If I was in the 8th grade and this game had tons of players then yes, I would certainly play it. The problem with forced grouping games is usually that the barrier for entry becomes higher for new players as the years go on due to less and less lowbies running around.
If I was in the 8th grade and this game had tons of players then yes, I would certainly play it. The problem with forced grouping games is usually that the barrier for entry becomes higher for new players as the years go on due to less and less lowbies running around.
Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by the underlined part?
If I was in the 8th grade and this game had tons of players then yes, I would certainly play it. The problem with forced grouping games is usually that the barrier for entry becomes higher for new players as the years go on due to less and less lowbies running around.
I agree that lack of newbies is an issue, but there are ways around level differences.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
If I was in the 8th grade and this game had tons of players then yes, I would certainly play it. The problem with forced grouping games is usually that the barrier for entry becomes higher for new players as the years go on due to less and less lowbies running around.
Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by the underlined part?
If I was in the 8th grade and this game had tons of players then yes, I would certainly play it. The problem with forced grouping games is usually that the barrier for entry becomes higher for new players as the years go on due to less and less lowbies running around.
Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by the underlined part?
If I was in the 8th grade and this game had tons of players then yes, I would certainly play it. The problem with forced grouping games is usually that the barrier for entry becomes higher for new players as the years go on due to less and less lowbies running around.
Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by the underlined part?
I think he is saying that since most third world nations have an educational equivalency of about the 6th to 8th grade, that if no one from the third world played, he'd be down with that action.
j/k dude hehe
*runs off to let the thread die* lol like it would die...
If I was in the 8th grade and this game had tons of players then yes, I would certainly play it. The problem with forced grouping games is usually that the barrier for entry becomes higher for new players as the years go on due to less and less lowbies running around.
I agree that lack of newbies is an issue, but there are ways around level differences.
this is a poorly setup poll with a leading (or rather misleading) question.
the flipside being, would you play a game that forces you to solo for xp? meaning that you can still group, but you get no xp for it.
Anyway. I (like most people) like having both. Something to be done solo, some things to be done in group, some in multiple groups, some with the whole server. Different is good.
Sad thing is that I've actually had the experience of a game that came close to "forcing" me to solo and hated it. I loved Tabula Rasa and I'm fiercely independent, so if it can be soloed, chances are I'll solo it. But with TR getting more xp solo and things being more challenging solo, it was really a detriment to group. It was one of the factors that made me quit eventually. Same thing for fallen earth, I loved the game, but there was no reason to ever group. After 30 or so levels of soloing, I quit that as well.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
nope...I would never play a game that forced me to group...I choose to group when I want to but if I knew that the only way to ever get anything accomplised was to group...even on days when I just didnt want too then that game wouldnt be for me.
nope...I would never play a game that forced me to group...I choose to group when I want to but if I knew that the only way to ever get anything accomplised was to group...even on days when I just didnt want too then that game wouldnt be for me.
That's not what the poll says.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
"Gain exp" sounds like advancement, and by the wording of the OP, it sounds like you have to remained tied to someone the entire time you play, otherwise you can't earn any exp. Kinda like someone always has to witness you killing something because you're really a coward on the inside and wouldn't harm a fly.
I would play it if the population were great enough for me to find a group in less than 5 minutes and the group content was innovative, fun, challenging, and required more than just spamming rotations and auto-attacks.
If a game were to pull that off, I believe I would be hooked, but I doubt a trustworthy developer would ever risk such a game.
Originally posted by Cpt_Picard Originally posted by GTwander No game 'forces' you to group. It's just either more efficient to do so, or not. When a game logs you in and actually *forces* you to hang out with strangers you might not even like, then I will vote, and mostly likely vote 'no'.
These are my thoughts exactly. Mmo's are intended to be social games, more rewards should come from the efforts of multiple people.
Who's to really say what MMO's intentions are, which can be defined one way by one player but in a totally opposite way about another player? I can just as easily argue its more about providing a more interactive landscape from which you can solo within? Does this person all of a sudden become less into the game than the next guy? No, that solo player could be putting in 2-3x more time than the casual group player. It's all about trying to be as inclusive as possible to promote diversity to feed the world.
