You can call it selfish if you want but I am the one paying for my playtime, so I think it's reasonable to want to spend it as I see fit. If I feel like playing, I don't want to spend that time waiting around for others. So it's not really a question of not wanting to play with others, but unless you can convince those others to be ready when I am, and ready to take breaks when I am, I'll continue to seek out soloable content.
Yep, I'll call it selfish. This is the sort of attitude that's appeared after World of Warcraft, before that it was all about community and the groups you were with - people actually cared about each other. I really hate this 'meme' culture that's happening now. So, like, how do you get on in life with that attitude? Ever go to a concert, sit down early and start whining because the band isn't on now you're ready? Or go to a football game and curse the teams for not coming out when you're in your seat? Or maybe wait for a bus - damn that driver, he should be there right when you need him. I mean, you've spent your money, you shouldn't have to spend time waiting around for others, right?
Yep, I'll call it selfish. This is the sort of attitude that's appeared after World of Warcraft, before that it was all about community and the groups you were with - people actually cared about each other. I really hate this 'meme' culture that's happening now. So, like, how do you get on in life with that attitude? Ever go to a concert, sit down early and start whining because the band isn't on now you're ready? Or go to a football game and curse the teams for not coming out when you're in your seat? Or maybe wait for a bus - damn that driver, he should be there right when you need him. I mean, you've spent your money, you shouldn't have to spend time waiting around for others, right?
I'd call it shellfish, it would make about as much sense. What is selfish; Limiting options because of the way you feel or asking for diversity? I do not want all group games to become solo oriented, I just would like to see a solo-centric MMO. This doesn't affect you, you're not forced to play it, you get to keep your cookies.
Honestly, I do understand you. In a lot of ways I agree, MMOs have became less about community and that to me is the most important factor in a game. I don't think the move to solo did this, I blame it on the industry mainstreaming raids. People stopped making friends and we became dirty little slots - what positions can you fill for me baby, how good are your goods?
We aren't "grouping" anymore, we are using others to get what we want. Sure, I have been in a few awesome guilds that really made a game enjoyable but lately they are getting harder and harder to find. I'm getting older man, my epeen isn't like it used to be. Developers need to start thinking of ways to help players relate to each other, enjoy the game together and figure out new ways to build games instead of copying the same crap over and over because that's what they think, we think, we want.
I would love to see a game that actually made me WANT to group with people.
Originally posted by UsualSuspect Originally posted by SwampRob You can call it selfish if you want but I am the one paying for my playtime, so I think it's reasonable to want to spend it as I see fit. If I feel like playing, I don't want to spend that time waiting around for others. So it's not really a question of not wanting to play with others, but unless you can convince those others to be ready when I am, and ready to take breaks when I am, I'll continue to seek out soloable content.
Yep, I'll call it selfish. This is the sort of attitude that's appeared after World of Warcraft, before that it was all about community and the groups you were with - people actually cared about each other. I really hate this 'meme' culture that's happening now. So, like, how do you get on in life with that attitude? Ever go to a concert, sit down early and start whining because the band isn't on now you're ready? Or go to a football game and curse the teams for not coming out when you're in your seat? Or maybe wait for a bus - damn that driver, he should be there right when you need him. I mean, you've spent your money, you shouldn't have to spend time waiting around for others, right?
You can call it selfish if you want but I am the one paying for my playtime, so I think it's reasonable to want to spend it as I see fit. If I feel like playing, I don't want to spend that time waiting around for others. So it's not really a question of not wanting to play with others, but unless you can convince those others to be ready when I am, and ready to take breaks when I am, I'll continue to seek out soloable content.
Yep, I'll call it selfish. This is the sort of attitude that's appeared after World of Warcraft, before that it was all about community and the groups you were with - people actually cared about each other. I really hate this 'meme' culture that's happening now. So, like, how do you get on in life with that attitude? Ever go to a concert, sit down early and start whining because the band isn't on now you're ready? Or go to a football game and curse the teams for not coming out when you're in your seat? Or maybe wait for a bus - damn that driver, he should be there right when you need him. I mean, you've spent your money, you shouldn't have to spend time waiting around for others, right?
Please don't make real life comparisons to a video game. Totally apples and oranges. In a video game, the boss doesn't start the fight until the player(s) are ready and agro him; it's not like the band waits for me to cue them to start....
You could also argue that it's selfish to insist that others help you to get something done.
It's not unreasonable at all to ask that some MMOs be made this way. It is truly blinders-on thinking to insist that there is only one way for an endgame to work in an MMO; and that it always has been that way and must continue to be so forever. I'm not seeking to eliminate group play from MMOs, I'm looking for some percentage of them to have an alternate and soloable method of progression at the endgame. And I would suggest it is both selfish and close-minded to feel that NO MMOs can or should be made that way.
Please don't make real life comparisons to a video game. Totally apples and oranges. In a video game, the boss doesn't start the fight until the player(s) are ready and agro him; it's not like the band waits for me to cue them to start....
You could also argue that it's selfish to insist that others help you to get something done.
It's not unreasonable at all to ask that some MMOs be made this way. It is truly blinders-on thinking to insist that there is only one way for an endgame to work in an MMO; and that it always has been that way and must continue to be so forever. I'm not seeking to eliminate group play from MMOs, I'm looking for some percentage of them to have an alternate and soloable method of progression at the endgame. And I would suggest it is both selfish and close-minded to feel that NO MMOs can or should be made that way.
I certainly don't want to have only group play at the endgame, people sometimes don't have time available to be able to dedicate to something so being able to solo should be at all points through the game, however it should never be able to replace what a group can do or gain. There has always been a motto in MMO's of the past which is, "Risk vs Reward.". The harder the content the better the reward should be and, let's be fair, solo content is never going to be as difficult as something that requires multiple characters.
As for the whole selfish thing. I was trying to make the point that various forms of entertainment have other people besides yourself; that you might need to wait for the band to come on, or the rest of the viewers to enter the cinema, or the players to warm up before a football game.
Video games are a form of entertainment and, while single player games are simple load-and-go, multiplayer games, especially MMO's, require a little patience as you're dealing with real people. You can't just whine when they're not ready just because you are, just as you couldn't when your favorite band are backstage and not straight on stage when you arrive. If you need everything to be ready to go as soon as you're ready, you need to load up a single player game.
Personally I think the demand for solo play is part of what killed MMO's.
These days you can lvl up from 1 to max in almost all games without the need for a party. Then you max out, and it's like "Ok hit me with the endgame content".
Personally I think the demand for solo play is part of what killed MMO's.
These days you can lvl up from 1 to max in almost all games without the need for a party. Then you max out, and it's like "Ok hit me with the endgame content".
I like the ability to not have to group, but being able to enjoy playing with other players. Running into a person overwhelmed by mobs? Help them out, or finish them off... your decision. You don't have to do either.
All about decisions and freedom to play. "Endgame" content could be accessibly at any time if enough new players banded together - that's what I like to see.
Please don't make real life comparisons to a video game. Totally apples and oranges. In a video game, the boss doesn't start the fight until the player(s) are ready and agro him; it's not like the band waits for me to cue them to start....
You could also argue that it's selfish to insist that others help you to get something done.
