See how that works_I am not implying there shouldnt be group content but more often than not I see that implication in reverse about solo content from people who just dont like it that they have to maybe wait a little longer to get a group so to avoid the wait lets force those that dont want to group to do so by locking certain stuff in it.Anyways I personally feel that the best items and gear in a game should come from a more sensable outlet like the amount of time you spend in your chosen crafting profession not dropping from some raid boss's arse.Shouldnt the main point of said raid and group be the fun you had doing it and not the reward at the end?
And speaking of better items, why do you care, as a soloer, about receiving a +30str weapon in a solo dungeon instead of a +50str weapon from a raid? It's not like you're competing against anyone else for the best DPS?
I guess you haven't seen the arguments that have taken place over that very issue. And, honestly, DPS is the one thing many players (soloers and groupers alike) are obsessed about; squeezing every last DPS out of their character that they can. The soloers run into a wall here because getting a piece of gear to get their numbers higher might require them to group... which they are vehemently opposed to.. hence the arguments...
I've seen it suggested a few times that all large scale raids should have a solo option for that reason. "Why should I be forced to group just to take down a raid boss?". Again, those people have spun it as "a soloer taking on a raid would be more challenged than a large group who needs the help of others. So the soloer should get the better reward".
Many pro-solo players already complain that they're "punished" (they love playing the victim card) in that way. They argue that it's not fair that the rewards they get for soloing aren't as good as what group raiders get, and that they should be. Some spin it as "it's more difficult to solo, so the rewards should be better."
Many die-hard soloers want equal, or even better rewards than group players, and have been very vocal about it for some time now.
If you dig around enough, you'll see some of those very arguments around these forums.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
You know just becasue there are thousands of people playing the same game doesn't mean they have to be forced to group together just to play it.
Of course they don't. You were never "forced to group" in the older MMOs either. There was plenty you could do solo. Difference was, players back then didn't argue for the ability to solo most every other aspect of the game as well, as they do now.
Regardless, MMORPGs were founded largely on cooperative group play and maintained that flavor of gameplay for several years. They were not conceived as "games where thousands of people log on to play a single player game online among other people playing the same single player game... and they can chat with each other if they want".
Facts are facts. History is history. To argue that MMOs should move more toward soloable gameplay now is one thing. But to ignore that they were, in fact, conceived and designed as very group-centric games to begin with is just plain dishonest.
In the Eastern market, MMOs based around teamwork are still quiet popular. But then again, in Eastern culture, they don't have the same "me me me, mine mine mine" mindset many do here in the West.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Nnnnno. Massively Multiplayer means "a large amount of other players". As in, a massive amount of other players. Massively describes Multiplayer, they're not discreet terms in that context.
From Wikipedia:
"Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of computer role-playing games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.
It's always meant that. It will always mean that. It does not mean "more than 1 player".
Let's not start to conveniently redefine well established terms to suit our arguments, okay folks?
Further about it not meaning you're in a group of other players. The heritage of MMORPGs and what they evolved from indicates otherwise. MMORPGs, traditionally, have been very focused on grouping and cooperation with other players. Let's not start revising or ignoring history to suit our arguments, okay folks?
Age of Conan is a MMORPG *set in the world* of a single character. Everyone is not running around as Conan The Barbarian. Let's not start misrepresenting a game as something it isn't to suit our arguments, okay folks?
You are right that Massively Multiplayer means a massive amount of other players. Massively is linked to multiplayer in MMORPG, they are not two seperate words. F.i. a world with 2 2km² zones might not be seen as massive, but it can still be an MMORPG world if it's a persistent online world with a (potentially) massive online community.
However I feel you miss out on what's the essence (or heritage as you call it) of MMORPGs. This is in my eyes having a persistant (key word) online world that allows large amounts of players to play a role in and gives them the possibility to interact with each other and with the world itself[ on many aspects.
But in the real world and in every online world people interact with each other on various levels of intensity. Grouping together is just one aspect of it. Trading is one. PvP-ing (even as a solo player) is another aspect. Participating in chat channels is one. Hell, even doing a simple /wave at anyone is one aspect.
The essence of MMORPGs is not and has never been to only make players be able to play the game to its full extent if they group together. There are of course (parts of) several MMORPGs that aim for this, but it is not the purpose nor the heritage of the MMORPG genre in general. This is more a question of design choices made by the developers.
Even someone who plays the game without interacting with other players at all, just soloes his way through the world, doesn't chat, nor PvPs, nor trades is still someone who interacts with the persistent online world (that is inhabited by other players) and still is an MMORPG player, that should have access to all content he has paid for, even though some might think a person like that is better off in a single player game. But who are we to decide that? There are not many single player games that offer a big fantasy/sci-fi persistent world for them to roleplay in. That alone can be their reason to play an MMORPG. In the real world someone like this may be referred to as a hermit, and they are not artificially blocked in their life by the government either.
The answer to the question in the OP in my eyes should definitely be a yes - however there are several good reasons as to why a developer would take a different approach and allow some content only for grouping players. Still I think that should mean that there should be a degree of endgame available for everyone. As said - this is a matter of design choice, but there is no reason at all to answer this particular question with a no.
Nnnnno. Massively Multiplayer means "a large amount of other players". As in, a massive amount of other players. Massively describes Multiplayer, they're not discreet terms in that context.
