"...An extroverted person is likely to enjoy time spent with people and find less reward in time spent alone. They tend to be energized when around other people, and they are more prone to boredom when they are by themselves..."
"...Introverts tend to be more reserved and less outspoken in large groups. They often take pleasure in solitary activities such as reading, writing, music, drawing, tinkering, playing video games, watching movies and plays, and using computers..."
"...Introverts are easily overwhelmed by too much stimulation from social gatherings and engagement..."
I bring this up since as an introvert, I feel solo players are completely misunderstood by group players. For example the notion that solo players avoid large groups because they're either unskilled or lazy just flies in the face of reality. Personality traits don't come with switches that you can just turn on and off whenever they're convenient, they represent who you are.
I understand extroverts hate it when us introverts turn down their group requests, but believe me, you guys are far more annoying to us than we could ever be to you, just by our very natures.
My "guess" is that a lot of the people who desire to group might be introverts who feel somewhat liberated at the anonymity these games bring as well as a quickl link to people who like the same things they like.
I can't imagine that the first people who delved into online games were Extroverts, delving deeper and deeper into whatever virtual worlds or forums or what have you, that they could find.
I remember on the LOTRO forums, someone posted a link to a personality test, I think meyers briggs.
almost every answer included "introvert".
Interesting enough, I'm considered an extrovert but mostly solo. For the most part, in "real life" I am an extrovert.
I think there is more going on than just being introverts or extroverts.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
1986 - Played a text based MU* game on Compuserve - Solo content only; grouping was basically two people hitting the same mob; not very group friendly and thus didn't group.
1996 - Played a text based MU* game on another network - Originally designed to be solo content, but over ten years they evolved the game to have more group content. What this meant though was that everyone gathered in the same place and fought the same things. No shared credit, official "group'", etc. Just people playing together against harder content. Could be a lot of fun, but low player base, different time zones, etc meant that it was pretty rare to group - grouping had to be planned. You weren't rewarded for grouping by the game (just the opposite - the game design didn't take grouping into account). People did it for the social / fun aspect of playing with others.
EQ - Gnome Cleric that leveled slowly when everyone was already at the level cap. Talk about slow leveling... Forced to be solo due to lack of others to play with, lost level, gained it back, lost it again (repeat until I eventually gave up). Ended up creating a more "solo" friendly class later on - was funner than waiting around for a group, but not as fun as having a good group to play with.
I've played just about every other game thats released over the last 25 years, and my life has changed throughout the years. Got married, job became more demanding of my time, had kids, etc. If I play, I'm also dealing with spouse, kids, pets, and other distractions. Play time is shorter than it used to be - even if I can get some big block of time to play, there are distractions to deal with. No doubt over the next 25 years this will change again.
=========================
I enjoy group play more than solo play for long term enjoyment of a game. Grouping and community are what keep me in an MMO for more than a few months. It's unfortunate that I don't have the time to do more of it, but I want there to be decent group content so I can enjoy this aspect of the game.
I enjoy solo play as it allows me to play and experience the game when I don't have the time to try and find others to play with, or when my time is so limited that it's not worth the commitment, or when I'm so distracted that it's not fair to group mates when I have to go "afk" every other battle.
The bulk of my gameplay is forced to be solo due to my circumstances. It's unavoidable. Any game that I play must be able to cater to solo play. That does not mean that group content must suck either. If I don't have meaninful group time when I can group, my interrest in the game will go away.
So any game that wants my subscription must:
Provide group content
Provide solo content
Provide tools to help me find groups
Provide tools to help me relate to other players while I play solo content
Most game developers appear to recongize this. For all the Old Schoolers that think Solo Content should be removed in order to promote better group content / create forced grouping - remember what it's really like sitting on a boat for 25 minutes to get to someplace where a group is forming, wait an hour for everyone to get there, then watch it all fall to pieces due to poor leadership. Congrats - just wasted 2 hrs when you could have been playing the game! Or sitting there with a LFG flag, sending tells to your friends and guild, spamming worldchats and zonechats trying to put a group together, watch people start to gather but then have to go, or someone drop from the group due to a bad pull getting them killed, or etc. Those good old days came with a lot of pain and downtime.
Devs seem to understand this and have been making games more solo friendly as a result. That doesn't mean a "solo" friendly game can't have meaningful group content, but trying to force people that want to solo or have no options other than to solo (due to time constraints etc) into doing group content won't make for a better gaming experience.
Same goes for the reverse - there has to be meaningful rewards for group content; a solo player who wants to experience all the content will need to group in order to get the full group content experience. Or be wicked good .
As someone who knows that I need a game with solo content - if the game states, "We are a grouping game, solo players will find it very difficult" then I will avoid that game and play something else. Unless I really want a challenge.
Thats exactly what we allready do US. We dont' buy the hardcore grouping games. We buy the ones that are solo friendly, However more often than not the developers realize they are not meeting their financial targets or obligations and so in an effort to bring in more people they put in the things that we like.
We don't need to say anything, the developers allready realize that tthere are tonnes and tonnes of us and so put in the features anyway.
Venge Sunsoar
Then you have to realise that with the increase of solo content the genre has changed almost beyond recognition? The more the developers cater to the soloers, the further away they get from the original idea behind the genre. They're becoming nothing more than single player games with other players populating the world. That was never how MMO's were intended to be and I think it's a sad thing to see the genre fall so far that they've become nothing more than a cheap copy of every other game out there.
I mean, to me, the only difference between Dragon Age and a modern MMO is the fact there are players running everywhere in an MMO. The actual gameplay is no different. Follow the line of quests from beginning to end all on your own.
Yes I will agree that the increase of solo content has changed the genre, but certainly not beyond recognition. I, and many others, play these games the exact same way we did in the past, group when we want, solo when we want, only now I find it easier to group. You say it's sad, I say it's great. It may not be what the orginal developers wanted it to be, but there is nothing saying those originial developers were correct. Personally I think the genre is leaps and bounds better than it was back in EQ days. As I said before I feel I have much more freedom and choice in today's games. I get to choose how I play and the games are encouraging this, I no longer feel like I have to go against the grain.
To say that today's MMO's are nothing more than a cheap copy of every other game is rediculous, there is more diversity on the market than ever before. You have solo oriented games, group oriented, games, pvp games, fantasy games, crafting games, space games... far far far more games offering many many different types of game play. Yes there are a lot of copies, but there is also a lot of diversity. We no longer have 3 or 4 games, offering 2 playstyles, we have hundreds of games offering dozens of playstyles.
Those players runnign everywhere fundamentally change the atmosphere in an MMO. They add that bid of randomness that makes them interesting. One minute there will be nothing going on, the next minute I'll run into a group rp'ing beaten eaten by giant invisible gnomes. You don't get that randomness, player creativity in single player games. So if thats the only difference I'll take it, that randomness is why I prefer MMO's over spg's any day of the week.
Venge Sunsoar
edit - sheesh lots of spelling mistakes
edit - gsfaun I hear you and totally agree. I prefer group play, however many times I just don't have the time to be a good group mate. (My grouping is mostly on weekends, actually thats when most of gaming is). During the week, after work I just want to relax, I know I'm not going to be very good in a group because I won't pull my weight, conversely I don't want to depend on them for my enjoyment either. Today's games give me the flexibility to do both, to group when I have time and can be dependable and to solo and relax when I dont' have time or can't be dependable. If a game today wants to get my dollars it needs to offer both play styles as a real viable alternative. Luckily for me, most are doing that.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Do many folks in this discussion ever log into an MMO to just hang out? I never, ever do. I am never looking for any sort of social connection beyond anything game related. Is befriending strangers a big part of the grouping dynamic?
Yes, many times. For the same reason I have a facebook account where I interact with family and real-life people that I know.
Most (if not all) of my best MMO experiences were meeting new gamers and doing stuff in the game together. The game provides the context and stuff to do, but the real reward was the experience of getting to know someone else in the context of the game. Developing those friendships over years of playing together is rewarding. I may never meet the people in real life (and those I have met we never became real-life friends), but those friendships are no less real from an emotional and phychological perspective.
I've logged into the game just to say hi even if I was busy and couldn't group. Chat for 20 minutes while doing other things. The game basically becomes a glorified chat room. There's a reason that chat rooms were (or are) so popular, and MMOs are great because they put context and shared experiences into the mix.
Take EQ and the Befallen dungeon - just about every EQ player has a Befallen story to tell. It becomes a shared experience that, over the years, build up and these shared experiences give you stuff to talk about within the context of the game. Missing an event that others share becomes a "bad" thing - you want to share those experiences with people you've met.
If the game mechanics make it difficult to do this, I lose interrest in the game. This is what keeps me subscribed to the game.
My "guess" is that a lot of the people who desire to group might be introverts who feel somewhat liberated at the anonymity these games bring as well as a quickl link to people who like the same things they like.
I can't imagine that the first people who delved into online games were Extroverts, delving deeper and deeper into whatever virtual worlds or forums or what have you, that they could find.
I remember on the LOTRO forums, someone posted a link to a personality test, I think meyers briggs.
almost every answer included "introvert".
Interesting enough, I'm considered an extrovert but mostly solo. For the most part, in "real life" I am an extrovert.
I think there is more going on than just being introverts or extroverts.
In RL I am an extrovert, I have tons of friends and interact with lots of people every single day. I have no need to use my time online to socialize, I can and do it in real life. I wouldn't be surprised if you were right though, that many of the people who are trying to live vicariously through their online personas want to socialize in MMOs because it's safe and anonymous and they likely have problems in social situations in real life.
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, so long as they recognize their own issues and are handling them.
For me it's very simple: sometimes I want to solo and sometimes I want to group. It has nothing to do with personality types nor pathological needs. There's just a time and a place for both.
