[itehjosh]

Even though I love you MysticDeath, I believe Lee is correct.

[TheNewt]

Yeh hes right the way if you define by a genre, the only thing is that his perception of what massively multiplayer means is a bit misconstrued.

[Greentryst]

MysticDeath, you lose this thread for not understanding the spirit of the term MMO*. It implies persistence, and it implies hundreds of players simultaneously playing in a shared environment.

As for the topic...

One of the first games that could be called an MMOFPS was 10⁶, from Sega's Heat.net game service. Granted, it's not only an FPS -- it's also an RTS -- but that's beside the point.

I've never tried it, but it looks like it might be fun to poke around with. It's one of the games lucky enough to escape from the ashes of its game service and take on a life of its own, thanks to its players. (Another example of that is ARC, a TEN refugee.)

One game that caught my eye from the Wikipedia MMOFPS list is Purge, because it is described as a sequel to the Quake 1 total conversion Future vs. Fantasy, which I quite enjoyed. I can't possibly say how it is without trying it, but FvF is a very good tradition to be working from.

[allenwr]

I just skipped through the thread a little, but my personal opinion MMO should be based on the number of people on the same server (world) playing with each other. Example 300 people playing a giant version of dust2, on the same server, not 300 people playing on 100 servers of dust2. MMO, not MMO.