From Wikipedia:
"Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of computer role-playing games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.
It's always meant that. It will always mean that. It does not mean "more than 1 player".
Let's not start to conveniently redefine well established terms to suit our arguments, okay folks?
Further about it not meaning you're in a group of other players. The heritage of MMORPGs and what they evolved from indicates otherwise. MMORPGs, traditionally, have been very focused on grouping and cooperation with other players. Let's not start revising or ignoring history to suit our arguments, okay folks?
Age of Conan is a MMORPG *set in the world* of a single character. Everyone is not running around as Conan The Barbarian. Let's not start misrepresenting a game as something it isn't to suit our arguments, okay folks?
You are right that Massively Multiplayer means a massive amount of other players. Massively is linked to multiplayer in MMORPG, they are not two seperate words. F.i. a world with 2 2km² zones might not be seen as massive, but it can still be an MMORPG world if it's a persistent online world with a (potentially) massive online community.
However I feel you miss out on what's the essence (or heritage as you call it) of MMORPGs. This is in my eyes having a persistant (key word) online world that allows large amounts of players to play a role in and gives them the possibility to interact with each other [i]and with the world itself[/i] on many aspects.
But in the real world and in every online world people interact with each other on various levels of intensity. Grouping together is just one aspect of it. Trading is one. PvP-ing (even as a solo player) is another aspect. Participating in chat channels is one. Hell, even doing a simple /wave at anyone is one aspect.
The essence of MMORPGs is not and has never been to only make players be able to play the game to its full extent if they group together. There are of course (parts of) several MMORPGs that aim for this, but it is not the purpose nor the heritage of the MMORPG genre in general. This is more a question of design choices made by the developers.
Even someone who plays the game without interacting with other players at all, just soloes his way through the world, doesn't chat, nor PvPs, nor trades is still someone who interacts with the persistent online world (that is inhabited by other players) and still is an MMORPG player, that should have access to all content he has paid for, even though some might think a person like that is better off in a single player game. But who are we to decide that? There are not many single player games that offer a big fantasy/sci-fi persistent world for them to roleplay in. That alone can be their reason to play an MMORPG. In the real world someone like this may be referred to as a hermit, and they are not artificially blocked in their life by the government either.
The answer to the question in the OP in my eyes should definitely be a yes - however there are several good reasons as to why a developer would take a different approach and allow some content only for grouping players. Still I think that should mean that there should be a degree of endgame available for everyone. As said - this is a matter of design choice, but there is no reason at all to answer this particular question with a no.
Errr...
I was responding to specific arguments the person I replied to made. He argued MMORPG simply means "more than one player", which is wrong by definition.
MMORPGs were, in fact, conceived around grouping and fighting alongside other players, in a persistent world shared by thousands. You have to look at the whole. And, part of that whole includes an emphasis on grouping and cooperating with other players.
Their spin that "Conan is about a lone warrior" as some argument for AoC (as a MMO) being "about soloing" was nothing but disingenuous nonsense and I pointed it out as such. The game is called "Age of Conan", which indicates the *setting* of the game being in the time when the character would have existed. Not that we're all Conan wanna-bes running around on our own personal adventures.
I have no problem with arguments for more soloable content.. but dont' start revising history, ignoring well-established definitions or misrepresenting the context of a specific game to do so.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Which I agree upon in my post. If I misinterpreted your comments on MMORPG heritage then just consider the rest of my post to be a general comment of my view on the whole discussion
I person who plays solo all the time does have access to all the content, that they can't complete said content without a group is prefectly acceptable. Or are you saying that by way of paying for an mmorpg you should be able to complete all the content in whichever way you wish? In that case I want to be able to complete all endgame raids without having to bother to level, I also wish to be able to dominate sectors of space in EVE solo, regardless of how large an alliance of corps I am facing. I paid for the game I should be able to do everything solo. Or maybe I should demand that I can take a group of atleast 100 players into any quest/instance regardless of supposed difficulty.
As for bringing up the roots of mmorpgs (so to speak) PnP games had/have adventures which are set for various levels and, more importantly, group sizes.
People really need to drop the paid for it so should be able to do it crap. In an mmorpg you pay for access to the game world and updates, you are not paying for the ability to complete everything in anyway you so wish.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Nnnnno. Massively Multiplayer means "a large amount of other players". As in, a massive amount of other players. Massively describes Multiplayer, they're not discreet terms in that context.
From Wikipedia:
"Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of computer role-playing games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.
It's always meant that. It will always mean that. It does not mean "more than 1 player".
Let's not start to conveniently redefine well established terms to suit our arguments, okay folks?
Further about it not meaning you're in a group of other players. The heritage of MMORPGs and what they evolved from indicates otherwise. MMORPGs, traditionally, have been very focused on grouping and cooperation with other players. Let's not start revising or ignoring history to suit our arguments, okay folks?
Age of Conan is a MMORPG *set in the world* of a single character. Everyone is not running around as Conan The Barbarian. Let's not start misrepresenting a game as something it isn't to suit our arguments, okay folks?
but in those early games, from my understanding, one could solo if one wanted. They might not be able to complete all the content but they could log in and play and not have to group.
Now I haven't really played these early games in their early incarnations but did the game "force" one to group all the time or did they just have some hard content that require grouping.
