Thanks for the write-up. I found it to be concise without being overly detailed.

I do find it strange that a lot of people seem to feel the need to question your credibility, when it is clearly an opinion piece.

Some even resorting to telling you what should be on YOUR list!   What?!? 

One thing I would like to point out, is the common denominator between all these games seems to be "if done correctly".

Unfortunately, that aspect can't be known until said game releases and goes through the litmus test.

Personally, Earthrise would make MY list.

I really like what I read as far as crafting goes with Earthrise. Unless I totally miscomprehended what was written, it would seem that the crafting experience in Earthrise will be some akin to early SWG.

Just for clarification, I quit playing soon after the "update" to SWG. But I can say that from release up until that point, in my opinion SWG had/has the best crafting/merchant  system to date.

Again, thanks for YOUR list.

Originally posted by Brif

WTF, where is Mortal Online?

Mortal Online will be the best game, far better than this shit.

~Brif, MOFFL (Mortal Online Fanboi For Life)

Says who???  I don't even like PVP and neither does millions of others,so how do you figure it is better?or The BEST?

It may be a game concept you like,no problem,we all have our game types we like,but remember this ,it is an Asian game.They are notorious for putting out meaningless games,you do nothing but login and PVP or wander around leveling up levels or skills.

Do i think MO is at least worthy of taking notice or has potential?? yes i do,but it is not leaps and bounds a better concept or shown any real potential far above the other games,cept maybe for that CCP game i never even heard of .I also  do not think it will come within a whiskers thickness to being "The Best".

Originally posted by Respit

Thanks for the write-up. I found it to be concise without being overly detailed.

I do find it strange that a lot of people seem to feel the need to question your credibility, when it is clearly an opinion piece.

Some even resorting to telling you what should be on YOUR list!   What?!?    

The reason so many people have a problem with the list is the parameters in which his opinion was formed were never clearly stated. Had he said:  "This (X)  is what I define potential as and based on  (that rule) how I plan to rank the games." you would probably see a lot less angst, disagreement, and confusion about the article.

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Tarkovsky

Though It's just echoing what's already been said, I personally find my self questioning the credibility of this article if you don't even touch on a looming juggernaut like FFXIV. I understand we all have biases but that's like leaving SWtOR off of the list. That is to say, not mentioning FFXIV just shows incompetence. I mean seriously It's a guaranteed hit regardless of it being even half good, with the emblem it bears.

And this is without even considering the game in the context of FFXI, which has been a consistent top 10 subscription MMO for 8 years and running.

Granted I'm admittedly biased towards FFXI, which I enjoyed tremendously, in part becuase it was my first MMO, so take my words as a grain of salt. It's just I can see FFXIV harboring this potentional of being a lot of people's first MMO, really opening up the market up to a new segment of curious newcomers. Where as, a game like Aion, which looks really bad ass and I'll probably subscribe to, won't have the same marketing allure to those who aren't already part of the MMO community.

I wouldn't call it incompetence. I'd call it not making my personal list. As I said at the very top of the article, that was MY list, potential is subjective and obviously FFXIV is on your personal list. Our opinions should be able to differ without resorting to insults, no?

Rereading what I wrote, it indeed sounds like I'm ovulating. That wasn't my intention. And I do agree with a good portion of your list. Being able to demonstrate empathy and understand the reasons for someone else's argument is indeed important in any civil forum, and I made the mistake of de-humaninizing your viewpoint since you're an editor.

Though also as an editor, I come to expect a certain degree of journalistic unbias, that would over-ride personal opinion. So upon reading a personal opinion peice I surely underplayed the personal part of your article. Which was a mistake, after all, you're not reporting the news, you're reporting on a subjective medium, games.

At any rate, what I ment to convey is that a large portion of the community is very excited about FFXIV and SWtoR, and I'm very interested in why you see eye to eye with them in the case of SWtOR, which is being developed by a company who makes masterful videogames, but don't share the same sentiment in regards to a game like FFXIV, which is also being produced by a beloved company. On paper they both appear to be great contendors.

