tl;dr thread. There is a reason they are called MMOs. That SHOULD kinda give it away that your not gonna be able to solo the whole damn game, people need to get real.
Massively multiplayer = lots of people. Nowhere in the title does it say *ANYTHING* about grouping. Never has, never will.
That's because all MMOs for the past 5 years have been solo centric games, with the largest biggest budget in MMO history coming out soon, will be entirely solo centric.
Those are the game that developers are convinced make the most money. If you don't like it, prove to developers that group-centric games have the same, or better capacity to make money. Sitting around whining on a forum isn't going to accomplish that.
You get tons of threads asking for group focused MMOs because that's the way MMOs were originally meant to be played, and they aren't made that way very often anymore.
So what? Just because they were originally "meant to be played" that way, for the sake of argument, doesn't mean they will eternally be that way. Model T's were "meant to be black" according to Henry Ford. Times change. Deal with it.
You don't get granted a game simply because you want one, you have to *EARN* it. You have to *PROVE* that you deserve it by demonstrating to developers that making such a game would be financially viable. It has nothing to do with empathy, ith as to do with being fiscally worthwhile.
Oh right, sorry, I didn't realise that's how games were made. Like, I worked when I was a teenager so wow, I must have Earned that Space Invaders game in the local arcade. I feel so special now! And like, wow, Crysis, yeah, I never realised I went to the developers and proved I wanted it. But I must have, cos, you know what?! They made it! Isn't that awesome?!
You don't get granted a game simply because you want one, you have to *EARN* it. You have to *PROVE* that you deserve it by demonstrating to developers that making such a game would be financially viable. It has nothing to do with empathy, ith as to do with being fiscally worthwhile.
Oh right, sorry, I didn't realise that's how games were made. Like, I worked when I was a teenager so wow, I must have Earned that Space Invaders game in the local arcade. I feel so special now! And like, wow, Crysis, yeah, I never realised I went to the developers and proved I wanted it. But I must have, cos, you know what?! They made it! Isn't that awesome?!
I'm so special.
Stop being purposely dense. You, as a collective term, need to demonstrate to developers that there is enough interest in your particular niche to make them sufficient money by making a game that caters to your particular desires. Clearly the intensive market research that AAA developers are doing isn't showing that, that's why games are currently in the state that they are. If you don't like that, you, again collectively, need to do something about it.
But no, you'd rather sit around here and whine. Good luck getting a game made when that's all you do.
That's because all MMOs for the past 5 years have been solo centric games, with the largest biggest budget in MMO history coming out soon, will be entirely solo centric.
Those are the game that developers are convinced make the most money. If you don't like it, prove to developers that group-centric games have the same, or better capacity to make money. Sitting around whining on a forum isn't going to accomplish that.
I think you have some kind of weird brain damage. What do you think we can do other than "whine on a forum" like you yourself are doing? Hey, want to know a list of solo focused AAA MMORPGs that have totally bombed in the last five years? All of them. But the devs keep making them despite going nearly bankrupt. Yet group heavy MMORPGs of the past lasted a good 4-6 years on high sub numbers before declining after they were made more solo friendly. Your logic is flawed.
You get tons of threads asking for group focused MMOs because that's the way MMOs were originally meant to be played, and they aren't made that way very often anymore.
So what? Just because they were originally "meant to be played" that way, for the sake of argument, doesn't mean they will eternally be that way. Model T's were "meant to be black" according to Henry Ford. Times change. Deal with it.
Yeah, when your favorite genre of entertainment just stops existing, gets turned into something entirely different and marketed at new people, and you try to ask "hey, why don't you make it like this anymore", we'll all laugh at you and say "DEAL WITH IT!"
You don't get granted a game simply because you want one, you have to *EARN* it. You have to *PROVE* that you deserve it by demonstrating to developers that making such a game would be financially viable. It has nothing to do with empathy, ith as to do with being fiscally worthwhile.
Oh right, sorry, I didn't realise that's how games were made. Like, I worked when I was a teenager so wow, I must have Earned that Space Invaders game in the local arcade. I feel so special now! And like, wow, Crysis, yeah, I never realised I went to the developers and proved I wanted it. But I must have, cos, you know what?! They made it! Isn't that awesome?!
I'm so special.
Stop being purposely dense. You, as a collective term, need to demonstrate to developers that there is enough interest in your particular niche to make them sufficient money by making a game that caters to your particular desires. Clearly the intensive market research that AAA developers are doing isn't showing that, that's why games are currently in the state that they are. If you don't like that, you, again collectively, need to do something about it.
But no, you'd rather sit around here and whine. Good luck getting a game made when that's all you do.