Because that is probably going to color your argument one way or another. Remember, the wikipedia articles says "interact" not "group up". It was probably necessary to group up more often than not to complete a good amount of the content but I'm not realy convinced that as one logged in there was a notice saying "this is a grouping game so make sure you group".
It was probably more like "the content is here, you figure it out".
That's my guess anyways.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Nnnnno. Massively Multiplayer means "a large amount of other players". As in, a massive amount of other players. Massively describes Multiplayer, they're not discreet terms in that context.
From Wikipedia:
"Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of computer role-playing games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.
It's always meant that. It will always mean that. It does not mean "more than 1 player".
Let's not start to conveniently redefine well established terms to suit our arguments, okay folks?
Further about it not meaning you're in a group of other players. The heritage of MMORPGs and what they evolved from indicates otherwise. MMORPGs, traditionally, have been very focused on grouping and cooperation with other players. Let's not start revising or ignoring history to suit our arguments, okay folks?
Age of Conan is a MMORPG *set in the world* of a single character. Everyone is not running around as Conan The Barbarian. Let's not start misrepresenting a game as something it isn't to suit our arguments, okay folks?
but in those early games, from my understanding, one could solo if one wanted. They might not be able to complete all the content but they could log in and play and not have to group.
Now I haven't really played these early games in their early incarnations but did the game "force" one to group all the time or did they just have some hard content that require grouping.
Because that is probably going to color your argument one way or another. Remember, the wikipedia articles says "interact" not "group up". It was probably necessary to group up more often than not to complete a good amount of the content but I'm not realy convinced that as one logged in there was a notice saying "this is a grouping game so make sure you group".
It was probably more like "the content is here, you figure it out".
That's my guess anyways.
You're cherry-picking and taking my statements out of context, Sovrath. Not traditionally your style.
The Wikipedia definition was provided to show that MMORPGs are "not about more than 1 player". I made that very clear in the portion of the post specifically addressing that.
The group-centric nature of MMOs is brought up in the second point. Yes, the heritage of MMORPGs does indeed lie largely in group-centric content. One need only look back to MMOs developed before WoW to see that. So to argue "Just because it's a MMORPG doesn't mean people should have to group to do things" is to basically ignore years of precedent set by MMORPGs that, yes, required grouping. It's to pretend that WoW was the first MMORPG and defined all that MMORPGs were ever intended to be... something I know many people do anyway.
Case in point: You played Lineage 2 for years... a game *very* much built on player cooperation; a very group-centric playstyle. Yes, you could go off, find a nice quiet spot and solo grind... but that was about it. If you wanted to get into raiding, be it major or minor world bosses - you needed a group.. potentially a large one for the tougher bosses. Some of the quests were not very soloable at all. Many areas of the game could not be solo'd by a comparable level character due to the frequency and difficulty of the mobs. PvP was mostly experienced in small to medium sized groups... not solo.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I person who plays solo all the time does have access to all the content, that they can't complete said content without a group is prefectly acceptable. Or are you saying that by way of paying for an mmorpg you should be able to complete all the content in whichever way you wish? In that case I want to be able to complete all endgame raids without having to bother to level, I also wish to be able to dominate sectors of space in EVE solo, regardless of how large an alliance of corps I am facing. I paid for the game I should be able to do everything solo. Or maybe I should demand that I can take a group of atleast 100 players into any quest/instance regardless of supposed difficulty.
As for bringing up the roots of mmorpgs (so to speak) PnP games had/have adventures which are set for various levels and, more importantly, group sizes.
People really need to drop the paid for it so should be able to do it crap. In an mmorpg you pay for access to the game world and updates, you are not paying for the ability to complete everything in anyway you so wish.
What I am trying to convey is that there should be no reason at all to exclude soloists by definition from endgame. What I did say is that there are very good reasons to divert from "all content should be available for everyone", but that it is a question of design and not of definition.
What I also said is that the MMORPG is not about group-centric play, and not about teaming up to enjoy challenges together. It is a design choice and luckily many MMORPGs offer these group experiences. But an MMORPG that offers only soloable content, but is still a persistent online world that allows for a larger population to inhabit that world and gives them several ways of interacting with that world and with each other would still be an MMORPG, even though it is focused on soloists and offers no content specifically designed for groups.
I very much prefer grouping in MMORPGs and enjoy it very much, but there is no reason at all to exclude soloists from any content by definition. They have as much reason to enjoy this persistent world as 'groupists' do, albeit with a different playstyle.
What I am trying to convey is that there should be no reason at all to exclude soloists by definition from endgame. What I did say is that there are very good reasons to divert from "all content should be available for everyone", but that it is a question of design and not of definition.
What I also said is that the MMORPG is not about group-centric play, and not about teaming up to enjoy challenges together. It is a design choice and luckily many MMORPGs offer these group experiences. But an MMORPG that offers only soloable content, but is still a persistent online world that allows for a larger population to inhabit that world and gives them several ways of interacting with that world and with each other would still be an MMORPG, even though it is focused on soloists and offers no content specifically designed for groups.
I very much prefer grouping in MMORPGs and enjoy it very much, but there is no reason at all to exclude soloists from any content by definition. They have as much reason to enjoy this persistent world as 'groupists' do, albeit with a different playstyle.