There is no one size fits all type of play-style and it would stagnate the game fairly quickly if all the world is doing is accommodating 1 play style over another. Rather than think outside the box, all the companies would do is just release harder and harder content much like where we are at today. (Isn't grouping encouraged enough these days at the end-game and from my experiences people tend to have selfish reasons behind grouping most of the time anyway)
No game 'forces' you to group. It's just either more efficient to do so, or not.
When a game logs you in and actually *forces* you to hang out with strangers you might not even like, then I will vote, and mostly likely vote 'no'.
These are my thoughts exactly. Mmo's are intended to be social games, more rewards should come from the efforts of multiple people.
Who's to really say what MMO's intentions are, which can be defined one way by one player but in a totally opposite way about another player? I can just as easily argue its more about providing a more interactive landscape from which you can solo within? Does this person all of a sudden become less into the game than the next guy? No, that solo player could be putting in 2-3x more time than the casual group player. It's all about trying to be as inclusive as possible to promote diversity to feed the world.
There is no one size fits all type of play-style and it would stagnate the game fairly quickly if all the world is doing is accommodating 1 play style over another. Rather than think outside the box, all the companies would do is just release harder and harder content much like where we are at today. (Isn't grouping encouraged enough these days at the end-game and from my experiences people tend to have selfish reasons behind grouping most of the time anyway)
The "massively multiplayer" part?
As for all play styles, sounds like putting checker pieces on one side of the board and chess pieces on the other. Games should not pander to all play styles in the same environment, and they don't, there are always bigger carrots on one side of the garden compared to the other. That makes the other pretty empty…
Gah, back on the thread that didn’t define the op/poll quite right. You know this is OT to what the poll was actually asking? *runs away screamin... barking*
The poll is only about gaining xp, folks. You would be allowed to do solo activities - you just wouldn't get any xp for it.
Then it's not soloable.
Again, no.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
Yeah, a massive amount of people playing on the same server. Nowhere in "massively multiplayer" does it say a massive amount of people forced to play together or leave.
Next.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
Yeah, a massive amount of people playing on the same server. Nowhere in "massively multiplayer" does it say a massive amount of people forced to play together or leave.
I hate forced grouping. Not because I do not like to have a group, but the requirement for a group that is the problem.
I would rather content include both aspects equally. That way, I do not have to sit around and wait for my friends to log in in order to enjoy the game, and I do not get stuck with some annoying twit who I wouldn;t wish upon my worst enemy. One of the worst groups I was forced into had some emo spammer stalker creep that would not shut up. I mean if the requiremnet also means I can kill anyone in the group who annoys me, fine, great.. give me a damn group, but if the game forces me to have to be stuck with them in order to finish a task , hell no, that isn;t fun, that is punishment!
A game that makes tasks easier for grouping and gives equal rewards that you would get solo would be a good solution. That way you can enjoy the game with friends, and enjoy the game when your friends aren;t on as well and not be forced to sit there and listen to a guy ask you 42 times to be his girlfriend or he will cut himself while he tries to molest your pixels.
I couldn't stand that games like FFXI which essentially forced you to group because soloing was excruciatingly painful and slow if not outright impossible depending on what job you were. Atleast in that game though it was possible to advance through soloing sometimes.
If I've got this straight, you're suggesting that it be impossible to advance in any way other than financially while alone in your hypothetical new game. Personally, I wouldn't enjoy that.
My question is: "why?" Why would you, as a dev, implement that? In hopes that it would somehow ensure a friendly community? You can't guarantee that would be the case, so it seems you'd be taking an unnecessary risk there. Forcing complete dependency between players doesn't even sound like the makings of a healthy social environment...
Yeah, a massive amount of people playing on the same server. Nowhere in "massively multiplayer" does it say a massive amount of people forced to play together or leave.
Next.
Massively-solo?
Theres plenty of reasons to play online with others, such as pvp, trading, roleplaying, grouping when you feel the urge to, etc Massively Multiplayer just means there are others there, it doesnt say what they are there for (such as XPing).
