MMORPG .. the most important part is GAME. Players are in it to have fun .. not to fulfill some higher social purpose. If they have fun soloing (i know i do), i don't see why not give it to them. BTW, RPG is a mis-nomer. Most RPGs on the market today are hack-n-slash games. I don't play games to get leadership skills, i do that in real world. Games are means to be entertained .. no more & no less.
Exactly. I get the feeling that there are a small number of vocal MMO players who are truly deluded about the games they play. Games, all kinds of games, are intended to be fun. MMOs in particular are intended to keep players playing over the long term so the company that put out the game makes money. People just invent "purposes" and "reasons" that things "ought to be" but none of them are at all defensible.
The failure of the computerized RPG came with or around the time of the original Final Fantasy games, where it stopped being about playing a role and became "taking on a role", meaning you get dragged by the nose through an overblown plot whether you want to be or not. That's come to be the norm today, unlike people who actually understand what roleplaying is and figure what MMOs are... isn't it.
The whole idea of promoting grouping is to bring everyone to the same page. Players leveling up with other players gives all the players a legitmate chance to adopt the same philosophy on how the game should be played.
Ah, you want everyone to be mindless zombies, gotcha. Nobody ought to be free to play as they wish, they should be forced to conform to your idea of how they ought to play and, as the Japanese say, "the nail that stands up gets pounded down."
We're talking about MMORPGs right? As in "roleplaying"? I'm just trying to make sure, because while I get that we've come along way from the origin of nerd to the new definition, I still see that grouping is an important initiative in the MMO world. While it not only promotes social behavior (not in the sense that you can just chat with whomever whenever), but it builds leadership in EVERYONE who wishes to learn or adapt to the playstyle of that specific game. What I'm trying to say (and I'm not flaming at you) is that grouping is a fundamental aspect of Massively-Multiplayer-Online-Role-Playing-Games. If you don't see that, then that's your own prorogative, and Bobby Brown knows just how you feel.
MMORPG .. the most important part is GAME. Players are in it to have fun .. not to fulfill some higher social purpose. If they have fun soloing (i know i do), i don't see why not give it to them.
BTW, RPG is a mis-nomer. Most RPGs on the market today are hack-n-slash games. I don't play games to get leadership skills, i do that in real world. Games are means to be entertained .. no more & no less.
You are absolutely right. Soloing is fun for a great deal of people. Companies know this, and know that soloing is generally what the market wants.
But what the market wants may not be the best thing for the genre, because solo based MMOs will eventually get boring. But companies will continue to release new MMOs based largely on market demand, and provide for even more, and easier soloing. But they, even though having provided a short-term hit, will become boring even faster than the first ones did, suggesting a pattern ultimately ending with the whole system killing itself, hence the title of the thread.
The whole purpose of playing a multiplayer game is to play with other people. Everytime I click a multiplayer button on a game, I hate to break it to you, but I pretty much expect to play with multiple players. I'm curious why your so opposed to this satanic idea of people cooperating with each other inside of a video game. What do you think MMORPG-pvp/RvR games are, free for all battles? I'm pretty sure its one team vs another team, as in one group vs another group, horde vs alliance, Order vs Destruction.
Says who? Seriously, I see lots of people declaring the "purpose" of games to be whatever their pet playstyle is, but nobody ever manages to back it up. Exactly which organizing body has officially declared that the "whole purpose" of an MMO is to group with other people? Play with, sure. Be in the same game with, sure. Be a part of a team with and play for a common goal? Nope, sorry, don't see it.
The fact that its titled Multiplayer declares that it was intended to be played with other people...Adding a Multiplayer mode in a game means it was intended purly for people who want to play with multiple people. Hence its purpose is to allow people to play with other people.
Sorry, MMORPG screwed up my post, reconstructing it unenhanced: heremypet wrote: Go ahead then and contradict yourself. It doesn't prove your original statement, nor does it refute my challenge to it. There's no contradiction whatsoever, you don't need to join a group in order to socialize and make friends, groups are for defeating bosses and high-level content, not for forging friendships. Just because I group with some guy doesn't mean I'm going to be friends with him, chances are I'll never see him again as long as I live. heremypet wrote: Keep repeating it, but you're wrong. There is plenty to stop them. You'll have to explain that in detail. What stops *YOU* from grouping with similar-minded players who also want to group? Is your "join team" button broken or something? I see this all the time, what you really mean is that you can't find enough people willing to group with you, therefore you think you get to force everyone to do what *YOU* want so *YOU* have an easier time of it. Fuck what everyone else wants, right? Mighty damn egotistical of you there. heremypet wrote: My ability to make friends isn't the question here, and besides, friendship doesn't automatically make players any more willing to group, when the goals could easily be reached solo. Even if I can solo every shred of content in the game, if a friend sends me a /tell and wants to group, I'll group. Why? That's what friends do. Maybe the problem is you're confusing people who only want to use you for their own personal XP and loot goals as "friends".
I have already explained it in my original quote, try reading it again.
I bet you would love for me to explain it again in detail especially now that you've taken my quotes out of context for the 4th time. But no, I have better things to do than repeat myself.
Oh, and the comment on my friends? Unfortunately you've lowered yourself further than I am willing to follow by continuing this debate.
Ah, you want everyone to be mindless zombies, gotcha. Nobody ought to be free to play as they wish, they should be forced to conform to your idea of how they ought to play and, as the Japanese say, "the nail that stands up gets pounded down." No thanks.
Thats a bit extreme, You say it as if all freedom has been removed, thats not true, a player can still go and do what he wants. All games have programming that limit what the player can and cant do. World of Warcraft has it, I couldnt rune alot of my reputations, thus I forced to play as a friend to factions I didnt care to be friends with. The difference between my idea and world of warcraft is really not that different, they are both limitations.
Promoting grouping does mean a person cant go out and solo it if he wants, it simply means he cant accomplish anything as much as a group could in any amount of time.
Originally posted by heremypet You are absolutely right. Soloing is fun for a great deal of people. Companies know this, and know that soloing is generally what the market wants. But what the market wants may not be the best thing for the genre, because solo based MMOs will eventually get boring. But companies will continue to release new MMOs based largely on market demand, and provide for even more, and easier soloing. But they, even though having provided a short-term hit, will become boring even faster than the first ones did, suggesting a pattern ultimately ending with the whole system killing itself, hence the title of the thread.