It's not fair to myself or my groupmates to group-up unles I can give the game my undivided attention for as long as the group task takes... I can do that sometimes but not always. But there always seems to be one guy or two who have constant AFK needs but yet want to be in the raid... how boorish.
So...when I don't have the time to group, why don't I go off an play a stand-alone game? Simple... because I want to keep developing my same character and because I want to take advantage of passive, group-dependent amenities... crafted and vendored AH items for example.
I really don't understand why so many people are passionate advocates of one play style at the expense of the other--particularly developers who choose to disproportionately reward one of the two methods. I'm tired of hearing about how much more difficult group tasks are as the reason for making elite gear available only through that route. To me this is just an indication of an unimaginative design team that can't figure out a way to create a significant solo challenge worthy of high rewards.
Likewise, experience gain per hour played should be roughly equal in group experiences to what you can get through questing. But the solo method is typically rewarded with XP/hour to a much, much greater extent.
It has become an almost universal cliche for min/maxers: you solo to maximize xp and advance your character and you group for elite loot... how tired and boring is that?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Likewise, experience gain per hour played should be roughly equal in group experiences to what you can get through questing. But the solo method is typically rewarded with XP/hour to a much, much greater extent.
No it isn't. If people play for an hour, the groupers almost always get superior XP because they can take on more difficult, higher level content. The only way they don't is if you count the time they spend sitting around doing nothing. That's absurd however, you can't get anything if you don't actually play the game. It's like trying to count all the hours people don't spend logged into the game.
In my honest Opinion there will never be a right answer to the Group Play vs Solo Play in a MMO debate. becuase both groups will think the other group is trying to force their play style on them. Youd have better chances on asking a crouded room what topings they want on their pizza then getting a conclusion on this topic that everyone agrees on.
/end thread
"Possibly we humans can exist without actually having to fight. But many of us have chosen to fight. For what reason? To protect something? Protect what? Ourselves? The future? If we kill people to protect ourselves and this future, then what sort of future is it, and what will we have become? There is no future for those who have died. And what of those who did the killing? Is happiness to be found in a future that is grasped with blood stained hands? Is that the truth?"
In my honest Opinion there will never be a right answer to the Group Play vs Solo Play in a MMO debate. becuase both groups will think the other group is trying to force their play style on them. Youd have better chances on asking a crouded room what topings they want on their pizza then getting a conclusion on this topic that everyone agrees on.
/end thread
There is no reason MMOs can't be designed favoring one way much more heavily over the other. I don't think many are saying ALL MMOs should be one way or the other. But IMO it's flawed design to have a game one way til the end and then the other from then on.
No it isn't. If people play for an hour, the groupers almost always get superior XP because they can take on more difficult, higher level content. The only way they don't is if you count the time they spend sitting around doing nothing. That's absurd however, you can't get anything if you don't actually play the game. It's like trying to count all the hours people don't spend logged into the game.
Once upon a time this used to be true, but since MMO's have become nothing more than a chain of quests, you can't really step ahead into more difficult content. You get more XP by doing the quests than killing wandering mobs, so the only way to advance is to do those quests. So the only difference a group makes now is that they can probably get through the quests a little quicker, though usually even that isn't the case as the quests are meant to be soloed so you end up spending the same amount of time.. there's just more people involved.
Grouping has, in essence, become pointless in most MMO's. They put the ability to group into these games but never support it with actual decent content until you reach end game. By then most of the groupers have become fed up with soloing and gone elsewhere, and the soloers will find the group content at end game and also go elsewhere. Makes me wonder what the hell the developers are thinking these days.
Likewise, experience gain per hour played should be roughly equal in group experiences to what you can get through questing. But the solo method is typically rewarded with XP/hour to a much, much greater extent.
No it isn't. If people play for an hour, the groupers almost always get superior XP because they can take on more difficult, higher level content. The only way they don't is if you count the time they spend sitting around doing nothing. That's absurd however, you can't get anything if you don't actually play the game. It's like trying to count all the hours people don't spend logged into the game.
I don't know what MMO you're basing that on but it flies in the face of the WOW reality post Lich King or even before. Going to a quest hub and grabbing quests is by far the fastest way to level...period. Group instances are all about uber loot now once you do it the first time for the fun or challenge.
Most others are also copying this recipe. Solo for XP and group for loot is the current MMO cliche.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
No it isn't. If people play for an hour, the groupers almost always get superior XP because they can take on more difficult, higher level content. The only way they don't is if you count the time they spend sitting around doing nothing. That's absurd however, you can't get anything if you don't actually play the game. It's like trying to count all the hours people don't spend logged into the game.
Once upon a time this used to be true, but since MMO's have become nothing more than a chain of quests, you can't really step ahead into more difficult content. You get more XP by doing the quests than killing wandering mobs, so the only way to advance is to do those quests. So the only difference a group makes now is that they can probably get through the quests a little quicker, though usually even that isn't the case as the quests are meant to be soloed so you end up spending the same amount of time.. there's just more people involved.
