Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Why isn't TSW a single player or co-op game?
Poison_Adele
Member CommonPosts: 287
I seriously can't understand what part of the concept screams MMO-worthy to anyone. The story and setting are really cool, the combat is okay, but this game really suffers from being an MMO rather than a more single-player experience. This game has incredible potential for single-player, it could be one of the more immersive and spectacular games out there, instead for whatever reason the MMO format was chosen.
Anyone else wondering the same thing?
Comments
No think the game is good and worth playing,
if you want the singleplayer feel...try Dreamfall from Funcom..quite decent.
My opinion is that we're at the point where there's small differance's between genre's.Skyrim is a very open game world with a lot of freedom to roam around.On the other hand Kingdom of Amular play's much more linear(I didn't play far into KOA yet so maybe it changes?)
Then you look at TSW and say TOR.Well from what I've seen so far of TSW it seems more open and less linear than TOR.At the same time it isn't as open as say Vanguard or Rift,but it doesn't seem far off.It also seems much more lively compared to what I saw in TOR.
I just think the lines aren't as deeply drawn as they once were and games are hovering at the point of crossing that line either way and it's not such a big deal anymore.
The sociability of the hub cities with outdoor parks, stages, pubs, etc make it a good format for mmo. Same with the 100 player persistent pvp zone. Also the summoned outdoor raid bosses fit the mmo playstyle. You will also need a larger player base to cover the ridiculous amount of crafting customization in this game. I think the quests themselves lean towards single player. You also have small scale instanced pvp, 5 player dungeons, and incoming 10 player raids that are instanced.
To me, it is a nice blend of single player, coop, and massively.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
I'm not sure - but I think it would do the game service to be marketed differently. It doesn't strike me as an MMO. I'd be more apt to looking into if it didn't have a monthly fee. Honestly, that's a huge barrier for on a lot of titles. I would buy it - but I don't want to pay a fee every month. Many of the features seem more like a console game to me, but that's just my impression.
Nope to me it is a great union of a willingness to support both a way of group play,a nd solo play that is engaging to the players, while rewarding enouph that one style does not win out over the other. It allows the people that want to single player/solo play the game do so while still being part of the world, and yet the groupers seem to be able to easily play without feeling that the soloer are being cattered to really.
See, now I felt that this is exactly what the game should be. I can see it be amazing as either a single-player game or as a 4-player co-op like Left4Dead. And frankly, a LOT of the game plays like a single-player game.
I understand that the developers have clearly stated that it is not a survival horror game but a conspiracies game. But the way it plays would be perfect for survival horror. Fewer, more deadly and menancing mobs where even 1 zombie, let alone 4, could represent a serious threat to the player.
Instead, what you get is a world literally packed with mobs. It is very difficult to go far without actually pulling a mob, so the combat becomes repetitive and far too frequent. When you encounter 1 new monster (e.g. the windego) you think "What the hell is that?!?" but after you've killed 20 of them for a quest, they lose all menace.
But Funcom wanted recurring revenue, though I question how much content they are including at launch to actually get this.
"Loading screens" are not "instances".
Your personal efforts to troll any game will not, in fact, impact the success or failure of said game.
Nicely put!
So they could make more money, I see this game taking the f2p road before its life cycle reaches a year and honestly I think they should have gone the b2p considering the item mall its got. Its always a HUGE red flag to me for an mmo thats p2p to have an item mall as it screams 'shady marketing'. And paying a monthly fee for an mmo geared towards solo play is like paying for a family gym membership when youre single, live alone and only have a pet goldfish.
Well get used to it, every sinvle P2P mmo now has an item mall, WoW, GW2, SWTOR ect... so I guess they are all shady
MMOs are waht you make of them
GW2 isnt p2p
You are correct. They made "another" Single-Player oriented game with Co-OP elements and then are trying to pass it off as an MMORPG. You see this heavily all the way from start to finish.