So when all common sense points to "sell people what they want to buy" and "sell people what they enjoy", you're suggesting MMOs shouldn't do that for the completely arbitrary reason that it "will eventually get boring." ?
Um...everything gets boring eventually.
1985: "Sorry Mr. Miyamoto, I know you're working hard on Legend of Zeda (NES) but some guy on the street is saying it might get boring eventually. We're going to have to cancel the project."
Sorry man you're going to have to come up with a better reason than that.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Kyleran I've often thought what could be done with quest based content to make it more condusive to group dynamics, but really can't come up with anything substantial.
You could make quests as repetetive and dull as group grinding is. If all the quests in the zone require you to kill the same boars then people will group together to do it faster since noone cares which quest you are on.
Less choice forces people together while more choice spreads them out. People engaged in boring tasks will tend to socialize to relieve the boredom.
Which strangely enough, makes the game more fun at the same time, since in the end, running endless quests turns out to be just as repetitive and boring after a while, except you find yourself alone instead.
But I like the thought of making quests repetitive, perhaps imparting different bonuses for each pass through, or earning points towards some reward, so that players would be encouraged to repeat them with others. (maybe not an infinitum, but to a set number0
I cannot agree with you. I am simply not wired to consider that to be fun for an extended period. I don't mind doing simlar things for an extended period as long as there is enough of a variety in those tasks. As soon as those tasks become too alike, I get bored within 15-30 minutes. So camping the same spawn or type of spawn for an extended period puts me to sleep. I'll do it in spurts and then go do something else till I get 'unbored'.
The thing about the 'endless quests' is that there is usually enough variety in them to keep me interested for a much longer time. A new area will present a new challenge, there is a new twist to a quest formula, the mobs have new abilities I have to learn, etc.
One thing I really like about MMOs is that I can socialize with other people while still doing things on my own. AS such I do not see the logic in doing a boring task simply to socialize while I can socialize with the same people while doing something I enjoy. Now, if those people do not want to keep socializing with me once we are not doign the same task then it was just filler socializing and all they wanted to do was socialize with someone rather than me in particualar.
The idea that you need to convince people to do unfun, boring activities just so they can socaialized is to me ludicrous and backwards. The solution is for the game designers to add in more ways where socializing enhances a fun game experience rather than replacing it.
But see, I find most MMO activities unfun for the most part unless there is some social interaction to it. The issue goes beyond simply the fact you do a quests. People fail to realize the "benefit" the timesinks of the old games gave players from a social perspective.
Taking 3-5 minutes to rest up between fights, or long travel times with not a lot of actual manic acitvity gave players a lot of time to chat and enjoy themselves.
Its hard to explain, but in the end it was lots more fun than I ever realized and I guess I'm just an anchronistic dinosaur since I enjoyed them.
That is just you. By the popularity of solo/quest content, you are in the minority.
While I know I'm in the minority, it most certainly isn't just me. i have a lot of kindred spirits out there as evidenced by these forums, and we can only hope that one day the wheel will come back around a bit and games more catering to a group dynamic will regain popularity.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I dont even believe it is that. I think companies are just selling a random montage of content thats as close to WOW as it can get, because wow is the mega power of MMORPG, and just hoping that players like the game they created with out any incentive that its the game players will want to play.
Originally posted by RoosterNash We're talking about MMORPGs right? As in "roleplaying"? I'm just trying to make sure, because while I get that we've come along way from the origin of nerd to the new definition, I still see that grouping is an important initiative in the MMO world. While it not only promotes social behavior (not in the sense that you can just chat with whomever whenever), but it builds leadership in EVERYONE who wishes to learn or adapt to the playstyle of that specific game. What I'm trying to say (and I'm not flaming at you) is that grouping is a fundamental aspect of Massively-Multiplayer-Online-Role-Playing-Games. If you don't see that, then that's your own prorogative, and Bobby Brown knows just how you feel.
No. It does not need to be forced grouping to be classified or successful as an MMO. MMO simply means that there are more than just you playing the game. Nothing more, nothing less. You do not need to force grouping to have a good community. As it was proven in the early parts of SWG, you did not NEED to group with anyone, but it had one of the best communities ever to be seen in an MMO to date. No, not necessarily the best, but a great one none-the-less. You could do nearly any combat in the game solo. However, to be able to do that combat, you had to interact with your fellow players. Whether it be for gear, buffs, resources or whatever. Forced grouping in combat tends to do less for the community then it benefits it. However, forced interaction via a fully player run economy is where your sense of community comes from.
I didn't say anything about the necessity of forced grouping, I just said it's enjoyable and beneficial for social adaptation to implement grouping throughout. Raids are fun because that's just the ideal RPG thing to do. You don't need 45 mans or even 15 mans to make it seem legendary, but they're extremely enjoyable (probably not for those who can't find that big guild leadership that doesn't act out against their members in a brash manner). However, just /dancing in a particular common area chatting to randoms about your week or how amazing your comp is hardly justifies as being enjoyable.
And while player-ran economies do have some legitimate stake in the proper function of a MMO, they are not the only factor. I enjoyed SWG for a while, as I'm am the self-proclaimed biggest fan of Star Wars lore, but I did so with my guild and our allies. I was never NOT in a group on SWG, but had I played it for longer than 6 months, I imagine I would've gone solo here and there. It was (imho) the best sandbox to date. and it's said that it came to a screeching holt with that dreaded expansion, but it did so it hardly justifies as a reasonable standard for setting an MMO trend.
I'm beginning to ramble as I have a wife who is currently nagging at me, so with that I bid you adieu. If anything I've said seems hostile, please understand that I respect your opinion, and you shed some light that I over-looked earlier.
I'm beginning to ramble as I have a wife who is currently nagging at me, so with that I bid you adieu.
Witness the horrors of forced grouping.
Hah, this would would have been a good comeback if she could bother me while I'm working/playing, but she doesn't because she can't. I merely forgot to take out the trash. A woman's chore, I know... but what am I to do???
I began my journey in MMO's with MUD's. I played Dragonrealms for a few years and that game introduced me to playing with a multitude of people. It was about the socializing, and it was my first experience, and I loved it. I became totally immersed in the game and the people. We got together a did some "hunting" or combat, or we all sat around with the empaths getting healed, or we sat around in our guilds getting some lessons and socializing. The game had inns and restaurants and shops and dances and everything a world needs to socialize. It was all text based, so our imaginations ran crazy! Unfortunately, I got so obsessed with that world, that I neglected my own world, a lesson I had to learn.
