People here seem to have a problem getting caught up in semantics over the concept of "difficult". If something isn't easy to accomplish, if it's challenging, that means it's difficult. It's weird how so many folks on this forum seem to overthink this simple concept. It doesn't matter if difficulty arises from pattern repetition, reflexes, or any form of coordination. If the task isn't easy to accomplish, regardless of the reason, it is by definition difficult. Not stop with the bullshit!
I like this reasoning and can agree. Doing the most simple repetitive task for hours on end can be just as difficult as one hard boss fight lasting 10 minutes max. Never thought about it like that, which one is more fun can be debated though
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Cooperate is working together and does not need an imperative. Adding the need is not a requirement unless you're a moron who cannot understand what cooperation means.
"the action or process of working together to the same end" as defined. Where in that definition does the word need appear. A mere meeting of minds is sufficient to allow cooperation.
Interesting. So people have to compete and cooperate in the game. Thing is, I don't believe you. Cooperation examples have been given plenty and you've all shot them down or ridiculed them, you only want the compete part. Which is interesting because when we talk about that you dismiss most of it because it is consentual and you don't consider that proper competition. You just want forced conflict. /Cheers, Lahnmir
You are the one who search a conflict here, not me. Every post of yours is personal flame. Maybe you have some personal problems, but I'm not related sorry.
As for the cooperation. What means consensual? I think you mean needless. Every cooperation is consensual - you cannot be forced to cooperate in a game. Even in games like LoL you can be a completely reckless solo player.
What you are talking about is much different. To cooperate without real need and reason implemented into the game. So you could play solo, but if you want you could cooperate for the social reason with another player. This is not cooperative gameplay.
As for the conflict. Of course it should be forced. Or you play games specially to find conflicts with other players who search conflicts?
But this is a weird response. You call other people and their arguments dumb and stupid making it VERY personal but yet you point at me calling your behaviour jerk like. I have seen you make this move before though, going from bully to victim, it is very dishonest.
And with consensual I do not mean meaningless. It is very backwards to think that conflict is only real when you can force it upon someone who isn't looking for it, THAT is called being a jerk, not cooperative gameplay. You want to be hunter, not prey, you've made that clear, but sometimes you lose and you take it with grace, you don't try to weasel and wordsmith yourself out of it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Regardless if a player solos, you can still trade with them, talk with them, and in all MMO's, players can team up and heal, buff, and help each other reach end goals, no matter how PvE focused they are.
We all get that you only view being an asshole to someone as "Interaction" but you are wrong.
Multiplayer means there are other players with you playing the game, and that you can interact with them. Not that you will, not that you can impose upon them, not that they need to interact with you, but that the potential is there.
Single Player games means you cannot interact with other players in game.
No. How you will play with them?
Through Mutual Desire.
One of the best parts of a lot of modern MMO's is that players only have to interact with the players they want to interact with, as opposed to forced interaction.
Having the Option to Interact with others is what makes it Multiplayer, not being forced.
You claim people do not have to play - so to compete and cooperate together, the game to be multiplayer.
It is not a matter of claim. It is a incontestable fact.
I play solo in MMORPGs quite often. Yet other players abound, regardless. I know as I see them in cities and towns when passing through. I know as auction houses and player stores are filled with finished goods I did not make and resources I didn't gather. I know as I see players looking for groups in chat, and speaking of raids they completed and other players they defeated.
Despite my often being a virtual hermit in MMORPGs, they continue to function around me as a largely group oriented experience just fine regardless.
So, within the context of MMORPGs, people can play solo while the game remains multiplayer.
Cooperate is working together and does not need an imperative. Adding the need is not a requirement unless you're a moron who cannot understand what cooperation means.
"the action or process of working together to the same end" as defined. Where in that definition does the word need appear. A mere meeting of minds is sufficient to allow cooperation.
The need is attached in MMORPGs as a matter of contrivance, to encourage group play, and such used to be much more prevalent than it is today.
So, not so moronic really, as at one time it was par for the course, and a good number of people feel we'd be better off if MMORPGs trended back to that.
Cooperate is working together and does not need an imperative. Adding the need is not a requirement unless you're a moron who cannot understand what cooperation means.
"the action or process of working together to the same end" as defined. Where in that definition does the word need appear. A mere meeting of minds is sufficient to allow cooperation.
