesn't may WarRock, Gunz, PlanetSide and all the other games a MMORPG. Ramu50 (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to sound like a stuck record, but: If multiple reliable sources are calling a particular game a MMOFPS or MMORPG or whatever, then we do to; if they don't, then we don't, per WP:Verifiability policy. There shouldn't be any original research going on in trying to work out if something is of a particular genre or not. Marasmusine (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If no one can provide proof / citation to disagree on my opinion in 1 week, then I am putting it back on, just so you know. The citation for mmorpg as previously mentioned is removed, because it says MMO"RPG" not MMOFPS so it is irrelevant to this topic, thank you for you contributations. --Ramu50 (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it works, I'm afraid. You'll need to provide a citation for inclusion as the party what wants to material added. See Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence - MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, please do not blank the comments of other parties in this discussion. - MrOllie (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, you need a reliable source saying that war rock is an MMOFPS. Bridies (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it doesn't qualify as an MMOFPS. Just look at the abbreviation: MASSIVELY Multiplayer First Person Shooter. If it was called MOFPS, it would fit. But the massive means for me, that every player could practically see every other player everywhere. Nothing or almost nothing is instanced. Massive means, almost all or EVERY player is in the same world. That match-type system is only a Multiplayer FPS for me. 217.80.39.249 (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"This article or section is written like an advertisement" comment.

In the section reguarding the game Planetside: "A free demo version of PlanetSide was available from March 23rd, 2006 though March 24, 2007." should be removed since it does advertise what used to be a free "trail". It doesn't offer anything productive to this article and I think it should be removed. (HideAndGoSeek 00:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)) Edit: Wasn't logged in.

Agreed, and I made the change to remove it. Thanks for the suggestion. Warthog32 22:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

there needs to be a "list of mmofps games" wikipedia entry so we can get rid of the game advertising and focus on the MMOFPS genre- not its games —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.143.209.177 (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea, we'll have to see what material about the genre in general there is. Marasmusine (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to define the genre on MassiveFPS.com, instead of pasting the lengthy discussion and add to the clutter here I'd like to invite some of the level headed folks here to this forum discussion [2]

face of mankind is not an fps

Face of mankind is not an FPS, in fact it is probably one of the purest examples of rpg there is. While it has FPS elements, I definitely feel it is more of an RPG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titan124 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What factor of MMOFPS was it missing then? The twitch aspect? -Aknorals 11:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I know what he is talking about, its more of a futurisitcs science fiction genre that is probably more relatd to the movie The Matrix. Initially in highschool when I was playing online games for couple of years, I got bored, so I spent more time on researching the gaming trend, industry practices, designing principles...etc. I found out that just about how games are designed in a very special way. In my aspect, gaming should divided into different genres, FPS, RTS, RPG, MMO...etc and then further down divided into different "genre" (such as in FPS, you can aim at Modern Warefare, futuristics wars [like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow] and so forth. But in designing games you can often take closely-related genere and play around with them, so that made wonder is that practice correct.

Here my thought on how to categorize them, you categorized them into indepedant theme (meaning only one theme) and multi-theme genre. Or come up with some better terms 02:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Huxley

I really don't think huxley should be on this list. The world is not persistant, the battles are instanced, and the max players in a battle is 200. There is also battles against AI. Anyone else think the same way, or am I totally off base? Gulfy32 (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a reliable, independant source that calls it an MMOFPS, so it goes in. Bridies (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you link the source? Gulfy32 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's in the article, at the end of the huxley section.Click on the little number at the end.Bridies (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Link: 'Huxley Goes Beta' Bridies (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I too have begun to question their MMOFPS title. They said their PvP was at max 20v20 on the largest map they are making for release. Games Radar It's already a very heavily instanced game so this news has had me wondering. I know there can be no original research on wikipedia, but it seems to me the game is lying heavily about it's "mmo" title. We'll have to wait and see how things go. Hopefully its non-instanced gameplay makes it deserve an "mmo" prefix. 141.218.136.207 (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Until someone gets in and actually plays it I think it should stay on the list. I have also heard conflicting rumors about the amount of people and if it was even going to be persistent or not, but all indications seem to still be pointing at a persistent world with up to 200 v 200. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaon94 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

PlanetSide

I was thinking about changing the last sentence in the description of PlanetSide. No other mmofps on the list has a sentence describing their number of subscripitions and how the number has steadily declined. Gulfy32 (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fom gameplay.jpg

Image:Fom gameplay.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Be004.jpg

The image Image:Be004.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:PlanetSide Liberator bomber followed by a Lodestar vehicle transport.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Massive Action Game (MAG)

I added this seeing as it's 256 players and in development. We'll see if the company officially calls it an mmofps or a multiplayer game. However from the persistent stat system it sounds similar to Huxley. We'll see.69.221.227.182 (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarify what is and isn't a MMOFPS.