Not only do I think it's ok, I wish more developers would cater to this form of online gaming. Much of the turn off comes from waiting around for players. I'm sure there is a way developers could alleviate that problem. Public Quests were a good start. If you had everyone on a certain faction working towards one common goal, you would be cooperating and grouping, perhaps without even knowing it.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Not only do I think it's ok, I wish more developers would cater to this form of online gaming. Much of the turn off comes from waiting around for players. I'm sure there is a way developers could alleviate that problem. Public Quests were a good start. If you had everyone on a certain faction working towards one common goal, you would be cooperating and grouping, perhaps without even knowing it.
Yet another reason why many of us are looking forward to the DES system in GW2 and eager to see how it turns out. Just like PQs in WAR, you wont actually be required to group with others to get things done, but it will encourage people to communicate and work together in order to stop the advancing enemy armies (or whatever the Event at the time is). So while you may not be in the same parties as others, you can still work togethe rtowards a common goal of stopping an army, taking back a city/town, stopping some boss from wreaking havoc, etc. The game world will change depending on how players react to what happens, so if you dont want that town overrun by enemies, youve got to get a group, or multiple groups working together to make sure they get stopped in time.
Comments
If I was in the 8th grade and this game had tons of players then yes, I would certainly play it. The problem with forced grouping games is usually that the barrier for entry becomes higher for new players as the years go on due to less and less lowbies running around.
Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by the underlined part?
I agree that lack of newbies is an issue, but there are ways around level differences.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
In other words, a lot of free time.
Ah okay, thanks.
I think he is saying that since most third world nations have an educational equivalency of about the 6th to 8th grade, that if no one from the third world played, he'd be down with that action.
j/k dude hehe
*runs off to let the thread die* lol like it would die...
M59, UO, EQ1, WWIIOL, PS, EnB, SL, SWG. MoM, EQ2, AO, SB, CoH, LOTRO, WoW, DDO+ f2p's, Demos & indie alpha's.
What are some of those ways?
this is a poorly setup poll with a leading (or rather misleading) question.
the flipside being, would you play a game that forces you to solo for xp? meaning that you can still group, but you get no xp for it.
Anyway. I (like most people) like having both. Something to be done solo, some things to be done in group, some in multiple groups, some with the whole server. Different is good.
Sad thing is that I've actually had the experience of a game that came close to "forcing" me to solo and hated it. I loved Tabula Rasa and I'm fiercely independent, so if it can be soloed, chances are I'll solo it. But with TR getting more xp solo and things being more challenging solo, it was really a detriment to group. It was one of the factors that made me quit eventually. Same thing for fallen earth, I loved the game, but there was no reason to ever group. After 30 or so levels of soloing, I quit that as well.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
nope...I would never play a game that forced me to group...I choose to group when I want to but if I knew that the only way to ever get anything accomplised was to group...even on days when I just didnt want too then that game wouldnt be for me.
I AM like the wind!
That's not what the poll says.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
"Gain exp" sounds like advancement, and by the wording of the OP, it sounds like you have to remained tied to someone the entire time you play, otherwise you can't earn any exp. Kinda like someone always has to witness you killing something because you're really a coward on the inside and wouldn't harm a fly.
No.
FFXI ftw?
wasnt *forced* you just kinda had to do it =P
I vote yes on forced grouping but no on this topic cuz the author says that you cant gain exp unless you are in a group...which is stupid...
I would play it if the population were great enough for me to find a group in less than 5 minutes and the group content was innovative, fun, challenging, and required more than just spamming rotations and auto-attacks.
If a game were to pull that off, I believe I would be hooked, but I doubt a trustworthy developer would ever risk such a game.
I wouldn't play if I was "Forced" to group, but I would play if it was "Better" to group.
Who's to really say what MMO's intentions are, which can be defined one way by one player but in a totally opposite way about another player? I can just as easily argue its more about providing a more interactive landscape from which you can solo within? Does this person all of a sudden become less into the game than the next guy? No, that solo player could be putting in 2-3x more time than the casual group player. It's all about trying to be as inclusive as possible to promote diversity to feed the world.