The need is attached in MMORPGs as a matter of contrivance, to encourage group play, and such used to be much more prevalent than it is today.
So, not so moronic really, as at one time it was par for the course, and a good number of people feel we'd be better off if MMORPGs trended back to that.
Not really true of even older MMORPGs. Asheron's Call an old and unmistakable MMORPG you did not need to group at all. One could solo , ask the old veterans of the the game whether they needed to cooperate or group . They did so by choice not need. In fact a lot of the very good players enjoyed to prove how well they can take on numerous mobs solo.
Everquest was a group based game but even that game as a Druid or Necromancer you could solo quite well. The Necromancer could even solo a whole spawn in Guk ''' good players" can break and hold a room as a Necromancer. Certain classes were quite helpless without groups but even the most famous game that emphasised the requirement of groups to level and access dungeons, cooperation and grouping was a choice. It's always a choice and forcing this idea that cooperation needs to require an element of no choice is dumb. That is totally the wrong way to interpret the genre or the concept of multiplayer.
Give me an example from your real life - if you have such of course, when you cooperated with other people without need. This is about the mentality, not about the games.
There is no needing in love between a parent and child or friends. It is instinct.
Or I have done it for people I like and occasionally someone I dislike for fun. We do many things with others with no need at all involved. Going out to lunch a group activity with people you don't even like is not a need either. Going to the beach with a cousin or sister or some guy I met for fun....what need is that except the need to get sand out of inconvenient areas.
I don't recall dying and being reborn every time I get killed by an asshole in real life either.
Your reasoning is completely warped. You are actually comparing real life to a game. Is your world that warped that you need to actually make that comparison? Games are for fun. I don't play a game or group and enjoy people's company because I have some need I do it for fun. That is the only gauge I use and have been using since 1999 when I first started playing Everquest.
You have a one track mind and your arguments are full of holes because they have one goal and one that does not fit into the genre you are trying to jam it in. The best part is the genre will continue to move forward and thrive without the requirements you have said is needed.
There is no needing in love between a parent and child or friends. It is instinct.
Or I have done it for people I like and occasionally someone I dislike for fun. We do many things with others with no need at all involved.
I don't recall dying and being reborn every time I get killed by an asshole in real life either.
Your reasoning is completely warped. You are actually comparing real life to a game. Is your world that warped that you need to actually make that comparison? Games are for fun. I don't play a game or group and enjoy people's company because I have some need I do it for fun. That is the only gauge I use and have been using since 1999 when I first started playing Everquest.
Love is extreme need, as fear, hunger and the other instincts. You hardly can rule them rationally.
Also, you get too extreme in the metaphor. How many times you were killed in a game? I will say zero. There is not hunger, and the other instincts are also limited. The fear is completely delusional. The love too, till you met into reality. In the real life you have all these reasons to be cooperative. In the games you do not. So other reasons should be implemented.
Games are not for fun, but also for pleasure, achievements, entertainment, relaxations - probably for so many reasons as players.
So your personal experience in a certain game cannot be representative for the other people and games. I was wrong to give L2 as example.
There! You finally got it. Bravo! People play games for different reasons and you meant to type 'Games are not only for fun'....... which is absolutely correct.
My job is done here you have finally understood that we don't play games by your qualifications. So proud of myself.
I think difficulty in MMOs is difficult to define. Dark Souls is hard; Ni No Kuni II is easy. MMOs muddy the water a bit, though. I think most would hold EQ (or even FFXI) up as one of the more "hard" MMOs, but is it really? Sure it took forever to achieve anything, but throw enough players at the problem, and that difficulty begins to vanish. Find someone with enough free time, and the difficulty then becomes one of commitment, not skill. Contrast EQ with live WoW, for example, and I think from a skill perspective, WoW is far more difficult at its top end. Mythic raids are hard, and require tons of coordination where a single mistake from just one member of the raid will wipe the group. As some have said though, MMOs are made for the masses, and we see the vast majority of WoW's content is easy and accessible. The hard stuff is completely optional.
