If there is too much lone ranger ganker-ambushers then other people stop playing game. Huge majority just don't like to be target of player's like you. Thing is for you to have fun you NEED players to ambush-gank.
So propably only way to have this kind of gameplay AND to have game succeed in long-term is to make stealth-bandit-murderer-ganker like in a game a frigging chore so only few most dedicated players, like 3 per server will play like that.
Thing is can you handle non-accessible, chore, punishing gameplay as a 'real lone wolf outcast bandit'? Like you can't loot others, but others can loot you cause you're 'bandit' and that's you lose xp on death because you're outcast ganker and other's don't?
Because if you want accessible, easy stealth-ganking then many people will play like that and servers will be empty
Or .. have a MMOFPS like planetside 2. In a pure PvP game, you can play with a group to take on the other side in force, or the sniping loner.
Sure. I would advise Planetside 2 but it seems he want mmorpg's. Maybe I am wrong but that's why I am curious of his answer
There is also DFO or EVE that allow gameplay like that...
I suppose you can also have pvp centric MMORPGs .. although that is not my cup of tea.
Do you play Planetside 2? Seems like a pretty good game for you since it is open world, with no instances, and *some* ability to change the game world (by capturing terrain). It does have quick travel though.
I agree, that a successful mmorpg will inherently mean different players play the game in different ways... and there should be many, many different niches in the game.
I'd speculate a large map probably is conducive to loan-rangering or "explorer" gamplay. But likewise a loan-rangery gameplay is more rewarding when it's an outlier behaviour to a social-driven game?
I believe that i and the OP agree with you.. I think he was referring to forced grouping when he meant interaction... and when he meant mechanics... he meant group quests and dungeons.. I agree that it would "EPIC"/impressive if game play mechanics allowed for a "GOOD" lone wolf to beat group dungeons alone.. it hightens the sense of being a good player and he would be recognized in the world for his ability to complete the content alone.. but when the mechanics make dungeons and group quests so hard / or the gameplay doesn't allow for becoming good enough to solo it... its bad design..
Just to make a distinction. Do you complain that:
1.there is not enough soloable dungeons and quests (huh?) in mmorpg overall ?
2. there is not enough channalnging solo quests or dungeons ?
3. that every single quest or dungeon / raid is not soloable ?
Its not really my standpoint... so i can't really choose.. I enjoy solo and grouping.. but as far as the OP i think he wants number 3.. that everything should be soloable if you as an individual has gotten good enough to solo it.. current game mechanics don't allow for that... if it is soloable its most likely because the content is easy...
I personally can get that EPIC feel by pulling a lot of mobs and trying my best to kill them all... therefore i would pull more and more till i find my limit.. and like the original poster i enjoy pushing my limits and would hate for someone to walk up and start helpming me.
If there is too much lone ranger ganker-ambushers then other people stop playing game. Huge majority just don't like to be target of player's like you. Thing is for you to have fun you NEED players to ambush-gank.
So propably only way to have this kind of gameplay AND to have game succeed in long-term is to make stealth-bandit-murderer-ganker like in a game a frigging chore so only few most dedicated players, like 3 per server will play like that.
Thing is can you handle non-accessible, chore, punishing gameplay as a 'real lone wolf outcast bandit'? Like you can't loot others, but others can loot you cause you're 'bandit' and that's you lose xp on death because you're outcast ganker and other's don't?
Because if you want accessible, easy stealth-ganking then many people will play like that and servers will be empty
Or .. have a MMOFPS like planetside 2. In a pure PvP game, you can play with a group to take on the other side in force, or the sniping loner.
Sure. I would advise Planetside 2 but it seems he want mmorpg's. Maybe I am wrong but that's why I am curious of his answer
There is also DFO or EVE that allow gameplay like that...
I suppose you can also have pvp centric MMORPGs .. although that is not my cup of tea.
Do you play Planetside 2? Seems like a pretty good game for you since it is open world, with no instances, and *some* ability to change the game world (by capturing terrain). It does have quick travel though.
I did try it. It is boring for me cause there is only combat there and it it is FPS. Basically Battlefield 3 on a big scale in futuristic setting in persistant world.
I don't play much FPS games but when I do, I actually prefer instanced "matches" / arenas.
Because I like seamless persitant worlds in an mmorpg, it does not mean that I universally like that in all kind of games.
I don't really like it in pure pvp games. Not that I am against it, it just does not benefit from it much. That's also why I don't play DFO. Because while it does have some non-pvp features, in essence it is just almost pure pvp game deatchmatch and I am not that hardcore pvp player. I actually spent far less time on pvp than on other things. DFO is more similar to Planetside 2 than to mmorpg. It also have FPS-like arcade gameplay. FPS are ok for me in very small does, just not in mmorpg.
Anyway I just remembered that I have not replied like week or more ago to one of your good posts in other topic and I also said that I will say some names of Chinese / Korean mmo or mutliplayer online slashers, action games focued purely on combat, etc
. It is late now in my coutnry but I will try to do it tommorow. Will let you know somehow.
edit: one more. I am not totally against instancing. Sometimes it is needed. It is about amount of instancing, zoning, phasing, etc which for me is like 25x too much. Because it became norm and main place of gameplay rather than exception and one of last resort solutions. Also automatic lfg things add to that by focuing gameplay in instances even more and cutting 'world' part even more.
I agree, that a successful mmorpg will inherently mean different players play the game in different ways... and there should be many, many different niches in the game.
I'd speculate a large map probably is conducive to loan-rangering or "explorer" gamplay. But likewise a loan-rangery gameplay is more rewarding when it's an outlier behaviour to a social-driven game?
I believe that i and the OP agree with you.. I think he was referring to forced grouping when he meant interaction... and when he meant mechanics... he meant group quests and dungeons.. I agree that it would "EPIC"/impressive if game play mechanics allowed for a "GOOD" lone wolf to beat group dungeons alone.. it hightens the sense of being a good player and he would be recognized in the world for his ability to complete the content alone.. but when the mechanics make dungeons and group quests so hard / or the gameplay doesn't allow for becoming good enough to solo it... its bad design..
Just to make a distinction. Do you complain that:
1.there is not enough soloable dungeons and quests (huh?) in mmorpg overall ?
2. there is not enough channalnging solo quests or dungeons ?
3. that every single quest or dungeon / raid is not soloable ?
Its not really my standpoint... so i can't really choose.. I enjoy solo and grouping.. but as far as the OP i think he wants number 3.. that everything should be soloable if you as an individual has gotten good enough to solo it.. current game mechanics don't allow for that... if it is soloable its most likely because the content is easy...
I personally can get that EPIC feel by pulling a lot of mobs and trying my best to kill them all... therefore i would pull more and more till i find my limit.. and like the original poster i enjoy pushing my limits and would hate for someone to walk up and start helpming me.
I also like to push my limits and I also don't like when others help me when I do it. Still I would not want option nr.3.
I personally would choose option nr.2 especially, but not exclusivelly when talking about open world.
I am a Lone Wolf in MMOs, though it really doesnt mean what it used to, in Sandbox games being a Lone Wolf is hard, requires skill, and is something to strive towards, in Themepark games, they act like they make it solo friendly but really they are just making it easy to level and then throw nothing but group content at you as an "Endgame". Doesnt matter what arguement you try to throw saying its an MMO its ment for group play and all that, that was never what MMOs ment in the original days of the genre, it ment persistent world where you could survive and flourish in any way you wished, they are nothing like that anymore.