It depends on the game you're playing. While in some games that's certainly true, some of my fondest grouping memories were in Anarchy Online where you could get a group of people and go tackle some seriously upper-level stuff in Shadowlands and rake in the XP. On a good day, you could gain 2-3 levels per hour of play. Even if you're in a quest-based game, having a large group should allow you to blow through non-level-locked quests faster and easier and get on to higher level quests. Even if you're getting the same amount of XP, you can still kill mobs far, far faster than someone going through solo. Faster kills = more XP in the same amount of time.
Grouping has, in essence, become pointless in most MMO's. They put the ability to group into these games but never support it with actual decent content until you reach end game. By then most of the groupers have become fed up with soloing and gone elsewhere, and the soloers will find the group content at end game and also go elsewhere. Makes me wonder what the hell the developers are thinking these days.
They're thinking that supporting soloing makes them a hell of a lot more money than supporting grouping and they're absolutely right.
I'm kind of jumping in the middle with my 2 cents but I think MMO's should be community focused but not community dependant. Ie. you should want to be socialising people, that should be the ideal. For the occasional solo player there also should be enough content but basically the game rewards you for spending time with people. Thats why its an MMO.
Grouping has, in essence, become pointless in most MMO's. They put the ability to group into these games but never support it with actual decent content until you reach end game. By then most of the groupers have become fed up with soloing and gone elsewhere, and the soloers will find the group content at end game and also go elsewhere. Makes me wonder what the hell the developers are thinking these days.
They're thinking that supporting soloing makes them a hell of a lot more money than supporting grouping and they're absolutely right.
Welcome to reality.
If they were entirely supporting soloing then I'd agree with you, but that wasn't the point, the point was that these games are soloable to end game then switch over to grouping. They're not pleasing anyone by doing that, they're trying to pull in everyone and disappointing them just as equally. They need to decide if they want to make their MMO entirely about grouping or entirely about soloing, this 'solo to end game then group together' idea just doesn't work.
For me, once I see that the entire levelling structure is soloable I simply move on, I don't even bother trying to reach end game to find out how things change. It's part of the reason I never stuck with WoW, I was soloing up to about 30ish then decided enough was enough. I heard the end game is great but I really couldn't be bothered wasting my time finding out.
And for you, you've said in the past that once you've soloed to end game you tend to leave the game or restart with a new character. So in both instances people aren't happy. If we had games that were purely one way or the other then this whole thread would die out, as people could get their solo and grouping fix in the appropriate games.
If they were entirely supporting soloing then I'd agree with you, but that wasn't the point, the point was that these games are soloable to end game then switch over to grouping. They're not pleasing anyone by doing that, they're trying to pull in everyone and disappointing them just as equally. They need to decide if they want to make their MMO entirely about grouping or entirely about soloing, this 'solo to end game then group together' idea just doesn't work.
For me, once I see that the entire levelling structure is soloable I simply move on, I don't even bother trying to reach end game to find out how things change. It's part of the reason I never stuck with WoW, I was soloing up to about 30ish then decided enough was enough. I heard the end game is great but I really couldn't be bothered wasting my time finding out.
And for you, you've said in the past that once you've soloed to end game you tend to leave the game or restart with a new character. So in both instances people aren't happy. If we had games that were purely one way or the other then this whole thread would die out, as people could get their solo and grouping fix in the appropriate games.
Apparently they are pleasing enough people because people are still playing and paying for these games. People are rushing to end-game so they can raid, etc. Just because you don't want to doesn't mean lots of others don't do it every day. Personally, I have no interest in raiding, I detest PvP with a passion, therefore I ignore end-game. If the rest of the game is fun, I'll play it until I tire of it. Otherwise, I don't.
The fact still remains, the companies are catering to the majority of people who apparently *DO* want soloing games and *DO* want end-game raiding. That's the marketplace for MMOs. If you don't like it, then maybe you need to go find something else to do. Until groupers become a significant financial sector in the MMO marketplace, don't expect anything to change and frankly, I wouldn't be holding my breath.
Its funny when people solo the entire game then try to group. They're usually the people whining about how hard the end-game is and cry to the developers about nerfing the elites when people who have been grouping while leveling up grind end-game in pug's everyday.
I agree with the notion about developers deciding what's best for their game and pick one side. If you're going to have end game content then make some forced grouping while level'ing up so people learn how to play their class in co-op. If not, then make end-game also solo'able so they don't lure people who like grouping only to disappoint them.
But right now the market is oversatured with solo MMOs. That is simply because the casual market is HUUUGE. The Wii sucks, but it sells the most because its primary market is the casual market. MMOs are pretty much targetting the same market, resulting in mostly WoW-knockoffs.
Kudos to MMOs which do their own thing, even if they aren't as successful. Eve Online, Darkfall, Vanguard etc.
But right now the market is oversatured with solo MMOs. That is simply because the casual market is HUUUGE. The Wii sucks, but it sells the most because its primary market is the casual market. MMOs are pretty much targetting the same market, resulting in mostly WoW-knockoffs.