When graphic games came out, it wasn't about the socializing any longer; it was about the "hunt" or the combat. What you did, what you talked about in-game was all about that - which included the gear, the crafting, and all the needed things to accomplish the combat. Role-playing rarely is enforced and so even though you are immersed in a world with beautiful imagery, you are also jolted in reality with the fellow players running by with names like "IMYOMOMMA" and "INMYPANTZ."
I try not to socialize to the point where I am so immersed in the game that I cannot interact with my real life. I have a husband and my children are now grown and gone. I can't stay in a group long if I need to stay totally focused and immersed in the action so that if my husband speaks to me, I don't hear him. Most dungeon crawls and raids last for hours and require total focus and concentration. I don't know how anybody has time for that and keeps their real life alive. I don't mind a group for a boss kill, but more than that, and I lose connection with my real life.
So I enjoy solo play. I enjoy being a part of a living, dynamic game with other people, which is different than playing FPS games. I make friends and chat, but I don't like the voice chat, since it again pulls me away from my real life. If I need to go NOW because my family wants me to share something with them, I need to be able to drop what I'm doing and go NOW. I love playing the games and doing the quests and accomplishing the ranks. I don't play end-game because I like to see the levels. I don't PVP because I don't want to shoot at real people.
However, I miss the total world that the old MUDs offerred, even though it was not healthy to be so involved with them. But for those who wish to immerse themselves more socially in these games, then I believe the game must make socializing more fun, and not just in combat. Bring the world together like the other posts suggests with the old SWG ways. I remember sitting in the pubs with the dancers getting our energy back and that gave lots of opportunities for out-of-combat socializing. There's got to be more ways to accomplish this in today's games.
I think what most people want is the CHOICE to solo/group, but we all like to socialize, just maybe in different ways.
Solo content doesn't cause a decline in community. The problem is that most new MMOs are heavily weighted towards PvE combat. Crafting is gimpy or overlooked.
Player-driven economies are shallow or broken.
Housing is absent or so limited as to be pointless.
PvP is meaningless and imbalanced.
Loot is the only way to progress your character. In a level/class based game, the only "group content" that exists is trying to cobble together a functional group while being restricted by differences in level and trammeled by the rigidity of class roles. Trying to build a community on such flimsy and impermanent interaction is just not gonna happen. If a game is going to have a decent community, then it needs to provide that community with more in-depth interaction that just "let's go kill mobs for epix, k?".
Yes it does.
No, it doesn't.
What is "community"? What is it made up of in a MMORPG context? Allow me.
"community" - The amount of players currently engaged in or the quality of:
Interaction
Chat
Forums
Trade
Socialization
Meeting new people
Making Friends
Helping others or getting help from others
For the original statement to be true, then "community" can be measured before and after the addition of said "solo content".
Assume that one player engages in the new "solo content" instead of his normal activity within "community"
Would the value of "community" decrease?
I was going to respond to his post as well with a "Yes, it does" But you did it much better. Well said.
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
I tend to relate all the dawns of modern MMORPGs with the fact that our genre and communities evolved from the Everquest school of thought, instead of the Ultima Online school of thought. Its a concept Ive been thinking for a long time now.
And wouldn't it have been an interesting thing to see if they would have gone the other school of thought. I think it would have been a much more enjoyable genre atm.
Interesting (no pun intended) thought. Thanks for that.
I just wonder if they can shift over to that school of thinking right now, instead of spamming out level based quest bland crap that many are these days...
We shall see i suppose.
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
The fact that its titled Multiplayer declares that it was intended to be played with other people...Adding a Multiplayer mode in a game means it was intended purly for people who want to play with multiple people. Hence its purpose is to allow people to play with other people.
And, in fact, it *IS* played with other people. I play alongside tons of people whenever I log into an MMO. But the name of the game is Massively Multi-player, not Massively Grouping. Adding a multiplayer mode no more means it's purely for people who want to play with multiple people than adding a solo mode means it's purely for people who want to play alone. You're making claims that you simply cannot back up and frankly, make no logical sense whatsoever.
Thats a bit extreme, You say it as if all freedom has been removed, thats not true, a player can still go and do what he wants. All games have programming that limit what the player can and cant do. World of Warcraft has it, I couldnt rune alot of my reputations, thus I forced to play as a friend to factions I didnt care to be friends with. The difference between my idea and world of warcraft is really not that different, they are both limitations. Promoting grouping does mean a person cant go out and solo it if he wants, it simply means he cant accomplish anything as much as a group could in any amount of time.
Let me quote what I was responding to:
The whole idea of promoting grouping is to bring everyone to the same page. Players leveling up with other players gives all the players a legitmate chance to adopt the same philosophy on how the game should be played.
You're assuming, wrongly IMO, that there is a single philosophy how any game "should be played". Worse, you're asserting that this single philosophy is *YOURS*. How about backing that up with anything remotely resembling evidence, logic or critical thinking. If you're going to claim that there is one and only one "correct" way to play a game, then it rests solely on your shoulders to prove it, especially when you're suggesting brainwashing the entire playerbase to adopt your particular desired game style.
The nail that stands up, ie. the player who doesn't want to abide by your favored style, gets hammered down. That's exactly what you're describing.
Maligar is onto one of the things I enjoyed from the old Galaxy days. I was a ranger, I regularly had various amour smiths contact me if a good spawn came up. I still got to do my thing by playing how I enjoyed playing, I made some cash and interacted with other players. It was really cool how even dancers were important. There really was much more of a sense of community and fellow player interaction there then I've seen anywhere else. Once the changes and the loot-centric part of the game became more important, it changed. In a way yes you were forced into interaction in order to get some things accomplished, but you still were able to play the game exactly how you wanted, you didn't have to group if you didn't want to. Forced grouping imho does not promote community in the same way, if anything it promotes being exposed to more of the 'it's all about me' people in a game. Ryzom was the closest to this, however by the time I started playing that game they'd gone to Outposts and two types of 'religions', so there was a huge divide between the factions. From talking to those vets, it sounded very much like the way Galaxies used to be.
Man.. you making an old swg vet wish for a game that's long gone... *sigh*
But you are quite right. I don't think there was ever a game that had a better community imo.
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
The fact that its titled Multiplayer declares that it was intended to be played with other people...Adding a Multiplayer mode in a game means it was intended purly for people who want to play with multiple people. Hence its purpose is to allow people to play with other people.
And, in fact, it *IS* played with other people. I play alongside tons of people whenever I log into an MMO. But the name of the game is Massively Multi-player, not Massively Grouping. Adding a multiplayer mode no more means it's purely for people who want to play with multiple people than adding a solo mode means it's purely for people who want to play alone. You're making claims that you simply cannot back up and frankly, make no logical sense whatsoever.
Do we really have to be so technical by calling it Massively Grouping? Well, if I could be so candid; you don't "technically" play alongside someone now do you? Not unless you're in a group. You may randomly brush up against someone in the same sense that a gangsta (such as myself) drives slowly by his/her mark, but that isn't technically "alongside". Forgive my candor. It may come off a bit... obtuse. But really, this debate is leading no where. Rather than turning over rocks, we continue to dig deeper and deeper into the dirt, and it's not even real dirt. It's a metaphor. I just wanted to make that known in case you really thought that I thought that we were playing in the mud.
Let's avoid semantics and displaying what WE believe the acronym MMORPG really stands for. It's not rocket science. It's not an unknown language. And it's not Massively Single Player either. It's Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.com.
Let's face it. If I was inclined to group, I have to find a random player in the zone I am, who is at the same quest stage, with the same amount of time to spare, with all the quest items they might need ctually on them and who isn't engaged in doing something else for the next 20 to 30 minutes before we can start.
The result then is that I get lower XP, have to split any gold/plat that drops, have to /roll for a 50% chance to get an item I might really want and which in some cases, is a very rare item that I'll be lucky to ever see again. I also run the risk that they are an inarticulate, clueless waste of space who will constantly pester me in /chat for the next month even though I have zero interest in them. Thanks, but no thanks.
I'll group with real-life friends and family, and I thoroughly enjoy that, but I got fed up with grouping with strangers many years ago.
Thats a bit extreme, You say it as if all freedom has been removed, thats not true, a player can still go and do what he wants. All games have programming that limit what the player can and cant do. World of Warcraft has it, I couldnt rune alot of my reputations, thus I forced to play as a friend to factions I didnt care to be friends with. The difference between my idea and world of warcraft is really not that different, they are both limitations. Promoting grouping does mean a person cant go out and solo it if he wants, it simply means he cant accomplish anything as much as a group could in any amount of time.
Let me quote what I was responding to:
The whole idea of promoting grouping is to bring everyone to the same page. Players leveling up with other players gives all the players a legitmate chance to adopt the same philosophy on how the game should be played.
You're assuming, wrongly IMO, that there is a single philosophy how any game "should be played". Worse, you're asserting that this single philosophy is *YOURS*. How about backing that up with anything remotely resembling evidence, logic or critical thinking. If you're going to claim that there is one and only one "correct" way to play a game, then it rests solely on your shoulders to prove it, especially when you're suggesting brainwashing the entire playerbase to adopt your particular desired game style.
The nail that stands up, ie. the player who doesn't want to abide by your favored style, gets hammered down. That's exactly what you're describing.
Oh Dear, I let my spelling escape from me.
I fail to see where your going with your arguments. I don't know why its suddenly my way to play something that doesn't exist. I don't know why players learning how to play with each other in the most efficient manner is so terrible that it makes them robots. I really don't see how game with content like promoting grouping "brainwashes" players more then a game that promotes solo content.
I think the Japanese saying is a perfect description for a game involving a group effort. I see no point in rewarding a player for making decisions with an extremly high death rate.
I think what most people want is the CHOICE to solo/group, but we all like to socialize, just maybe in different ways.
You don't have to think it=) Its exactly what most people want. Choice. They want to solo when they want, group up when they want, socialize when they want and ignore EVERYONE when they want. And why not? This is a videogame after all. We're doing it for entertainment, or at least thats why you SHOULD be playing a videogame. Entertainment and fun. Its NOT a life. Repeat. Its NOT YOUR LIFE. Those who want to force their playstyle on people need to find other hobbies.
Do we really have to be so technical by calling it Massively Grouping? Well, if I could be so candid; you don't "technically" play alongside someone now do you? Not unless you're in a group. You may randomly brush up against someone in the same sense that a gangsta (such as myself) drives slowly by his/her mark, but that isn't technically "alongside". Forgive my candor. It may come off a bit... obtuse. But really, this debate is leading no where. Rather than turning over rocks, we continue to dig deeper and deeper into the dirt, and it's not even real dirt. It's a metaphor. I just wanted to make that known in case you really thought that I thought that we were playing in the mud. Let's avoid semantics and displaying what WE believe the acronym MMORPG really stands for. It's not rocket science. It's not an unknown language. And it's not Massively Single Player either. It's Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.com.
If that's really what you're claiming the genre is about, yes. However, we just have to look at virtually any game on the market to see that's just not the case, no one is "massively grouping", the overwhelming majority of players in almost *ANY* game play solo. Anything that anyone does in a game is, by definition, play, therefore walking through a town with a lot of people in it is, also by definition, playing alongside those people.
The problem is, this isn't a debate, it's a bunch of pro-groupers making absurd assertions that they cannot back up in any way, shape or form. They are promoting their opinions as fact and presenting no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims. There's no logic, reason or critical thinking involved here, it's just the claim that their preferred playstyle is the only playstyle anyone ought to ever use.
It's a good thing developers pay no attention to that, millions of players would stop playing the games if they did.
Thats a bit extreme, You say it as if all freedom has been removed, thats not true, a player can still go and do what he wants. All games have programming that limit what the player can and cant do. World of Warcraft has it, I couldnt rune alot of my reputations, thus I forced to play as a friend to factions I didnt care to be friends with. The difference between my idea and world of warcraft is really not that different, they are both limitations. Promoting grouping does mean a person cant go out and solo it if he wants, it simply means he cant accomplish anything as much as a group could in any amount of time.
Let me quote what I was responding to:
The whole idea of promoting grouping is to bring everyone to the same page. Players leveling up with other players gives all the players a legitmate chance to adopt the same philosophy on how the game should be played.