I too agree it would have been a better co-op game than claiming it's an MMO.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
It is very much an open world, very minmum use of instances, you see players in open and they are not hiding in seperate instances or phasing in and out. All quests are shareable, there is raiding cuurrently, 5 man soon there will be 10 man, there are open world bosses, also bosses that can be summoned in open world.
What else constitutes a MMO?
I think the same, it feels very much like a singleplayer game with co-op. It's purely a financial decision I suspect since MMO's are the only games where people are willing to pay beyond the box price for some reason. Add some limited MMO features and call your game an MMO -> profit.
I don't believe it will be successful with a subscription from what I've seen in the beta but time will tell. I won't be buying it but if they made a singleplayer game instead and spent all their resources and focus on that, I think it could have appealed to me.
the term MMO is being defunked alot as of late.
some people claim D3 is an MMO others claim lobby games like counterstrike are MMOs.. so to use the term is kinda a moot point.
TSW is an mmo in essence that its open world, and grouping. the same that WoW is an open world and grouping. in those regards it fits the typical norm for MMO's
whole a majority of the quests are soloable.. the game does lend its self to group play, so its not exactly a coop or SP like say D3 is, the players in the world are there they didnt warp in to YOUR instance like they would in D3 or other styled games.
and coop means its built to be 100% soloable with the option of people joining you (i have not really found Tsw to be completely soloable, the one 5 man instance i tried to solo didnt work out for me lol)
all in all Tsw is an MMO by design, not everyone will see it as such, but then again everyone has perticular tastes that are unique
It is very much an open world, very minmum use of instances, you see players in open and they are not hiding in seperate instances or phasing in and out. All quests are shareable, there is raiding cuurrently, 5 man soon there will be 10 man, there are open world bosses, also bosses that can be summoned in open world.
What else constitutes a MMO?
Perhaps I'm getting the wrong idea from Fadedbomb's post, but I get the impression that it seems co-op because there's nothing "massively multiplayer" about PvE focusing on groups of 5-10 people.
It has become the norm, but when the term MMORPG was coined raids were much, much larger. In comparison, almost all MMOs these days seem more like merely co-op multiplayer games.
The Secret World worldsetting + Amnesia elements + Silent Hill/Resident Evil combat gameplay = pure win!! ^_^But this works too, at least it's a nice, refreshing addition to the MMO genre with its Lovecrafty atmosphere (no elves, heavy metal bikini armor or lasers!) and non-WoW copy themepark-gameplay.
Sorry but it was built groud up as an mmo an example of what you're talking bout would be diablo 3. TSW is no way like diablo 3 and this whole argument is pretty ludicrous and shows people have no understanding of the genre. If TSW made sense as a single player game they would make it one the games you speak of cost 2 to 3 times less than an mmo.
I have to agree with the OP, this is the first time I have played an "mmo" and though to my self that this would have been an awesome single player game with co-op.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
It is very much an open world, very minmum use of instances, you see players in open and they are not hiding in seperate instances or phasing in and out. All quests are shareable, there is raiding cuurrently, 5 man soon there will be 10 man, there are open world bosses, also bosses that can be summoned in open world.
What else constitutes a MMO?
Perhaps I'm getting the wrong idea from Fadedbomb's post, but I get the impression that it seems co-op because there's nothing "massively multiplayer" about PvE focusing on groups of 5-10 people.
It has become the norm, but when the term MMORPG was coined raids were much, much larger. In comparison, almost all MMOs these days seem more like merely co-op multiplayer games.
Aaah, but I read that the PvP combat is more like 100vs100vs100, and that in persistent world zones :-)
Or maybe I misread, not sure now :-(They could have made it 3 games, releasing a new faction each game. Kind of like Blizzard did with Starcraft 2. Each game could really focus on the coolness of the faction being released. If subs drop as quickly as they have with almost every new MMORPG released within the past year, creating 3 co-op style games out of this IP probably would have been more profitable.
Yet the issue is that it was never that mmos were ment to be played grouped in large gathering, but to play a game with massive numbers of players at one time on a persistent world setting or server. Now the number of players that play on a server has dropped, but the fact is that you still inhabit an play within a world with a massive number of other player persistently. and have the option to gather/group up with these players. For the most part any ties players are not willing to waste the time to gather the large amount of players needed for the older content that needed two to three times the numbers we do now for raids. It was alot of wasted time for the amount of enjoyment or lack of enjoyment for many players, that shifted the size downwards, as well as it costs alot less to tune content for group size we have now compared to before.
Too many people assume (wrongly) that multi-player means solely grouping up, but in truth multi-player is any game that allows players to play the game together, like vs. or fps games they are multi-player games but they are done without the players working together or in a group. Also the older multi-player co-up games were limited by design, as it was alot easier to keep the players working together on a tv screen, than working to allow players do whatever they wanted as you can only show so much on a single tv screen.
The game would make a very nice single player and co-op.
Personally I dont think I've played an MMO since Lineage 2 and Eve released, but have played tons of games claiming to be MMOs.
It is very much an open world, very minmum use of instances, you see players in open and they are not hiding in seperate instances or phasing in and out. All quests are shareable, there is raiding cuurrently, 5 man soon there will be 10 man, there are open world bosses, also bosses that can be summoned in open world. What else constitutes a MMO?
Perhaps I'm getting the wrong idea from Fadedbomb's post, but I get the impression that it seems co-op because there's nothing "massively multiplayer" about PvE focusing on groups of 5-10 people. It has become the norm, but when the term MMORPG was coined raids were much, much larger. In comparison, almost all MMOs these days seem more like merely co-op multiplayer games.
Yet the issue is that it was never that mmos were ment to be played grouped in large gathering, but to play a game with massive numbers of players at one time on a persistent world setting or server. Now the number of players that play on a server has dropped, but the fact is that you still inhabit an play within a world with a massive number of other player persistently. and have the option to gather/group up with these players. For the most part any ties players are not willing to waste the time to gather the large amount of players needed for the older content that needed two to three times the numbers we do now for raids. It was alot of wasted time for the amount of enjoyment or lack of enjoyment for many players, that shifted the size downwards, as well as it costs alot less to tune content for group size we have now compared to before.
Too many people assume (wrongly) that multi-player means solely grouping up, but in truth multi-player is any game that allows players to play the game together, like vs. or fps games they are multi-player games but they are done without the players working together or in a group. Also the older multi-player co-up games were limited by design, as it was alot easier to keep the players working together on a tv screen, than working to allow players do whatever they wanted as you can only show so much on a single tv screen.
Again, just saying what I thought the post was talking about. I'm not making a value judgment. Personally, I like larger raids but no way would I engage in that with the frequency of raiding in today's games- that'd be a recipe for burnout. Doing Plane of Fear or Hate back in the day was fun if you got the chance maybe once a month. Having the option for such large scale PvE would be nice, though- even if it took place in special events rather than instances.
I agree with you 100%, seems to me that alot of these people eally have no clue what a MMO truly is, or what a RPG is as well.
The nice thing is about a game like TSW , someone mentioned this on these forums, that the game will weed out all the people that get stumped on some hard aspects of the game that requires thinking or a process of it, it's been to long since last I felt I was getting a real challenge and that the game I was playing was just a pew pew pew borrrrring! Give me something to think about, some that requires actualy looking up quests or thinking about them later because I was stuck on a part of it, and that game is TSW because of those aspects.
I think it will also be a blast doing a 5-10 main raids or even dungeons in TSW because of all the random builds you can do, it's going to be epic.
I fully agree.
But that has been the issue of SWTOR also. I guess it is a kowtow to the degeneration of our societies. People become more and more egocentric, an ever rising part of society is singles, because people become unable to do the necessary compromise for relationships. The result are that even online games are tinkered around an egocentric type of person which wants to do as much as possible alone, without cooperation, without compromise, an atomized jack of all trades person. It makes MMOs in a very profound way superfluous and we bear the existence of other people only as mute background stage which simulates life and prevents us from facing our real lonliness.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert