About the same time MMOs became all about the gear...
True. That seems to be all anyone cares about anymore in MMORPGs. Its really sad.
Why? It is very tangible and provides pleasure to the players. It is very logical that it has become a big part of MMOs.
MMOs are games. Whatever that makes it fun is fine. I don't see why people should be forced to socialize and make that the focus of fun.
Underlined Part: Well, take out the part of people socializing, and you basically have an offline game. Of course, there's a difference between an asshat community and a helpful, nice community. And no one wants to deal with an asshat community. But still, without socializing, you lose one major aspect that makes an MMO an MMO.
About the same time MMOs became all about the gear...
True. That seems to be all anyone cares about anymore in MMORPGs. Its really sad.
Why? It is very tangible and provides pleasure to the players. It is very logical that it has become a big part of MMOs.
MMOs are games. Whatever that makes it fun is fine. I don't see why people should be forced to socialize and make that the focus of fun.
A fair point.
It's funny, but I never thought of RPing, PKing, exploring, raiding, crafting, questing, levelling, or harvesting as things I was "forced" to do in the early days when I first entered this genre. I liked some more than others, and at some points, I really disliked some aspects.
Believe me, there were times that I really hated the sound of the /tell beep going off six and seven times while the loading screen was still up on SWG. I didn't like it when I got PKed there at times. There were times when I thought harvesting was a chore in EQ2. And levelling in CoH can be a drag.
In each game I've been in, there were always things I liked to do and things I didn't like. But I put up with the things I didn't like because I knew there were people in the game that liked those aspects. Sometimes I even tried some activities I didn't initially like so much and found out they were actually enjoyable at some level: like PvP and roleplaying.
The thing I see on these boards a lot is "if you go out trying to please everybody you end up pleasing nobody." This is true, but in a different sense than people usually put it. Usually it is used to justify how catering to a diverse playerbase is flawed, and that successful publishers should design a game for a specific audience. But this is not entirely correct.
An equally valid maxim would also read "if you go out trying to please somebody (PvP, casual, raider, roleplayer) you end up pleasing nobody." Because the thing that makes (or made) this genre unique was that everybody has different likes and dislikes, yet they all contribute something to everyone else's play experience. That's a real community. That's being a citizen of a virtual world. And that's something no other gaming medium can duplicate.
And like all societies, one of the prerequisites of living in it is tolerance: a virtue that has pretty much died out to this whole entitlement attitude that "I shouldn't be forced to do things I don't like for the fee I pay."
And the whines could be heard from all across the community of people suddenly thinking they had a right to demand a game that worked for them, giving no regard for whether the game they wanted worked for anyone else.
And as a result, the powerclan players said to the developers, "I don't see why I should be forced to socialize and roleplay against my will," and so the games ceased to be places where socializers and roleplayers could find fulfillment.
And in turn, the carebears said to the developers, "I don't see why I should be forced to PvP against my will," and so the games ceased to be places where the PKers could find fulfillment.
And in turn, the FPS and action gamers said to the developers, "I don't see why I should be forced to travel long distances and camp spawns," and as a result, the games ceased to be places where explorers could find fulfillment.
And in turn, the casuals said to the developers, "I don't see why I should be forced to spend so much time levelling," and as a result, the games ceased to be places where the hardcore could find fulfillment.
And in turn, the achievers said to the developers, "I don't see why I should be forced to have my items decay or go to a crafter or grind a crafting alt to get gear," and as a result, the games ceased to be places where the crafters and non-combat players could find fulfillment.
And in turn, the soloers said to the developers, "I don't see why I should be forced to group to get loot," and as a result, the games ceased to be places where the guilds could find fulfillment.
So now, we have games where the developers ensured that nobody is ever "forced" or think themselves "forced" to do anything they don't particularly like so much. And as a result, our worlds are as shallow, hollow, repetitive, and meaningless as a glorified game of Pong.
But that's the only game that will suit players who refuse to participate in a collective experience with diverse interests. Because when nobody is willing to do or put up with aspects they don't particularly enjoy, they shouldn't expect anyone else to do or put up with aspects they do enjoy.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
About the same time MMOs became all about the gear...