I dont take it like you do in the Lone Wolf though, Im not against the whole world, I just want to challenge myself and do what others need a group to, by myself, it requires alot of skill and means alot more to me then relying on others to help you get through things, but at the end of the day, I want to be able to go back to town and hang out with my friends, have some laughs and tell storys of my exploits. Being social is the point of MMOs, but Grouping does not equal being social as people have finally started to learn with the current MMOs that dont even require you to join partys to "group" they just lump you in and scale it to the people there, sorry thats not social in any aspect.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I did try it. It is boring for me cause there is only combat there and it it is FPS. Basically Battlefield 3 on a big scale in futuristic setting in persistant world.
I don't play much FPS games but when I do, I actually prefer instanced "matches" / arenas.
Because I like seamless persitant worlds in an mmorpg, it does not mean that I universally like that in all kind of games.
Funny how our taste in games differ. I like PS2 quite a bit exactly because it is BF3 in a big scale futuristic setting. I also like the limited progression in that game. I usually don't pvp much, but i will play PS2.
And the other funny thing is .. .i like PS2 because of the battle, and combat, and not so much of the open world. If the game is instanced, i probably will like it as much.
Anyway I just remembered that I have not replied like week or more ago to one of your good posts in other topic and I also said that I will say some names of Chinese / Korean mmo or mutliplayer online slashers, action games focued purely on combat, etc
. It is late now in my coutnry but I will try to do it tommorow. Will let you know somehow.
Thanks in advance.
edit: one more. I am not totally against instancing. Sometimes it is needed. It is about amount of instancing, zoning, phasing, etc which for me is like 25x too much. Because it became norm and main place of gameplay rather than exception and one of last resort solutions. Also automatic lfg things add to that by focuing gameplay in instances even more and cutting 'world' part even more.
Interesting how PS2 solved that problem. It essentially let you teleport to all the "interesting" places so while the world is big, you get instant access, and there is no long travel.
I could never get into the clans/guilds whatever you want to call them. I hate it. I want an MMO where *YOU* contribute as a player instead of relying on a guild etc.
I will admit, back in the day, the thing I most loved about WoW was infiltrating an enemy city with a rogue and just ganking people at the AH. It was fun, yes I died a lot and gained nothing from it, but it was FUN.
So many MMOs these days have some sort of guild social network. I mean no offense but I do not care about socializing with other people. I want MY skill to reflect on what I do.
I understand socializing is a huge thing with the human race, but I just cannot associate with such terms.
So I am asking, would anyone like a game where it's you vs. everyone?
I am not sure if this has been in a game before, but it seems like every game these days relies on some sort of cooperative play. And I really hate that. I don't care if you are better or worse than me, i just want to see what I can accomplish on my own.
I hope this makes sense and was posted in the correct forum.
I'm basically a solo player. I have a hard time finding guilds I feel like I'm a part of and so I'm almost always guild-less or in a very small guild of like 5 people. I tried a larger guild in GW2 at launch and I eventually got booted even though I was active. I'm just not good at socializing. In real life I am that quiet shy girl, and that just carries over to MMO life as well. I'd love to find a place to belong, but my lack of social skills hinders me greatly.
Overall, I would like more MMOs to be solo friendly. I'd like to see more combat similar to Tera, where you could take down a BAM meant for a group as a solo player. I'd also like to see the GW2 method of joining in on group quest without ever actually grouping. If one has enough skill, they should be able to solo a dungeon IMO.
And why then do I play MMOs over single player RPGs? Well the world feels dead in single player games. I don't know why, but the people just need to be there or it doesn't feel alive and real. Since I started playing MMOs, I haven't been able to play single player games. Even games like Skyrim just don't hold my interest.
You dont need a guild in Guild Wars 2 believe it or not...you can run solo with everything other than the dungeons or group PvP. Everything in the game auto places you into a group with anyone in the area for shared xp/loot and you can pretend you are doing it alone.
However, needless to say...MMOs are enhanced when playing with others that you like.
And what happens when there aren't people around that you like? In most MMOs, I cannot find any people who play like I do, who are worth hanging around with, who are intelligent or rational, etc. It's a bunch of losers who spend their time telling fart-jokes in chat and rushing to end-game.
So since there aren't people I want to play with, why should I be forced to play with any of them?
I have always loved playing solo in an mmorpg. Just because it's an mmo doesn't mean you have to play with one another. I mostly like the ability of trading with others and PvP but that is about as far as I really need to go.
I wish games developers would make a few dungeons that adjust/scale to single players, and they are rewarded for doing them by themselves.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
You have access to a living world, with real human beings at the helm as opposed to a dead robotic monotone world inhabited with scripted NPCs.
Regardless if you play to interact with others or just want to be a bystander, a solo game can never reproduce what a living thriving MMO community can. You have choices you don't have in a single player game, whether a person wants to take part, partially or not at all. It's also about ambiance and the feel you get.
Peoples understanding of that doesn't change the fact, it is what it is
I want to take a minute and talk specifically about soloing. I don't mean to derail, since I know the OP is speaking in much broader strokes, but some of the conversation makes me want to clarify something.
I think the one-man-army sentiment, and many of the reactions, stem from the same perspective that has given us the soloable-to-cap-by-everyone MMO experience, which it seems more and more people agree has been a bad thing.
I agree with the OP wholeheartedly. I like being self-sufficient, and I hate having to depend on unreliable strangers for my recreation; soloing--or at least soloability--is part and parcel to that. That's only half the story, though. In a healthy MMO, soloing should be be a meaningful, deliberate election among generally preferable alternatives. If you're soloing "because nobody's on," you should be doing it slowly, perhaps miserably. That concept has basically gone the way of the dodo, but anyone familiar with the development of the genre knows that that was the rule for many players in EQ, DAOC, and FFXI, to name a few. To this day I feel like FFXI's Beastmaster is unmatched in its place in MMO history, so much that I wish I could go back to play FFXI just to play one.
Here's the deal: If you played BST in FFXI, you were soloing. Could you find a group? Eh, maybe. But the point of the job was to be able to solo at a reasonable pace--something no other class in the game could do. You could genuinely be the lone ranger in that game, and you did it by going into a populated area with your BST job on. People knew what was up.
If every class can solo--which is to say, in essence, every player can solo regardless of whether he's even put any thought into it--then the lone ranger is absent. In EQ, you had to make real concessions if you intended to solo. You would not be raid tanking, you would (barring high level expansion content) not be healing a group, and your DPS, if any, would be mediocre. Soloability was a factor that was used in determining class role, niche, specialty, and overlap in the same way that any class-specific ability might be. Clerics got Complete Heal and rezz; Druids got SOW and kiting. Wizards got OMGWTFBBQ nukes; Necros got pets, FD, and soloing. That's not to say bards, druids, and necros weren't popular in groups in EQ, but while I can't speak for everyone, I can absolutely testify that the fact that the druid could solo was the tipping point in my choosing to level one instead of another class when I signed on in '99.
Now, though, meh. You can still be the rogue that runs into the city to get your gank on (if your game of choice supports that kind of thing), but so what? There's no progression in that, and even aside from that, the game most likely doesn't support a wandering anti-hero play style--not because the game is an MMO, but because developers have gotten into the habit of trying to accommodate everyone. Well we know how that traditionally turns out. Despite all that GW2 got right before last week when it's principles went tits up, the game's model, while accessible, generated a devastatingly lonely, unheroic experience for me. The game was fun; don't get me wrong. But while my Mesmer could kick ass in PVP, I felt no solemn badassery in him when the curtain went down. Compare that to my druid, or great Jesus, my bonedancer--that little blue bastard was a walking terror--and it's no contest. Part of it is a product of the investment the older games could cultivate, to be fair, but part of it is the inescapable change in tone. In DAOC, my characters were hardened stalwarts of victory in an unforgiving world. In GW2, my character was (an itenerant laborer? We'll save that gripe for another time) just another adventurer.
Now maybe this feeling is entirely in my head, and I'll cheerfully admit that my perception of things is colored by my experience with these games and the game mechanics themselves. However, even if the distinction is more apparent than real, the same appearance should be something that can be found in new games. That means somebody's either dropping the ball or, more likely, doesn't give a shit. --which is unfortunate, because I don't want Trahearne to tell me I'm awesome. I want the party of real players camping across the river from me to. If I can't make meaningful choices about the risks I choose to take, the things I'm willing to give up for accessibility (or, yes, soloability), or the role I want to take in the game world, then I can't achieve a meaningful identity either, and I'll go somewhere where I can.
I want to part of a wonderful group of people who are alwayson when I am, alway swanna do what I wanna do, drunk when I am, always want to RP when I do and always have work/wife agro/ kid agro/ dog agro when I do. Until the time a developer cashes in on the idea of asychronous content (hey it's how we commuicate on the forums >.>) alas I am stuck on other people's schedules just like in real life.
If you do not want to socialize online why post a thread about it in a community forum? Clearly you want us to communicate with you about MMORPGs (but not in MMORPGs?).
My opinion: I do like guilds and communicating with guildmates. However, I've never been in a raiding group or something because I play when I want to and not at fixed raid or pvp dates.
There's a difference between forums and games. I prefer a solo environment in an MMO (as in I like playing alone, but like having a lot of players around me).
It doesn't mean I want to go completely solo all the time. I just don't like guilds, etc. If someone wants to group up with me for something, then sure.
What I'm trying to say is... I'd rather have a community that relies on random players for certain things instead of guilds that have their own little niche and segregate themselves from everyone else.
I agree, that a successful mmorpg will inherently mean different players play the game in different ways... and there should be many, many different niches in the game.
I'd speculate a large map probably is conducive to loan-rangering or "explorer" gamplay. But likewise a loan-rangery gameplay is more rewarding when it's an outlier behaviour to a social-driven game?
I believe that i and the OP agree with you.. I think he was referring to forced grouping when he meant interaction... and when he meant mechanics... he meant group quests and dungeons.. I agree that it would "EPIC"/impressive if game play mechanics allowed for a "GOOD" lone wolf to beat group dungeons alone.. it hightens the sense of being a good player and he would be recognized in the world for his ability to complete the content alone.. but when the mechanics make dungeons and group quests so hard / or the gameplay doesn't allow for becoming good enough to solo it... its bad design..
Just to make a distinction. Do you complain that:
1.there is not enough soloable dungeons and quests (huh?) in mmorpg overall ?
2. there is not enough channalnging solo quests or dungeons ?
3. that every single quest or dungeon / raid is not soloable ?
the 2 posts above your posts pretty much sums up everything I tried to say. Neo_Liberty and MumboJumbo, thanks for clearing it up.
Yeah, the majority desires that kind of game. That's why people on these forums are crying all day long about how some lame sandbox wasn't created. Most players want to solo and don't enjoy being forced to rely on some loser that can barely function in reality.
Well, judging by some replies here, we can again see what is wrong with mmoRPGs. Role Playing games! If someone wants to be a mysterious wanderer, an antisocial hermit, like Yoda for example, why should he not be allowed to play that role in a role playing game? I think that wold be fantastic. And it brings my memories back to SWG where you could be out in the wilderness for days and do your thing.
Being a lone wolf doesn't mean you are not playing WITH other people. If you happen to come across someone else in trouble out there maybe you will help and make friends or go your seperate ways afterwards, maybe you stay in the back and watch him die and loot afterwards! That is MMORPG gameplay as it should be.
MMORPGS have become so boring and dull and limited. Everything is set in stone before you even start your first character. You even have a whole story revolve around your own character wich basically makes it impossible to invent and play your own story and character.
It fucking sucks. MMORPG Devs are just crap these days.
They are always like: Oh this new feature is absolutely amazing, we invented the wheel new with this, people are gonna love it because its super awesome
No its not! You suck, your shitty new Story driven MMORPGS suck. They require less playtime than a decent Single Player game. Hell, Singleplayer games have a BETTER feel of immersion than most MMORPGs today.
Anyway, dear friends, i got a bit taken away here. Let me summarize:
A lone wolf player must not nececarily be antisocial. He might just be PLAYING that role, but still interact with players. In order to be able to play like that, the world has to be designed in a certain way. That means there has to be a purpose to be out in the open world, not a themepark where everyone is just running from location a to location B because a quest says so, and then once you have outleveled the area there will never be a reason to go back there. That, my friends is shitty MMORPG game design.
Comments
I suppose you can also have pvp centric MMORPGs .. although that is not my cup of tea.
Do you play Planetside 2? Seems like a pretty good game for you since it is open world, with no instances, and *some* ability to change the game world (by capturing terrain). It does have quick travel though.
Its not really my standpoint... so i can't really choose.. I enjoy solo and grouping.. but as far as the OP i think he wants number 3.. that everything should be soloable if you as an individual has gotten good enough to solo it.. current game mechanics don't allow for that... if it is soloable its most likely because the content is easy...
I personally can get that EPIC feel by pulling a lot of mobs and trying my best to kill them all... therefore i would pull more and more till i find my limit.. and like the original poster i enjoy pushing my limits and would hate for someone to walk up and start helpming me.
I did try it. It is boring for me cause there is only combat there and it it is FPS. Basically Battlefield 3 on a big scale in futuristic setting in persistant world.
I don't play much FPS games but when I do, I actually prefer instanced "matches" / arenas.
Because I like seamless persitant worlds in an mmorpg, it does not mean that I universally like that in all kind of games.
I don't really like it in pure pvp games. Not that I am against it, it just does not benefit from it much. That's also why I don't play DFO. Because while it does have some non-pvp features, in essence it is just almost pure pvp game deatchmatch and I am not that hardcore pvp player. I actually spent far less time on pvp than on other things. DFO is more similar to Planetside 2 than to mmorpg. It also have FPS-like arcade gameplay. FPS are ok for me in very small does, just not in mmorpg.
Anyway I just remembered that I have not replied like week or more ago to one of your good posts in other topic and I also said that I will say some names of Chinese / Korean mmo or mutliplayer online slashers, action games focued purely on combat, etc
. It is late now in my coutnry but I will try to do it tommorow. Will let you know somehow.
edit: one more. I am not totally against instancing. Sometimes it is needed. It is about amount of instancing, zoning, phasing, etc which for me is like 25x too much. Because it became norm and main place of gameplay rather than exception and one of last resort solutions. Also automatic lfg things add to that by focuing gameplay in instances even more and cutting 'world' part even more.
I also like to push my limits and I also don't like when others help me when I do it. Still I would not want option nr.3.
I personally would choose option nr.2 especially, but not exclusivelly when talking about open world.
I am a Lone Wolf in MMOs, though it really doesnt mean what it used to, in Sandbox games being a Lone Wolf is hard, requires skill, and is something to strive towards, in Themepark games, they act like they make it solo friendly but really they are just making it easy to level and then throw nothing but group content at you as an "Endgame". Doesnt matter what arguement you try to throw saying its an MMO its ment for group play and all that, that was never what MMOs ment in the original days of the genre, it ment persistent world where you could survive and flourish in any way you wished, they are nothing like that anymore.
I dont take it like you do in the Lone Wolf though, Im not against the whole world, I just want to challenge myself and do what others need a group to, by myself, it requires alot of skill and means alot more to me then relying on others to help you get through things, but at the end of the day, I want to be able to go back to town and hang out with my friends, have some laughs and tell storys of my exploits. Being social is the point of MMOs, but Grouping does not equal being social as people have finally started to learn with the current MMOs that dont even require you to join partys to "group" they just lump you in and scale it to the people there, sorry thats not social in any aspect.