Especially when the reasoning behind your excitement in SWtOR lies in it's focus on storyline. I think it's a great decision and it will manifest itself for Bioware, but that's been the same gameplan Square-Enix has had for FFXIV since day one. That's the same gameplan they had for FFXI, and every RPG they've ever created. That's what sells Square games.
 

Originally posted by Wizardry

Originally posted by Brif

WTF, where is Mortal Online?

Mortal Online will be the best game, far better than this shit.

~Brif, MOFFL (Mortal Online Fanboi For Life)

Says who???  I don't even like PVP and neither does millions of others,so how do you figure it is better?or The BEST?

It may be a game concept you like,no problem,we all have our game types we like,but remember this ,it is an Asian game.They are notorious for putting out meaningless games,you do nothing but login and PVP or wander around leveling up levels or skills.

Do i think MO is at least worthy of taking notice or has potential?? yes i do,but it is not leaps and bounds a better concept or shown any real potential far above the other games,cept maybe for that CCP game i never even heard of .I also  do not think it will come within a whiskers thickness to being "The Best".

Misinformed you are.

MO is being produced by a Swedish company.

Since Jon is a bit more reserved than I am, I'll post what he most likely would like to say now.

To all those of questionable intellect who keep saying "WTF?!?! Where's game X?", it's HIS personal opinion of what games HE likes and is looking forward to and that HE sees potential in.

He didn't say "These are the best games out there.".

He didn't say "This is MMORPG.COM's top ten list".

It's HIS personal list based on HIS personal opinion.

He even states in the article it's HIS personal list.

Now, if anyone still does not understand this, let me know. Because I'd personally like to have a list of my own.

Originally posted by Zorvan

Since Jon is a bit more reserved than I am, I'll post what he most likely would like to say now.

 

To all those of questionable intellect who keep saying "WTF?!?! Where's game X?", it's HIS personal opinion of what games HE likes and is looking forward to and that HE sees potential in.

He didn't say "These are the best games out there.".

He didn't say "This is MMORPG.COM's top ten list".

It's HIS personal list based on HIS personal opinion.

He even states in the article it's HIS personal list.

Now, if anyone still does not understand this, let me know. Because I'd personally like to have a list of my own.

And to you, I'd point out that the list was obviously posted to elicit comments of all expected types. Including criticism for baffling omissions.

Originally posted by Nicrox

Don't you mean CUSTOMER rather then consumer. A customer is a person who is valued and heard and a consumer is a person thats a  #### statistic such as the ##### ability to vote with their wallet.  Gaming companies look at people and subscriptions and a statistic rather then considering them customers. Thats why theres tons of complaints with customer service and failing mmo like Tabula Rasa....someone should clean the ##### slate.

/facepalm

I am so looking forward to the return of enb

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by Zorvan

Since Jon is a bit more reserved than I am, I'll post what he most likely would like to say now.

 

To all those of questionable intellect who keep saying "WTF?!?! Where's game X?", it's HIS personal opinion of what games HE likes and is looking forward to and that HE sees potential in.

He didn't say "These are the best games out there.".

He didn't say "This is MMORPG.COM's top ten list".

It's HIS personal list based on HIS personal opinion.

He even states in the article it's HIS personal list.

Now, if anyone still does not understand this, let me know. Because I'd personally like to have a list of my own.

And to you, I'd point out that the list was obviously posted to elicit comments of all expected types. Including criticism for baffling omissions.

And how, pray tell, is the fact he likes different games than others leading to "baffling ommissions"? Again, if it was an "official" ratings or top ten list, then yes. Perhaps the list would be baffling in ommitting certain games. But to me, there is nothing baffling about a guy posting his personal preferences.

I didn't see Vanguard, or Age of Conan, in that list. 

Kinda cool but I think it would have been more interesting if the parameters of the article were a little more specific. For instance if you would have further defined it as "Top Ten MMOs with Potential to innovate the genre" I would have been much more interested in what you had to say. As it is it's merely your top ten anticipated games (with the exception of EVE), which is cool, but I could have made a thread on the general forum about the same thing (actually there's probably a number of threads already like that). Not bashing, just my opinion about the article. Keep 'em coming!