Don't the majority of the mmo games require you to group to get the best items or beat the hardest dungeons? Why should we groupers need to demonstrate something when we already have what we want.
This is a contradiction, if soloing is a smaller option, then the detriment is to the soloers. No wonder soloers cry for a solo-centric mmorpg.
I'm sorry, who is crying for a solo-centric MMO? Nobody. It's all the groupers who whine incessantly that there are no group-centric MMOs. There's no point to crying for solo-centric games, they're everywhere.
Methinks you're looking at the wrong side.
Agreed. It always seems that the soloers want MMO's with options for both group and solo play, with equal opportunities, whereas the Groupers want to punish the soloers enough to "force" them into grouping.
Let's make this clear because some consider this solo centric thing different from others. Is it like wow for example where you can solo a big part of the game but for epic fights you have to group? Or do you want to solo everything. Even the bosses and get the same rewards the groupers get.
I want a WAY to get the same reward a grouper gets. Michael Jordan plays with a team and earns an award... should it be any greater than the award Tiger Woods gets? or Lance Armstrong gets? Should they be punished because they did it alone?
That analogy is so bad it hurts my head.
In MMORPGs soloing is about a billion times easier than grouping, which is why grouping needs to be rewarded, or everyone would just solo. Why play an MMORPG if you're just going to do everything solo? Solo if you want, but the rewards/level of difficulty should not be equal to that of grouping, because then no one will group.
If no one groups for the pure joy of grouping, then so be it.
I, for one, have made the CHOICE to group up even when doing simple quests... strange, isn't it?
Cool story bro, I call BS. In a game environment that doesn't give you a reason or encourage grouping, but instead ENCOURAGES you to do it all by yourself, groups are few and far between. Usually you'll just get people grouping up to do a boss then disband without saying more than a word to eachother. Been playing MMOs for 10 years, that's how it goes. 6 years ago, I would wander into a dangerous dungeon, hunt and kill by myself for a bit, and join a random group running by and talk and laugh and have a good time while hunting.
Nowadays, people just follow a linear quest treadmill that requires little to no grouping. Where do you go to find a group? Can't do it in a dungeon, its all instanced now. Out in the field? You'll just run into people doing solo quests, why would they group? If they're playing a game that focuses on solo players, you're not likely to run into people who will group for the hell of it, you'll get people that just want to rush to level cap.
You've described the mmorpg of my dreams. One that doesn't require grouping of any sort. One where I can advance alone to the fullest (gear-wise) yet still get the entertainment (not available in single player games)of seeing other players running about trading and chatting in a big open persistent world and otherwise has the features normally expected of quality fantasy mmorpgs.
Er... I don't think thats anything like I described.
What YOU described is virtually every single MMORPG on the market at the moment. Sounds like you want to play a single player RPG with scripted NPCs running by now and then to make the world seem alive.
I see, you just misrepresented my post on purpose. Duly noted. But in every triple-a mmorpg out, including WoW, the best gear requires grouping, therefore you are wrong. I'll continue this discussion with someone that understands the subject matter.
Dark Age of Camelot you could get the best gear without raiding. My point is now proven, therefore you are wrong, I'll discuss this genre with someone who has played more games than just WoW.
But no, you'd rather sit around here and whine. Good luck getting a game made when that's all you do.
But surely, according to you, this is the best thing to do? If I refuse to play these solo-centric quest-grinding pieces of trash, and others refuse to play them too, then their subscriber base is going to fall - as has already been seen - and the developers 'intense market research' is going to show that this type of game just isn't worth investing in. Win for the whiney groupers sitting on forums.
This is a contradiction, if soloing is a smaller option, then the detriment is to the soloers. No wonder soloers cry for a solo-centric mmorpg.
I'm sorry, who is crying for a solo-centric MMO? Nobody. It's all the groupers who whine incessantly that there are no group-centric MMOs. There's no point to crying for solo-centric games, they're everywhere.
Methinks you're looking at the wrong side.
Agreed. It always seems that the soloers want MMO's with options for both group and solo play, with equal opportunities, whereas the Groupers want to punish the soloers enough to "force" them into grouping.
Let's make this clear because some consider this solo centric thing different from others. Is it like wow for example where you can solo a big part of the game but for epic fights you have to group? Or do you want to solo everything. Even the bosses and get the same rewards the groupers get.
I want a WAY to get the same reward a grouper gets. Michael Jordan plays with a team and earns an award... should it be any greater than the award Tiger Woods gets? or Lance Armstrong gets? Should they be punished because they did it alone?
That analogy is so bad it hurts my head.
In MMORPGs soloing is about a billion times easier than grouping, which is why grouping needs to be rewarded, or everyone would just solo. Why play an MMORPG if you're just going to do everything solo? Solo if you want, but the rewards/level of difficulty should not be equal to that of grouping, because then no one will group.