Whilst I agree that there should be content for solo players and that simply because they are playing an mmorpg it shouldn't mean that they are instantly shoved into a group, some of your other points I feel are somewhat wrong.
For a start mmorpg games are about group centric play in much the same way that PnP games are. Whilst it is down to the individual to pick and choose when and with whom he groups with (if anyone at all), the very nature of these games is such that specific content is aimed at players grouping up. Whilst I never took part in PnP myself in my youth I find it hard to imagine that the games were made in such away as to be played on your own.
There is also plenty of reason to exclude soloists from some content, for a start developers design specific encounters with groups in mind which gives them far more scope for what they can put into a game. Massive, sweeping dungeons with numerous challenges which can only be faced by a group of players with a diverse skill set. More to the point how can you make all content viable for soloists when something like pvp domination is considered? Are you suggesting that a single player should be able to take over and hold zones when faced by groups/guilds ranging against him? How about a keep in a non instanced area, players are able to take over the keep should they kill off all the guards, should there only ever be one guard posted at the keep to enable solo players to have the chance to take it over?
Playing an mmo does not mean that you have to group, soloists should have content. They should though not be able to complete all content solo just because they are paying for access to a game.
People who bother to work with others have the capability to achieve more than someone going solo, this is reflected in mmos and quite rightly so.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Whilst I agree that there should be content for solo players and that simply because they are playing an mmorpg it shouldn't mean that they are instantly shoved into a group, some of your other points I feel are somewhat wrong.
For a start mmorpg games are about group centric play in much the same way that PnP games are. Whilst it is down to the individual to pick and choose when and with whom he groups with (if anyone at all), the very nature of these games is such that specific content is aimed at players grouping up. Whilst I never took part in PnP myself in my youth I find it hard to imagine that the games were made in such away as to be played on your own.
There is also plenty of reason to exclude soloists from some content, for a start developers design specific encounters with groups in mind which gives them far more scope for what they can put into a game. Massive, sweeping dungeons with numerous challenges which can only be faced by a group of players with a diverse skill set. More to the point how can you make all content viable for soloists when something like pvp domination is considered? Are you suggesting that a single player should be able to take over and hold zones when faced by groups/guilds ranging against him? How about a keep in a non instanced area, players are able to take over the keep should they kill off all the guards, should there only ever be one guard posted at the keep to enable solo players to have the chance to take it over?
Playing an mmo does not mean that you have to group, soloists should have content. They should though not be able to complete all content solo just because they are paying for access to a game.
People who bother to work with others have the capability to achieve more than someone going solo, this is reflected in mmos and quite rightly so.
I think we are saying pretty much the same thing. My pov comes down to: the answer to the question in the OP is a definitive 'yes', because a no would mean excluding a group of players by their definition (soloists). However there are plenty of good reasons to exclude them by design for specific (parts of) content, f.i. designing content specifically for group interaction.
What I am trying to convey is that there should be no reason at all to exclude soloists by definition from endgame. What I did say is that there are very good reasons to divert from "all content should be available for everyone", but that it is a question of design and not of definition.
What I also said is that the MMORPG is not about group-centric play, and not about teaming up to enjoy challenges together. It is a design choice and luckily many MMORPGs offer these group experiences. But an MMORPG that offers only soloable content, but is still a persistent online world that allows for a larger population to inhabit that world and gives them several ways of interacting with that world and with each other would still be an MMORPG, even though it is focused on soloists and offers no content specifically designed for groups.
I very much prefer grouping in MMORPGs and enjoy it very much, but there is no reason at all to exclude soloists from any content by definition. They have as much reason to enjoy this persistent world as 'groupists' do, albeit with a different playstyle.
Whilst I agree that there should be content for solo players and that simply because they are playing an mmorpg it shouldn't mean that they are instantly shoved into a group, some of your other points I feel are somewhat wrong.
For a start mmorpg games are about group centric play in much the same way that PnP games are. Whilst it is down to the individual to pick and choose when and with whom he groups with (if anyone at all), the very nature of these games is such that specific content is aimed at players grouping up. Whilst I never took part in PnP myself in my youth I find it hard to imagine that the games were made in such away as to be played on your own.
There is also plenty of reason to exclude soloists from some content, for a start developers design specific encounters with groups in mind which gives them far more scope for what they can put into a game. Massive, sweeping dungeons with numerous challenges which can only be faced by a group of players with a diverse skill set. More to the point how can you make all content viable for soloists when something like pvp domination is considered? Are you suggesting that a single player should be able to take over and hold zones when faced by groups/guilds ranging against him? How about a keep in a non instanced area, players are able to take over the keep should they kill off all the guards, should there only ever be one guard posted at the keep to enable solo players to have the chance to take it over?
Playing an mmo does not mean that you have to group, soloists should have content. They should though not be able to complete all content solo just because they are paying for access to a game.
People who bother to work with others have the capability to achieve more than someone going solo, this is reflected in mmos and quite rightly so.
You are missing the point here. The point is that MMOs promotes a style of playing for half the game but not for the later play.
MMOs should either have soloing content for the entire game or not at all. Learning people to play one way and then suddenly not allowing them to play like that is stupid. I see both sides if soloing should be in or not but that isn't the problem here.