Originally posted by Zorvan

And how, pray tell, is the fact he likes different games than others leading to "baffling ommissions"? Again, if it was an "official" ratings or top ten list, then yes. Perhaps the list would be baffling in ommitting certain games. But to me, there is nothing baffling about a guy posting his personal preferences.

Because it's just like any opinion column for a newspaper or news website. Even sports websites live off of opinion columns. The author wil give an opinion. They  will not really expand on the criteria for his opinion and generally will add in or take off something that probably should have been listed or will garner debate in order to create traffic on the website.

Do you think all those powerpolls for the NFL during the season are serious business?

Originally posted by Greenie

Originally posted by Zorvan

And how, pray tell, is the fact he likes different games than others leading to "baffling ommissions"? Again, if it was an "official" ratings or top ten list, then yes. Perhaps the list would be baffling in ommitting certain games. But to me, there is nothing baffling about a guy posting his personal preferences.

 

Because it's just like any opinion column for a newspaper or news website. Even sports websites live off of opinion columns. The author wil give an opinion. They  will not really expand on the criteria for his opinion and generally will add in or take off something that probably should have been listed or will garner debate in order to create traffic on the website.

Do you think all those powerpolls for the NFL during the season are serious business?

Saying "My list would be different from yours because" is adding an opinion on the article.

Telling the editor he "doesn't know his job because he's supposed to be impartial" or "how stupid is it that you didn't include game X in that list since it's more well known?" and other such uninformed idiocy due to failed reading comprehension ( i.e. they don't have the braincells to differentiate between an opinion piece and a statement of fact ) is another matter. Those are the people my comments apply to.

Nice hype list.  Where is the 10 games with most potential?  All the ones you listed are closed systems, except for EVE Online.  Cant expand much with a closed system.

Originally posted by Zorvan

Saying "My list would be different from yours because" is adding an opinion on the article.

Telling the editor he "doesn't know his job because he's supposed to be impartial" or "how stupid is it that you didn't include game X in that list since it's more well known?" and other such uninformed idiocy due to failed reading comprehension ( i.e. they don't have the braincells to differentiate between an opinion piece and a statement of fact ) is another matter. Those are the people my comments apply to.

Well yea I can agree with you on that, I was just pointing out that articles such as this prey on that mentality. That's why opinion articles will always possess some snippit of flawed logic, incorrect information, or data that should be provided/included.

Nice list.  But I have the rather predictable comments :)

1.  Secret World -  Doesnt' have a chance in hell of being anything significant.  There are very few developers with a worse reputation then Funcom.   People aren't going to fall for pre-launch hype again from them.

2.  Eve - I think you understate how many times and for how long ambulation has been talked about for this game.  Giving it  'potential' for something that has been talked about for 3 years is a bit optimistic.  Don't get me wrong, EVE is, in my opinion, the second best MMORPG on the market (wow is first), I just don't think ambulation is coming any time soon, or it will be anything but a social addition to the game.

3.  SWTOR -  I agree wholehardedly with you on this one.  Just like WOW revolutionized 'casual progression'.   SWTOR has the chance to revolutionize 'story progression' as a basis for a MMORPG.   Whether or not it works has yet ot be seen.  I give it a 75% chance of suceeding   100% because of Bioware, -25% because of EAs influence.

Good list overall.  Would have been better without The Secret World, which I feel will end up much like Darkfall... there will be a ton of attention and activity on the forums, but most of it will be negative and the game will have very few subscribers.

Originally posted by Greenie

Originally posted by Zorvan

Saying "My list would be different from yours because" is adding an opinion on the article.

Telling the editor he "doesn't know his job because he's supposed to be impartial" or "how stupid is it that you didn't include game X in that list since it's more well known?" and other such uninformed idiocy due to failed reading comprehension ( i.e. they don't have the braincells to differentiate between an opinion piece and a statement of fact ) is another matter. Those are the people my comments apply to.

 

Well yea I can agree with you on that, I was just pointing out that articles such as this prey on that mentality. That's why opinion articles will always possess some snippit of flawed logic, incorrect information, or data that should be provided/included.