Mess with the best, Die like the rest
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'm basically a solo player. I have a hard time finding guilds I feel like I'm a part of and so I'm almost always guild-less or in a very small guild of like 5 people. I tried a larger guild in GW2 at launch and I eventually got booted even though I was active. I'm just not good at socializing. In real life I am that quiet shy girl, and that just carries over to MMO life as well. I'd love to find a place to belong, but my lack of social skills hinders me greatly.
Overall, I would like more MMOs to be solo friendly. I'd like to see more combat similar to Tera, where you could take down a BAM meant for a group as a solo player. I'd also like to see the GW2 method of joining in on group quest without ever actually grouping. If one has enough skill, they should be able to solo a dungeon IMO.
And why then do I play MMOs over single player RPGs? Well the world feels dead in single player games. I don't know why, but the people just need to be there or it doesn't feel alive and real. Since I started playing MMOs, I haven't been able to play single player games. Even games like Skyrim just don't hold my interest.
And what happens when there aren't people around that you like? In most MMOs, I cannot find any people who play like I do, who are worth hanging around with, who are intelligent or rational, etc. It's a bunch of losers who spend their time telling fart-jokes in chat and rushing to end-game.
So since there aren't people I want to play with, why should I be forced to play with any of them?
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I have always loved playing solo in an mmorpg. Just because it's an mmo doesn't mean you have to play with one another. I mostly like the ability of trading with others and PvP but that is about as far as I really need to go.
I wish games developers would make a few dungeons that adjust/scale to single players, and they are rewarded for doing them by themselves.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
You have access to a living world, with real human beings at the helm as opposed to a dead robotic monotone world inhabited with scripted NPCs.
Regardless if you play to interact with others or just want to be a bystander, a solo game can never reproduce what a living thriving MMO community can. You have choices you don't have in a single player game, whether a person wants to take part, partially or not at all. It's also about ambiance and the feel you get.
Peoples understanding of that doesn't change the fact, it is what it is
I want to take a minute and talk specifically about soloing. I don't mean to derail, since I know the OP is speaking in much broader strokes, but some of the conversation makes me want to clarify something.
I think the one-man-army sentiment, and many of the reactions, stem from the same perspective that has given us the soloable-to-cap-by-everyone MMO experience, which it seems more and more people agree has been a bad thing.
I agree with the OP wholeheartedly. I like being self-sufficient, and I hate having to depend on unreliable strangers for my recreation; soloing--or at least soloability--is part and parcel to that. That's only half the story, though. In a healthy MMO, soloing should be be a meaningful, deliberate election among generally preferable alternatives. If you're soloing "because nobody's on," you should be doing it slowly, perhaps miserably. That concept has basically gone the way of the dodo, but anyone familiar with the development of the genre knows that that was the rule for many players in EQ, DAOC, and FFXI, to name a few. To this day I feel like FFXI's Beastmaster is unmatched in its place in MMO history, so much that I wish I could go back to play FFXI just to play one.
Here's the deal: If you played BST in FFXI, you were soloing. Could you find a group? Eh, maybe. But the point of the job was to be able to solo at a reasonable pace--something no other class in the game could do. You could genuinely be the lone ranger in that game, and you did it by going into a populated area with your BST job on. People knew what was up.
If every class can solo--which is to say, in essence, every player can solo regardless of whether he's even put any thought into it--then the lone ranger is absent. In EQ, you had to make real concessions if you intended to solo. You would not be raid tanking, you would (barring high level expansion content) not be healing a group, and your DPS, if any, would be mediocre. Soloability was a factor that was used in determining class role, niche, specialty, and overlap in the same way that any class-specific ability might be. Clerics got Complete Heal and rezz; Druids got SOW and kiting. Wizards got OMGWTFBBQ nukes; Necros got pets, FD, and soloing. That's not to say bards, druids, and necros weren't popular in groups in EQ, but while I can't speak for everyone, I can absolutely testify that the fact that the druid could solo was the tipping point in my choosing to level one instead of another class when I signed on in '99.