If no one groups for the pure joy of grouping, then so be it.
I, for one, have made the CHOICE to group up even when doing simple quests... strange, isn't it?
Cool story bro, I call BS. In a game environment that doesn't give you a reason or encourage grouping, but instead ENCOURAGES you to do it all by yourself, groups are few and far between. Usually you'll just get people grouping up to do a boss then disband without saying more than a word to eachother. Been playing MMOs for 10 years, that's how it goes. 6 years ago, I would wander into a dangerous dungeon, hunt and kill by myself for a bit, and join a random group running by and talk and laugh and have a good time while hunting.
Nowadays, people just follow a linear quest treadmill that requires little to no grouping. Where do you go to find a group? Can't do it in a dungeon, its all instanced now. Out in the field? You'll just run into people doing solo quests, why would they group? If they're playing a game that focuses on solo players, you're not likely to run into people who will group for the hell of it, you'll get people that just want to rush to level cap.
You've described the mmorpg of my dreams. One that doesn't require grouping of any sort. One where I can advance alone to the fullest (gear-wise) yet still get the entertainment (not available in single player games)of seeing other players running about trading and chatting in a big open persistent world and otherwise has the features normally expected of quality fantasy mmorpgs.
Er... I don't think thats anything like I described.
What YOU described is virtually every single MMORPG on the market at the moment. Sounds like you want to play a single player RPG with scripted NPCs running by now and then to make the world seem alive.
I see, you just misrepresented my post on purpose. Duly noted. But in every triple-a mmorpg out, including WoW, the best gear requires grouping, therefore you are wrong. I'll continue this discussion with someone that understands the subject matter.
Dark Age of Camelot you could get the best gear without raiding. My point is now proven, therefore you are wrong, I'll discuss this genre with someone who has played more games than just WoW.
Boy, you sure do love to skirt the issue. He said getting best gear without grouping, not specifically raiding. Even in DAoC, you have to group for the best gear, especially now that drops surpass most if not all of the crafted stuff and even the crafted stuff requires components from group and raid content and crafters expect you to have those components on top of gold fees.
But no, you'd rather sit around here and whine. Good luck getting a game made when that's all you do.
But surely, according to you, this is the best thing to do? If I refuse to play these solo-centric quest-grinding pieces of trash, and others refuse to play them too, then their subscriber base is going to fall - as has already been seen - and the developers 'intense market research' is going to show that this type of game just isn't worth investing in. Win for the whiney groupers sitting on forums.
That's interesting, because we have seen time and time again that the more solo content and the more casual a game, the more players. Forced grouping is a lot more niche than you want to admit.
That's interesting, because we have seen time and time again that the more solo content and the more casual a game, the more players. Forced grouping is a lot more niche than you want to admit.
Really? And where did you get this data from? It couldn't have been from http://www.mmogchart.com/charts/ or you would have noticed that at its peak, EverQuest had 550,000 subscribers. Meanwhile, the solo-based games are doing a lot worse, such as LOTRO with a peak of 200,000 and City of Heroes, also peaking close to 200,000. Of course these numbers only date back to 2008, but I'd bet things haven't changed much. The only game with solo-content that beats the old group-based games is World of Warcraft, which is just a weird anomoly in a sea of MMO's.
Don't the majority of the mmo games require you to group to get the best items or beat the hardest dungeons? Why should we groupers need to demonstrate something when we already have what we want.
ROFL, Already have what you want?! What in the hell are you talking about, this isn't a standard in which ALL MMOs must be made. I can't say that I don't like sandbox or full loot open pvp therefore it should not exist. Games are made with many people in mind, you have no right to tell others what they should play. If you don't like it you can play the games that already "give you what you want".
Originally posted by UsualSuspect
That's interesting, because we have seen time and time again that the more solo content and the more casual a game, the more players. Forced grouping is a lot more niche than you want to admit.
Really? And where did you get this data from? It couldn't have been from http://www.mmogchart.com/charts/ or you would have noticed that at its peak, EverQuest had 550,000 subscribers. Meanwhile, the solo-based games are doing a lot worse, such as LOTRO with a peak of 200,000 and City of Heroes, also peaking close to 200,000. Of course these numbers only date back to 2008, but I'd bet things haven't changed much. The only game with solo-content that beats the old group-based games is World of Warcraft, which is just a weird anomoly in a sea of MMO's.
Don't the majority of the mmo games require you to group to get the best items or beat the hardest dungeons? Why should we groupers need to demonstrate something when we already have what we want.