It's not unreasonable at all to ask that some MMOs be made this way. It is truly blinders-on thinking to insist that there is only one way for an endgame to work in an MMO; and that it always has been that way and must continue to be so forever. I'm not seeking to eliminate group play from MMOs, I'm looking for some percentage of them to have an alternate and soloable method of progression at the endgame. And I would suggest it is both selfish and close-minded to feel that NO MMOs can or should be made that way.
I certainly don't want to have only group play at the endgame, people sometimes don't have time available to be able to dedicate to something so being able to solo should be at all points through the game, however it should never be able to replace what a group can do or gain. There has always been a motto in MMO's of the past which is, "Risk vs Reward.". The harder the content the better the reward should be and, let's be fair, solo content is never going to be as difficult as something that requires multiple characters.
As for the whole selfish thing. I was trying to make the point that various forms of entertainment have other people besides yourself; that you might need to wait for the band to come on, or the rest of the viewers to enter the cinema, or the players to warm up before a football game.
Video games are a form of entertainment and, while single player games are simple load-and-go, multiplayer games, especially MMO's, require a little patience as you're dealing with real people. You can't just whine when they're not ready just because you are, just as you couldn't when your favorite band are backstage and not straight on stage when you arrive. If you need everything to be ready to go as soon as you're ready, you need to load up a single player game.
First of all, there are lots of single player games that have challenging content. Content that is just as challenging as anything you're tasked with doing in an MMO. So it is possible to make soloable content be an equal challenge to group content.
Here's what is selfish: saying that group play, and only group play should be allowed to have the best content and rewards. I'm looking for the option, or the ability to access that content in some MMOs. You seem to be stuck in this mindset that MMOs (or at least their best content/rewards), can only be for groups. It doesn't have to be that way for all MMOs, really, it does not. And asking for that option in some of them is not selfish, but insisting that there be no other way besides grouping, is.
Also, to the above post who mentioned soloing killed MMOs; I didn't know they were all dead. Why does this website even exist if they are? And besides, out of the thousands of very much alive and active MMOs, I know of exactly one(!) that has a soloable endgame. One. Would it really hurt the industry if say, maybe 10 or 20% were this way?
I like the ability to not have to group, but being able to enjoy playing with other players. Running into a person overwhelmed by mobs? Help them out, or finish them off... your decision. You don't have to do either.
All about decisions and freedom to play. "Endgame" content could be accessibly at any time if enough new players banded together - that's what I like to see.
Your post reminded me of some experiences I had early on in EQ.
Anyone remember when Lifetap was unresistable? Anyone who does ever group up with other Necromancers to kill Sand Giants in S Ro? Some great times seeing 20-30 necromancers around level 18-25 or so kiting Giants between them.
Early public quests in WAR were great experiences too. I enjoyed being able to participate without knowing everyone or having 5-man competent expectations thrown on me before anyone even said hello.
Going into the next age of MMO games I hope to see things like this. Whether it be refined public quests or something where (lowbie level) boss monsters suddenly appear and everyone bands together to take them out. I need the next generations to expand on the things that worked as an experience in previous titles.
As a casual player (these days) it has to offer equally effective solo/duo content and group content. Group content should not be limited to "elite" quests, dungeons, and endgame raids. Solo/duo content should not be limited to C and D grade quests and fauna fodder. Both types should expand into any territory. Developers seemingly put so much effort into exploring how the content can be abused that all flexibility and spontaneity is choked out for the player.
I get that players are like water and often take the path of least resistance, though sometimes we will wear down something until it is passable. So things like risk/reward are automatic factors in determining solo/group content.
Today, developers are only limited to their imaginations and coding abilities, not so-much the tech limitations of previous generations. So why do they stay inside that generation's box?
Ultimately I think my point is: MMORPG's were designed to take the rails off Computer RPGs. Now mostMMO games seem to be on hardcoded railsystems.
First off, kudos to all who have kept this debate so civil. I, a solo-centric player, have read it entirely.
It really doesn’t prove anything at all to parse the term MMORPG. It can mean anything to anyone. Group centric folks like to harp on the Multiplayer word in MMO but a very common aspect of the grouping/raiding paradigm gets overlooked here.
Time spent with the same one or two dozen folks while repeating the same few instances pretty much negates the Massive word in MMO, doesn’t it? You all might be in a group but if you aren’t out in the world then nothing massive is going on at all. I’ll bet that I, as an almost exclusively solo player, interact with vastly more different people than the average raider. Forced grouping to accomplish goals in instances actually retards one’s exposure to others. Particularly once a lot of out-of-game planning and other hoo-ha is required that compels the formation of a guild or kinship.
It is also curious to me that group-centric players will acknowledge that if groups don’t receive better and exclusive rewards then enough people won’t group. Do you all see the corner this paints you into? Can you not appreciate the corruption inherent in your own argument? Given a choice, enough folks won’t bother to group because they don’t think doing so is enough fun! You may think it’s the best fun, but too many others don’t. So they must be excluded from superior gear. As if extra content alone wasn’t enough for groupers. This is how almost every MMO works at endgame. Usual Suspect, you should have stuck it out in WoW. The WoW end game was made for you! And Blizzard has grossly accelerated leveling just so that your type of player can race to the level cap.
As for solo play vs group play, I understand why grouping appeals to tactically interested players. It also has enormous appeal for the wanna-be guild leaders and officers who enjoy planning and running a raid (or just bossing others around, ahem). These players would do the group content even if the rewards were not superior to what solo players can get. I believe that. They enjoy the challenge. They revel in completing a difficult task. Bravo! That’s best of reasons for grouping, IMHO at least. But you field marshal types also know the real score. You know that lots of the people you group with regularly would be elsewhere if the rewards were available by another means. Like via solo play. So even though you would group just for the challenge, you need minions to help you. And if said minions are essentially “loot conscripts” then that’s OK by you. Ergo, you will endorse forced grouping even if it means that many of the folks you will group with are not doing what they would prefer to be doing. This is the only reason you all don’t want people like me getting the nice big shiny sword. Just deserts have nothing to do with it. It's about having loot conscripts who don't share your own passion for grouping to fill up your groups/raids/guilds. Beyond this one bad reason, there is no good reason at all for any gear to be restricted to any one play style. If I get to solo with the best gear in the game, so what?
I can almost guarantee a vast majority of people (not all) who are asking for solo-centric games started off with World of Warcraft and are looking for somewhere new to settle.
I agree. So? If there are 500,000 of us, isn't that enough reason to develop a solo-centric MMOG? Why have we left WoW? Why are we looking for something else? Because we realized that a solo-friendly MMOG is not a solo-centric MMOG, and we want a solo-centric MMOG, not another repackaged solo-friendly MMOG.
I am definately in that category, I started MMO's with WoW after playing games like Dungeon Siege and I can never go back to the dead sterile world of an RPG after having played in the living, breathing world of an MMO.
When I first started WoW, I was completely unaware of the virtual abandonment of solo players at end game, and since I was levelling many alts on different servers it took me a couple of years before I found out. Needless to say I was crushed when I finally did the research and realized there was no way I could progress my characters at end game without completely invalidating my playstyle. I quit the game that day, and strangely lament the passing of my ignorance, for I couldn't have enjoyed my time there without it. I have been searching for a solo-friendly MMO ever since, and like you I have come to the conclusion that a solo-centric MMO may be the only solution to our common dilemna.
