Just the way I see it
Just logical discussion all things MMO from an accomplished gamer.

Reading this made me think of Kings Field...which always felt like a fantasy FPS to me.

To answer you though:  No, genre branding isn't really a defining factor in success.  Usually, accessibility is...and for many gamers the ideal of elves and orcs is accessible.  But accessibility comes in many forms, and simply having elves and orcs is not really enough to define success. 

As such, brands really aren't counter-productive.  Making other brands as accessible as Fantasy games are is all that it really takes.

About popularity...a MMOFPS has to compete with all FPS out there, most of them feature FREE ONLINE play.  Why would someone who has "all/most" of what he wants in a game for free consider a game with a monthly fee and the unability to play it once per 3 months after he purchase it?

RPGs offer very limited ONLINE play-ability and all this online component usually resolve around player-made content.  Not surprisingly, MMO-RPGs find very little competition with traditional RPGs.  The $15 a month is then very easy to justify.

Offer VS demands.  FPS offer 99% of what the player want, and a MMOFPS usually can't offer the same lagfree game experience.  Not to mention that most FPS lovers want nothing to do with grind...which is a central focus of most MMOs.  MMOFPS often have issue regarding maps and contests and who can enter it or not...or allowing specific rules switches...all these a normal FPS cover a LOT better...and it is free of a monthly fee.

Anofalye , you just made one of my opinions valid.

Why do we have to expect Grinds?...b/c thats what every mmo to date largely has told us to expect. Just because a game exists in a persistant world doesnt mean there HAS to be a grind, and MMO FPS game could just be Battlefield on a larger Persistant scale?..no grind required, but theres obviously more involved, just an example.

And Im confused, you say they Often have "said" issues, what MMOFPS's are you refering too?  Planetside is the only commercial one I know of.

Dont get me wrong, Im not flaming or bashing any opinions, I just really want to toss this around the community...Why do we settle for so little variety and seemingly no innovations from our developers who have fallen into the Fantasy = the only MMO to make money on thought process.

Isn't WW2 Online an persistant FPS?

RPG goes with MMO.  FPS doesn't.  Puzzle games don't either (though I guess there are some successful ones, try to get $15 a month for them).  The aspect of the RPG that goes with the MMO is the character developement.  If you take away character developement (or world developement), there's no incentive to pay your $15 every month.

I don't think the success of Fantasy games has anything to do with the lack of FPS MMOs. I think they are just very different kinds of gameplay.

With FPS, players load into a relatively small map (compared to MMO worlds, at least) and hunt each other. In most of those games, you respawn quickly, with little penalty, and almost no downtime before rejoining the combat. It's intense 10 min bursts of combat. They don't want to spend 20 mins wandering hoping to cross paths with someone to shoot at. I've watched by husband and brother play FPS's together for hours, they complain (loudly) when the map is too large or when everyone camps, so fights are few and far between.

There also are technical problems to consider. A large majority of the time we spend in MMOs is non-combat. We stand around checking our mail, the auction houses or player markets, traveling to and from the specific places we will do the actual fighting. And that is enough to cause long load times and lag slide shows. My husband lags out on our cable connection in rooms with 16 people.

Add to this that the combat is completely different. MMOs have turns and dice rolls. You don't have to rely on the accuracy of your shots, the computer has a formula for it. Lag won't change the likelihood of your hits landing. That is the polar opposite of FPSs. Lag out at the wrong moment and not only is the guy now out of your crosshairs, but he's knifed you to death.  Swords and other medieval weapons lend themselves to that kind of slower-paced combat. Anytime I've played an MMO that had guns/blasters, I was always frustrated by my avatar's 2.6something second delay between shots.

Plus, there's already an existing, highly-competitive market of multi-player, online FPSs like the ones you've listed. Game developers have found a profit in providing online play to thousands of players by letting them play in small groups, on a limited number of comparatively small maps, for 10 min spurts. Why go to the expense of developing a huge, persistent world when the players are forking money over hand over fist for less?

I would have to say no that genre defines the success of a game.  And you will have to forgive me for going off on what seems mostly like a tangent but the points made still apply to genre.

Traditionally FPS games have lacked greatly in customization and the ability for a player to alter the flow of an FPS based on thier choices. Typically FPS games lack large inventories, upgradeable items, and unique abilities. Some FPS have had these in the form of genetic modifications, nanotechnology, and weapon attachements etc. They also usually lack customization of the character visual. The only FPS games that really have had RPG elements are the Deus Ex and System Shock series.

RPGs usually have a better diversity of abilities and items, though poorly implimented crafting systems have always hampered the enjoyment of making things in RPGs. They almost always have a better variety of character visuals, skills that affect game flow, and usually a different gameplay style, of which FPS almost universally lack. In FPS games the gameplay style options are almost always loud and aggressive action, or absolute complete stealth.

It really comes down to the gameplay and design. A well-made game will have a variety of combat options implimented in a way that keeps a player focused on the game, more specifically on the action, rather than staring at a screen full of green bars and icons (what we can refer to as Healer Syndrome, as the inevitable task of a healer is to sit back watching dozens of green bars track up and down while other players who choose a different class will be doing the majority of what we call "playing" or "having fun"). When you engadge (sp?) a player you increase thier enjoyment rather than making it work. It isn't hard to sideline party managment in favor of enjoyment.

FPS typically offer better engadgement of players as they minimize the troubles of upkeep, inventory managment, and absurd strategies that involve 39 other players hiding behind a wall every 20-30 seconds (Blackwing Lair anyone?) and allow a player to focus more and shooting the crap out of that big thing that just plowed through the wall and promptly disembowled half your friends into a gooey explosive salsa of carnage. Granted FPS have thier share of hiding behind walls and fighting from cover, but it is done so in a more exciting state and at a higher pace, especially when cover is dynamic and doesn't stand up to rockets and gattling guns. Which brings me to another topic of engadgment, cinimatic gameplay.

Typically FPS games are far better at delivering amazing visuals. Even in thier limited multiplayer capacity, it is infinetly more satsifying to blast an enemy helicopter into flaming wreckage and watching it careen into the nearest building or mountain than it is watching the scripted death throws of the same dragon you killed last week, for the 80th time.  While exploding helicopters can get repetative and tedious in large enough quantities, it is far worse doing so if was the same helicopter, in the same setting, at the same time of day, under the same pretenses, and having it all flubbed up because someone wasn't standing where they were supposed to and got kicked into the whelp pit (more dots!). Which brings me to another point, difficulty.

The difference in difficulty between FPSs and RPGs are like vegetables and hair covered cheesburgers you just dropped on the floor.  In FPS games all that suffering through difficult levels or gameplay will eventually benefit you in the end (vegies are good for you after all) but slogging through RPGs for a shiney nicknack you're just going to throw away once you do the next dungeon with even harder bosses and steeper learning curves is absolute s*** (yes I'm censoring my own post). Because even though you're wearing your nice new epic helmet you're still eating a cheeseburger covered in hair.

It's because of the differences in options availble for genres, that the games will always feel so much different and it all depends on creative game developers who aren't afraid to try new things or to keep good ones from getting broken. Violating tradition is good if it makes the game more enjoyable, and its not impossible to bridge genres and make a good game, it's just no one seems to have even attempted it.