ROFL, Already have what you want?! What in the hell are you talking about, this isn't a standard in which ALL MMOs must be made. I can't say that I don't like sandbox or full loot open pvp therefore it should not exist. Games are made with many people in mind, you have no right to tell others what they should play. If you don't like it you can play the games that already "give you what you want".
Did you even read the post I replied to?
Cephus said that (You (groupers), as a collective term, need to demonstrate to developers that there is enough interest in your particular niche to make them sufficient money by making a game that caters to your particular desires)
We groupers already have the games we want. Almost all the mmo out there requires grouping for end game content. The one that should demonstrate anything to the developers are you who want to get everything by soloing.
And this proves what exactly? Your comment was, "..the more solo content and the more casual a game, the more players.". This doesn't show any population details, it simply shows that Solo PvE is the most popular at the moment. Considering WoW is solo-based is this really surprising to anyone?
Cephus said that (You (groupers), as a collective term, need to demonstrate to developers that there is enough interest in your particular niche to make them sufficient money by making a game that caters to your particular desires)
We groupers already have the games we want. Almost all the mmo out there requires grouping for end game content. The one that should demonstrate anything to the developers are you who want to get everything by soloing.
It's not the context as much as you thinking that all games should be made that way.
And this proves what exactly? Your comment was, "..the more solo content and the more casual a game, the more players.". This doesn't show any population details, it simply shows that Solo PvE is the most popular at the moment. Considering WoW is solo-based is this really surprising to anyone?
Oh, so the link you listed was viable but mine is not? There is nothing anyone could say that would open you to the possiblities that there is market for a solo-centric MMO. You are not here to discuss but to force your opinion on everyone else.
Cephus said that (You (groupers), as a collective term, need to demonstrate to developers that there is enough interest in your particular niche to make them sufficient money by making a game that caters to your particular desires)
We groupers already have the games we want. Almost all the mmo out there requires grouping for end game content. The one that should demonstrate anything to the developers are you who want to get everything by soloing.
It's not the context as much as you thinking that all games should be made that way.
And this proves what exactly? Your comment was, "..the more solo content and the more casual a game, the more players.". This doesn't show any population details, it simply shows that Solo PvE is the most popular at the moment. Considering WoW is solo-based is this really surprising to anyone?
Oh, so the link you listed was viable but mine is not? There is nothing anyone could say that would open you to the possiblities that there is market for a solo-centric MMO. You are not here to discuss but to force your opinion on everyone else.
All I got from that link is that chicks dig Solo PvE. Apparently it is the more effeminate of the possible gameplay types.
Facts speak for themselves game that can attract casual gamers. Do well, the once that dont....wel they dont. Same true of PvP only games. Only Eve has manages to edge it self a nitch and survive. Even even has about 500,000 suscribers vs 11 to 13 million WoW has.
For an MMO do well, it has to either cater to loyal nitch marker aka Eve, or be able balance between different type of players like WoW. Aeon, EQ2, etc.... have all come made a splash and have all now reduced to a base of 250k to 400k paying customers.]
So to argue Solo or not Solo or PvP or not to PvP is irrelevant. If you want you favorite game to succeed and be around, it had to make money for it to make money it has to cater to multiple playing styles, casual gamer is #1, by the way I define a casual gamer is someone who can login for 45 - 60 minutes and get be able to feel like the accomplished something, wheter its a series of quests or making a level.
Facts speak for themselves game that can attract casual gamers. Do well, the once that dont....wel they dont. Same true of PvP only games. Only Eve has manages to edge it self a nitch and survive. Even even has about 500,000 suscribers vs 11 to 13 million WoW has.
For an MMO do well, it has to either cater to loyal nitch marker aka Eve, or be able balance between different type of players like WoW. Aeon, EQ2, etc.... have all come made a splash and have all now reduced to a base of 250k to 400k paying customers.]
So to argue Solo or not Solo or PvP or not to PvP is irrelevant. If you want you favorite game to succeed and be around, it had to make money for it to make money it has to cater to multiple playing styles, casual gamer is #1, by the way I define a casual gamer is someone who can login for 45 - 60 minutes and get be able to feel like the accomplished something, wheter its a series of quests or making a level.
I do agree with you but I also feel there is a rare 'it' factor. Something that is unique and designed well that can break into the market and become a success by unconventional means (similar to Eve but not as nichie). Although in an industry where everyone is trying to be innovative it is hard to be a revolutionary. Ultimately I think you are correct but not only should they balance solo and group, pvp and pve, and all playstyles in between, they need to balance tradition and innovation. We should question what is necessary in a game, think of new ways to solve old problems but unfortunately only low budget indie studios have the nads to take that step - and half the time they fail not because they didn't have good idea but because of execution. This genre needs a remix.