Now, though, meh. You can still be the rogue that runs into the city to get your gank on (if your game of choice supports that kind of thing), but so what? There's no progression in that, and even aside from that, the game most likely doesn't support a wandering anti-hero play style--not because the game is an MMO, but because developers have gotten into the habit of trying to accommodate everyone. Well we know how that traditionally turns out. Despite all that GW2 got right before last week when it's principles went tits up, the game's model, while accessible, generated a devastatingly lonely, unheroic experience for me. The game was fun; don't get me wrong. But while my Mesmer could kick ass in PVP, I felt no solemn badassery in him when the curtain went down. Compare that to my druid, or great Jesus, my bonedancer--that little blue bastard was a walking terror--and it's no contest. Part of it is a product of the investment the older games could cultivate, to be fair, but part of it is the inescapable change in tone. In DAOC, my characters were hardened stalwarts of victory in an unforgiving world. In GW2, my character was (an itenerant laborer? We'll save that gripe for another time) just another adventurer.
Now maybe this feeling is entirely in my head, and I'll cheerfully admit that my perception of things is colored by my experience with these games and the game mechanics themselves. However, even if the distinction is more apparent than real, the same appearance should be something that can be found in new games. That means somebody's either dropping the ball or, more likely, doesn't give a shit. --which is unfortunate, because I don't want Trahearne to tell me I'm awesome. I want the party of real players camping across the river from me to. If I can't make meaningful choices about the risks I choose to take, the things I'm willing to give up for accessibility (or, yes, soloability), or the role I want to take in the game world, then I can't achieve a meaningful identity either, and I'll go somewhere where I can.
Peace and safety.
There's a difference between forums and games. I prefer a solo environment in an MMO (as in I like playing alone, but like having a lot of players around me).
It doesn't mean I want to go completely solo all the time. I just don't like guilds, etc. If someone wants to group up with me for something, then sure.
What I'm trying to say is... I'd rather have a community that relies on random players for certain things instead of guilds that have their own little niche and segregate themselves from everyone else.
Does this make sense?
the 2 posts above your posts pretty much sums up everything I tried to say. Neo_Liberty and MumboJumbo, thanks for clearing it up.
Well, judging by some replies here, we can again see what is wrong with mmoRPGs. Role Playing games! If someone wants to be a mysterious wanderer, an antisocial hermit, like Yoda for example, why should he not be allowed to play that role in a role playing game? I think that wold be fantastic. And it brings my memories back to SWG where you could be out in the wilderness for days and do your thing.
Being a lone wolf doesn't mean you are not playing WITH other people. If you happen to come across someone else in trouble out there maybe you will help and make friends or go your seperate ways afterwards, maybe you stay in the back and watch him die and loot afterwards! That is MMORPG gameplay as it should be.
MMORPGS have become so boring and dull and limited. Everything is set in stone before you even start your first character. You even have a whole story revolve around your own character wich basically makes it impossible to invent and play your own story and character.
It fucking sucks. MMORPG Devs are just crap these days.
They are always like: Oh this new feature is absolutely amazing, we invented the wheel new with this, people are gonna love it because its super awesome
No its not! You suck, your shitty new Story driven MMORPGS suck. They require less playtime than a decent Single Player game. Hell, Singleplayer games have a BETTER feel of immersion than most MMORPGs today.
Anyway, dear friends, i got a bit taken away here. Let me summarize:
A lone wolf player must not nececarily be antisocial. He might just be PLAYING that role, but still interact with players. In order to be able to play like that, the world has to be designed in a certain way. That means there has to be a purpose to be out in the open world, not a themepark where everyone is just running from location a to location B because a quest says so, and then once you have outleveled the area there will never be a reason to go back there. That, my friends is shitty MMORPG game design.