This is like they would take away dungeons at the endgame or only allow crafting there, it is inconsequent.
It wouldn't be so bad having to raid for the best gear and rewards if the plotlines didn't revolve around raids in games like WoW, see i'd really like to go on my merry way and get the plot from Warcraft 4, but we all know that's never going to happen.
It's hard to be an avid fan of games these days when it seems like every fantasy worth their salt is going the mmo way
You are missing the point here. The point is that MMOs promotes a style of playing for half the game but not for the later play.
MMOs should either have soloing content for the entire game or not at all. Learning people to play one way and then suddenly not allowing them to play like that is stupid. I see both sides if soloing should be in or not but that isn't the problem here.
This is like they would take away dungeons at the endgame or only allow crafting there, it is inconsequent.
Exactly. (although at the end, I think you meant inconsistant).
This is why soloers get upset. "Oh sure, you can solo til the endgame, and then no more soloing for you." There's no valid reason for this to have to be this way.
You are missing the point here. The point is that MMOs promotes a style of playing for half the game but not for the later play.
That started with the release of WoW, before that MMO's used to promote grouping as the main way of advancing. You could still solo but overall it was a lot easier and less frustrating to team up with other players. Since WoW MMO's seem to have been 'dumbed down', content made easier and more soloable, simply to attract the mass of people that WoW brought into the genre. Simply put, those people don't like MMO's, at least how they used to be, they're looking for a console style game (e.g. God of War) online.
You are missing the point here. The point is that MMOs promotes a style of playing for half the game but not for the later play.
That started with the release of WoW, before that MMO's used to promote grouping as the main way of advancing. You could still solo but overall it was a lot easier and less frustrating to team up with other players. Since WoW MMO's seem to have been 'dumbed down', content made easier and more soloable, simply to attract the mass of people that WoW brought into the genre. Simply put, those people don't like MMO's, at least how they used to be, they're looking for a console style game (e.g. God of War) online.
Fact is there are many more people that prefer the solo centric gameplay that WoW and the majority of the genre after WoW offers.
So no they dont want God of War they want a mmorpg just in the new more profitable style.
Players that want MMOs to stay like they were in 1997 will find themselves without a genre sooner or later.
Its sad, but true. full Solo centric progressive endgame will happen sooner or later even if you think thats not how MMO's should be.
You are missing the point here. The point is that MMOs promotes a style of playing for half the game but not for the later play.
That started with the release of WoW, before that MMO's used to promote grouping as the main way of advancing. You could still solo but overall it was a lot easier and less frustrating to team up with other players. Since WoW MMO's seem to have been 'dumbed down', content made easier and more soloable, simply to attract the mass of people that WoW brought into the genre. Simply put, those people don't like MMO's, at least how they used to be, they're looking for a console style game (e.g. God of War) online.
Fact is there are many more people that prefer the solo centric gameplay that WoW and the majority of the genre after WoW offers.
So no they dont want God of War they want a mmorpg just in the new more profitable style.
Players that want MMOs to stay like they were in 1997 will find themselves without a genre sooner or later.
Its sad, but true. full Solo centric progressive endgame will happen sooner or later even if you think thats not how MMO's should be.
You are missing the point here. The point is that MMOs promotes a style of playing for half the game but not for the later play.
That started with the release of WoW, before that MMO's used to promote grouping as the main way of advancing. You could still solo but overall it was a lot easier and less frustrating to team up with other players. Since WoW MMO's seem to have been 'dumbed down', content made easier and more soloable, simply to attract the mass of people that WoW brought into the genre. Simply put, those people don't like MMO's, at least how they used to be, they're looking for a console style game (e.g. God of War) online.
Fact is there are many more people that prefer the solo centric gameplay that WoW and the majority of the genre after WoW offers.
So no they dont want God of War they want a mmorpg just in the new more profitable style.
Players that want MMOs to stay like they were in 1997 will find themselves without a genre sooner or later.
Its sad, but true. full Solo centric progressive endgame will happen sooner or later even if you think thats not how MMO's should be.
Should there be any descrimination between group and solo players. I mean after all they both did pay the same for the content.
This....
Both people might pay to go see a football match supporting different teams. Should both teams 'win' because they both paid for the same 'content'? If not, one of them is going to walk away disappointed (unless it's a draw, then both will be). Or maybe both go to a themepark but one of them doesn't like rollercoasters. Should we remove rollercoasters because one of them isn't getting to access the same 'content'?
Nnnnno. Massively Multiplayer means "a large amount of other players". As in, a massive amount of other players. Massively describes Multiplayer, they're not discreet terms in that context.
From Wikipedia:
"Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of computer role-playing games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.
It's always meant that. It will always mean that. It does not mean "more than 1 player".
Let's not start to conveniently redefine well established terms to suit our arguments, okay folks?
Further about it not meaning you're in a group of other players. The heritage of MMORPGs and what they evolved from indicates otherwise. MMORPGs, traditionally, have been very focused on grouping and cooperation with other players. Let's not start revising or ignoring history to suit our arguments, okay folks?
Age of Conan is a MMORPG *set in the world* of a single character. Everyone is not running around as Conan The Barbarian. Let's not start misrepresenting a game as something it isn't to suit our arguments, okay folks?
You are right that Massively Multiplayer means a massive amount of other players. Massively is linked to multiplayer in MMORPG, they are not two seperate words. F.i. a world with 2 2km² zones might not be seen as massive, but it can still be an MMORPG world if it's a persistent online world with a (potentially) massive online community.
However I feel you miss out on what's the essence (or heritage as you call it) of MMORPGs. This is in my eyes having a persistant (key word) online world that allows large amounts of players to play a role in and gives them the possibility to interact with each other and with the world itself[ on many aspects.
But in the real world and in every online world people interact with each other on various levels of intensity. Grouping together is just one aspect of it. Trading is one. PvP-ing (even as a solo player) is another aspect. Participating in chat channels is one. Hell, even doing a simple /wave at anyone is one aspect.
The essence of MMORPGs is not and has never been to only make players be able to play the game to its full extent if they group together. There are of course (parts of) several MMORPGs that aim for this, but it is not the purpose nor the heritage of the MMORPG genre in general. This is more a question of design choices made by the developers.
Even someone who plays the game without interacting with other players at all, just soloes his way through the world, doesn't chat, nor PvPs, nor trades is still someone who interacts with the persistent online world (that is inhabited by other players) and still is an MMORPG player, that should have access to all content he has paid for, even though some might think a person like that is better off in a single player game. But who are we to decide that? There are not many single player games that offer a big fantasy/sci-fi persistent world for them to roleplay in. That alone can be their reason to play an MMORPG. In the real world someone like this may be referred to as a hermit, and they are not artificially blocked in their life by the government either.
The answer to the question in the OP in my eyes should definitely be a yes - however there are several good reasons as to why a developer would take a different approach and allow some content only for grouping players. Still I think that should mean that there should be a degree of endgame available for everyone. As said - this is a matter of design choice, but there is no reason at all to answer this particular question with a no.
Very good post and agree with almost everything, except the highlighted red part, but perhaps it's just me of course, but I feel you only pay acces to the gameworld, I don't feel that when I pay for a MMORPG sub that I should have acces to ALL content as I am not paying for ALL content but paying for acces to the game world or more simply put "acces to the gameserver", which should allow me the freedom to do as I please within the bounderies of that gameworld. I might miss out on certain content due to how I want to play, if people actually would feel the right to have acces to ALL content then the whole being unique stops and the being a clone of a clone of a clone where everyone is the same starts, which seems to become the route many seem to choose or even want. As it seems people don't want to be unique anymore in MMORPG cause as you say they feel they have the right to acces all content. Which leaves me thinking why play a MMORPG if you want acces to all content.
I personaly feel that when playing a singleplayer game I should be allowed to all content cause the game is targetted towards just me one player, where a MMORPG should create a atmospheer of thousands if not more unique induviduels, unlike singleplayer games.
But as said it might just be me who thinks this way and I am perfectly okay with not getting ALL game content as I love being unique and not a sheep that follows the same road as most seem to walk.
Should there be any descrimination between group and solo players. I mean after all they both did pay the same for the content.
This....
Both people might pay to go see a football match supporting different teams. Should both teams 'win' because they both paid for the same 'content'? If not, one of them is going to walk away disappointed (unless it's a draw, then both will be). Or maybe both go to a themepark but one of them doesn't like rollercoasters. Should we remove rollercoasters because one of them isn't getting to access the same 'content'?
Your Analogies have so many holes in them so i shall just make one and leave the rest up to others.
In a competative team sports game such as football if both teams would win everytime because supporters from both sides brought tickets what would the point be in going at all?
Point is comparing a computer game based on endgame content where it is expected for you to win exentually as part of an overall experience to a competative mult team sport where winning is not always garanteed is fundementally wrong!
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Comments
You know just becasue there are thousands of people playing the same game doesn't mean they have to be forced to group together just to play it.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Of course they don't. You were never "forced to group" in the older MMOs either. There was plenty you could do solo. Difference was, players back then didn't argue for the ability to solo most every other aspect of the game as well, as they do now.
Regardless, MMORPGs were founded largely on cooperative group play and maintained that flavor of gameplay for several years. They were not conceived as "games where thousands of people log on to play a single player game online among other people playing the same single player game... and they can chat with each other if they want".
Facts are facts. History is history. To argue that MMOs should move more toward soloable gameplay now is one thing. But to ignore that they were, in fact, conceived and designed as very group-centric games to begin with is just plain dishonest.
In the Eastern market, MMOs based around teamwork are still quiet popular. But then again, in Eastern culture, they don't have the same "me me me, mine mine mine" mindset many do here in the West.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
You are right that Massively Multiplayer means a massive amount of other players. Massively is linked to multiplayer in MMORPG, they are not two seperate words. F.i. a world with 2 2km² zones might not be seen as massive, but it can still be an MMORPG world if it's a persistent online world with a (potentially) massive online community.
However I feel you miss out on what's the essence (or heritage as you call it) of MMORPGs. This is in my eyes having a persistant (key word) online world that allows large amounts of players to play a role in and gives them the possibility to interact with each other and with the world itself[ on many aspects.
But in the real world and in every online world people interact with each other on various levels of intensity. Grouping together is just one aspect of it. Trading is one. PvP-ing (even as a solo player) is another aspect. Participating in chat channels is one. Hell, even doing a simple /wave at anyone is one aspect.