Oh, so the link you listed was viable but mine is not? There is nothing anyone could say that would open you to the possiblities that there is market for a solo-centric MMO. You are not here to discuss but to force your opinion on everyone else.
You stated that the more solo content in a game, the more players it gets. I showed you that was false, that population numbers are actually very low on that sort of game, with the one exception being World of Warcraft. Then you point me at a link that shows that Solo-PvE players are in the majority. When you consider that WoW has 11 million players and the rest have in the region of 200-500,000 then do you really expect any different results?
This is where the developers of new MMO's are failing. They're seeing the type of figures that you just showed me and trying to copy the WoW factor, but they're all failing. Why? Because those players are playing WoW and aren't interested in other MMO's. They're not doing market research, as Cephus seems to state over and over, they're following a market trend, but the trend is out of balance because one game is so bloated with players it's making it appear that people want that type of game. But the population figures speak for themselves, people don't want these solo-based games, they're not getting even half the subscribers of the old group-based games such as EverQuest.
I would like to add that I have no problem with group play. I think it is vital in creating a healthy community but my issues are with the methods in which is it applied. I feel like it is a problem when you force people to group to accomplish quests or end game. You can't force people to be friends and if you force them to group you are encouraging them to use each other as tools and gearscores. The original concept of grouping has been perverted.
Take open PvP for instance. It used to be a fun and awesome experience until griefers overpopulated the servers. Now open PvP has bad sigma and taken a turn for the worse because of these players. I feel the same thing has happened to groups and raids. It used to be a fun experience but now it is less desirable because of unfortunate group encounters. We build groups by what roles we need and what gear they have instead of personality and skill.
Grouping should be a valid and rewarding option among friends (online and in RL). I would prefer that developers focus more on community and creating an atmosphere to encourage friendships. Forcing groups does not do this. Instead of making it easier to find PUG groups I feel that it would be more appropriate to find a way to connect players with similar interests, then design content that they could do together if they choose.
But no, you'd rather sit around here and whine. Good luck getting a game made when that's all you do.
But surely, according to you, this is the best thing to do? If I refuse to play these solo-centric quest-grinding pieces of trash, and others refuse to play them too, then their subscriber base is going to fall - as has already been seen - and the developers 'intense market research' is going to show that this type of game just isn't worth investing in. Win for the whiney groupers sitting on forums.
By all means, if you don't like a game, don't play it. Nobody cares. I haven't played an MMO for close to a year now, I decided a long time ago that none of them currently on the market appealed to me, I wanted more from a game and I wasn't having any fun with the games currently out so I stopped playing them all. I know that the game I want simply will never exist because I don't represent a significant financial element within the MMO marketplace. Do I wish they would make it? Sure. Am I holding my breath? Hell no, I understand the realities of business, something the groupers around here apparently have no clue about. Therefore, I don't start thread after thread after thread mindlessly whining about how horrible it is that my desires aren't being catered to. I understand that they are not and will not be and I accept that. I deal with reality.
Oh, so the link you listed was viable but mine is not? There is nothing anyone could say that would open you to the possiblities that there is market for a solo-centric MMO. You are not here to discuss but to force your opinion on everyone else.
You stated that the more solo content in a game, the more players it gets. I showed you that was false, that population numbers are actually very low on that sort of game, with the one exception being World of Warcraft. Then you point me at a link that shows that Solo-PvE players are in the majority. When you consider that WoW has 11 million players and the rest have in the region of 200-500,000 then do you really expect any different results?
This is where the developers of new MMO's are failing. They're seeing the type of figures that you just showed me and trying to copy the WoW factor, but they're all failing. Why? Because those players are playing WoW and aren't interested in other MMO's. They're not doing market research, as Cephus seems to state over and over, they're following a market trend, but the trend is out of balance because one game is so bloated with players it's making it appear that people want that type of game. But the population figures speak for themselves, people don't want these solo-based games, they're not getting even half the subscribers of the old group-based games such as EverQuest.
Completely agree with this. WoW is a highly polished enigma. It's done ridiculously well, but I think its success has more to do with factors outside and around the game than with the game itself. It was, for example, the first MMO that ran on practically any computer. Before this, MMOs would often bring even high-end rigs to their knees. This alienated lots of potential customers.
More importantly, WoW carried with it the enormous weight of the existing Warcraft franchise. It effectively had more subscribers before it even launched than most MMOs get in their entire lives. This had little to do with the quality of the game, and a lot to do with the quality of Blizzard's other games.
I think WoW's success has blinded developers. They look at its subscriber count and automatically assume that it did everything right, and that they should emulate it. It didn't, and they shouldn't. There's a huge, untapped niche of gamers out there looking for an old school, group-based MMO. Such a game wouldn't 'take down' WoW, but it wouldn't have to. It wouldn't even directly compete with it. There's enough room in the genre for multiple types of games.
Oh, so the link you listed was viable but mine is not? There is nothing anyone could say that would open you to the possiblities that there is market for a solo-centric MMO. You are not here to discuss but to force your opinion on everyone else.
You stated that the more solo content in a game, the more players it gets. I showed you that was false, that population numbers are actually very low on that sort of game, with the one exception being World of Warcraft. Then you point me at a link that shows that Solo-PvE players are in the majority. When you consider that WoW has 11 million players and the rest have in the region of 200-500,000 then do you really expect any different results?
This is where the developers of new MMO's are failing. They're seeing the type of figures that you just showed me and trying to copy the WoW factor, but they're all failing. Why? Because those players are playing WoW and aren't interested in other MMO's. They're not doing market research, as Cephus seems to state over and over, they're following a market trend, but the trend is out of balance because one game is so bloated with players it's making it appear that people want that type of game. But the population figures speak for themselves, people don't want these solo-based games, they're not getting even half the subscribers of the old group-based games such as EverQuest.
Completely agree with this. WoW is a highly polished enigma. It's done ridiculously well, but I think its success has more to do with factors outside and around the game than with the game itself. It was, for example, the first MMO that ran on practically any computer. Before this, MMOs would often bring even high-end rigs to their knees. This alienated lots of potential customers.
More importantly, WoW carried with it the enormous weight of the existing Warcraft franchise. It effectively had more subscribers before it even launched than most MMOs get in their entire lives. This had little to do with the quality of the game, and a lot to do with the quality of Blizzard's other games.
I think WoW's success has blinded developers. They look at its subscriber count and automatically assume that it did everything right, and that they should emulate it. It didn't, and they shouldn't. There's a huge, untapped niche of gamers out there looking for an old school, group-based MMO. Such a game wouldn't 'take down' WoW, but it wouldn't have to. It wouldn't even directly compete with it. There's enough room in the genre for multiple types of games.
That's crazy. Wow is too solo for the groupers and too groupie for the soloist. In my opinion it relies too much on groups at end game. You can level all the way with groups in dungeon finder if you choose. I believe there is a difference in grouping with people and making friends with people. Making friends is the part I miss from the old days not the crap they call group content today. Players are real people, not statistics, gearscores, roles or donkeys.
To each their own. I have no problem with you guys wanting an ol' fashion group game as long as you don't have a problem with me wanting a modern solo-centric game with a great community, a game that actually encourages community and has group activities to do with my 'real' friends but isn't required or forced.
For all these solo play lovers some dev needs to make a new type of game we can call it a MMOSPG... IE you log online the game can only be accessed online. Then make it where you run around with other player but cant actually talk to them or group with them or anything. Maybe a world chat channel and thats it. All the content would be soloable. Even the raids. That way the casual players could get everything they want and still be in the mix with other people.
Actually that sounds REALLY interesting. It also sounds like it would last longer. Not being able to meet people though might ruin it. (Counting most of society is recommended to be social in real life.) Maybe making the safe zones (cities, towns, etc) be the only place you would see each other. Though for lag issues, they might want to have options to go to the same city without seeing people also. (You may cringe at the thought of this part of the game being a loading system, but it's better for people with bad computers. I mean, companies wan't money right? :]) The problem is that this type of game might take up TOO much memory.
(Yeah I brought up an old post. Nothing I can do about it now. I actually wanna see if this is actually doable too.)
Comments
Massively multiplayer = lots of people. Nowhere in the title does it say *ANYTHING* about grouping. Never has, never will.
Try again.
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
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
You don't get granted a game simply because you want one, you have to *EARN* it. You have to *PROVE* that you deserve it by demonstrating to developers that making such a game would be financially viable. It has nothing to do with empathy, ith as to do with being fiscally worthwhile.
Oh right, sorry, I didn't realise that's how games were made. Like, I worked when I was a teenager so wow, I must have Earned that Space Invaders game in the local arcade. I feel so special now! And like, wow, Crysis, yeah, I never realised I went to the developers and proved I wanted it. But I must have, cos, you know what?! They made it! Isn't that awesome?!
I'm so special.
Stop being purposely dense. You, as a collective term, need to demonstrate to developers that there is enough interest in your particular niche to make them sufficient money by making a game that caters to your particular desires. Clearly the intensive market research that AAA developers are doing isn't showing that, that's why games are currently in the state that they are. If you don't like that, you, again collectively, need to do something about it.
But no, you'd rather sit around here and whine. Good luck getting a game made when that's all you do.
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
Don't the majority of the mmo games require you to group to get the best items or beat the hardest dungeons? Why should we groupers need to demonstrate something when we already have what we want.
Dark Age of Camelot you could get the best gear without raiding. My point is now proven, therefore you are wrong, I'll discuss this genre with someone who has played more games than just WoW.
But no, you'd rather sit around here and whine. Good luck getting a game made when that's all you do.
But surely, according to you, this is the best thing to do? If I refuse to play these solo-centric quest-grinding pieces of trash, and others refuse to play them too, then their subscriber base is going to fall - as has already been seen - and the developers 'intense market research' is going to show that this type of game just isn't worth investing in. Win for the whiney groupers sitting on forums.
Boy, you sure do love to skirt the issue. He said getting best gear without grouping, not specifically raiding. Even in DAoC, you have to group for the best gear, especially now that drops surpass most if not all of the crafted stuff and even the crafted stuff requires components from group and raid content and crafters expect you to have those components on top of gold fees.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
That's interesting, because we have seen time and time again that the more solo content and the more casual a game, the more players. Forced grouping is a lot more niche than you want to admit.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
That's interesting, because we have seen time and time again that the more solo content and the more casual a game, the more players. Forced grouping is a lot more niche than you want to admit.
Really? And where did you get this data from? It couldn't have been from http://www.mmogchart.com/charts/ or you would have noticed that at its peak, EverQuest had 550,000 subscribers. Meanwhile, the solo-based games are doing a lot worse, such as LOTRO with a peak of 200,000 and City of Heroes, also peaking close to 200,000. Of course these numbers only date back to 2008, but I'd bet things haven't changed much. The only game with solo-content that beats the old group-based games is World of Warcraft, which is just a weird anomoly in a sea of MMO's.
ROFL, Already have what you want?! What in the hell are you talking about, this isn't a standard in which ALL MMOs must be made. I can't say that I don't like sandbox or full loot open pvp therefore it should not exist. Games are made with many people in mind, you have no right to tell others what they should play. If you don't like it you can play the games that already "give you what you want".
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001645.php
Did you even read the post I replied to?
Cephus said that (You (groupers), as a collective term, need to demonstrate to developers that there is enough interest in your particular niche to make them sufficient money by making a game that caters to your particular desires)
We groupers already have the games we want. Almost all the mmo out there requires grouping for end game content. The one that should demonstrate anything to the developers are you who want to get everything by soloing.
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001645.php
And this proves what exactly? Your comment was, "..the more solo content and the more casual a game, the more players.". This doesn't show any population details, it simply shows that Solo PvE is the most popular at the moment. Considering WoW is solo-based is this really surprising to anyone?
It's not the context as much as you thinking that all games should be made that way.
Oh, so the link you listed was viable but mine is not? There is nothing anyone could say that would open you to the possiblities that there is market for a solo-centric MMO. You are not here to discuss but to force your opinion on everyone else.
All I got from that link is that chicks dig Solo PvE. Apparently it is the more effeminate of the possible gameplay types.
p.s. Before you get all pissy, I'M JOKING!
Facts speak for themselves game that can attract casual gamers. Do well, the once that dont....wel they dont. Same true of PvP only games. Only Eve has manages to edge it self a nitch and survive. Even even has about 500,000 suscribers vs 11 to 13 million WoW has.
For an MMO do well, it has to either cater to loyal nitch marker aka Eve, or be able balance between different type of players like WoW. Aeon, EQ2, etc.... have all come made a splash and have all now reduced to a base of 250k to 400k paying customers.]
So to argue Solo or not Solo or PvP or not to PvP is irrelevant. If you want you favorite game to succeed and be around, it had to make money for it to make money it has to cater to multiple playing styles, casual gamer is #1, by the way I define a casual gamer is someone who can login for 45 - 60 minutes and get be able to feel like the accomplished something, wheter its a series of quests or making a level.
I do agree with you but I also feel there is a rare 'it' factor. Something that is unique and designed well that can break into the market and become a success by unconventional means (similar to Eve but not as nichie). Although in an industry where everyone is trying to be innovative it is hard to be a revolutionary. Ultimately I think you are correct but not only should they balance solo and group, pvp and pve, and all playstyles in between, they need to balance tradition and innovation. We should question what is necessary in a game, think of new ways to solve old problems but unfortunately only low budget indie studios have the nads to take that step - and half the time they fail not because they didn't have good idea but because of execution. This genre needs a remix.
Oh, so the link you listed was viable but mine is not? There is nothing anyone could say that would open you to the possiblities that there is market for a solo-centric MMO. You are not here to discuss but to force your opinion on everyone else.