Hate to nitpick. But Online Shooters are not the same thing as MMOFPS. If it has "matches" and "game modes", it is NOT a MMOFPS. For that reason, I am removing AVA and Sudden Attack from this page.

A MMOFPS is basically a MMORPG, with a Twitch-Shooter Gameplay style. It's a constant persistent world. There no "matches" or "game modes" involved. You would not classify Oblivion or Fable as a MMORPG in the same list as World of Warcraft. Therefore we should not do the same with FPS. JMWhiteIV (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Our criteria for inclusion is whatever WP:RSs have described as MMOFPSs. A brief look at the publisher's sites of the two games you mention show that they aren't described as massively multiplayer, so I think you are correct in removing them. Marasmusine (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

When it is

- You can be in First Person (does not have to force you but has to at least have the option)
- You have a Reticule with which You must aim at an object to shoot it.
- twitch style gameplay
- Persistent world
- Massive amount of players per server.

When it is not

- You are stuck in third person
- Not a persistant environment
- Not massive

Example

New game1 is introduced as a MMOFPS but immediately it is reported by a developer you will never be in First Person mode. Automatically it disqualifies it as a MMOFPS and should not be included on this page unless it is reported otherwise.

New game2 is introduced as a MMOFPS and after it is reported that though there will be thousands per server and be a First Person shooter, it looks like each instanced PVP zone is only going to support 64 players per side, and PVP will be limited to these zones. All other zones will have larger capacities. This game is still an MMOFPS. As long as you are in First Person, you shoot while aiming in a twitch environment, and have a massive amount of players per server it is a MMOFPS, and the reason why is it is massive, it is online, it is a First Person Shooter. PVP might not be on the massive scale, but that is not what makes a MMOFPS. (though if they do not have it I would think it would likely fail)

Global Agenda

I am going to remove it since it only has elements of an FPS

"Global Agenda is technically a third person shooter..." - Todd Harris, the Executive Producer for Global Agenda Interview with Todd Harris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaon94 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hellgate London

MMO? I have not played Hellgate, so would like a ruling by someone that did.

Answer the following questions and we can decide to let it stay or not. The first three I know to be true.

1. You can be in First Person (THIS IS TRUE) 2. You have a Reticule with which You must aim at an object to shoot it. (THIS IS TRUE) 3. twitch style gameplay (THIS IS TRUE) 4. Persistent world (?) by tooling around the web I say no though some have also said yes 5. Massive amount of players per server. (?) this would be the most important of course

A couple of things I have seen about this game is The game is completely zoned. Even the safe zones in the game can only hold 50 or so people. There is no persistent world where thousands of people can inhabit the land together. If the answers to 4 or 5 is no we should remove it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaon94 (talk • contribs)

Your criteria require original research, which policy says we aren't supposed to do. All that matters is if reliable, third party sources call a given game a MMOFPS or not. - MrOllie (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, with that said then I guess it does have to stay. It is definitely listed as a MMO on many reliable third party sites, and it is definitely a FPS which would make it a MMOFPS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.128.156 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Article material

Donnybrook

Microsoft's research project on "Systems issues in networked multiplayer games", codenamed Donnybrook, has some interesting articles which are somewhat related to the topic. In short, to quote the latest article (from Aug 08) "Donnybrook [is] a system that enables peer-managed, large-scale, high-speed games by supporting epic battles involving hundreds of players" - considering the games they are referring to are FPS's, I'm sure there's a connection here somewhere. In any case, it has been mentioned in the press as the background of a possible Halo MMO, and that paper quoted above also says the authors are currently working on the "Internet deployment of a large-scale game using Donnybrook". It's all at most tangentially related, but it could be useful in the article... somehow. --VPeric (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)