Kudos to MMOs which do their own thing, even if they aren't as successful. Eve Online, Darkfall, Vanguard etc.
And Nintendo is laughing all the way to the bank. They, like the majority of MMO developers, know how business works. You cater to the largest audience and you will be successful. None of the MMOs that you list will ever be major players, simply because they're niche games. They're welcome to do whatever they want, but they're never going to hit multi-million numbers.
Hint: neither group of extremists want "zero" of anything.
Yes, they do.
A group extremist is one who wants a game with zero soloing.
A solo extremist is one who wants a game where everything can be soloed.
That's what makes them extremists.
There are only those kind of people in your imaginary world. It's weird, twisting reality to make your own point seem more valid. Not that I didn't expect it though.
So as a player who enjoys grouping and solo play, I must live in an imaginary world as well because I see the same extreme POVs that IIv is mentioning?
Not an imaginary world, just one where they wouldn't be doing both activities at the same time...and if you think about it that is possible in most MMORPG.
And Nintendo is laughing all the way to the bank. They, like the majority of MMO developers, know how business works. You cater to the largest audience and you will be successful. None of the MMOs that you list will ever be major players, simply because they're niche games. They're welcome to do whatever they want, but they're never going to hit multi-million numbers.
Are multi-million numbers the only measure of success in this industry? Oprah is so far ahead of her competition when it comes to anual earnings that she's in a category all by herself. Does that mean that Helen Mirem, Meryl Streep and Jodie Foster are fringe "niche" actresses? They are in fact much better at their craft than Oprah will ever be.
WOW is a cultural phenomenom that has a life of its own. Comparing any other MMO to WOW when assesing their value is meaningles and pointless: there's just one WOW and one Oprah.
I have no idea how many subscription-years it takes a given MMO to break even or turn a modest profit but I assume that if they are loosing tons of money a bean counter somewhere will pull the plug. The fact that so many continue to operate even years after they were notorious and had a lot of buzz means that there's a lot of room in this industry for many different MMOs that, in theory, could appeal to anyone--especially the whiners who do nothing but find fault with WOW and the other flavor of the day MMOs.
There's something for everyone out there but there's an odd subtext in many of the posts here and other places where MMO fans come to bicker: It seems to me that many people want their MMO-of-their-dreams with whatever feature they favor to be the one with the 10 million + subscriptions. They want their own particular version of MMO heaven to be the One True MMO and all other infidels be damned.
There's enough room in the MMO world to cater to just about any taste: fantasy, sci-fi, sandbox, theme-park, solo-friendly, harsh, elite, noob-friendly...whatever. Subscription numbers are just a byproduct of how many different bits and pieces an MMO cobbles together that are attractive to different players for different reasons.
Solo vs. group discussions like this one often sound like what you'd get if you put a couple of religious zealots--say, an Anglican and a Catholic--in a room together and don't let them out until they agree on which one is right.
I've said it before: there is a time and a place for both. I personally do both and as such when I'm doing one or the other I appreciate design elements that cater to either and make my gaming time more enjoyable... is there really anything else to say on the subject?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Are multi-million numbers the only measure of success in this industry? Oprah is so far ahead of her competition when it comes to anual earnings that she's in a category all by herself. Does that mean that Helen Mirem, Meryl Streep and Jodie Foster are fringe "niche" actresses? They are in fact much better at their craft than Oprah will ever be.
Um, Oprah isn't famous for her acting, but for her talk show. None of the others have talk shows. Try comparing apples to apples if you hope to make any coherent points.
Comments
My "guess" is that a lot of the people who desire to group might be introverts who feel somewhat liberated at the anonymity these games bring as well as a quickl link to people who like the same things they like.
I can't imagine that the first people who delved into online games were Extroverts, delving deeper and deeper into whatever virtual worlds or forums or what have you, that they could find.
I remember on the LOTRO forums, someone posted a link to a personality test, I think meyers briggs.
almost every answer included "introvert".
Interesting enough, I'm considered an extrovert but mostly solo. For the most part, in "real life" I am an extrovert.
I think there is more going on than just being introverts or extroverts.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Group Play vs. Solo Play
===================
Examples
1986 - Played a text based MU* game on Compuserve - Solo content only; grouping was basically two people hitting the same mob; not very group friendly and thus didn't group.
1996 - Played a text based MU* game on another network - Originally designed to be solo content, but over ten years they evolved the game to have more group content. What this meant though was that everyone gathered in the same place and fought the same things. No shared credit, official "group'", etc. Just people playing together against harder content. Could be a lot of fun, but low player base, different time zones, etc meant that it was pretty rare to group - grouping had to be planned. You weren't rewarded for grouping by the game (just the opposite - the game design didn't take grouping into account). People did it for the social / fun aspect of playing with others.