 

Even if Jon had of included his definition of "potential" as some have pointed out it wouldn't have mattered. Most of the people that are quick to fly into name calling and"WTFing" don't read the first paragraph anyway. They read the title and skip to "#10" and when they see something they don't agree with or find that their "baby" wasn't included, they go into attack mode. Which brings up another point in that they wouldn't know how to disagree and debate in a civil, educated manner if their life depended on it. If they did, they would have done so initially.

Yea, I can't disagree with you either Kal :)

Almost all those games on that list are possible greats.... 

But several are possible epic fails IF they ever come out.

I have been tracking Stagate Online since its inception, and Star Trek online....  long before its current developer.   I have bad feelings about STO in its current form.... starting to look to much like Eve with a star trek skin.    Which isnt all bad, but not really what I am looking for.... and I really doubt many of the hardcore trekkies are looking for either.  

Meanwhile SGO is a great concept, but if it concentrates too much on the FPS side of the game it will end up being planet side with a Stargate look.    And that could be bad....

Now WOD online, that could be GREAT.....  I think they have a winner there.   The only thing that will pull that game down will be the players... but thats easily avoidable if they have a RP/hardcore server.    (on a side note, I HATE GLAMPIRES!)

I really like the concept of APB and Earthfall.....  both are newish ideas.   Earthfall only big worry is that Bethsesda grinds hard and pulls out a Fallout MMO before the end of 2010.   That will KILL Earthfall.     But APB on the otherhand has very little to worry about, but will end up being a nitch target market, and also places a HUGE target on its chest for all these parents and religious advocacy groups that think Video games affect kids.  

Unbelievable.

Why the hell isn't Mortal Online on that list? A sandbox that has the potential to open up sandbox MMO's for a lot of unknowing gamers(unknowing about the GOOD MMO's.)

Only a bunch of frickin' theme park loaded with dope.  Holy heck, poor content, good writing.

Fallen Earth - FUCKING EPIC (That's all I'm allowed to say on the topic, more than I'm allowed to in fact), maybe not that good, but its definitely fun, takes quite a while to get anywhere though in my opinion.

STO - Meh

Eve - LOVE IT, going back to it once they get the biggest update in

Star Wars - I wet myself..

The more in brainstorming phase they are, the more potential they have, don't they.

For example, I'm pretty sure SW:TOR would lose a considerable amount of its "potential", if we knew exactly what this game was all about. Including the payment method.

Nice round up and I am hopeful of some on the list for the same reasons. But this is essentially a preview article, in fact a pre-preview article. Good for putting some MMO’s on your radar but thats all.

Only Aion (not yet in the west) and Eve are launched, I think a separate article on launched MMO’s which are at least a year old that show potential is a must, and much more useful.

Originally posted by ericbelser

While I will quibble with some of the specific choices in a moment, my bigger comment is simply "how sad". None of that top 10 list are really all that exciting. It's like ranking the "best" value meal at McDonalds...even the number 1 is nothing but flash fried garbage.

Okay, so Aion is probably going to be "big"...but its generic asian fantasy MMO#24 and hardly worth major buzz to me, I don't see how a slightly new version of the same old same old has any potential at all..  The two "big names"; Stargate and Star Trek; both have serious issues. Stargate is going to require a miracle to actually launch and Star Trek is being ground out by Cryptic...who are more interested in flopping out another game fast than delivering any kind of quality.

Secret World and World of Darkness are both still so far out, that even I can't be bothered to start bashing FunCom over it yet. EVE? Ambulation, please...it's been "in the works" for what nearly 2 years now and still isn't even close? These three are still more talking points and good presentations than "potential" yet.

APB, Global Agenda and SW:TOR I suppose I can agree have potential; potential to take the genre in a directions I don't really like. I don't agree that the FPS model is promising or desirable...nor am I a fan of single player storyline/solo centric play.

Which leaves Fallen Earth as the only one that really interest me...sadly.

 

 

 

6 out of 10 are all game's I'm excited about.  It would be 7 out of 10 but Fallen Earth's development team is leaning far too much towards WoW instead of Eve...which is a colossal failure of an idea w/ a Sandbox. 

Just shows how much people's opinions vary.