If we take a look at history, through games like Wildstar and Darkfall, I think we can see that "difficult" MMOs are very much a niche. There's nothing wrong with that. They have their place and target audience, but it should answer OP's question. Most of MMO gamers today like easy, or at least a more laid back approach in our MMOs. F2P and some B2P titles offer an entirely different argument though. BDO, for example, while considered to be well made, has been crafted from the beginning with microtransactions in mind, and much of the "difficulty" can be circumvented by throwing real money at the game. Other, true, F2P titles aren't even worth a mention as they are simply cash grabs that favor the largest wallet.
In the end, I favor a good narrative and story over difficulty. If I need to wade through difficult mechanics to get there, then so be it. I particularly love the way FFXI has evolved over the years. It's story, which is fantastic, is now accessible where once it was hidden behind extremely tough to complete content. For me, this always broke the content up in such a way that I felt very disconnected from what was happening. WoW, SWTOR, and FFXIV all tell their stories very well, for example, without breaking it up with needlessly difficult things. Those more difficult parts are reserved as endgame activities instead. That's my preference. Tell your story, and leave the difficulty up to choice.
You have a great point. All players have their "degrees of difficulty." To further compound the situation, there are many difficulties one could talk about within an MMO.
Leveling speed could be fast or slow, said otherwise, easy or difficult. I'm sure most agree that "comparatively", WoW's leveling speed is easy compared to the more difficult EQ's.
Combat could be easy or difficult. This is the most player defined one I can think of. Mouse Aiming and Tab Targeting players each swear their preference is more difficult, as do "player skill" players and "character skill" players. Then you have one-shotting groups of mobs vs dieing quickly to a single mob. Strategy vs think on the fly can both easy or difficult.
Character growth choices could be easy or difficult. Too many choices can be difficult to decide, so player then want a way to "use all the skills/abilities" on one character and want a "quick change" gimmick. Too few choices and the MMO seems easy.
Travel within the MMO could be easy or difficult. Fast travel make moving about easy while the lack makes it "boring." Empty space is not a good thing either. It makes foot/mount travel boring.
In almost every MMO there are parts that may be easy and parts that may be difficult
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
1. The OP's title is about finding those that like easy, not the definition of easy. Everyone, included the OP changed it into a debate about definition.
2. If you can make a game easy to play... as in using macros, exploits, boosts, you name it... you can also make a game hard to play... as in, playing naked, creating a custom build that can't possibly deliver any damage, taking the most difficult path to complete anything.
If it's easy, it's because you choose to play it that way. So the definition is moot.
Hell the whole thread is just another pointless "why me" thread about how the OP has nothing to play.
1. The OP's title is about finding those that like easy, not the definition of easy. Everyone, included the OP changed it into a debate about definition.
2. If you can make a game easy to play... as in using macros, exploits, boosts, you name it... you can also make a game hard to play... as in, playing naked, creating a custom build that can't possibly deliver any damage, taking the most difficult path to complete anything.
If it's easy, it's because you choose to play it that way. So the definition is moot.
Hell the whole thread is just another pointless "why me" thread about how the OP has nothing to play.
You have some points.
I think the trouble with "making a game difficult" in an MMO setting is what is known as "equal ground." I'm never going to purposefully make an MMO more difficult by running around with no armor or not learning abilities or spells. Why would I when most other players are not playing that way? Who would invite me to group with them, or accept my invite? I'll probably get others killed.
On the other hand, it seems players have no troubles making an MMO easier, whether it's through macros, exploits, paying for ease of play aspects, or downright cheating.
I prefer to play the same MMO that others are playing, not some self imposed difficulty that effects only me. Maybe this is just me?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
It is not a matter of claim. It is a incontestable fact.
I play solo in MMORPGs quite often. Yet other players abound, regardless. I know as I see them in cities and towns when passing through. I know as auction houses and player stores are filled with finished goods I did not make and resources I didn't gather. I know as I see players looking for groups in chat, and speaking of raids they completed and other players they defeated.
Despite my often being a virtual hermit in MMORPGs, they continue to function around me as a largely group oriented experience just fine regardless.
So, within the context of MMORPGs, people can play solo while the game remains multiplayer.
To play solo is different. Look at Ronaldo - he is playing often solo in his team. That does not make the football singleplayer game. But can he ignore the other players and the opponents? No. So, let make the difference. Do you play solo or singleplayer? Because if you can simply ignore the other players and they to ignore you - this is not a MMO.
And with consensual I do not mean meaningless. It is very backwards to think that conflict is only real when you can force it upon someone who isn't looking for it, THAT is called being a jerk, not cooperative gameplay. You want to be hunter, not prey, you've made that clear, but sometimes you lose and you take it with grace, you don't try to weasel and wordsmith yourself out of it.
So you claim the conflicts in the sigleplayer offline MMOs should be cooperative and consensual?
Since there are no single player ofline MMOs I don't even know how to respond to this question. But you are the only one steering massively multiplayer in the direction of forced conflict, not me, not others. It is your definition, not mine. And you have defined it by dismissing and ridiculing all other options.
Out in the real world in the meantime we all massively multiplay by trading, exploring, working together, and yes, sometimes through conflict, through war. It is however a miniscule part of the entire spectrum of interaction on a large scale, just like in MMORPGs. Now I'll admit that save for a few exceptions, A Tale in the Desert comes to mind, MMORPGs are largely combat based, it is however by no means the only form of interaction on a larger scale. But hey, I am telling you things you already know, you just try to dismiss it all because saying you might be wrong is an impossibility in your world.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I think a huge percentage of mmorpg players or online gamers are grinders. Basically they grind to get rewards. And for those type of gamers all the developers need is to provide some easy content and make them repeat over and over again. The game become what is the most efficient way to gain the most.
It is sort of like jobs. People always pick the easiest job with the most pay. No one purposely pick a hard job which give them the same wages.
Because a 10 year olds Twitch and Reaction Skills, far outstrip most grown ass adults.. so what they should say is "Meant for Kids and people with no life"
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
So you claim the conflicts in the sigleplayer offline MMOs should be cooperative and consensual?
Ok.. now.. when it comes to stupid stuff I have read on this forums, This is going to be a tough one to top. "Singleplayer Offline MMO"
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Since there are no single player ofline MMOs I don't even know how to respond to this question. /Cheers, Lahnmir
But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.
It got better!
Get this, there are many Single Player Offline Massive Multiplayer Online games.
This will NEVER be topped.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Since there are no single player ofline MMOs I don't even know how to respond to this question. /Cheers, Lahnmir
But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.
I know I am never going to get a 'you win' response from you but this post will suffice, this is just you throwing the towel in the ring, which is great, thank you. It is also a response which makes further discussion impossible, which is also great, thank you.
To celebrate my victory I will put your response in my sig with a little explanation on how it came to be, a good day for all.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
If you are playing an Offline Emulator, You are not playing a Multiplayer Online Game..
But.. why let little things like the totally obvious get in the way.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
The need is attached in MMORPGs as a matter of contrivance, to encourage group play, and such used to be much more prevalent than it is today.
So, not so moronic really, as at one time it was par for the course, and a good number of people feel we'd be better off if MMORPGs trended back to that.
What I mean is, when you go into a game, you agree with the rules. What means forced? Every game has rules - so there is not such a thing as not forced. Are the instanced dungeons in WoW forced grouping? So let make them solo, why not? Are the fractals in GW2 or the WvWvW forced grouping? Why not solo? At the same time many of the quests are solo - are they forced solo? When you enter into a game you just agree with the rules to play.
But then comes the moment, if every player can completely to ignore the other players, how that game is multiplayer? You want help - I ignore you. You are angry, but you cannot do anything. Then I want help - you ignore me. So when the multiplayer part starts? Obviously when it is forced into some instance - a different game with different rules actually - every instance is such. But as the players do not make links in the bigger game, they can play ignorant in the smaller too - with random parties, everyone could be a troll or moron. And that leads to bad social environment in the game. And why we play MMOs?
When I go into a game I do agree with the rules.
There is nothing in the rules of MMORPGs that require me to do content that needs a group or to group in content that doesn't.
There are many opportunities provided for group play, but no obligations.
It is multiplayer from the onset because it has concurrent multiple players. Nothing about that requires that the players get along or even interact directly or along with each other, unless that is the only type of activity the game allows, such as in team based shooters and the like.
MMORPGs offer a wealth of different activities meant to appeal to a wide variety of players, such that one need not interact with others if they prefer.
Since they can be played different ways people come to MMORPGs for a variety of reasons. They are not obligated to have playing with others among them.
Why, then, do those that prefer to play solo opt to play MMORPGs?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I do it because I want to and can. Aside from that, if there is something I don't want to do in a game, such as crafting, I can rely on a plethora of others to do it for me so that I simply need purchase what I want rather than go through the bother.
Cooperate is working together and does not need an imperative. Adding the need is not a requirement unless you're a moron who cannot understand what cooperation means.
"the action or process of working together to the same end" as defined. Where in that definition does the word need appear. A mere meeting of minds is sufficient to allow cooperation.
The need is attached in MMORPGs as a matter of contrivance, to encourage group play, and such used to be much more prevalent than it is today.
So, not so moronic really, as at one time it was par for the course, and a good number of people feel we'd be better off if MMORPGs trended back to that.
Not really true of even older MMORPGs. Asheron's Call an old and unmistakable MMORPG you did not need to group at all. One could solo , ask the old veterans of the the game whether they needed to cooperate or group . They did so by choice not need. In fact a lot of the very good players enjoyed to prove how well they can take on numerous mobs solo.
Everquest was a group based game but even that game as a Druid or Necromancer you could solo quite well. The Necromancer could even solo a whole spawn in Guk ''' good players" can break and hold a room as a Necromancer. Certain classes were quite helpless without groups but even the most famous game that emphasised the requirement of groups to level and access dungeons, cooperation and grouping was a choice. It's always a choice and forcing this idea that cooperation needs to require an element of no choice is dumb. That is totally the wrong way to interpret the genre or the concept of multiplayer.
People group by choice not force.
People group by choice, when choice is an option.
Asheron's Call allowed for a great deal of build flexibility, so provided the ability to create power by design, much as you can do with freeform in Champion's Online. So long as you built the character correctly you could do a lot. Otherwise, not so much.
Everquest was a situation where a couple of the classes had abilities that were quite suited to solo play. If you wanted to play one of those, you were all set. If you wanted to play one of the other classes, then grouping was a lot less optional, at least back in the day. This was quite limited in terms of class choice for soloing, compared to most games now.
Comments
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
"the action or process of working together to the same end" as defined. Where in that definition does the word need appear. A mere meeting of minds is sufficient to allow cooperation.
And with consensual I do not mean meaningless. It is very backwards to think that conflict is only real when you can force it upon someone who isn't looking for it, THAT is called being a jerk, not cooperative gameplay. You want to be hunter, not prey, you've made that clear, but sometimes you lose and you take it with grace, you don't try to weasel and wordsmith yourself out of it.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I play solo in MMORPGs quite often. Yet other players abound, regardless. I know as I see them in cities and towns when passing through. I know as auction houses and player stores are filled with finished goods I did not make and resources I didn't gather. I know as I see players looking for groups in chat, and speaking of raids they completed and other players they defeated.
Despite my often being a virtual hermit in MMORPGs, they continue to function around me as a largely group oriented experience just fine regardless.
So, within the context of MMORPGs, people can play solo while the game remains multiplayer.
So, not so moronic really, as at one time it was par for the course, and a good number of people feel we'd be better off if MMORPGs trended back to that.
Everquest was a group based game but even that game as a Druid or Necromancer you could solo quite well. The Necromancer could even solo a whole spawn in Guk ''' good players" can break and hold a room as a Necromancer. Certain classes were quite helpless without groups but even the most famous game that emphasised the requirement of groups to level and access dungeons, cooperation and grouping was a choice. It's always a choice and forcing this idea that cooperation needs to require an element of no choice is dumb. That is totally the wrong way to interpret the genre or the concept of multiplayer.
People group by choice not force.
ikcin said:
Or I have done it for people I like and occasionally someone I dislike for fun. We do many things with others with no need at all involved. Going out to lunch a group activity with people you don't even like is not a need either. Going to the beach with a cousin or sister or some guy I met for fun....what need is that except the need to get sand out of inconvenient areas.
I don't recall dying and being reborn every time I get killed by an asshole in real life either.
Your reasoning is completely warped. You are actually comparing real life to a game. Is your world that warped that you need to actually make that comparison? Games are for fun. I don't play a game or group and enjoy people's company because I have some need I do it for fun. That is the only gauge I use and have been using since 1999 when I first started playing Everquest.
You have a one track mind and your arguments are full of holes because they have one goal and one that does not fit into the genre you are trying to jam it in. The best part is the genre will continue to move forward and thrive without the requirements you have said is needed.
There! You finally got it. Bravo! People play games for different reasons and you meant to type 'Games are not only for fun'....... which is absolutely correct.
My job is done here you have finally understood that we don't play games by your qualifications. So proud of myself.
Leveling speed could be fast or slow, said otherwise, easy or difficult. I'm sure most agree that "comparatively", WoW's leveling speed is easy compared to the more difficult EQ's.
Combat could be easy or difficult. This is the most player defined one I can think of. Mouse Aiming and Tab Targeting players each swear their preference is more difficult, as do "player skill" players and "character skill" players. Then you have one-shotting groups of mobs vs dieing quickly to a single mob. Strategy vs think on the fly can both easy or difficult.
Character growth choices could be easy or difficult. Too many choices can be difficult to decide, so player then want a way to "use all the skills/abilities" on one character and want a "quick change" gimmick. Too few choices and the MMO seems easy.
Travel within the MMO could be easy or difficult. Fast travel make moving about easy while the lack makes it "boring." Empty space is not a good thing either. It makes foot/mount travel boring.
In almost every MMO there are parts that may be easy and parts that may be difficult
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
2. If you can make a game easy to play... as in using macros, exploits, boosts, you name it... you can also make a game hard to play... as in, playing naked, creating a custom build that can't possibly deliver any damage, taking the most difficult path to complete anything.
If it's easy, it's because you choose to play it that way. So the definition is moot.
Hell the whole thread is just another pointless "why me" thread about how the OP has nothing to play.
I think the trouble with "making a game difficult" in an MMO setting is what is known as "equal ground." I'm never going to purposefully make an MMO more difficult by running around with no armor or not learning abilities or spells. Why would I when most other players are not playing that way? Who would invite me to group with them, or accept my invite? I'll probably get others killed.
On the other hand, it seems players have no troubles making an MMO easier, whether it's through macros, exploits, paying for ease of play aspects, or downright cheating.
I prefer to play the same MMO that others are playing, not some self imposed difficulty that effects only me. Maybe this is just me?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Out in the real world in the meantime we all massively multiplay by trading, exploring, working together, and yes, sometimes through conflict, through war. It is however a miniscule part of the entire spectrum of interaction on a large scale, just like in MMORPGs. Now I'll admit that save for a few exceptions, A Tale in the Desert comes to mind, MMORPGs are largely combat based, it is however by no means the only form of interaction on a larger scale. But hey, I am telling you things you already know, you just try to dismiss it all because saying you might be wrong is an impossibility in your world.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
It is sort of like jobs. People always pick the easiest job with the most pay. No one purposely pick a hard job which give them the same wages.
Get this, there are many Single Player Offline Massive Multiplayer Online games.
This will NEVER be topped.
Think of it as “Hard Mode”.
To celebrate my victory I will put your response in my sig with a little explanation on how it came to be, a good day for all.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
But.. why let little things like the totally obvious get in the way.
There is nothing in the rules of MMORPGs that require me to do content that needs a group or to group in content that doesn't.
It is multiplayer from the onset because it has concurrent multiple players. Nothing about that requires that the players get along or even interact directly or along with each other, unless that is the only type of activity the game allows, such as in team based shooters and the like.
MMORPGs offer a wealth of different activities meant to appeal to a wide variety of players, such that one need not interact with others if they prefer.
Since they can be played different ways people come to MMORPGs for a variety of reasons. They are not obligated to have playing with others among them.
Why, then, do those that prefer to play solo opt to play MMORPGs?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I do it because I want to and can. Aside from that, if there is something I don't want to do in a game, such as crafting, I can rely on a plethora of others to do it for me so that I simply need purchase what I want rather than go through the bother.
Asheron's Call allowed for a great deal of build flexibility, so provided the ability to create power by design, much as you can do with freeform in Champion's Online. So long as you built the character correctly you could do a lot. Otherwise, not so much.
Everquest was a situation where a couple of the classes had abilities that were quite suited to solo play. If you wanted to play one of those, you were all set. If you wanted to play one of the other classes, then grouping was a lot less optional, at least back in the day. This was quite limited in terms of class choice for soloing, compared to most games now.