EQ - Gnome Cleric that leveled slowly when everyone was already at the level cap. Talk about slow leveling... Forced to be solo due to lack of others to play with, lost level, gained it back, lost it again (repeat until I eventually gave up). Ended up creating a more "solo" friendly class later on - was funner than waiting around for a group, but not as fun as having a good group to play with.
I've played just about every other game thats released over the last 25 years, and my life has changed throughout the years. Got married, job became more demanding of my time, had kids, etc. If I play, I'm also dealing with spouse, kids, pets, and other distractions. Play time is shorter than it used to be - even if I can get some big block of time to play, there are distractions to deal with. No doubt over the next 25 years this will change again.
=========================
I enjoy group play more than solo play for long term enjoyment of a game. Grouping and community are what keep me in an MMO for more than a few months. It's unfortunate that I don't have the time to do more of it, but I want there to be decent group content so I can enjoy this aspect of the game.
I enjoy solo play as it allows me to play and experience the game when I don't have the time to try and find others to play with, or when my time is so limited that it's not worth the commitment, or when I'm so distracted that it's not fair to group mates when I have to go "afk" every other battle.
The bulk of my gameplay is forced to be solo due to my circumstances. It's unavoidable. Any game that I play must be able to cater to solo play. That does not mean that group content must suck either. If I don't have meaninful group time when I can group, my interrest in the game will go away.
So any game that wants my subscription must:
Provide group content
Provide solo content
Provide tools to help me find groups
Provide tools to help me relate to other players while I play solo content
Most game developers appear to recongize this. For all the Old Schoolers that think Solo Content should be removed in order to promote better group content / create forced grouping - remember what it's really like sitting on a boat for 25 minutes to get to someplace where a group is forming, wait an hour for everyone to get there, then watch it all fall to pieces due to poor leadership. Congrats - just wasted 2 hrs when you could have been playing the game! Or sitting there with a LFG flag, sending tells to your friends and guild, spamming worldchats and zonechats trying to put a group together, watch people start to gather but then have to go, or someone drop from the group due to a bad pull getting them killed, or etc. Those good old days came with a lot of pain and downtime.
Devs seem to understand this and have been making games more solo friendly as a result. That doesn't mean a "solo" friendly game can't have meaningful group content, but trying to force people that want to solo or have no options other than to solo (due to time constraints etc) into doing group content won't make for a better gaming experience.
Same goes for the reverse - there has to be meaningful rewards for group content; a solo player who wants to experience all the content will need to group in order to get the full group content experience. Or be wicked good
.
As someone who knows that I need a game with solo content - if the game states, "We are a grouping game, solo players will find it very difficult" then I will avoid that game and play something else. Unless I really want a challenge.
Regards,
G.
Yes I will agree that the increase of solo content has changed the genre, but certainly not beyond recognition. I, and many others, play these games the exact same way we did in the past, group when we want, solo when we want, only now I find it easier to group. You say it's sad, I say it's great. It may not be what the orginal developers wanted it to be, but there is nothing saying those originial developers were correct. Personally I think the genre is leaps and bounds better than it was back in EQ days. As I said before I feel I have much more freedom and choice in today's games. I get to choose how I play and the games are encouraging this, I no longer feel like I have to go against the grain.
To say that today's MMO's are nothing more than a cheap copy of every other game is rediculous, there is more diversity on the market than ever before. You have solo oriented games, group oriented, games, pvp games, fantasy games, crafting games, space games... far far far more games offering many many different types of game play. Yes there are a lot of copies, but there is also a lot of diversity. We no longer have 3 or 4 games, offering 2 playstyles, we have hundreds of games offering dozens of playstyles.
Those players runnign everywhere fundamentally change the atmosphere in an MMO. They add that bid of randomness that makes them interesting. One minute there will be nothing going on, the next minute I'll run into a group rp'ing beaten eaten by giant invisible gnomes. You don't get that randomness, player creativity in single player games. So if thats the only difference I'll take it, that randomness is why I prefer MMO's over spg's any day of the week.
Venge Sunsoar
edit - sheesh lots of spelling mistakes
edit - gsfaun I hear you and totally agree. I prefer group play, however many times I just don't have the time to be a good group mate. (My grouping is mostly on weekends, actually thats when most of gaming is). During the week, after work I just want to relax, I know I'm not going to be very good in a group because I won't pull my weight, conversely I don't want to depend on them for my enjoyment either. Today's games give me the flexibility to do both, to group when I have time and can be dependable and to solo and relax when I dont' have time or can't be dependable. If a game today wants to get my dollars it needs to offer both play styles as a real viable alternative. Luckily for me, most are doing that.
Yes, many times. For the same reason I have a facebook account where I interact with family and real-life people that I know.
Most (if not all) of my best MMO experiences were meeting new gamers and doing stuff in the game together. The game provides the context and stuff to do, but the real reward was the experience of getting to know someone else in the context of the game. Developing those friendships over years of playing together is rewarding. I may never meet the people in real life (and those I have met we never became real-life friends), but those friendships are no less real from an emotional and phychological perspective.