There are many of us out there, that I know, and the fact that devs haven't caught onto tapping into such a large under serviced potential customer base is puzzling in the least. Market research studies have told them we're out there, but a substantial disconnect still exists. I assume it's because so many of them got into the genre with EQ and other heavily group/raid based MMO's that their own internal bias against solo play is influencing their decisions as it's the only explanation that makes sense. It's almost like they speak a completely different language than us, and no amount of screaming will get them to understand.
First of all, there are lots of single player games that have challenging content. Content that is just as challenging as anything you're tasked with doing in an MMO. So it is possible to make soloable content be an equal challenge to group content.
Here's what is selfish: saying that group play, and only group play should be allowed to have the best content and rewards. I'm looking for the option, or the ability to access that content in some MMOs. You seem to be stuck in this mindset that MMOs (or at least their best content/rewards), can only be for groups. It doesn't have to be that way for all MMOs, really, it does not. And asking for that option in some of them is not selfish, but insisting that there be no other way besides grouping, is.
Also, to the above post who mentioned soloing killed MMOs; I didn't know they were all dead. Why does this website even exist if they are? And besides, out of the thousands of very much alive and active MMOs, I know of exactly one(!) that has a soloable endgame. One. Would it really hurt the industry if say, maybe 10 or 20% were this way?
It's like this: MMO. That middle M stands for Multiplayer. This doesn't mean it's a game with multiple players wandering around, name me any other genre that, as a multiplayer game, allows players to play alone. I sure can't think of any. And yes, there are single player games that have challenging content, but that is made specifically for single players. If developers want to make a game purely able to be played alone they would make it as a single player game. Why risk losing out on all the income from all those single player gamers by turning a single player game into an MMO?
Multiplayer games are designed so multiple players can work together - that's the whole idea behind them. Be it a team based battle in Team Fortress 2 or an epic fight with 40+ players in a raid in EverQuest. To design a mutliplayer game that doesn't allow players to work together (or is specifically designed so you don't have to) would be a foolish thing for the developers to do. If it can all be done alone, it's a single player game.
The only reason you're even able to even contemplate the idea of a single player MMO is the fact that World of Warcraft came along and turned the genre on its head, it made the whole levelling structure a soloable experience that worked like an arcade game, with a straight defined path, and MMO's were never supposed to be that way. World of Warcraft changed the genre and at the same time has almost killed it.
@ UsualSuspect in particular and group-centrics in general
You are still equating definition with tradition. They are not equal. MMORPGs are by TRADITION, group-centric. They, however, are NOT By Definition, group-centric.
Let us isolate the second "M" for a bit. Multiplayer games have, by tradition, required grouping or defeating the other players. But multiplayer, strictly speaking, means simply that there are other players present.
One of the major problems is that businesses often use general terms to describe very specific products. That is to say,"Mmorpg" is a general or generic term. General terms can describe a product with any and every parameter that does not nullify or contradict the term used to describe the products they label. In a fairly young industry it is probably easy to use generic labels, after which, some people assume (by mistake) that any product, even though it fits the generic definition, doesn't belong in that category because it doesn't share some of the features or properties of the vast majority of the other older products marketed in that generic category. Fifty some odd years ago, black and white TVs were traditional, that doesn't mean TVs with color were not also TVs. TV is a generic term that has nothing to do with the inclusion or exclusion of color. MMORPG is a generic term that has nothing to do with its group-centric or solo-centric orientation.
The take away from the above paragraph is that mmorpgs have not been labeled well enough. Most mmorpgs from the past should have been called mmoGCrpgs, because they were group-centric. Such appropriately specific labeling would have gone a long way towards addressing the confusion some players have about the products and the terminology that describes them. What solo-centrics want are mmoSCrpgs, because they are solo-centric. Both mmoGCrpgs and mmoSCrpgs subcategories fit neatly into the generic mmorpg supercategory.
Now let us go into the core problem. You don't want solo-centrics to be serviced to satisfaction by the mmo industry. You don't want solo-centrics to have a satisfying (on their own terms) gaming experience. You want their ONLY option to be games where "their kind" are always second-class "get-in-the-back-of-the-bus" citizens. You even dislike the idea of a "seperate-(games)-but-equal-(loot)" paradigm. You have zero tolerance for a particular alternative (gamer) lifestyle.
To put it bluntly, you (and many of the other group-centrics that have posted in this thread) are a bigot in so far as mmo gaming is concerned. We could argue back and forth about the virtues and sins of one playstyle versus the other, but your bigotry is the real issue. Upon analysis, this debate isn't truly about group vs solo, it's about bigots vs tolerants. Most of the solo-centrics are tolerant of group-centrics being catered to by the devs (at least in this thread). Most don't mind that the vast majority of mmorpgs past present and future are or may be group-centric. They just want a few high quality mmorpgs that cater to their playstyle. They are not looking to take group-centric mmorpgs away, they just want a few high quality ones that are solo-centric. I personally would be happy (happy is a gross understatement) with One high quality solo-centric title every three to four years (out of the dozens developed and released annually internationally). But the group-centric bigots will rabidly and visciously lambast me for wanting this.
It is neither illegal nor immoral for devs to create mmoSCrpgs. It is neither illegal nor immoral for players to want such games or play them should they be released. If such was truly immoral (in such that the mere playing or making or wanting of mmoSCrpgs violated the rights of others any more than mmoCGrpgs did) then the aggressive scathing arguments against mmoSCrpgs would be just and righteous. But that's simply not the case.
It's like this: MMO. That middle M stands for Multiplayer. This doesn't mean it's a game with multiple players wandering around, name me any other genre that, as a multiplayer game, allows players to play alone. I sure can't think of any. And yes, there are single player games that have challenging content, but that is made specifically for single players. If developers want to make a game purely able to be played alone they would make it as a single player game. Why risk losing out on all the income from all those single player gamers by turning a single player game into an MMO?
The entire FPS market started out as individual-against-individual, even back as far as Doom when you could connect to another person over a network or over over a modem and play against each other. It wasn't until much later that squad-based mechanics got started and even today, if I wanted to log into most FPS games and play alone, I can.
Games are becoming more solo friendly for the same reason they became more "care bear", "theme park" or whatever other adjectives one can come up with to describe the direction games are taking. The reason is, its because its what the masses want. Sure some want forced grouping, but they are in the minority and may have always been if there had been a solo option. Group centric games have their following just l ike full loot pvp have a following but neither are what the majority of players want. Game companies see this and like every other profitable business, they give their customers what they want. If every game company created forced grouping games a lot people would leave the genre. Sure, 40 year old "vets" that remember the glory days through rose colored glasses would be all for this but it aint gonna happen.
WOW isnt great because it has 12 million players. WOW has 12 million players because its great.
The entire FPS market started out as individual-against-individual, even back as far as Doom when you could connect to another person over a network or over over a modem and play against each other. It wasn't until much later that squad-based mechanics got started and even today, if I wanted to log into most FPS games and play alone, I can.
Simply put, you're wrong, as usual.
Individual against Individual is still a multiplayer game. I wasn't talking about squad based mechanics, I was talking about what multiplayer actually is. Be it one vs one or ten vs ten, groups fighting AI content or whatever else it might be, it's still players either working against or with each other. A solo experience is purely that - solo. In your weird world of solo-centric games, the only interaction you would have with other players would be to say hello in passing before wandering off to do your solo content. Why not just load up a single player steam game and have the community tab open? You would acheive just as much.