You're assuming, wrongly IMO, that there is a single philosophy how any game "should be played". Worse, you're asserting that this single philosophy is *YOURS*. How about backing that up with anything remotely resembling evidence, logic or critical thinking. If you're going to claim that there is one and only one "correct" way to play a game, then it rests solely on your shoulders to prove it, especially when you're suggesting brainwashing the entire playerbase to adopt your particular desired game style.
The nail that stands up, ie. the player who doesn't want to abide by your favored style, gets hammered down. That's exactly what you're describing.
Oh Dear, I let my spelling escape from me.
I fail to see where your going with your arguments. I don't know why its suddenly my way to play something that doesn't exist. I don't know why players learning how to play with each other in the most efficient manner is so terrible that it makes them robots. I really don't see how game with content like promoting grouping "brainwashes" players more then a game that promotes solo content.
I think the Japanese saying is a perfect description for a game involving a group effort. I see no point in rewarding a player for making decisions with an extremly high death rate.
It's not that hard to understand if you pay attention. You are asserting that there is a single playstyle that people ought to be using and that the "The whole idea of promoting grouping is to bring everyone to the same page." Why would everyone want to be on the same page? On the one hand, you have games which give players a CHOICE whether they want to play solo or group. On the other, you seem to want to force group-think on everyone so that they'll "adopt the same philosophy on how the game should be played."
Unfortunately, you haven't demonstrated that your particular philosophy is how any game "should" be played. They're your words, not mine. At least man up to them.
One other thing to take into account is since EQ most mmos have been designed like off line rpg games with forced roles and forced combat. The idea of a online world has completely gone to @#$. UO had community because it offered community features. How many times did I tool around town fishing, smithing or what ever just talking to people. How many times did I pop in a dungeon beside someone and we helped each other kill the mob each of us taking a turn to loot the mob. There was more to UO then me and 5 others people group together to kill everything that moves hopeing for the phat loot to drop. Until you fix this idea (which is very true) that joining up with someone will take away from you by them not being as skill as you or by winning the phat loot that happens to drop you will never have a good community based game.
Remember, the simple ability to run around in a virtual landscape and chat with people was very new and cool in 1998. Not so much now in 2009. Also remember that UO didn't have challenging content or any sort of advanced group startegy required in PvE compared to todays MMOs. Nor did UO have all that much content that didnt' involve players Rping and making things up. Mobs were just plopped down. Dungeons were simplistic crawls. Bosses were, well, VERY simple AI or difficult if you include the bugs and greifers;) You didn't run around in UO for phat loot because there was no phat loot, no cool boss, no amazing dungeons, at least when you compared it all to EQ, at the time. It was just chatting, building a house and collecting stuff.
Last time I checked to get all the phat loot in your EQ-like games, you HAVE TO group up. WHatever phat loot you're getting solo isn't hard to get. SO grouping up doesn't hurt you. It never hurt you, unless the ONLY thing you're looking at is your EXP per hour or how fast you're leveling up, which seems odd if you're the kind of person who just wants to play with your friends. I'd find it quite odd that anyone would prefer to SOLO than play with people they enjoy playing with. If they prefer to solo, thats THEY'RE perogative. They have no right to complain about being punished by grouping. WHats more important? PLaying with friends or MIN/MAXING? The game doesnt' force you to min/max. UO forced you to MIN/MAX just to be competitive. You couldn't kill anyone if you just did whatever you wanted adn trained fishing all day. You HAD TO min/max and follow the best template or you got crushed. MMOs aren't about just winning. But some PEOPLE make MMOs about winning. MMOs just offer you the option of how fast you'd like to accomplish whatevr it is you're after. If some people want to do it all as fast as possible, thats the PEOPLE not the game.
Communites in any large MMO are going to suffer. Is NYC as nice a place per square block as some small midwest town? Hardly. But there are still fantastic communities in NYC. They're just harder to find. Thats the great thing about guilds. If you just see that as your community, then a new MMO is just as good as an old one when it comes to people. My guild in WOW was made up mostly former UO, EQ and DOAC players, so my community in WOW was just as good as in past games. If people chose not to play with like minded people and only worry about themselves, their EXP and WINNING at all costs, than thats their fault.
I'm not saying I have all the right answers simply stating what I have seen and what I think could help. The simple fact of the problem is group as it has be done in EQ since does not work. It separates and segregates the community into little clicks and now with mmo being items based caused greed to be the deciding factor or how far you can go.
If you want a mmo to be based on community you have to expand on off line group based design (holly trinity) and lessen the greed factor.
Comments
Exactly. I get the feeling that there are a small number of vocal MMO players who are truly deluded about the games they play. Games, all kinds of games, are intended to be fun. MMOs in particular are intended to keep players playing over the long term so the company that put out the game makes money. People just invent "purposes" and "reasons" that things "ought to be" but none of them are at all defensible.
The failure of the computerized RPG came with or around the time of the original Final Fantasy games, where it stopped being about playing a role and became "taking on a role", meaning you get dragged by the nose through an overblown plot whether you want to be or not. That's come to be the norm today, unlike people who actually understand what roleplaying is and figure what MMOs are... isn't it.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Ah, you want everyone to be mindless zombies, gotcha. Nobody ought to be free to play as they wish, they should be forced to conform to your idea of how they ought to play and, as the Japanese say, "the nail that stands up gets pounded down."
No thanks.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
MMORPG .. the most important part is GAME. Players are in it to have fun .. not to fulfill some higher social purpose. If they have fun soloing (i know i do), i don't see why not give it to them.
BTW, RPG is a mis-nomer. Most RPGs on the market today are hack-n-slash games. I don't play games to get leadership skills, i do that in real world. Games are means to be entertained .. no more & no less.
You are absolutely right. Soloing is fun for a great deal of people. Companies know this, and know that soloing is generally what the market wants.
But what the market wants may not be the best thing for the genre, because solo based MMOs will eventually get boring. But companies will continue to release new MMOs based largely on market demand, and provide for even more, and easier soloing. But they, even though having provided a short-term hit, will become boring even faster than the first ones did, suggesting a pattern ultimately ending with the whole system killing itself, hence the title of the thread.
"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun."
Says who? Seriously, I see lots of people declaring the "purpose" of games to be whatever their pet playstyle is, but nobody ever manages to back it up. Exactly which organizing body has officially declared that the "whole purpose" of an MMO is to group with other people? Play with, sure. Be in the same game with, sure. Be a part of a team with and play for a common goal? Nope, sorry, don't see it.
The fact that its titled Multiplayer declares that it was intended to be played with other people...Adding a Multiplayer mode in a game means it was intended purly for people who want to play with multiple people. Hence its purpose is to allow people to play with other people.
Add signature here.
I have already explained it in my original quote, try reading it again.
I bet you would love for me to explain it again in detail especially now that you've taken my quotes out of context for the 4th time. But no, I have better things to do than repeat myself.
Oh, and the comment on my friends? Unfortunately you've lowered yourself further than I am willing to follow by continuing this debate.
"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun."
Thats a bit extreme, You say it as if all freedom has been removed, thats not true, a player can still go and do what he wants. All games have programming that limit what the player can and cant do. World of Warcraft has it, I couldnt rune alot of my reputations, thus I forced to play as a friend to factions I didnt care to be friends with. The difference between my idea and world of warcraft is really not that different, they are both limitations.
Promoting grouping does mean a person cant go out and solo it if he wants, it simply means he cant accomplish anything as much as a group could in any amount of time.
Add signature here.
So when all common sense points to "sell people what they want to buy" and "sell people what they enjoy", you're suggesting MMOs shouldn't do that for the completely arbitrary reason that it "will eventually get boring." ?
Um...everything gets boring eventually.
1985: "Sorry Mr. Miyamoto, I know you're working hard on Legend of Zeda (NES) but some guy on the street is saying it might get boring eventually. We're going to have to cancel the project."
Sorry man you're going to have to come up with a better reason than that.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You could make quests as repetetive and dull as group grinding is. If all the quests in the zone require you to kill the same boars then people will group together to do it faster since noone cares which quest you are on.
Less choice forces people together while more choice spreads them out. People engaged in boring tasks will tend to socialize to relieve the boredom.
Which strangely enough, makes the game more fun at the same time, since in the end, running endless quests turns out to be just as repetitive and boring after a while, except you find yourself alone instead.
But I like the thought of making quests repetitive, perhaps imparting different bonuses for each pass through, or earning points towards some reward, so that players would be encouraged to repeat them with others. (maybe not an infinitum, but to a set number0
I cannot agree with you. I am simply not wired to consider that to be fun for an extended period. I don't mind doing simlar things for an extended period as long as there is enough of a variety in those tasks. As soon as those tasks become too alike, I get bored within 15-30 minutes. So camping the same spawn or type of spawn for an extended period puts me to sleep. I'll do it in spurts and then go do something else till I get 'unbored'.
The thing about the 'endless quests' is that there is usually enough variety in them to keep me interested for a much longer time. A new area will present a new challenge, there is a new twist to a quest formula, the mobs have new abilities I have to learn, etc.
One thing I really like about MMOs is that I can socialize with other people while still doing things on my own. AS such I do not see the logic in doing a boring task simply to socialize while I can socialize with the same people while doing something I enjoy. Now, if those people do not want to keep socializing with me once we are not doign the same task then it was just filler socializing and all they wanted to do was socialize with someone rather than me in particualar.
The idea that you need to convince people to do unfun, boring activities just so they can socaialized is to me ludicrous and backwards. The solution is for the game designers to add in more ways where socializing enhances a fun game experience rather than replacing it.
But see, I find most MMO activities unfun for the most part unless there is some social interaction to it. The issue goes beyond simply the fact you do a quests. People fail to realize the "benefit" the timesinks of the old games gave players from a social perspective.
Taking 3-5 minutes to rest up between fights, or long travel times with not a lot of actual manic acitvity gave players a lot of time to chat and enjoy themselves.
Its hard to explain, but in the end it was lots more fun than I ever realized and I guess I'm just an anchronistic dinosaur since I enjoyed them.
That is just you. By the popularity of solo/quest content, you are in the minority.
While I know I'm in the minority, it most certainly isn't just me. i have a lot of kindred spirits out there as evidenced by these forums, and we can only hope that one day the wheel will come back around a bit and games more catering to a group dynamic will regain popularity.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I dont even believe it is that. I think companies are just selling a random montage of content thats as close to WOW as it can get, because wow is the mega power of MMORPG, and just hoping that players like the game they created with out any incentive that its the game players will want to play.
Add signature here.
No. It does not need to be forced grouping to be classified or successful as an MMO. MMO simply means that there are more than just you playing the game. Nothing more, nothing less. You do not need to force grouping to have a good community. As it was proven in the early parts of SWG, you did not NEED to group with anyone, but it had one of the best communities ever to be seen in an MMO to date. No, not necessarily the best, but a great one none-the-less. You could do nearly any combat in the game solo. However, to be able to do that combat, you had to interact with your fellow players. Whether it be for gear, buffs, resources or whatever. Forced grouping in combat tends to do less for the community then it benefits it. However, forced interaction via a fully player run economy is where your sense of community comes from.
I didn't say anything about the necessity of forced grouping, I just said it's enjoyable and beneficial for social adaptation to implement grouping throughout. Raids are fun because that's just the ideal RPG thing to do. You don't need 45 mans or even 15 mans to make it seem legendary, but they're extremely enjoyable (probably not for those who can't find that big guild leadership that doesn't act out against their members in a brash manner). However, just /dancing in a particular common area chatting to randoms about your week or how amazing your comp is hardly justifies as being enjoyable.
And while player-ran economies do have some legitimate stake in the proper function of a MMO, they are not the only factor. I enjoyed SWG for a while, as I'm am the self-proclaimed biggest fan of Star Wars lore, but I did so with my guild and our allies. I was never NOT in a group on SWG, but had I played it for longer than 6 months, I imagine I would've gone solo here and there. It was (imho) the best sandbox to date. and it's said that it came to a screeching holt with that dreaded expansion, but it did so it hardly justifies as a reasonable standard for setting an MMO trend.
I'm beginning to ramble as I have a wife who is currently nagging at me, so with that I bid you adieu. If anything I've said seems hostile, please understand that I respect your opinion, and you shed some light that I over-looked earlier.
THE Rooster Nash
Witness the horrors of forced grouping.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Witness the horrors of forced grouping.
Hah, this would would have been a good comeback if she could bother me while I'm working/playing, but she doesn't because she can't. I merely forgot to take out the trash. A woman's chore, I know... but what am I to do???
THE Rooster Nash
I began my journey in MMO's with MUD's. I played Dragonrealms for a few years and that game introduced me to playing with a multitude of people. It was about the socializing, and it was my first experience, and I loved it. I became totally immersed in the game and the people. We got together a did some "hunting" or combat, or we all sat around with the empaths getting healed, or we sat around in our guilds getting some lessons and socializing. The game had inns and restaurants and shops and dances and everything a world needs to socialize. It was all text based, so our imaginations ran crazy! Unfortunately, I got so obsessed with that world, that I neglected my own world, a lesson I had to learn.
When graphic games came out, it wasn't about the socializing any longer; it was about the "hunt" or the combat. What you did, what you talked about in-game was all about that - which included the gear, the crafting, and all the needed things to accomplish the combat. Role-playing rarely is enforced and so even though you are immersed in a world with beautiful imagery, you are also jolted in reality with the fellow players running by with names like "IMYOMOMMA" and "INMYPANTZ."
I try not to socialize to the point where I am so immersed in the game that I cannot interact with my real life. I have a husband and my children are now grown and gone. I can't stay in a group long if I need to stay totally focused and immersed in the action so that if my husband speaks to me, I don't hear him. Most dungeon crawls and raids last for hours and require total focus and concentration. I don't know how anybody has time for that and keeps their real life alive. I don't mind a group for a boss kill, but more than that, and I lose connection with my real life.
So I enjoy solo play. I enjoy being a part of a living, dynamic game with other people, which is different than playing FPS games. I make friends and chat, but I don't like the voice chat, since it again pulls me away from my real life. If I need to go NOW because my family wants me to share something with them, I need to be able to drop what I'm doing and go NOW. I love playing the games and doing the quests and accomplishing the ranks. I don't play end-game because I like to see the levels. I don't PVP because I don't want to shoot at real people.
However, I miss the total world that the old MUDs offerred, even though it was not healthy to be so involved with them. But for those who wish to immerse themselves more socially in these games, then I believe the game must make socializing more fun, and not just in combat. Bring the world together like the other posts suggests with the old SWG ways. I remember sitting in the pubs with the dancers getting our energy back and that gave lots of opportunities for out-of-combat socializing. There's got to be more ways to accomplish this in today's games.
I think what most people want is the CHOICE to solo/group, but we all like to socialize, just maybe in different ways.
Yes it does.
No, it doesn't.
What is "community"? What is it made up of in a MMORPG context? Allow me.
"community" - The amount of players currently engaged in or the quality of:
Interaction
Chat
Forums
Trade
Socialization
Meeting new people
Making Friends
Helping others or getting help from others
For the original statement to be true, then "community" can be measured before and after the addition of said "solo content".
Assume that one player engages in the new "solo content" instead of his normal activity within "community"
Would the value of "community" decrease?
I was going to respond to his post as well with a "Yes, it does" But you did it much better. Well said.
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
And wouldn't it have been an interesting thing to see if they would have gone the other school of thought. I think it would have been a much more enjoyable genre atm.
Interesting (no pun intended) thought. Thanks for that.
I just wonder if they can shift over to that school of thinking right now, instead of spamming out level based quest bland crap that many are these days...
We shall see i suppose.
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
And, in fact, it *IS* played with other people. I play alongside tons of people whenever I log into an MMO. But the name of the game is Massively Multi-player, not Massively Grouping. Adding a multiplayer mode no more means it's purely for people who want to play with multiple people than adding a solo mode means it's purely for people who want to play alone. You're making claims that you simply cannot back up and frankly, make no logical sense whatsoever.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Let me quote what I was responding to:
The whole idea of promoting grouping is to bring everyone to the same page. Players leveling up with other players gives all the players a legitmate chance to adopt the same philosophy on how the game should be played.
You're assuming, wrongly IMO, that there is a single philosophy how any game "should be played". Worse, you're asserting that this single philosophy is *YOURS*. How about backing that up with anything remotely resembling evidence, logic or critical thinking. If you're going to claim that there is one and only one "correct" way to play a game, then it rests solely on your shoulders to prove it, especially when you're suggesting brainwashing the entire playerbase to adopt your particular desired game style.
The nail that stands up, ie. the player who doesn't want to abide by your favored style, gets hammered down. That's exactly what you're describing.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Man.. you making an old swg vet wish for a game that's long gone... *sigh*
But you are quite right. I don't think there was ever a game that had a better community imo.
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
And, in fact, it *IS* played with other people. I play alongside tons of people whenever I log into an MMO. But the name of the game is Massively Multi-player, not Massively Grouping. Adding a multiplayer mode no more means it's purely for people who want to play with multiple people than adding a solo mode means it's purely for people who want to play alone. You're making claims that you simply cannot back up and frankly, make no logical sense whatsoever.
Do we really have to be so technical by calling it Massively Grouping? Well, if I could be so candid; you don't "technically" play alongside someone now do you? Not unless you're in a group. You may randomly brush up against someone in the same sense that a gangsta (such as myself) drives slowly by his/her mark, but that isn't technically "alongside". Forgive my candor. It may come off a bit... obtuse. But really, this debate is leading no where. Rather than turning over rocks, we continue to dig deeper and deeper into the dirt, and it's not even real dirt. It's a metaphor. I just wanted to make that known in case you really thought that I thought that we were playing in the mud.
Let's avoid semantics and displaying what WE believe the acronym MMORPG really stands for. It's not rocket science. It's not an unknown language. And it's not Massively Single Player either. It's Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.com.
THE Rooster Nash
Let's face it. If I was inclined to group, I have to find a random player in the zone I am, who is at the same quest stage, with the same amount of time to spare, with all the quest items they might need ctually on them and who isn't engaged in doing something else for the next 20 to 30 minutes before we can start.
The result then is that I get lower XP, have to split any gold/plat that drops, have to /roll for a 50% chance to get an item I might really want and which in some cases, is a very rare item that I'll be lucky to ever see again. I also run the risk that they are an inarticulate, clueless waste of space who will constantly pester me in /chat for the next month even though I have zero interest in them. Thanks, but no thanks.
I'll group with real-life friends and family, and I thoroughly enjoy that, but I got fed up with grouping with strangers many years ago.