I've logged into the game just to say hi even if I was busy and couldn't group. Chat for 20 minutes while doing other things. The game basically becomes a glorified chat room. There's a reason that chat rooms were (or are) so popular, and MMOs are great because they put context and shared experiences into the mix.
Take EQ and the Befallen dungeon - just about every EQ player has a Befallen story to tell. It becomes a shared experience that, over the years, build up and these shared experiences give you stuff to talk about within the context of the game. Missing an event that others share becomes a "bad" thing - you want to share those experiences with people you've met.
If the game mechanics make it difficult to do this, I lose interrest in the game. This is what keeps me subscribed to the game.
In RL I am an extrovert, I have tons of friends and interact with lots of people every single day. I have no need to use my time online to socialize, I can and do it in real life. I wouldn't be surprised if you were right though, that many of the people who are trying to live vicariously through their online personas want to socialize in MMOs because it's safe and anonymous and they likely have problems in social situations in real life.
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, so long as they recognize their own issues and are handling them.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
So many people took Psych 101! who knew?
For me it's very simple: sometimes I want to solo and sometimes I want to group. It has nothing to do with personality types nor pathological needs. There's just a time and a place for both.
It's not fair to myself or my groupmates to group-up unles I can give the game my undivided attention for as long as the group task takes... I can do that sometimes but not always. But there always seems to be one guy or two who have constant AFK needs but yet want to be in the raid... how boorish.
So...when I don't have the time to group, why don't I go off an play a stand-alone game? Simple... because I want to keep developing my same character and because I want to take advantage of passive, group-dependent amenities... crafted and vendored AH items for example.
I really don't understand why so many people are passionate advocates of one play style at the expense of the other--particularly developers who choose to disproportionately reward one of the two methods. I'm tired of hearing about how much more difficult group tasks are as the reason for making elite gear available only through that route. To me this is just an indication of an unimaginative design team that can't figure out a way to create a significant solo challenge worthy of high rewards.
Likewise, experience gain per hour played should be roughly equal in group experiences to what you can get through questing. But the solo method is typically rewarded with XP/hour to a much, much greater extent.
It has become an almost universal cliche for min/maxers: you solo to maximize xp and advance your character and you group for elite loot... how tired and boring is that?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
No it isn't. If people play for an hour, the groupers almost always get superior XP because they can take on more difficult, higher level content. The only way they don't is if you count the time they spend sitting around doing nothing. That's absurd however, you can't get anything if you don't actually play the game. It's like trying to count all the hours people don't spend logged into the game.
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
I simply wish that they would stop tailoring content in all games to be more rewarding if you do it solo.
Why? And how do you feel that this is so?
In my honest Opinion there will never be a right answer to the Group Play vs Solo Play in a MMO debate. becuase both groups will think the other group is trying to force their play style on them. Youd have better chances on asking a crouded room what topings they want on their pizza then getting a conclusion on this topic that everyone agrees on.
/end thread
"Possibly we humans can exist without actually having to fight. But many of us have chosen to fight. For what reason? To protect something? Protect what? Ourselves? The future? If we kill people to protect ourselves and this future, then what sort of future is it, and what will we have become? There is no future for those who have died. And what of those who did the killing? Is happiness to be found in a future that is grasped with blood stained hands? Is that the truth?"
There is no reason MMOs can't be designed favoring one way much more heavily over the other. I don't think many are saying ALL MMOs should be one way or the other. But IMO it's flawed design to have a game one way til the end and then the other from then on.
Once upon a time this used to be true, but since MMO's have become nothing more than a chain of quests, you can't really step ahead into more difficult content. You get more XP by doing the quests than killing wandering mobs, so the only way to advance is to do those quests. So the only difference a group makes now is that they can probably get through the quests a little quicker, though usually even that isn't the case as the quests are meant to be soloed so you end up spending the same amount of time.. there's just more people involved.
Grouping has, in essence, become pointless in most MMO's. They put the ability to group into these games but never support it with actual decent content until you reach end game. By then most of the groupers have become fed up with soloing and gone elsewhere, and the soloers will find the group content at end game and also go elsewhere. Makes me wonder what the hell the developers are thinking these days.
No it isn't. If people play for an hour, the groupers almost always get superior XP because they can take on more difficult, higher level content. The only way they don't is if you count the time they spend sitting around doing nothing. That's absurd however, you can't get anything if you don't actually play the game. It's like trying to count all the hours people don't spend logged into the game.
I don't know what MMO you're basing that on but it flies in the face of the WOW reality post Lich King or even before. Going to a quest hub and grabbing quests is by far the fastest way to level...period. Group instances are all about uber loot now once you do it the first time for the fun or challenge.Most others are also copying this recipe. Solo for XP and group for loot is the current MMO cliche.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
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
I'm kind of jumping in the middle with my 2 cents but I think MMO's should be community focused but not community dependant. Ie. you should want to be socialising people, that should be the ideal. For the occasional solo player there also should be enough content but basically the game rewards you for spending time with people. Thats why its an MMO.