Now let us go into the core problem. You don't want solo-centrics to be serviced to satisfaction by the mmo industry. You don't want solo-centrics to have a satisfying (on their own terms) gaming experience. You want their ONLY option to be games where "their kind" are always second-class "get-in-the-back-of-the-bus" citizens. You even dislike the idea of a "seperate-(games)-but-equal-(loot)" paradigm. You have zero tolerance for a particular alternative (gamer) lifestyle.
<snip>
Alright, let's say I've been looking at MMORPG's in the traditional sense, that they're supposed to involve multiple players working against content together. Tell me what a solo-centric game is. What would the game have to include to be a 'satisfying gaming experience'? What would people be doing in a solo-centric game? What are the other players doing and how do they interact with your game? What are the challenges and how do you overcome them alone?
The entire FPS market started out as individual-against-individual, even back as far as Doom when you could connect to another person over a network or over over a modem and play against each other. It wasn't until much later that squad-based mechanics got started and even today, if I wanted to log into most FPS games and play alone, I can.
Simply put, you're wrong, as usual.
Individual against Individual is still a multiplayer game. I wasn't talking about squad based mechanics, I was talking about what multiplayer actually is. Be it one vs one or ten vs ten, groups fighting AI content or whatever else it might be, it's still players either working against or with each other. A solo experience is purely that - solo. In your weird world of solo-centric games, the only interaction you would have with other players would be to say hello in passing before wandering off to do your solo content. Why not just load up a single player steam game and have the community tab open? You would acheive just as much.
Why not group for some of the quests if thats what you like? Just because a quest can be soloed doesnt mean it has to be. The truth is, given a choice the majority of people will solo or play with a buddy and only group when forced to. DDO was a game that forced grouping in the beggining and its my understanding it has since made the game more solo friendly, dont know havnt played it in years. But I do know LOTRO became more solo friendly. Initially LOTRO, WOW and others did so due to the games becoming top heavy and this would allow folks to catch up with the majority of players. Then a funny thing happened, it was discovered people prefered to be able to solo more of the content and it actually attracted more players. Forced grouping is becoming more rare all the time and if SWTOR is ,as some have said, a single player online game and is as successful as I think it will be the grouping games will become even fewer than they are now.
WOW isnt great because it has 12 million players. WOW has 12 million players because its great.
i think the answer is rather simple. single player rpg's are getting worse as more attention is put into MMO's. A lot of players who solo/or group AND solo favor mmo's, especially after a long time of playing in rpg worlds where they have the option to ineract with others/friends. personally i find single player games lonely after playing mmo's for so long, and i favor to solo a lot.
progression in MMORPG's is a lot more open ended. single player games are MUCH shorter and are not updated with new content like a MMORPG would be.
Overall, way more attention is put into a MMORPG than a single player rpg. The more successful games have solo playability mixed with grouping. I m just suprised no game has allowed a player to play the way they want, solo, overpowered or not, in a PVE non instanced game. I would find this fun, personally.
"...Now let us go into the core problem. You don't want solo-centrics to be serviced to satisfaction by the mmo industry. You don't want solo-centrics to have a satisfying (on their own terms) gaming experience. You want their ONLY option to be games where "their kind" are always second-class "get-in-the-back-of-the-bus" citizens. You even dislike the idea of a "seperate-(games)-but-equal-(loot)" paradigm. You have zero tolerance for a particular alternative (gamer) lifestyle.
To put it bluntly, you (and many of the other group-centrics that have posted in this thread) are a bigot in so far as mmo gaming is concerned. We could argue back and forth about the virtues and sins of one playstyle versus the other, but your bigotry is the real issue. Upon analysis, this debate isn't truly about group vs solo, it's about bigots vs tolerants. Most of the solo-centrics are tolerant of group-centrics being catered to by the devs (at least in this thread). Most don't mind that the vast majority of mmorpgs past present and future are or may be group-centric. They just want a few high quality mmorpgs that cater to their playstyle. They are not looking to take group-centric mmorpgs away, they just want a few high quality ones that are solo-centric. I personally would be happy (happy is a gross understatement) with One high quality solo-centric title every three to four years (out of the dozens developed and released annually internationally). But the group-centric bigots will rabidly and visciously lambast me for wanting this.
It is neither illegal nor immoral for devs to create mmoSCrpgs. It is neither illegal nor immoral for players to want such games or play them should they be released. If such was truly immoral (in such that the mere playing or making or wanting of mmoSCrpgs violated the rights of others any more than mmoCGrpgs did) then the aggressive scathing arguments against mmoSCrpgs would be just and righteous. But that's simply not the case..."
I included the above quote in green so that those reading our exchange can see the context of my response. I'd hate for the context to somehow get lost in all of this back and forth
I will define mmoSCrpg. MmoSCrpg: An mmorpg (massively multiplayer online role-playing game) that facilitates solo obtainment of the highest echelons of player character statistic gains.
As for a "satisfying gaming experience?" that varies from person to person. Instead I will describe what isn't being asked for. Plain old single player rpgs and group-centric mmorpgs (which is what we are usually smugly told we should be playing instead). So in the broadest terms, a satisfying mmoSCrpg is one that is very much like the existing high quality group-centric ones minus the requirement to group to gain the highest eschelons of possible player character statistics advancement (typically, but not limited to, bonuses and gear upgrades that make your toon more uber).
What would people be doing in a solo-centric mmorpg? The same things they do in the quivalent group-centric kind, except they don't have to group to advance. What will the other players do and how they interact? The "do" and "interact" is same as in an equivalent group-centric mmorpg except they don't need to group to advance. What are the challenges and how are they overcome alone? The same challenges and overcoming as can be found in an equivalent group-centric mmorpg minus the need to group to get the best stat bonuses.
Just in case it isn't obvious: My answers to your questions have no bearing on the validity of my the arguments I made in the green area or the arguments I made in post number #647 for that matter. The main argument that intolerance is the problem. That group-centrics are rabidly intolerant of solo-centrics. It's just a difference in playstyle. No need to be intolerant about it. No dev is likely to force you to play their solo-centric mmorpg.
To put it bluntly, you (and many of the other group-centrics that have posted in this thread) are a bigot in so far as mmo gaming is concerned.
What would people be doing in a solo-centric mmorpg? The same things they do in the quivalent group-centric kind, except they don't have to group to advance. What will the other players do and how they interact? The "do" and "interact" is same as in an equivalent group-centric mmorpg except they don't need to group to advance. What are the challenges and how are they overcome alone? The same challenges and overcoming as can be found in an equivalent group-centric mmorpg minus the need to group to get the best stat bonuses.
I don't think I can be classed as a bigot as I'm quite happy to include solo content in MMO's, just not to the detriment of group based content. I firmly believe the M for Multiplayer should be exactly that, a multiplayer experience with people gathering together to deal with content that simply couldn't be made for a solo game. If that's bigoted then sure, I don't mind being a bigot.
Now, solo-centric MMO's. Your reply told me nothing beyond what I already know, that you want to be able to solo everything. May I call that selfish? You call me bigot, I'll call you selfish, we can both insult each other in some random fashion, hurrah. As you don't want to elaborate on the details, I'll try and fill in the blanks:
People would be doing quests, dungeons and raids in a solo-centric MMO. Quests are already soloable in 99% of recent MMO's so that's no change, dungeons are usually based around group efforts so the danger would have to be cut back to less mobs, and raids would have to be changed completely so that the mob can be beaten alone. How does that work exactly? Are we looking at a Boss from a single player game, with a health bar and the player having to duck behind cover every time he throws a fireball? Isn't that overly simplistic? Doesn't the removal of other players make the content rather simplistic?
The other players will interact as in other MMO's, with the exception of grouping. So all they'll do is talk in passing, sell some stuff at an auction house, and.. well, not a lot else really. When you're all able to play alone, other people really don't matter much, I've seen it in games like LOTRO where everyone is soloing. So lets say the other players can craft, sell and chat. That's what they'll 'do'.
The challenges and how they're overcome lack the need to group, hence the challenges will have to be cut right back. As said before, raids will be a single character versus a boss mob, dungeons will be a quick run through an instance with a small amount of threat. There has to be less threat or some of the other classes are going to suffer. But do we even need classes for a solo-centric MMO? If the classes aren't offering abilities to each other, then each class should be able to do everything themselves - heal, fight and cast spells. To make the content more accessible to everyone let's say they all can do that. Then we don't have any classes, we have one class with different special effects. One class might throw fireballs while another would do electrical attacks.
So basically what I'm seeing here is Elder Scrolls: Oblivion as a multiplayer game. If I'm wrong then please explain, as you avoided the subject quite deftly, I had to put in my own answers. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I've always thought that the draw of an MMO was the grouping. But I guess it's not. Would someone please explain why they want to be able to play MMOs and exclusively solo? MMOs just can't match a single player game for depth and fun.
I'm not an extremist, sometimes I don't have the time to devote to a group and would end up short changing my group mates, so I would rather solo. Maybe take on a half hour timed quest?
I like the setup of EVE the best, I think. There is one server, so if you want to group to mine or do hard missions, you almost always can. Mining can be tedious, but as long as you are interacting with friends it actually becomes fun. I think more MMOs should take a cue from this.
The entire FPS market started out as individual-against-individual, even back as far as Doom when you could connect to another person over a network or over over a modem and play against each other. It wasn't until much later that squad-based mechanics got started and even today, if I wanted to log into most FPS games and play alone, I can.
Simply put, you're wrong, as usual.
Individual against Individual is still a multiplayer game. I wasn't talking about squad based mechanics, I was talking about what multiplayer actually is. Be it one vs one or ten vs ten, groups fighting AI content or whatever else it might be, it's still players either working against or with each other. A solo experience is purely that - solo. In your weird world of solo-centric games, the only interaction you would have with other players would be to say hello in passing before wandering off to do your solo content. Why not just load up a single player steam game and have the community tab open? You would acheive just as much.
Most groupers are not playing against anyone, they are playing PvE, against the system, which places them on the exact same level as a solo-vs-PVE player. It's just a bunch of people who are hanging around together, killing the same mobs, but not necessarily being socially involved with each other. Standing next to someone and swinging a sword is not necessarily a social activity, but that's what most groups functionally are. However, you can be a soloer, as I am, and spend a good amount of time talking to, helping and interacting with various people and get much more social interaction out of it because you're not trying to use others for your own advantage as so many groupers are. They only give a damn about you if you can get them faster XP, more gold and better gear. Otherwise, they wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That's the reality. Sorry you're not interested in seeing it.
I've always thought that the draw of an MMO was the grouping. But I guess it's not. Would someone please explain why they want to be able to play MMOs and exclusively solo? MMOs just can't match a single player game for depth and fun.
I'm not an extremist, sometimes I don't have the time to devote to a group and would end up short changing my group mates, so I would rather solo. Maybe take on a half hour timed quest?
I like the setup of EVE the best, I think. There is one server, so if you want to group to mine or do hard missions, you almost always can. Mining can be tedious, but as long as you are interacting with friends it actually becomes fun. I think more MMOs should take a cue from this.
It's easy. Single-player games are over in a week. You consume the content, you're done. MMOs have a massive amount of content and are constantly being updated and expanded. Where you can consume a single-player game in a week, it would take you many, many, many months, if not years, to consume all of the available content in an MMO and even then, it probably won't be long until more content is released.
It's a cost-benefit thing. 4 single-player games per month might cost you $200, assuming you could even find 4 every single month to buy. An MMO costs you $15 a month, after an initial $50 investment and you can't possibly run out of things to do.
That's why people solo in MMOs, at least in my case.
I've always thought that the draw of an MMO was the grouping. But I guess it's not. Would someone please explain why they want to be able to play MMOs and exclusively solo? MMOs just can't match a single player game for depth and fun.
I'm not an extremist, sometimes I don't have the time to devote to a group and would end up short changing my group mates, so I would rather solo. Maybe take on a half hour timed quest?
I like the setup of EVE the best, I think. There is one server, so if you want to group to mine or do hard missions, you almost always can. Mining can be tedious, but as long as you are interacting with friends it actually becomes fun. I think more MMOs should take a cue from this.
It's easy. Single-player games are over in a week. You consume the content, you're done. MMOs have a massive amount of content and are constantly being updated and expanded. Where you can consume a single-player game in a week, it would take you many, many, many months, if not years, to consume all of the available content in an MMO and even then, it probably won't be long until more content is released.
It's a cost-benefit thing. 4 single-player games per month might cost you $200, assuming you could even find 4 every single month to buy. An MMO costs you $15 a month, after an initial $50 investment and you can't possibly run out of things to do.
That's why people solo in MMOs, at least in my case.
That's a very good read and once important reason.
I'd say I dislike consuming content in singleplayer games, which only entertain one-off and then - The End, goodbye, please don't come back, we're closed, forever!
I'd say, with MMO's there's more of a game where things can change outside of your character's participation, that makes it more enduring and as above, more content, more changes/improvements and game growth if it's also successful in a direction that keeps the in-game rewards, rewarding.
Comments
Yep, I'll call it selfish. This is the sort of attitude that's appeared after World of Warcraft, before that it was all about community and the groups you were with - people actually cared about each other. I really hate this 'meme' culture that's happening now. So, like, how do you get on in life with that attitude? Ever go to a concert, sit down early and start whining because the band isn't on now you're ready? Or go to a football game and curse the teams for not coming out when you're in your seat? Or maybe wait for a bus - damn that driver, he should be there right when you need him. I mean, you've spent your money, you shouldn't have to spend time waiting around for others, right?
I'd call it shellfish, it would make about as much sense. What is selfish; Limiting options because of the way you feel or asking for diversity? I do not want all group games to become solo oriented, I just would like to see a solo-centric MMO. This doesn't affect you, you're not forced to play it, you get to keep your cookies.
Honestly, I do understand you. In a lot of ways I agree, MMOs have became less about community and that to me is the most important factor in a game. I don't think the move to solo did this, I blame it on the industry mainstreaming raids. People stopped making friends and we became dirty little slots - what positions can you fill for me baby, how good are your goods?
We aren't "grouping" anymore, we are using others to get what we want. Sure, I have been in a few awesome guilds that really made a game enjoyable but lately they are getting harder and harder to find. I'm getting older man, my epeen isn't like it used to be. Developers need to start thinking of ways to help players relate to each other, enjoy the game together and figure out new ways to build games instead of copying the same crap over and over because that's what they think, we think, we want.
I would love to see a game that actually made me WANT to group with people.
Slippery slope.
Guild Wars 2 is my religion
Please don't make real life comparisons to a video game. Totally apples and oranges. In a video game, the boss doesn't start the fight until the player(s) are ready and agro him; it's not like the band waits for me to cue them to start....
You could also argue that it's selfish to insist that others help you to get something done.
It's not unreasonable at all to ask that some MMOs be made this way. It is truly blinders-on thinking to insist that there is only one way for an endgame to work in an MMO; and that it always has been that way and must continue to be so forever. I'm not seeking to eliminate group play from MMOs, I'm looking for some percentage of them to have an alternate and soloable method of progression at the endgame. And I would suggest it is both selfish and close-minded to feel that NO MMOs can or should be made that way.
I certainly don't want to have only group play at the endgame, people sometimes don't have time available to be able to dedicate to something so being able to solo should be at all points through the game, however it should never be able to replace what a group can do or gain. There has always been a motto in MMO's of the past which is, "Risk vs Reward.". The harder the content the better the reward should be and, let's be fair, solo content is never going to be as difficult as something that requires multiple characters.
As for the whole selfish thing. I was trying to make the point that various forms of entertainment have other people besides yourself; that you might need to wait for the band to come on, or the rest of the viewers to enter the cinema, or the players to warm up before a football game.
Video games are a form of entertainment and, while single player games are simple load-and-go, multiplayer games, especially MMO's, require a little patience as you're dealing with real people. You can't just whine when they're not ready just because you are, just as you couldn't when your favorite band are backstage and not straight on stage when you arrive. If you need everything to be ready to go as soon as you're ready, you need to load up a single player game.
Personally I think the demand for solo play is part of what killed MMO's.
These days you can lvl up from 1 to max in almost all games without the need for a party. Then you max out, and it's like "Ok hit me with the endgame content".
I like the ability to not have to group, but being able to enjoy playing with other players. Running into a person overwhelmed by mobs? Help them out, or finish them off... your decision. You don't have to do either.
All about decisions and freedom to play. "Endgame" content could be accessibly at any time if enough new players banded together - that's what I like to see.
First of all, there are lots of single player games that have challenging content. Content that is just as challenging as anything you're tasked with doing in an MMO. So it is possible to make soloable content be an equal challenge to group content.
Here's what is selfish: saying that group play, and only group play should be allowed to have the best content and rewards. I'm looking for the option, or the ability to access that content in some MMOs. You seem to be stuck in this mindset that MMOs (or at least their best content/rewards), can only be for groups. It doesn't have to be that way for all MMOs, really, it does not. And asking for that option in some of them is not selfish, but insisting that there be no other way besides grouping, is.
Also, to the above post who mentioned soloing killed MMOs; I didn't know they were all dead. Why does this website even exist if they are? And besides, out of the thousands of very much alive and active MMOs, I know of exactly one(!) that has a soloable endgame. One. Would it really hurt the industry if say, maybe 10 or 20% were this way?
Your post reminded me of some experiences I had early on in EQ.
Anyone remember when Lifetap was unresistable? Anyone who does ever group up with other Necromancers to kill Sand Giants in S Ro? Some great times seeing 20-30 necromancers around level 18-25 or so kiting Giants between them.
Early public quests in WAR were great experiences too. I enjoyed being able to participate without knowing everyone or having 5-man competent expectations thrown on me before anyone even said hello.
Going into the next age of MMO games I hope to see things like this. Whether it be refined public quests or something where (lowbie level) boss monsters suddenly appear and everyone bands together to take them out. I need the next generations to expand on the things that worked as an experience in previous titles.
As a casual player (these days) it has to offer equally effective solo/duo content and group content. Group content should not be limited to "elite" quests, dungeons, and endgame raids. Solo/duo content should not be limited to C and D grade quests and fauna fodder. Both types should expand into any territory. Developers seemingly put so much effort into exploring how the content can be abused that all flexibility and spontaneity is choked out for the player.
I get that players are like water and often take the path of least resistance, though sometimes we will wear down something until it is passable. So things like risk/reward are automatic factors in determining solo/group content.
Today, developers are only limited to their imaginations and coding abilities, not so-much the tech limitations of previous generations. So why do they stay inside that generation's box?
Ultimately I think my point is: MMORPG's were designed to take the rails off Computer RPGs. Now most MMO games seem to be on hardcoded railsystems.
First off, kudos to all who have kept this debate so civil. I, a solo-centric player, have read it entirely.
It really doesn’t prove anything at all to parse the term MMORPG. It can mean anything to anyone. Group centric folks like to harp on the Multiplayer word in MMO but a very common aspect of the grouping/raiding paradigm gets overlooked here.
Time spent with the same one or two dozen folks while repeating the same few instances pretty much negates the Massive word in MMO, doesn’t it? You all might be in a group but if you aren’t out in the world then nothing massive is going on at all. I’ll bet that I, as an almost exclusively solo player, interact with vastly more different people than the average raider. Forced grouping to accomplish goals in instances actually retards one’s exposure to others. Particularly once a lot of out-of-game planning and other hoo-ha is required that compels the formation of a guild or kinship.
It is also curious to me that group-centric players will acknowledge that if groups don’t receive better and exclusive rewards then enough people won’t group. Do you all see the corner this paints you into? Can you not appreciate the corruption inherent in your own argument? Given a choice, enough folks won’t bother to group because they don’t think doing so is enough fun! You may think it’s the best fun, but too many others don’t. So they must be excluded from superior gear. As if extra content alone wasn’t enough for groupers. This is how almost every MMO works at endgame. Usual Suspect, you should have stuck it out in WoW. The WoW end game was made for you! And Blizzard has grossly accelerated leveling just so that your type of player can race to the level cap.
As for solo play vs group play, I understand why grouping appeals to tactically interested players. It also has enormous appeal for the wanna-be guild leaders and officers who enjoy planning and running a raid (or just bossing others around, ahem). These players would do the group content even if the rewards were not superior to what solo players can get. I believe that. They enjoy the challenge. They revel in completing a difficult task. Bravo! That’s best of reasons for grouping, IMHO at least. But you field marshal types also know the real score. You know that lots of the people you group with regularly would be elsewhere if the rewards were available by another means. Like via solo play. So even though you would group just for the challenge, you need minions to help you. And if said minions are essentially “loot conscripts” then that’s OK by you. Ergo, you will endorse forced grouping even if it means that many of the folks you will group with are not doing what they would prefer to be doing. This is the only reason you all don’t want people like me getting the nice big shiny sword. Just deserts have nothing to do with it. It's about having loot conscripts who don't share your own passion for grouping to fill up your groups/raids/guilds. Beyond this one bad reason, there is no good reason at all for any gear to be restricted to any one play style. If I get to solo with the best gear in the game, so what?
I am definately in that category, I started MMO's with WoW after playing games like Dungeon Siege and I can never go back to the dead sterile world of an RPG after having played in the living, breathing world of an MMO.
When I first started WoW, I was completely unaware of the virtual abandonment of solo players at end game, and since I was levelling many alts on different servers it took me a couple of years before I found out. Needless to say I was crushed when I finally did the research and realized there was no way I could progress my characters at end game without completely invalidating my playstyle. I quit the game that day, and strangely lament the passing of my ignorance, for I couldn't have enjoyed my time there without it. I have been searching for a solo-friendly MMO ever since, and like you I have come to the conclusion that a solo-centric MMO may be the only solution to our common dilemna.
There are many of us out there, that I know, and the fact that devs haven't caught onto tapping into such a large under serviced potential customer base is puzzling in the least. Market research studies have told them we're out there, but a substantial disconnect still exists. I assume it's because so many of them got into the genre with EQ and other heavily group/raid based MMO's that their own internal bias against solo play is influencing their decisions as it's the only explanation that makes sense. It's almost like they speak a completely different language than us, and no amount of screaming will get them to understand.
It's like this: MMO. That middle M stands for Multiplayer. This doesn't mean it's a game with multiple players wandering around, name me any other genre that, as a multiplayer game, allows players to play alone. I sure can't think of any. And yes, there are single player games that have challenging content, but that is made specifically for single players. If developers want to make a game purely able to be played alone they would make it as a single player game. Why risk losing out on all the income from all those single player gamers by turning a single player game into an MMO?
Multiplayer games are designed so multiple players can work together - that's the whole idea behind them. Be it a team based battle in Team Fortress 2 or an epic fight with 40+ players in a raid in EverQuest. To design a mutliplayer game that doesn't allow players to work together (or is specifically designed so you don't have to) would be a foolish thing for the developers to do. If it can all be done alone, it's a single player game.
The only reason you're even able to even contemplate the idea of a single player MMO is the fact that World of Warcraft came along and turned the genre on its head, it made the whole levelling structure a soloable experience that worked like an arcade game, with a straight defined path, and MMO's were never supposed to be that way. World of Warcraft changed the genre and at the same time has almost killed it.
@ UsualSuspect in particular and group-centrics in general
You are still equating definition with tradition. They are not equal. MMORPGs are by TRADITION, group-centric. They, however, are NOT By Definition, group-centric.
Let us isolate the second "M" for a bit. Multiplayer games have, by tradition, required grouping or defeating the other players. But multiplayer, strictly speaking, means simply that there are other players present.
One of the major problems is that businesses often use general terms to describe very specific products. That is to say,"Mmorpg" is a general or generic term. General terms can describe a product with any and every parameter that does not nullify or contradict the term used to describe the products they label. In a fairly young industry it is probably easy to use generic labels, after which, some people assume (by mistake) that any product, even though it fits the generic definition, doesn't belong in that category because it doesn't share some of the features or properties of the vast majority of the other older products marketed in that generic category. Fifty some odd years ago, black and white TVs were traditional, that doesn't mean TVs with color were not also TVs. TV is a generic term that has nothing to do with the inclusion or exclusion of color. MMORPG is a generic term that has nothing to do with its group-centric or solo-centric orientation.
The take away from the above paragraph is that mmorpgs have not been labeled well enough. Most mmorpgs from the past should have been called mmoGCrpgs, because they were group-centric. Such appropriately specific labeling would have gone a long way towards addressing the confusion some players have about the products and the terminology that describes them. What solo-centrics want are mmoSCrpgs, because they are solo-centric. Both mmoGCrpgs and mmoSCrpgs subcategories fit neatly into the generic mmorpg supercategory.
Now let us go into the core problem. You don't want solo-centrics to be serviced to satisfaction by the mmo industry. You don't want solo-centrics to have a satisfying (on their own terms) gaming experience. You want their ONLY option to be games where "their kind" are always second-class "get-in-the-back-of-the-bus" citizens. You even dislike the idea of a "seperate-(games)-but-equal-(loot)" paradigm. You have zero tolerance for a particular alternative (gamer) lifestyle.
To put it bluntly, you (and many of the other group-centrics that have posted in this thread) are a bigot in so far as mmo gaming is concerned. We could argue back and forth about the virtues and sins of one playstyle versus the other, but your bigotry is the real issue. Upon analysis, this debate isn't truly about group vs solo, it's about bigots vs tolerants. Most of the solo-centrics are tolerant of group-centrics being catered to by the devs (at least in this thread). Most don't mind that the vast majority of mmorpgs past present and future are or may be group-centric. They just want a few high quality mmorpgs that cater to their playstyle. They are not looking to take group-centric mmorpgs away, they just want a few high quality ones that are solo-centric. I personally would be happy (happy is a gross understatement) with One high quality solo-centric title every three to four years (out of the dozens developed and released annually internationally). But the group-centric bigots will rabidly and visciously lambast me for wanting this.
It is neither illegal nor immoral for devs to create mmoSCrpgs. It is neither illegal nor immoral for players to want such games or play them should they be released. If such was truly immoral (in such that the mere playing or making or wanting of mmoSCrpgs violated the rights of others any more than mmoCGrpgs did) then the aggressive scathing arguments against mmoSCrpgs would be just and righteous. But that's simply not the case.
Guild Wars 2 is my religion
The entire FPS market started out as individual-against-individual, even back as far as Doom when you could connect to another person over a network or over over a modem and play against each other. It wasn't until much later that squad-based mechanics got started and even today, if I wanted to log into most FPS games and play alone, I can.
Simply put, you're wrong, as usual.
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
Games are becoming more solo friendly for the same reason they became more "care bear", "theme park" or whatever other adjectives one can come up with to describe the direction games are taking. The reason is, its because its what the masses want. Sure some want forced grouping, but they are in the minority and may have always been if there had been a solo option. Group centric games have their following just l ike full loot pvp have a following but neither are what the majority of players want. Game companies see this and like every other profitable business, they give their customers what they want. If every game company created forced grouping games a lot people would leave the genre. Sure, 40 year old "vets" that remember the glory days through rose colored glasses would be all for this but it aint gonna happen.
WOW isnt great because it has 12 million players. WOW has 12 million players because its great.
Individual against Individual is still a multiplayer game. I wasn't talking about squad based mechanics, I was talking about what multiplayer actually is. Be it one vs one or ten vs ten, groups fighting AI content or whatever else it might be, it's still players either working against or with each other. A solo experience is purely that - solo. In your weird world of solo-centric games, the only interaction you would have with other players would be to say hello in passing before wandering off to do your solo content. Why not just load up a single player steam game and have the community tab open? You would acheive just as much.
Alright, let's say I've been looking at MMORPG's in the traditional sense, that they're supposed to involve multiple players working against content together. Tell me what a solo-centric game is. What would the game have to include to be a 'satisfying gaming experience'? What would people be doing in a solo-centric game? What are the other players doing and how do they interact with your game? What are the challenges and how do you overcome them alone?
Imagine I'm a developer. Sell me your idea.
Why not group for some of the quests if thats what you like? Just because a quest can be soloed doesnt mean it has to be. The truth is, given a choice the majority of people will solo or play with a buddy and only group when forced to. DDO was a game that forced grouping in the beggining and its my understanding it has since made the game more solo friendly, dont know havnt played it in years. But I do know LOTRO became more solo friendly. Initially LOTRO, WOW and others did so due to the games becoming top heavy and this would allow folks to catch up with the majority of players. Then a funny thing happened, it was discovered people prefered to be able to solo more of the content and it actually attracted more players. Forced grouping is becoming more rare all the time and if SWTOR is ,as some have said, a single player online game and is as successful as I think it will be the grouping games will become even fewer than they are now.
WOW isnt great because it has 12 million players. WOW has 12 million players because its great.
i think the answer is rather simple. single player rpg's are getting worse as more attention is put into MMO's. A lot of players who solo/or group AND solo favor mmo's, especially after a long time of playing in rpg worlds where they have the option to ineract with others/friends. personally i find single player games lonely after playing mmo's for so long, and i favor to solo a lot.
progression in MMORPG's is a lot more open ended. single player games are MUCH shorter and are not updated with new content like a MMORPG would be.
Overall, way more attention is put into a MMORPG than a single player rpg. The more successful games have solo playability mixed with grouping. I m just suprised no game has allowed a player to play the way they want, solo, overpowered or not, in a PVE non instanced game. I would find this fun, personally.
@ UsualSuspect in reply to post #651
"...Now let us go into the core problem. You don't want solo-centrics to be serviced to satisfaction by the mmo industry. You don't want solo-centrics to have a satisfying (on their own terms) gaming experience. You want their ONLY option to be games where "their kind" are always second-class "get-in-the-back-of-the-bus" citizens. You even dislike the idea of a "seperate-(games)-but-equal-(loot)" paradigm. You have zero tolerance for a particular alternative (gamer) lifestyle.
To put it bluntly, you (and many of the other group-centrics that have posted in this thread) are a bigot in so far as mmo gaming is concerned. We could argue back and forth about the virtues and sins of one playstyle versus the other, but your bigotry is the real issue. Upon analysis, this debate isn't truly about group vs solo, it's about bigots vs tolerants. Most of the solo-centrics are tolerant of group-centrics being catered to by the devs (at least in this thread). Most don't mind that the vast majority of mmorpgs past present and future are or may be group-centric. They just want a few high quality mmorpgs that cater to their playstyle. They are not looking to take group-centric mmorpgs away, they just want a few high quality ones that are solo-centric. I personally would be happy (happy is a gross understatement) with One high quality solo-centric title every three to four years (out of the dozens developed and released annually internationally). But the group-centric bigots will rabidly and visciously lambast me for wanting this.
It is neither illegal nor immoral for devs to create mmoSCrpgs. It is neither illegal nor immoral for players to want such games or play them should they be released. If such was truly immoral (in such that the mere playing or making or wanting of mmoSCrpgs violated the rights of others any more than mmoCGrpgs did) then the aggressive scathing arguments against mmoSCrpgs would be just and righteous. But that's simply not the case..."
I included the above quote in green so that those reading our exchange can see the context of my response. I'd hate for the context to somehow get lost in all of this back and forth
I will define mmoSCrpg. MmoSCrpg: An mmorpg (massively multiplayer online role-playing game) that facilitates solo obtainment of the highest echelons of player character statistic gains.
As for a "satisfying gaming experience?" that varies from person to person. Instead I will describe what isn't being asked for. Plain old single player rpgs and group-centric mmorpgs (which is what we are usually smugly told we should be playing instead). So in the broadest terms, a satisfying mmoSCrpg is one that is very much like the existing high quality group-centric ones minus the requirement to group to gain the highest eschelons of possible player character statistics advancement (typically, but not limited to, bonuses and gear upgrades that make your toon more uber).
What would people be doing in a solo-centric mmorpg? The same things they do in the quivalent group-centric kind, except they don't have to group to advance. What will the other players do and how they interact? The "do" and "interact" is same as in an equivalent group-centric mmorpg except they don't need to group to advance. What are the challenges and how are they overcome alone? The same challenges and overcoming as can be found in an equivalent group-centric mmorpg minus the need to group to get the best stat bonuses.
Just in case it isn't obvious: My answers to your questions have no bearing on the validity of my the arguments I made in the green area or the arguments I made in post number #647 for that matter. The main argument that intolerance is the problem. That group-centrics are rabidly intolerant of solo-centrics. It's just a difference in playstyle. No need to be intolerant about it. No dev is likely to force you to play their solo-centric mmorpg.
Edited for clarity.
Guild Wars 2 is my religion
I don't think I can be classed as a bigot as I'm quite happy to include solo content in MMO's, just not to the detriment of group based content. I firmly believe the M for Multiplayer should be exactly that, a multiplayer experience with people gathering together to deal with content that simply couldn't be made for a solo game. If that's bigoted then sure, I don't mind being a bigot.
Now, solo-centric MMO's. Your reply told me nothing beyond what I already know, that you want to be able to solo everything. May I call that selfish? You call me bigot, I'll call you selfish, we can both insult each other in some random fashion, hurrah. As you don't want to elaborate on the details, I'll try and fill in the blanks:
People would be doing quests, dungeons and raids in a solo-centric MMO. Quests are already soloable in 99% of recent MMO's so that's no change, dungeons are usually based around group efforts so the danger would have to be cut back to less mobs, and raids would have to be changed completely so that the mob can be beaten alone. How does that work exactly? Are we looking at a Boss from a single player game, with a health bar and the player having to duck behind cover every time he throws a fireball? Isn't that overly simplistic? Doesn't the removal of other players make the content rather simplistic?
The other players will interact as in other MMO's, with the exception of grouping. So all they'll do is talk in passing, sell some stuff at an auction house, and.. well, not a lot else really. When you're all able to play alone, other people really don't matter much, I've seen it in games like LOTRO where everyone is soloing. So lets say the other players can craft, sell and chat. That's what they'll 'do'.
The challenges and how they're overcome lack the need to group, hence the challenges will have to be cut right back. As said before, raids will be a single character versus a boss mob, dungeons will be a quick run through an instance with a small amount of threat. There has to be less threat or some of the other classes are going to suffer. But do we even need classes for a solo-centric MMO? If the classes aren't offering abilities to each other, then each class should be able to do everything themselves - heal, fight and cast spells. To make the content more accessible to everyone let's say they all can do that. Then we don't have any classes, we have one class with different special effects. One class might throw fireballs while another would do electrical attacks.
So basically what I'm seeing here is Elder Scrolls: Oblivion as a multiplayer game. If I'm wrong then please explain, as you avoided the subject quite deftly, I had to put in my own answers. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I've always thought that the draw of an MMO was the grouping. But I guess it's not. Would someone please explain why they want to be able to play MMOs and exclusively solo? MMOs just can't match a single player game for depth and fun.
I'm not an extremist, sometimes I don't have the time to devote to a group and would end up short changing my group mates, so I would rather solo. Maybe take on a half hour timed quest?
I like the setup of EVE the best, I think. There is one server, so if you want to group to mine or do hard missions, you almost always can. Mining can be tedious, but as long as you are interacting with friends it actually becomes fun. I think more MMOs should take a cue from this.
Most groupers are not playing against anyone, they are playing PvE, against the system, which places them on the exact same level as a solo-vs-PVE player. It's just a bunch of people who are hanging around together, killing the same mobs, but not necessarily being socially involved with each other. Standing next to someone and swinging a sword is not necessarily a social activity, but that's what most groups functionally are. However, you can be a soloer, as I am, and spend a good amount of time talking to, helping and interacting with various people and get much more social interaction out of it because you're not trying to use others for your own advantage as so many groupers are. They only give a damn about you if you can get them faster XP, more gold and better gear. Otherwise, they wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That's the reality. Sorry you're not interested in seeing 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
It's easy. Single-player games are over in a week. You consume the content, you're done. MMOs have a massive amount of content and are constantly being updated and expanded. Where you can consume a single-player game in a week, it would take you many, many, many months, if not years, to consume all of the available content in an MMO and even then, it probably won't be long until more content is released.
It's a cost-benefit thing. 4 single-player games per month might cost you $200, assuming you could even find 4 every single month to buy. An MMO costs you $15 a month, after an initial $50 investment and you can't possibly run out of things to do.
That's why people solo in MMOs, at least in my case.
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
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem