There are no free MMOFPS games. There are only 2 that are even worth mentioning. WWII Online and Planetside. Both cost each month and both are pretty outdated in terms of graphics. Wasdie Incorrect.
Free Shooting Games for PC, Mac, Ipad with no download: Shooting games for kids (boys & girls) to play now online, free flash shooting games, cool old-school space alien games, cool army shooting games for teens, fun one player 2d/ 3d combat action games to play on the net with friends and family. The game’s complete complement of guns, maps, and vehicles are all included in the free version, but a $15 upgrade unlocks the server browser, bot play, player bounties, character customization, mod support, and a map editor.
There's Cross Fire by Z8 Games, I absolutely LOVE it. Then there's Soldier Front by Ijji, It's a little outdated, but great modes and maps.
Also by Ijji is Alliance of Valiant Arms. It has the best graphics of those mentioned and decent gameplay Last one I know of is Combat Arms by Nexon.
It's gameplay and gun system is a little bland though. QUOTE='Wasdie' There are no free MMOFPS games. There are only 2 that are even worth mentioning. WWII Online and Planetside. Both cost each month and both are pretty outdated in terms of graphics. Vespiion Incorrect. There's Cross Fire by Z8 Games, I absolutely LOVE it.
Then there's Soldier Front by Ijji, It's a little outdated, but great modes and maps. Also by Ijji is Alliance of Valiant Arms. It has the best graphics of those mentioned and decent gameplay Last one I know of is Combat Arms by Nexon. It's gameplay and gun system is a little bland though. Those are not MMOs, just FPSes. I've played Cross fire, you can only have 16 players in a game. How is that an MMO?
QUOTE='Vespiion' QUOTE='Wasdie' There are no free MMOFPS games. There are only 2 that are even worth mentioning. WWII Online and Planetside. Both cost each month and both are pretty outdated in terms of graphics. Nerkcon Incorrect.
There's Cross Fire by Z8 Games, I absolutely LOVE it. Then there's Soldier Front by Ijji, It's a little outdated, but great modes and maps.
Also by Ijji is Alliance of Valiant Arms. It has the best graphics of those mentioned and decent gameplay Last one I know of is Combat Arms by Nexon.
It's gameplay and gun system is a little bland though. Those are not MMOs, just FPSes. I've played Cross fire, you can only have 16 players in a game. How is that an MMO? All of the ones I mentioned are definitive MMOFPS. Just because of the MM part doesn't mean it has to be 32 or 64 player matches. QUOTE='Nerkcon'QUOTE='Vespiion' Incorrect.
There's Cross Fire by Z8 Games, I absolutely LOVE it. Then there's Soldier Front by Ijji, It's a little outdated, but great modes and maps.
Also by Ijji is Alliance of Valiant Arms. It has the best graphics of those mentioned and decent gameplay Last one I know of is Combat Arms by Nexon. It's gameplay and gun system is a little bland though. Vespiion Those are not MMOs, just FPSes. I've played Cross fire, you can only have 16 players in a game. How is that an MMO? Exactly, I did not mean I wanted to play 100's of people at once.
That would not be very fun I assume. I'd rather just standard death match type of things like he has mentioned. ' Thanks for the suggestions. All of the ones I mentioned are definitive MMOFPS. Just because of the MM part doesn't mean it has to be 32 or 64 player matches.
QUOTE='Nerkcon'QUOTE='Vespiion' Incorrect. There's Cross Fire by Z8 Games, I absolutely LOVE it. Then there's Soldier Front by Ijji, It's a little outdated, but great modes and maps. Also by Ijji is Alliance of Valiant Arms. It has the best graphics of those mentioned and decent gameplay Last one I know of is Combat Arms by Nexon.
It's gameplay and gun system is a little bland though. Vespiion Those are not MMOs, just FPSes. I've played Cross fire, you can only have 16 players in a game. How is that an MMO? All of the ones I mentioned are definitive MMOFPS. Just because of the MM part doesn't mean it has to be 32 or 64 player matches.
MMO = large servers of much more than 32 or 64. Those are about as MMO as leveling up your character in MW2. A real MMO FPS regularly sees battles 250 vs. QUOTE='Vespiion' QUOTE='Nerkcon' Those are not MMOs, just FPSes.
I've played Cross fire, you can only have 16 players in a game. How is that an MMO?
Wasdie All of the ones I mentioned are definitive MMOFPS. Just because of the MM part doesn't mean it has to be 32 or 64 player matches. MMO = large servers of much more than 32 or 64. Those are about as MMO as leveling up your character in MW2. A real MMO FPS regularly sees battles 250 vs. Then wow wouldnt meet this.
In fact very few mmo's ever see controlled actions such as these. An mmo simply means alot of players so basically any game with over say 20 people playing at any given time is technically an mmo. BUT it cannot have a singleplayer. Only multiplayer.
QUOTE='Wasdie' QUOTE='Vespiion' All of the ones I mentioned are definitive MMOFPS. Just because of the MM part doesn't mean it has to be 32 or 64 player matches. Auraenchanted MMO = large servers of much more than 32 or 64. Those are about as MMO as leveling up your character in MW2. A real MMO FPS regularly sees battles 250 vs. Then wow wouldnt meet this.
In fact very few mmo's ever see controlled actions such as these. An mmo simply means alot of players so basically any game with over say 20 people playing at any given time is technically an mmo. BUT it cannot have a singleplayer. Only multiplayer. MMOs hardly ever imply to having over 200 people per game.
The whole argument about games like Combat Arms or Crossfire not being MMOs is no different than when people call guild wars an MMO (which I do not consider it an MMO). Hell, DICE and EA pushed the Battlefield series out as an free MMOG back when they released 1942 because of the 64 player server cap. I remember them advertising the game with something along the lines of 'completely free massive online play' to basically fight the domination that games like EQ and WoW were eating up at the time. I guess games like Combat Arms are considered MMO because of the persistent nature of your ID and the fact that unlike games like MW2 which require random matchmaking to join games, you are thrown into lobbies where you can organize the games you want to play. Needless to say, if you think that GuildWars is an MMO because of its 'city' system than I guess games like Combat Arms, Alliance of Valiant Arms, ect are also MMOs. Anyways, you can consider looking into this. No idea if its good or not though.
Netdevil created a game a while back called warmonger. I dont know if it still exists though. 8 vs 8 or 16 cs 16 games are not mmofps. Look at battlefield 1942, it supports up to 64 players per server. And it's not an MMOFPS. WWII Online, and Planetside are MMOFPSs. Hundreds on a battlefield.
With a persistent world you can move around in. How is 32 players massively muiltiplayer? If that were the case then ANY muiltiplayer FPS is an MMOFPS.
IF anything they would be MMOG, but they arn't that either. Morrowindnic It got that way because too many idiots bought into the terrible marketing of free to play publishers.
Any game that is online only is considered an MMO now. They also have all these lame labels too such as; text based MMO!
Room based MMO! Zone based MMO! QUOTE='morrowindnic' 8 vs 8 or 16 cs 16 games are not mmofps.
Look at battlefield 1942, it supports up to 64 players per server. And it's not an MMOFPS. WWII Online, and Planetside are MMOFPSs. Hundreds on a battlefield. With a persistent world you can move around in. How is 32 players massively muiltiplayer? If that were the case then ANY muiltiplayer FPS is an MMOFPS.
IF anything they would be MMOG, but they arn't that either. Nerkcon It got that way because too many idiots bought into the terrible marketing of free to play publishers. Any game that is online only is considered an MMO now. They also have all these lame labels too such as; text based MMO!
Room based MMO! Zone based MMO! Well there are 'text' based mmo's with 1000 ppl + online at the same time. But yes its only text;):P But anyway GW is not a mmo. There are hardly any 'MMOFPS' around. Even less free ones and even less GOOD ones. And yes people fall for the classic 'you can play with 10 other people!
![Good shooting games for kids Good shooting games for kids](/uploads/1/2/5/3/125392222/482872072.jpg)
And we only have multiplayer! There for its a MMO! And the best part!? So go and buy it now!' And people are like Omg!.runs to the store. then they go on the forum and say 'game is a mmo because the devs said so!!'
QUOTE='Wasdie' There are no free MMOFPS games. There are only 2 that are even worth mentioning. WWII Online and Planetside. Both cost each month and both are pretty outdated in terms of graphics. Vespiion Incorrect. There's Cross Fire by Z8 Games, I absolutely LOVE it. Then there's Soldier Front by Ijji, It's a little outdated, but great modes and maps.
Also by Ijji is Alliance of Valiant Arms. It has the best graphics of those mentioned and decent gameplay Last one I know of is Combat Arms by Nexon. It's gameplay and gun system is a little bland though.
TC said MMOFPS, not free online FPS. So YOU are incorrect.
QUOTE='Nerkcon'QUOTE='Vespiion' Incorrect. There's Cross Fire by Z8 Games, I absolutely LOVE it. Then there's Soldier Front by Ijji, It's a little outdated, but great modes and maps. Also by Ijji is Alliance of Valiant Arms. It has the best graphics of those mentioned and decent gameplay Last one I know of is Combat Arms by Nexon. It's gameplay and gun system is a little bland though.
Vespiion Those are not MMOs, just FPSes. I've played Cross fire, you can only have 16 players in a game. How is that an MMO? All of the ones I mentioned are definitive MMOFPS. Just because of the MM part doesn't mean it has to be 32 or 64 player matches.
You dont know what MMO means then. MMOs usually are associated with persistant enviroments. When you're not there, stuff is happening. That is usually what an MMO is focused around. Guild Wars bends that description a bit.
It has most the same gameplay and happens in a large world, but it's not persistant. I label Guild Wars as an MMO just because of the town hubs that are techincally persistant. Wasdie At it's very basic core, MMO would refer to a multiplayer game with a massive number of people on one server, or 'Instance' depending on the game type. GW isn't an MMO because it has relatively low server caps. QUOTE='ErraticKnight' An mmo is 1 thing, a PERSISTENT WORLD. It's amazing how many people have no idea what an mmo is.
Kieranb2000 But.it's not. MMO is a Massively Multiplayer Online game. You could have a game with a persistent world with only 3 player per instance. That's not an MMO. MMOs do generally have a persistant world, but the main thing it needs is large amounts of players on each server. Usually in the low thousands. No you would just have a crappy unpopulated mmo.
You pay companies for their server cost - which hosts the persistent world (and maintains lag for your desired large populous) and because you assume through patches that the world your character exists in will constantly change and still 'progress'/change regardless of whether or not you are logged on. QUOTE='kieranb2000'QUOTE='ErraticKnight' An mmo is 1 thing, a PERSISTENT WORLD. It's amazing how many people have no idea what an mmo is.
![Free Free](/uploads/1/2/5/3/125392222/441224606.jpg)
ErraticKnight But.it's not. MMO is a Massively Multiplayer Online game. You could have a game with a persistent world with only 3 player per instance.
That's not an MMO. MMOs do generally have a persistant world, but the main thing it needs is large amounts of players on each server. Usually in the low thousands. No you would just have a crappy unpopulated mmo. You pay companies for their server cost - which hosts the persistent world (and maintains lag for your desired large populous) and because you assume through patches that the world your character exists in will constantly change and still 'progress'/change regardless of whether or not you are logged on. So by your logic, if I started a game that had a 4-player server cap, but was persistent, it would be Massively Multiplayer? I think you don't seem to understand what the word 'Massively' means.
It wouldn't have a 4 player cap. If a game with a persistent world had a 1 million player cap but it only had 4 people in it, the game would still be an mmo.
It doesn't change just because it has a low population. ErraticKnight So now you are saying it needs to have both a really large player cap AND a persistent world? That I can agree with. But that isn't what you were saying. You said, and I quote 'An mmo is 1 thing, a PERSISTENT WORLD.' I could make a game with a four player server cap and a persistent world, I mean literally, I have the skill to do that.
It's not like a Persistent world can only be pulled off by having a large server cap. It's like the old term, Oranges = Fruit but Fruit!= Oranges. MMOs have persistent worlds, but games with Persistent worlds aren't instantly MMOs. QUOTE='ErraticKnight' it wouldn't have a 4 player cap. If a game with a persistent world had a 1 million player cap but it only had 4 people in it, the game would still be an mmo.
It doesn't change just because it has a low population. Kieranb2000 So now you are saying it needs to have both a really large player cap AND a persistent world? That I can agree with.
But that isn't what you were saying. You said, and I quote 'An mmo is 1 thing, a PERSISTENT WORLD.'
I could make a game with a four player server cap and a persistent world, I mean literally, I have the skill to do that. It's not like a Persistent world can only be pulled off by having a large server cap. It's like the old term, Oranges = Fruit but Fruit!= Oranges. MMOs have persistent worlds, but games with Persistent worlds aren't instantly MMOs. No i said that the 1 constant is a persistent world. Million people and persistent world = mmo, a million people in a room deathmatch isn't an mmo.
4 people in a persistent world is an mmo with a really really terrible population. You put an artificial cap on something to make a point.