The essence of MMORPGs is not and has never been to only make players be able to play the game to its full extent if they group together. There are of course (parts of) several MMORPGs that aim for this, but it is not the purpose nor the heritage of the MMORPG genre in general. This is more a question of design choices made by the developers.
Even someone who plays the game without interacting with other players at all, just soloes his way through the world, doesn't chat, nor PvPs, nor trades is still someone who interacts with the persistent online world (that is inhabited by other players) and still is an MMORPG player, that should have access to all content he has paid for, even though some might think a person like that is better off in a single player game. But who are we to decide that? There are not many single player games that offer a big fantasy/sci-fi persistent world for them to roleplay in. That alone can be their reason to play an MMORPG. In the real world someone like this may be referred to as a hermit, and they are not artificially blocked in their life by the government either.
The answer to the question in the OP in my eyes should definitely be a yes - however there are several good reasons as to why a developer would take a different approach and allow some content only for grouping players. Still I think that should mean that there should be a degree of endgame available for everyone. As said - this is a matter of design choice, but there is no reason at all to answer this particular question with a no.
Errr...
I was responding to specific arguments the person I replied to made. He argued MMORPG simply means "more than one player", which is wrong by definition.
MMORPGs were, in fact, conceived around grouping and fighting alongside other players, in a persistent world shared by thousands. You have to look at the whole. And, part of that whole includes an emphasis on grouping and cooperating with other players.
Their spin that "Conan is about a lone warrior" as some argument for AoC (as a MMO) being "about soloing" was nothing but disingenuous nonsense and I pointed it out as such. The game is called "Age of Conan", which indicates the *setting* of the game being in the time when the character would have existed. Not that we're all Conan wanna-bes running around on our own personal adventures.
I have no problem with arguments for more soloable content.. but dont' start revising history, ignoring well-established definitions or misrepresenting the context of a specific game to do so.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Which I agree upon in my post. If I misinterpreted your comments on MMORPG heritage then just consider the rest of my post to be a general comment of my view on the whole discussion
I person who plays solo all the time does have access to all the content, that they can't complete said content without a group is prefectly acceptable. Or are you saying that by way of paying for an mmorpg you should be able to complete all the content in whichever way you wish? In that case I want to be able to complete all endgame raids without having to bother to level, I also wish to be able to dominate sectors of space in EVE solo, regardless of how large an alliance of corps I am facing. I paid for the game I should be able to do everything solo. Or maybe I should demand that I can take a group of atleast 100 players into any quest/instance regardless of supposed difficulty.
As for bringing up the roots of mmorpgs (so to speak) PnP games had/have adventures which are set for various levels and, more importantly, group sizes.
People really need to drop the paid for it so should be able to do it crap. In an mmorpg you pay for access to the game world and updates, you are not paying for the ability to complete everything in anyway you so wish.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
but in those early games, from my understanding, one could solo if one wanted. They might not be able to complete all the content but they could log in and play and not have to group.
Now I haven't really played these early games in their early incarnations but did the game "force" one to group all the time or did they just have some hard content that require grouping.
Because that is probably going to color your argument one way or another. Remember, the wikipedia articles says "interact" not "group up". It was probably necessary to group up more often than not to complete a good amount of the content but I'm not realy convinced that as one logged in there was a notice saying "this is a grouping game so make sure you group".
It was probably more like "the content is here, you figure it out".
That's my guess anyways.
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
You're cherry-picking and taking my statements out of context, Sovrath. Not traditionally your style.
The Wikipedia definition was provided to show that MMORPGs are "not about more than 1 player". I made that very clear in the portion of the post specifically addressing that.
The group-centric nature of MMOs is brought up in the second point. Yes, the heritage of MMORPGs does indeed lie largely in group-centric content. One need only look back to MMOs developed before WoW to see that. So to argue "Just because it's a MMORPG doesn't mean people should have to group to do things" is to basically ignore years of precedent set by MMORPGs that, yes, required grouping. It's to pretend that WoW was the first MMORPG and defined all that MMORPGs were ever intended to be... something I know many people do anyway.
Case in point: You played Lineage 2 for years... a game *very* much built on player cooperation; a very group-centric playstyle. Yes, you could go off, find a nice quiet spot and solo grind... but that was about it. If you wanted to get into raiding, be it major or minor world bosses - you needed a group.. potentially a large one for the tougher bosses. Some of the quests were not very soloable at all. Many areas of the game could not be solo'd by a comparable level character due to the frequency and difficulty of the mobs. PvP was mostly experienced in small to medium sized groups... not solo.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
What I am trying to convey is that there should be no reason at all to exclude soloists by definition from endgame. What I did say is that there are very good reasons to divert from "all content should be available for everyone", but that it is a question of design and not of definition.
What I also said is that the MMORPG is not about group-centric play, and not about teaming up to enjoy challenges together. It is a design choice and luckily many MMORPGs offer these group experiences. But an MMORPG that offers only soloable content, but is still a persistent online world that allows for a larger population to inhabit that world and gives them several ways of interacting with that world and with each other would still be an MMORPG, even though it is focused on soloists and offers no content specifically designed for groups.
I very much prefer grouping in MMORPGs and enjoy it very much, but there is no reason at all to exclude soloists from any content by definition. They have as much reason to enjoy this persistent world as 'groupists' do, albeit with a different playstyle.