If they were entirely supporting soloing then I'd agree with you, but that wasn't the point, the point was that these games are soloable to end game then switch over to grouping. They're not pleasing anyone by doing that, they're trying to pull in everyone and disappointing them just as equally. They need to decide if they want to make their MMO entirely about grouping or entirely about soloing, this 'solo to end game then group together' idea just doesn't work.
For me, once I see that the entire levelling structure is soloable I simply move on, I don't even bother trying to reach end game to find out how things change. It's part of the reason I never stuck with WoW, I was soloing up to about 30ish then decided enough was enough. I heard the end game is great but I really couldn't be bothered wasting my time finding out.
And for you, you've said in the past that once you've soloed to end game you tend to leave the game or restart with a new character. So in both instances people aren't happy. If we had games that were purely one way or the other then this whole thread would die out, as people could get their solo and grouping fix in the appropriate games.
Apparently they are pleasing enough people because people are still playing and paying for these games. People are rushing to end-game so they can raid, etc. Just because you don't want to doesn't mean lots of others don't do it every day. Personally, I have no interest in raiding, I detest PvP with a passion, therefore I ignore end-game. If the rest of the game is fun, I'll play it until I tire of it. Otherwise, I don't.
The fact still remains, the companies are catering to the majority of people who apparently *DO* want soloing games and *DO* want end-game raiding. That's the marketplace for MMOs. If you don't like it, then maybe you need to go find something else to do. Until groupers become a significant financial sector in the MMO marketplace, don't expect anything to change and frankly, I wouldn't be holding my breath.
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
Its funny when people solo the entire game then try to group. They're usually the people whining about how hard the end-game is and cry to the developers about nerfing the elites when people who have been grouping while leveling up grind end-game in pug's everyday.
I agree with the notion about developers deciding what's best for their game and pick one side. If you're going to have end game content then make some forced grouping while level'ing up so people learn how to play their class in co-op. If not, then make end-game also solo'able so they don't lure people who like grouping only to disappoint them.
But right now the market is oversatured with solo MMOs. That is simply because the casual market is HUUUGE. The Wii sucks, but it sells the most because its primary market is the casual market. MMOs are pretty much targetting the same market, resulting in mostly WoW-knockoffs.
Kudos to MMOs which do their own thing, even if they aren't as successful. Eve Online, Darkfall, Vanguard etc.
I'll be playing with friends from the begining
And Nintendo is laughing all the way to the bank. They, like the majority of MMO developers, know how business works. You cater to the largest audience and you will be successful. None of the MMOs that you list will ever be major players, simply because they're niche games. They're welcome to do whatever they want, but they're never going to hit multi-million numbers.
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
Not an imaginary world, just one where they wouldn't be doing both activities at the same time...and if you think about it that is possible in most MMORPG.
Are multi-million numbers the only measure of success in this industry? Oprah is so far ahead of her competition when it comes to anual earnings that she's in a category all by herself. Does that mean that Helen Mirem, Meryl Streep and Jodie Foster are fringe "niche" actresses? They are in fact much better at their craft than Oprah will ever be.
WOW is a cultural phenomenom that has a life of its own. Comparing any other MMO to WOW when assesing their value is meaningles and pointless: there's just one WOW and one Oprah.
I have no idea how many subscription-years it takes a given MMO to break even or turn a modest profit but I assume that if they are loosing tons of money a bean counter somewhere will pull the plug. The fact that so many continue to operate even years after they were notorious and had a lot of buzz means that there's a lot of room in this industry for many different MMOs that, in theory, could appeal to anyone--especially the whiners who do nothing but find fault with WOW and the other flavor of the day MMOs.
There's something for everyone out there but there's an odd subtext in many of the posts here and other places where MMO fans come to bicker: It seems to me that many people want their MMO-of-their-dreams with whatever feature they favor to be the one with the 10 million + subscriptions. They want their own particular version of MMO heaven to be the One True MMO and all other infidels be damned.
There's enough room in the MMO world to cater to just about any taste: fantasy, sci-fi, sandbox, theme-park, solo-friendly, harsh, elite, noob-friendly...whatever. Subscription numbers are just a byproduct of how many different bits and pieces an MMO cobbles together that are attractive to different players for different reasons.
Solo vs. group discussions like this one often sound like what you'd get if you put a couple of religious zealots--say, an Anglican and a Catholic--in a room together and don't let them out until they agree on which one is right.
I've said it before: there is a time and a place for both. I personally do both and as such when I'm doing one or the other I appreciate design elements that cater to either and make my gaming time more enjoyable... is there really anything else to say on the subject?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Um, Oprah isn't famous for her acting, but for her talk show. None of the others have talk shows. Try comparing apples to apples if you hope to make any coherent points.
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
i only play in groups because playing only against Pc is very boring after a few day
http://www.mmorpg-bob.com search free MMORPG???we separate the wheat from the chaff !!!