You stated that the more solo content in a game, the more players it gets. I showed you that was false, that population numbers are actually very low on that sort of game, with the one exception being World of Warcraft. Then you point me at a link that shows that Solo-PvE players are in the majority. When you consider that WoW has 11 million players and the rest have in the region of 200-500,000 then do you really expect any different results?
This is where the developers of new MMO's are failing. They're seeing the type of figures that you just showed me and trying to copy the WoW factor, but they're all failing. Why? Because those players are playing WoW and aren't interested in other MMO's. They're not doing market research, as Cephus seems to state over and over, they're following a market trend, but the trend is out of balance because one game is so bloated with players it's making it appear that people want that type of game. But the population figures speak for themselves, people don't want these solo-based games, they're not getting even half the subscribers of the old group-based games such as EverQuest.
I would like to add that I have no problem with group play. I think it is vital in creating a healthy community but my issues are with the methods in which is it applied. I feel like it is a problem when you force people to group to accomplish quests or end game. You can't force people to be friends and if you force them to group you are encouraging them to use each other as tools and gearscores. The original concept of grouping has been perverted.
Take open PvP for instance. It used to be a fun and awesome experience until griefers overpopulated the servers. Now open PvP has bad sigma and taken a turn for the worse because of these players. I feel the same thing has happened to groups and raids. It used to be a fun experience but now it is less desirable because of unfortunate group encounters. We build groups by what roles we need and what gear they have instead of personality and skill.
Grouping should be a valid and rewarding option among friends (online and in RL). I would prefer that developers focus more on community and creating an atmosphere to encourage friendships. Forcing groups does not do this. Instead of making it easier to find PUG groups I feel that it would be more appropriate to find a way to connect players with similar interests, then design content that they could do together if they choose.
By all means, if you don't like a game, don't play it. Nobody cares. I haven't played an MMO for close to a year now, I decided a long time ago that none of them currently on the market appealed to me, I wanted more from a game and I wasn't having any fun with the games currently out so I stopped playing them all. I know that the game I want simply will never exist because I don't represent a significant financial element within the MMO marketplace. Do I wish they would make it? Sure. Am I holding my breath? Hell no, I understand the realities of business, something the groupers around here apparently have no clue about. Therefore, I don't start thread after thread after thread mindlessly whining about how horrible it is that my desires aren't being catered to. I understand that they are not and will not be and I accept that. I deal with reality.
Try it sometime.
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
Completely agree with this. WoW is a highly polished enigma. It's done ridiculously well, but I think its success has more to do with factors outside and around the game than with the game itself. It was, for example, the first MMO that ran on practically any computer. Before this, MMOs would often bring even high-end rigs to their knees. This alienated lots of potential customers.
More importantly, WoW carried with it the enormous weight of the existing Warcraft franchise. It effectively had more subscribers before it even launched than most MMOs get in their entire lives. This had little to do with the quality of the game, and a lot to do with the quality of Blizzard's other games.
I think WoW's success has blinded developers. They look at its subscriber count and automatically assume that it did everything right, and that they should emulate it. It didn't, and they shouldn't. There's a huge, untapped niche of gamers out there looking for an old school, group-based MMO. Such a game wouldn't 'take down' WoW, but it wouldn't have to. It wouldn't even directly compete with it. There's enough room in the genre for multiple types of games.
Check here and here for more info on this stuff.
Virtual Reality
That's crazy. Wow is too solo for the groupers and too groupie for the soloist. In my opinion it relies too much on groups at end game. You can level all the way with groups in dungeon finder if you choose. I believe there is a difference in grouping with people and making friends with people. Making friends is the part I miss from the old days not the crap they call group content today. Players are real people, not statistics, gearscores, roles or donkeys.
To each their own. I have no problem with you guys wanting an ol' fashion group game as long as you don't have a problem with me wanting a modern solo-centric game with a great community, a game that actually encourages community and has group activities to do with my 'real' friends but isn't required or forced.
Actually that sounds REALLY interesting. It also sounds like it would last longer. Not being able to meet people though might ruin it. (Counting most of society is recommended to be social in real life.) Maybe making the safe zones (cities, towns, etc) be the only place you would see each other. Though for lag issues, they might want to have options to go to the same city without seeing people also. (You may cringe at the thought of this part of the game being a loading system, but it's better for people with bad computers. I mean, companies wan't money right? :]) The problem is that this type of game might take up TOO much memory.
(Yeah I brought up an old post. Nothing I can do about it now. I actually wanna see if this is actually doable too.)
Cybertrucker ftw!!!
Gaming since Avalon Hill was making board games.
Played SWG, EVE, Fallen Earth, LOTRO, Rift, Vanguard, WoW, SWTOR, TSW, Tera
Tried Aoc, Aion, EQII, RoM, Vindictus, Darkfail, DDO, GW, PotBS