Whilst I agree that there should be content for solo players and that simply because they are playing an mmorpg it shouldn't mean that they are instantly shoved into a group, some of your other points I feel are somewhat wrong.
For a start mmorpg games are about group centric play in much the same way that PnP games are. Whilst it is down to the individual to pick and choose when and with whom he groups with (if anyone at all), the very nature of these games is such that specific content is aimed at players grouping up. Whilst I never took part in PnP myself in my youth I find it hard to imagine that the games were made in such away as to be played on your own.
There is also plenty of reason to exclude soloists from some content, for a start developers design specific encounters with groups in mind which gives them far more scope for what they can put into a game. Massive, sweeping dungeons with numerous challenges which can only be faced by a group of players with a diverse skill set. More to the point how can you make all content viable for soloists when something like pvp domination is considered? Are you suggesting that a single player should be able to take over and hold zones when faced by groups/guilds ranging against him? How about a keep in a non instanced area, players are able to take over the keep should they kill off all the guards, should there only ever be one guard posted at the keep to enable solo players to have the chance to take it over?
Playing an mmo does not mean that you have to group, soloists should have content. They should though not be able to complete all content solo just because they are paying for access to a game.
People who bother to work with others have the capability to achieve more than someone going solo, this is reflected in mmos and quite rightly so.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I think we are saying pretty much the same thing. My pov comes down to: the answer to the question in the OP is a definitive 'yes', because a no would mean excluding a group of players by their definition (soloists). However there are plenty of good reasons to exclude them by design for specific (parts of) content, f.i. designing content specifically for group interaction.
You are missing the point here. The point is that MMOs promotes a style of playing for half the game but not for the later play.
MMOs should either have soloing content for the entire game or not at all. Learning people to play one way and then suddenly not allowing them to play like that is stupid. I see both sides if soloing should be in or not but that isn't the problem here.
This is like they would take away dungeons at the endgame or only allow crafting there, it is inconsequent.
It wouldn't be so bad having to raid for the best gear and rewards if the plotlines didn't revolve around raids in games like WoW, see i'd really like to go on my merry way and get the plot from Warcraft 4, but we all know that's never going to happen.
It's hard to be an avid fan of games these days when it seems like every fantasy worth their salt is going the mmo way
I agree. Also, just because there are thousands of people soloing the same game doesn't mean I should be forced to solo just to play it.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Exactly. (although at the end, I think you meant inconsistant).
This is why soloers get upset. "Oh sure, you can solo til the endgame, and then no more soloing for you." There's no valid reason for this to have to be this way.
That started with the release of WoW, before that MMO's used to promote grouping as the main way of advancing. You could still solo but overall it was a lot easier and less frustrating to team up with other players. Since WoW MMO's seem to have been 'dumbed down', content made easier and more soloable, simply to attract the mass of people that WoW brought into the genre. Simply put, those people don't like MMO's, at least how they used to be, they're looking for a console style game (e.g. God of War) online.
Fact is there are many more people that prefer the solo centric gameplay that WoW and the majority of the genre after WoW offers.
So no they dont want God of War they want a mmorpg just in the new more profitable style.
Players that want MMOs to stay like they were in 1997 will find themselves without a genre sooner or later.
Its sad, but true. full Solo centric progressive endgame will happen sooner or later even if you think thats not how MMO's should be.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
should there be an end game
In a sandbox? No. In a themepark? Yes
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
This....
Both people might pay to go see a football match supporting different teams. Should both teams 'win' because they both paid for the same 'content'? If not, one of them is going to walk away disappointed (unless it's a draw, then both will be). Or maybe both go to a themepark but one of them doesn't like rollercoasters. Should we remove rollercoasters because one of them isn't getting to access the same 'content'?
Very good post and agree with almost everything, except the highlighted red part, but perhaps it's just me of course, but I feel you only pay acces to the gameworld, I don't feel that when I pay for a MMORPG sub that I should have acces to ALL content as I am not paying for ALL content but paying for acces to the game world or more simply put "acces to the gameserver", which should allow me the freedom to do as I please within the bounderies of that gameworld. I might miss out on certain content due to how I want to play, if people actually would feel the right to have acces to ALL content then the whole being unique stops and the being a clone of a clone of a clone where everyone is the same starts, which seems to become the route many seem to choose or even want. As it seems people don't want to be unique anymore in MMORPG cause as you say they feel they have the right to acces all content. Which leaves me thinking why play a MMORPG if you want acces to all content.
I personaly feel that when playing a singleplayer game I should be allowed to all content cause the game is targetted towards just me one player, where a MMORPG should create a atmospheer of thousands if not more unique induviduels, unlike singleplayer games.
But as said it might just be me who thinks this way and I am perfectly okay with not getting ALL game content as I love being unique and not a sheep that follows the same road as most seem to walk.
Your Analogies have so many holes in them so i shall just make one and leave the rest up to others.
In a competative team sports game such as football if both teams would win everytime because supporters from both sides brought tickets what would the point be in going at all?
Point is comparing a computer game based on endgame content where it is expected for you to win exentually as part of an overall experience to a competative mult team sport where winning is not always garanteed is fundementally wrong!
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981