Let me quote what I was responding to:
The whole idea of promoting grouping is to bring everyone to the same page. Players leveling up with other players gives all the players a legitmate chance to adopt the same philosophy on how the game should be played.
You're assuming, wrongly IMO, that there is a single philosophy how any game "should be played". Worse, you're asserting that this single philosophy is *YOURS*. How about backing that up with anything remotely resembling evidence, logic or critical thinking. If you're going to claim that there is one and only one "correct" way to play a game, then it rests solely on your shoulders to prove it, especially when you're suggesting brainwashing the entire playerbase to adopt your particular desired game style.
The nail that stands up, ie. the player who doesn't want to abide by your favored style, gets hammered down. That's exactly what you're describing.
Oh Dear, I let my spelling escape from me.
I fail to see where your going with your arguments. I don't know why its suddenly my way to play something that doesn't exist. I don't know why players learning how to play with each other in the most efficient manner is so terrible that it makes them robots. I really don't see how game with content like promoting grouping "brainwashes" players more then a game that promotes solo content.
I think the Japanese saying is a perfect description for a game involving a group effort. I see no point in rewarding a player for making decisions with an extremly high death rate.
Add signature here.
You don't have to think it=) Its exactly what most people want. Choice. They want to solo when they want, group up when they want, socialize when they want and ignore EVERYONE when they want. And why not? This is a videogame after all. We're doing it for entertainment, or at least thats why you SHOULD be playing a videogame. Entertainment and fun. Its NOT a life. Repeat. Its NOT YOUR LIFE. Those who want to force their playstyle on people need to find other hobbies.
If that's really what you're claiming the genre is about, yes. However, we just have to look at virtually any game on the market to see that's just not the case, no one is "massively grouping", the overwhelming majority of players in almost *ANY* game play solo. Anything that anyone does in a game is, by definition, play, therefore walking through a town with a lot of people in it is, also by definition, playing alongside those people.
The problem is, this isn't a debate, it's a bunch of pro-groupers making absurd assertions that they cannot back up in any way, shape or form. They are promoting their opinions as fact and presenting no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims. There's no logic, reason or critical thinking involved here, it's just the claim that their preferred playstyle is the only playstyle anyone ought to ever use.
It's a good thing developers pay no attention to that, millions of players would stop playing the games if they did.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Let me quote what I was responding to:
The whole idea of promoting grouping is to bring everyone to the same page. Players leveling up with other players gives all the players a legitmate chance to adopt the same philosophy on how the game should be played.
You're assuming, wrongly IMO, that there is a single philosophy how any game "should be played". Worse, you're asserting that this single philosophy is *YOURS*. How about backing that up with anything remotely resembling evidence, logic or critical thinking. If you're going to claim that there is one and only one "correct" way to play a game, then it rests solely on your shoulders to prove it, especially when you're suggesting brainwashing the entire playerbase to adopt your particular desired game style.
The nail that stands up, ie. the player who doesn't want to abide by your favored style, gets hammered down. That's exactly what you're describing.
Oh Dear, I let my spelling escape from me.
I fail to see where your going with your arguments. I don't know why its suddenly my way to play something that doesn't exist. I don't know why players learning how to play with each other in the most efficient manner is so terrible that it makes them robots. I really don't see how game with content like promoting grouping "brainwashes" players more then a game that promotes solo content.
I think the Japanese saying is a perfect description for a game involving a group effort. I see no point in rewarding a player for making decisions with an extremly high death rate.
It's not that hard to understand if you pay attention. You are asserting that there is a single playstyle that people ought to be using and that the "The whole idea of promoting grouping is to bring everyone to the same page." Why would everyone want to be on the same page? On the one hand, you have games which give players a CHOICE whether they want to play solo or group. On the other, you seem to want to force group-think on everyone so that they'll "adopt the same philosophy on how the game should be played."
Unfortunately, you haven't demonstrated that your particular philosophy is how any game "should" be played. They're your words, not mine. At least man up to them.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Remember, the simple ability to run around in a virtual landscape and chat with people was very new and cool in 1998. Not so much now in 2009. Also remember that UO didn't have challenging content or any sort of advanced group startegy required in PvE compared to todays MMOs. Nor did UO have all that much content that didnt' involve players Rping and making things up. Mobs were just plopped down. Dungeons were simplistic crawls. Bosses were, well, VERY simple AI or difficult if you include the bugs and greifers;) You didn't run around in UO for phat loot because there was no phat loot, no cool boss, no amazing dungeons, at least when you compared it all to EQ, at the time. It was just chatting, building a house and collecting stuff.
Last time I checked to get all the phat loot in your EQ-like games, you HAVE TO group up. WHatever phat loot you're getting solo isn't hard to get. SO grouping up doesn't hurt you. It never hurt you, unless the ONLY thing you're looking at is your EXP per hour or how fast you're leveling up, which seems odd if you're the kind of person who just wants to play with your friends. I'd find it quite odd that anyone would prefer to SOLO than play with people they enjoy playing with. If they prefer to solo, thats THEY'RE perogative. They have no right to complain about being punished by grouping. WHats more important? PLaying with friends or MIN/MAXING? The game doesnt' force you to min/max. UO forced you to MIN/MAX just to be competitive. You couldn't kill anyone if you just did whatever you wanted adn trained fishing all day. You HAD TO min/max and follow the best template or you got crushed. MMOs aren't about just winning. But some PEOPLE make MMOs about winning. MMOs just offer you the option of how fast you'd like to accomplish whatevr it is you're after. If some people want to do it all as fast as possible, thats the PEOPLE not the game.
Communites in any large MMO are going to suffer. Is NYC as nice a place per square block as some small midwest town? Hardly. But there are still fantastic communities in NYC. They're just harder to find. Thats the great thing about guilds. If you just see that as your community, then a new MMO is just as good as an old one when it comes to people. My guild in WOW was made up mostly former UO, EQ and DOAC players, so my community in WOW was just as good as in past games. If people chose not to play with like minded people and only worry about themselves, their EXP and WINNING at all costs, than thats their fault.
I'm not saying I have all the right answers simply stating what I have seen and what I think could help. The simple fact of the problem is group as it has be done in EQ since does not work. It separates and segregates the community into little clicks and now with mmo being items based caused greed to be the deciding factor or how far you can go.
If you want a mmo to be based on community you have to expand on off line group based design (holly trinity) and lessen the greed factor.