There is no one size fits all type of play-style and it would stagnate the game fairly quickly if all the world is doing is accommodating 1 play style over another. Rather than think outside the box, all the companies would do is just release harder and harder content much like where we are at today. (Isn't grouping encouraged enough these days at the end-game and from my experiences people tend to have selfish reasons behind grouping most of the time anyway)
Of course. So long as grouping was as simple as clicking a button and being put into a group.
The "massively multiplayer" part?
As for all play styles, sounds like putting checker pieces on one side of the board and chess pieces on the other. Games should not pander to all play styles in the same environment, and they don't, there are always bigger carrots on one side of the garden compared to the other. That makes the other pretty empty…
Gah, back on the thread that didn’t define the op/poll quite right. You know this is OT to what the poll was actually asking? *runs away screamin... barking*
M59, UO, EQ1, WWIIOL, PS, EnB, SL, SWG. MoM, EQ2, AO, SB, CoH, LOTRO, WoW, DDO+ f2p's, Demos & indie alpha's.
Then it's not soloable.
Again, no.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
Yeah, a massive amount of people playing on the same server. Nowhere in "massively multiplayer" does it say a massive amount of people forced to play together or leave.
Next.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
Massively-solo?
M59, UO, EQ1, WWIIOL, PS, EnB, SL, SWG. MoM, EQ2, AO, SB, CoH, LOTRO, WoW, DDO+ f2p's, Demos & indie alpha's.
I hate forced grouping. Not because I do not like to have a group, but the requirement for a group that is the problem.
I would rather content include both aspects equally. That way, I do not have to sit around and wait for my friends to log in in order to enjoy the game, and I do not get stuck with some annoying twit who I wouldn;t wish upon my worst enemy. One of the worst groups I was forced into had some emo spammer stalker creep that would not shut up. I mean if the requiremnet also means I can kill anyone in the group who annoys me, fine, great.. give me a damn group, but if the game forces me to have to be stuck with them in order to finish a task , hell no, that isn;t fun, that is punishment!
A game that makes tasks easier for grouping and gives equal rewards that you would get solo would be a good solution. That way you can enjoy the game with friends, and enjoy the game when your friends aren;t on as well and not be forced to sit there and listen to a guy ask you 42 times to be his girlfriend or he will cut himself while he tries to molest your pixels.
I couldn't stand that games like FFXI which essentially forced you to group because soloing was excruciatingly painful and slow if not outright impossible depending on what job you were. Atleast in that game though it was possible to advance through soloing sometimes.
If I've got this straight, you're suggesting that it be impossible to advance in any way other than financially while alone in your hypothetical new game. Personally, I wouldn't enjoy that.
My question is: "why?" Why would you, as a dev, implement that? In hopes that it would somehow ensure a friendly community? You can't guarantee that would be the case, so it seems you'd be taking an unnecessary risk there. Forcing complete dependency between players doesn't even sound like the makings of a healthy social environment...
Theres plenty of reasons to play online with others, such as pvp, trading, roleplaying, grouping when you feel the urge to, etc Massively Multiplayer just means there are others there, it doesnt say what they are there for (such as XPing).
Not only do I think it's ok, I wish more developers would cater to this form of online gaming. Much of the turn off comes from waiting around for players. I'm sure there is a way developers could alleviate that problem. Public Quests were a good start. If you had everyone on a certain faction working towards one common goal, you would be cooperating and grouping, perhaps without even knowing it.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Yet another reason why many of us are looking forward to the DES system in GW2 and eager to see how it turns out. Just like PQs in WAR, you wont actually be required to group with others to get things done, but it will encourage people to communicate and work together in order to stop the advancing enemy armies (or whatever the Event at the time is). So while you may not be in the same parties as others, you can still work togethe rtowards a common goal of stopping an army, taking back a city/town, stopping some boss from wreaking havoc, etc. The game world will change depending on how players react to what happens, so if you dont want that town overrun by enemies, youve got to get a group, or multiple groups working together to make sure they get stopped in time.