True. That seems to be all anyone cares about anymore in MMORPGs. Its really sad.
Why? It is very tangible and provides pleasure to the players. It is very logical that it has become a big part of MMOs.
MMOs are games. Whatever that makes it fun is fine. I don't see why people should be forced to socialize and make that the focus of fun.
An equally valid maxim would also read "if you go out trying to please somebody (PvP, casual, raider, roleplayer) you end up pleasing nobody." Because the thing that makes (or made) this genre unique was that everybody has different likes and dislikes, yet they all contribute something to everyone else's play experience. That's a real community. That's being a citizen of a virtual world. And that's something no other gaming medium can duplicate.
But that's the only game that will suit players who refuse to participate in a collective experience with diverse interests. Because when nobody is willing to do or put up with aspects they don't particularly enjoy, they shouldn't expect anyone else to do or put up with aspects they do enjoy.
Personally, I think the second maxim posted is flawed, if you please a specific crowd, don't you end up pleasing said crowd (PvP, casual whatever) rather than nobody? Just doesn't appear right to me if you expend your resources in focusing at a particular niche (word of the day), that you wouldn't end up pleasing them at all.
I entirely agree that the social aspects of an MMORPG seem to be overshadowed by the actual game play of the MMORPG and appears to be underappreciated at times. For people that feel "forced" into social aspects while playing a MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER Online Game, those people should really reconsider the type of video games they are playing. There are plenty of single player games they should be playing that can probably meet their needs 10x better and they can't cry about balance/fairness either. I would much prefer these people to not ruin their respective MMO's that they are involved in if not the entire genre as a whole.
Ultimately, I firmly believe the social aspect of MMO's aren't brought out enough in MMORPG's as of lately and being tucked away into the background. Now I don't believe people should be forced to "socialize" and need other people to attain goals, but I think having friends and being socially involved within an MMORPG should provide some inherent advantages over the pure solo players (they should really be playing single player offline games). If playing with other players (whether you are killing with them or killing them) isn't something interesting to you and you want to complain about "having" to socialize within an MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER game, you SHOULD NOT be playing MMORPG's, this genre isn't for you plain and simple.
Originally posted by Jairoe03 I entirely agree that the social aspects of an MMORPG seem to be overshadowed by the actual game play of the MMORPG and appears to be underappreciated at times. For people that feel "forced" into social aspects while playing a MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER Online Game, those people should really reconsider the type of video games they are playing. There are plenty of single player games they should be playing that can probably meet their needs 10x better and they can't cry about balance/fairness either. I would much prefer these people to not ruin their respective MMO's that they are involved in if not the entire genre as a whole. Ultimately, I firmly believe the social aspect of MMO's aren't brought out enough in MMORPG's as of lately and being tucked away into the background. Now I don't believe people should be forced to "socialize" and need other people to attain goals, but I think having friends and being socially involved within an MMORPG should provide some inherent advantages over the pure solo players (they should really be playing single player offline games). If playing with other players (whether you are killing with them or killing them) isn't something interesting to you and you want to complain about "having" to socialize within an MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER game, you SHOULD NOT be playing MMORPG's, this genre isn't for you plain and simple.
That really depends on wha you mean by 'socializing' or 'social aspects'. Chuck Norris jokes in trade chat are most certainly a form of socializing while grouping up to grind XP by itself is not a form of socializing.
That really depends on wha you mean by 'socializing' or 'social aspects'. Chuck Norris jokes in trade chat are most certainly a form of socializing while grouping up to grind XP by itself is not a form of socializing.
I put it in quotations in trying to be "all encompassing". Basically, if a particular person isn't interested in a game that involved interacting with other people (pretty much it doesn't matter what we define socializing, just the fact that you are doing something to or with other people), then their interest plainly does not lie within MMORPG's. I'm just afraid MMORPG's might one day devolve into (I think someone mentioned this within this thread or perhaps another) a glorified single player game with the convenience of other people buzzing around you like flies. This goes along with trying to satisfy the "solo player" and I think maybe some MMO's cater to this a bit too much. I have no problem with a player keeping to themselves, but I think its just a complete waste of space (and perhaps time for them) if they are feeling that they "have" to interact with other players in some way (and they should, if they are that antisocial, at least be semi-interested in killing them or working the economic system). Otherwise, its just a complete waste on both the player's end and the game's. I think more and more MMORPG's should really try working towards ways of interacting many players into a variety of things and worry less about trying to cater to the solo players out there.
That really depends on wha you mean by 'socializing' or 'social aspects'. Chuck Norris jokes in trade chat are most certainly a form of socializing while grouping up to grind XP by itself is not a form of socializing.
I put it in quotations in trying to be "all encompassing". Basically, if a particular person isn't interested in a game that involved interacting with other people (pretty much it doesn't matter what we define socializing, just the fact that you are doing something to or with other people), then their interest plainly does not lie within MMORPG's. I'm just afraid MMORPG's might one day devolve into (I think someone mentioned this within this thread or perhaps another) a glorified single player game with the convenience of other people buzzing around you like flies. This goes along with trying to satisfy the "solo player" and I think maybe some MMO's cater to this a bit too much. I have no problem with a player keeping to themselves, but I think its just a complete waste of space (and perhaps time for them) if they are feeling that they "have" to interact with other players in some way (and they should, if they are that antisocial, at least be semi-interested in killing them or working the economic system). Otherwise, its just a complete waste on both the player's end and the game's. I think more and more MMORPG's should really try working towards ways of interacting many players into a variety of things and worry less about trying to cater to the solo players out there.
You are equating 'solo player' with 'not social' which is just not true. You can refuse to group and be more social than a serious raider. Personally I find a lot of things about raiding and 'forced' grouping to be anti-social or counter-social.
That really depends on wha you mean by 'socializing' or 'social aspects'. Chuck Norris jokes in trade chat are most certainly a form of socializing while grouping up to grind XP by itself is not a form of socializing.
I put it in quotations in trying to be "all encompassing". Basically, if a particular person isn't interested in a game that involved interacting with other people (pretty much it doesn't matter what we define socializing, just the fact that you are doing something to or with other people), then their interest plainly does not lie within MMORPG's. I'm just afraid MMORPG's might one day devolve into (I think someone mentioned this within this thread or perhaps another) a glorified single player game with the convenience of other people buzzing around you like flies. This goes along with trying to satisfy the "solo player" and I think maybe some MMO's cater to this a bit too much. I have no problem with a player keeping to themselves, but I think its just a complete waste of space (and perhaps time for them) if they are feeling that they "have" to interact with other players in some way (and they should, if they are that antisocial, at least be semi-interested in killing them or working the economic system). Otherwise, its just a complete waste on both the player's end and the game's. I think more and more MMORPG's should really try working towards ways of interacting many players into a variety of things and worry less about trying to cater to the solo players out there.
You are equating 'solo player' with 'not social' which is just not true. You can refuse to group and be more social than a serious raider. Personally I find a lot of things about raiding and 'forced' grouping to be anti-social or counter-social.
Umm, I believe you just made an assumption off my post. Please reread more thoroughly because I have never implied solo player to be associated with not social at all and I can even accept the fact that "not social" players can still play the game and be involved within an MMORPG. I think you have completely missed my point.
Originally posted by Beatnik59 An equally valid maxim would also read "if you go out trying to please somebody (PvP, casual, raider, roleplayer) you end up pleasing nobody." Because the thing that makes (or made) this genre unique was that everybody has different likes and dislikes, yet they all contribute something to everyone else's play experience. That's a real community. That's being a citizen of a virtual world. And that's something no other gaming medium can duplicate.
Your argument is that "Specializing pleases nobody", but your examples totally fail to support this because you're basically describing "Specializing displeases somebody" which (apart from being obvious) is not the same thing.
Which is sort of tragic because you spent time writing out an awful lot of "Specializing displeases somebody" examples.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That really depends on wha you mean by 'socializing' or 'social aspects'. Chuck Norris jokes in trade chat are most certainly a form of socializing while grouping up to grind XP by itself is not a form of socializing.
I put it in quotations in trying to be "all encompassing". Basically, if a particular person isn't interested in a game that involved interacting with other people (pretty much it doesn't matter what we define socializing, just the fact that you are doing something to or with other people), then their interest plainly does not lie within MMORPG's. I'm just afraid MMORPG's might one day devolve into (I think someone mentioned this within this thread or perhaps another) a glorified single player game with the convenience of other people buzzing around you like flies. This goes along with trying to satisfy the "solo player" and I think maybe some MMO's cater to this a bit too much. I have no problem with a player keeping to themselves, but I think its just a complete waste of space (and perhaps time for them) if they are feeling that they "have" to interact with other players in some way (and they should, if they are that antisocial, at least be semi-interested in killing them or working the economic system). Otherwise, its just a complete waste on both the player's end and the game's. I think more and more MMORPG's should really try working towards ways of interacting many players into a variety of things and worry less about trying to cater to the solo players out there.
You are equating 'solo player' with 'not social' which is just not true. You can refuse to group and be more social than a serious raider. Personally I find a lot of things about raiding and 'forced' grouping to be anti-social or counter-social.
Umm, I believe you just made an assumption off my post. Please reread more thoroughly because I have never implied solo player to be associated with not social at all and I can even accept the fact that "not social" players can still play the game and be involved within an MMORPG. I think you have completely missed my point.
I really do not see how I could have read it any other way. You talk about how peopel who do not want to interact (socialize) do not belong in MMORPGs and then follow it up by saying that you are afraid that MMOs will become too much of a solo game. Your last sentence even suggests that the devs should focus more on ways to make the game more social rather than focusing so much on solo play.
That really depends on wha you mean by 'socializing' or 'social aspects'. Chuck Norris jokes in trade chat are most certainly a form of socializing while grouping up to grind XP by itself is not a form of socializing.
I put it in quotations in trying to be "all encompassing". Basically, if a particular person isn't interested in a game that involved interacting with other people (pretty much it doesn't matter what we define socializing, just the fact that you are doing something to or with other people), then their interest plainly does not lie within MMORPG's. I'm just afraid MMORPG's might one day devolve into (I think someone mentioned this within this thread or perhaps another) a glorified single player game with the convenience of other people buzzing around you like flies. This goes along with trying to satisfy the "solo player" and I think maybe some MMO's cater to this a bit too much. I have no problem with a player keeping to themselves, but I think its just a complete waste of space (and perhaps time for them) if they are feeling that they "have" to interact with other players in some way (and they should, if they are that antisocial, at least be semi-interested in killing them or working the economic system). Otherwise, its just a complete waste on both the player's end and the game's. I think more and more MMORPG's should really try working towards ways of interacting many players into a variety of things and worry less about trying to cater to the solo players out there.
You are equating 'solo player' with 'not social' which is just not true. You can refuse to group and be more social than a serious raider. Personally I find a lot of things about raiding and 'forced' grouping to be anti-social or counter-social.
Umm, I believe you just made an assumption off my post. Please reread more thoroughly because I have never implied solo player to be associated with not social at all and I can even accept the fact that "not social" players can still play the game and be involved within an MMORPG. I think you have completely missed my point.
I really do not see how I could have read it any other way. You talk about how peopel who do not want to interact (socialize) do not belong in MMORPGs and then follow it up by saying that you are afraid that MMOs will become too much of a solo game. Your last sentence even suggests that the devs should focus more on ways to make the game more social rather than focusing so much on solo play.
I only keep the boxes up there to keep the whole thing together for you to see and read. It is easier to point out my own writing from here and to clarify what I mean.
When typing my final response, I tend to leave room for flexibility and have stated its total fine if a player wants to keep to themselves. My ultimate point in that whole response was the fact that if a player is playing a game that involves a large amount of other players and have no interest in having any kind of interaction with them (no matter what it is, directly or indirectly), then they shouldn't be playing. In this I mean, if they aren't going to take advantage of having other players within the same world as themselves, they should really look into single player games.
This means a solo player can be perfectly justified in solo'ing and still being involved in an MMORPG if he feels to live in a world preying on the weak and killing them. That's interacting with players. He doesn't have to say a word to them, but that's taking advantage of having other players within the same world. He can take advantage of the trade system and spend most of his time doing that and he'll be taking advantage of an MMORPG all the same as the previous example in a very indirect way. However, if the player just chooses to sit there and perform solo quests all day and not bother to associate themselves, do anything with or to other players, then that player is not taking advantage of an MMO world. That player is best spending his or her money in a single player campaign. In turn, I much rather not have those players have an opinion that actually matters to a designer because they aren't involved within the MMO, just playing purely for themselves within their own bubble.
I mention developers should really emphasized more on interacting others and less on catering to the last example and form of a pure solo player in my previous paragraph in not necessarily forcing people to group up or anything but finding more diverse and creative ways of interacting players together whether direct or indirectly. I believe there isn't enough of it in MMORPG's these days aside from the basic group for dungeons/raids/PvP which ultimately is motivated by a very personal goals of the individuals within the group hence promotes individual attitudes within the game. I'm sure you can understand if you ever tried running a large group raid and a pompous "elitist" leaves on the first sign of failure because that person feels like everyone else is wasting their time or that they might not get a shot at their sought-after item.
I figured I didn't need to spell it out this plainly, but I can't see how much plainer I can be with it. If you don't understand my post at this point, then maybe its not meant for you to understand
I'm sure you can understand if you ever tried running a large group raid and a pompous "elitist" leaves on the first sign of failure because that person feels like everyone else is wasting their time or that they might not get a shot at their sought-after item.
Just speaking from the point of view of someone who has occasionally left groups - you shouldn't be so quick to call people names. Just because someone decides to leave your group, it doesn't necessarily mean they are a "pompous elitist".
I've been in your position. I've been pissed off when someone's left after the first wipe. It's annoying. But in most cases I've gone on to find a replacement and complete the instance - so it was more their loss than mine.
I've also left groups after a single wipe. Whilst I'm prepared to spend a certain amount of time wiping and allowing people to make mistakes, sometimes I can look at a group I'm in and realise "this group isn't good enough". If one or two people aren't good enough then I may talk to the group leader and suggest they should be replaced - but when 1/2 the group is substandard, then the only real option is to leave. Not every player is good enough to do all content, and wiping endlessly trying to prove otherwise is pointless - better to get out before the repair bills than afterwards. If a boss takes an average of 2.5k DPS to beat the enrage timer, and only 3 people in your 25 man raid are above that value, then that raid simply cannot succeed.
Then again - that's my attitude to pugs. With guildies I'm prepared to wipe all night on bosses where we don't have a hope of success - that's part of learning, and I wouldn't guild with people who couldn't learn.
Originally posted by Beatnik59 An equally valid maxim would also read "if you go out trying to please somebody (PvP, casual, raider, roleplayer) you end up pleasing nobody." Because the thing that makes (or made) this genre unique was that everybody has different likes and dislikes, yet they all contribute something to everyone else's play experience. That's a real community. That's being a citizen of a virtual world. And that's something no other gaming medium can duplicate.
Your argument is that "Specializing pleases nobody", but your examples totally fail to support this because you're basically describing "Specializing displeases somebody" which (apart from being obvious) is not the same thing.
Which is sort of tragic because you spent time writing out an awful lot of "Specializing displeases somebody" examples.
Yes it's true, specializing does displease somebody. It also doesn't please the group it was designed to please, at least not for very long.
I've seen games that were designed for PvP interests(Shadowbane) that have failed to attract as many PvPers as games that weren't designed specifically for PvPers (WoW).
I've seen games that were designed for casuals (DDO) that have failed to attract as many casuals as games that weren't designed for casuals (EQ).
The tragic thing is that at one time we had games that succeeded in catering to many different kinds of players. Then the whines set in, and the games got the things players liked about them nerfed.
Most of the games we have now don't really please anybody very well, but please everybody moderately well (WoW). But the only reason these games are doing well, I suspect, is that the players who play them refuse to toleate mechanics that satisfy playstyles they don't enjoy so much.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Originally posted by Beatnik59 An equally valid maxim would also read "if you go out trying to please somebody (PvP, casual, raider, roleplayer) you end up pleasing nobody." Because the thing that makes (or made) this genre unique was that everybody has different likes and dislikes, yet they all contribute something to everyone else's play experience. That's a real community. That's being a citizen of a virtual world. And that's something no other gaming medium can duplicate.
Your argument is that "Specializing pleases nobody", but your examples totally fail to support this because you're basically describing "Specializing displeases somebody" which (apart from being obvious) is not the same thing.
Which is sort of tragic because you spent time writing out an awful lot of "Specializing displeases somebody" examples.
Yes it's true, specializing does displease somebody. It also doesn't please the group it was designed to please, at least not for very long.
I've seen games that were designed for PvP interests(Shadowbane) that have failed to attract as many PvPers as games that weren't designed specifically for PvPers (WoW).
I've seen games that were designed for casuals (DDO) that have failed to attract as many casuals as games that weren't designed for casuals (EQ).
The tragic thing is that at one time we had games that succeeded in catering to many different kinds of players. Then the whines set in, and the games got the things players liked about them nerfed.
Most of the games we have now don't really please anybody very well, but please everybody moderately well (WoW). But the only reason these games are doing well, I suspect, is that the players who play them refuse to toleate mechanics that satisfy playstyles they don't enjoy so much.
I would safely like to think for argument sake that directing any effort towards a more focused audience rather than for all audiences will please the focused audience more so than the audience that efforts weren't focused towards. I.E a Game designed for PvP will more likely satisfy players that like to PvP rather than the PvE crowd. Now, to the level of what some games have actually acquired their goals is entirely a different subject. Then again, this thread has deviated fromits original thread which was about the elitist and why it has come around.
I think it definitely came around as soon as MMORPG's existed as I have argued much earlier in this thread. I think its just part a specific person's nature to be an "elitist" and have that general attitude. Now the definition of elitist is also arguable and usually is used for people that tend to place themselves above most. I also firmly believe this "elitist attitude" that these specific people carry within game is just something that they also carry within their own lives. Ultimately, its a matter of a person's personality.
I've seen games that were designed for PvP interests(Shadowbane) that have failed to attract as many PvPers as games that weren't designed specifically for PvPers (WoW). I've seen games that were designed for casuals (DDO) that have failed to attract as many casuals as games that weren't designed for casuals (EQ).
Well nowhere did I say "once you've decided to specialize, your game will be perfect." Assuming you target an audience that makes sense, you still have to design the game well. Choosing who your intended audience(s) will be is only the first of very many steps.
Also specializing brings all your dev muscle to bear on one target, but doesn't increase the amount of dev muscle you have. If your team is weak, you're going to release a lackluster product regardless.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
While some if not most quests are more easily done with a group, it bugs the hell out of me having to run back and forth getting new quests or the same quest again when I was just starting to enjoy myself.
It also means that people might only visit at dungeon to get their quests done and as soon as they are, they move on leaving you to try it with new people every time.
In some games it gives you so much xp to finish a quest that actually doing anything besides it has little impact on your experience. So it doesnt matter if you use a group or not. Just as long as you do as many quests as possible.
And since there is no real reward for doing anything besides the quest, people dont want to stick around after.
And yet in the endgame of most of these quest stuffed games you are forced into raiding where you are told to shut up as all that socializing interferes with the raid leaders commands. All these annoying little quests forces people to play solo and only team up for a few minutes at a time. Or to sit around at a dungeon or quest somewhere trying to get someone to help them do the quest as noone is there for loot or experience.
I'd say quests ruined it for me. While some if not most quests are more easily done with a group, it bugs the hell out of me having to run back and forth getting new quests or the same quest again when I was just starting to enjoy myself. It also means that people might only visit at dungeon to get their quests done and as soon as they are, they move on leaving you to try it with new people every time. In some games it gives you so much xp to finish a quest that actually doing anything besides it has little impact on your experience. So it doesnt matter if you use a group or not. Just as long as you do as many quests as possible. And since there is no real reward for doing anything besides the quest, people dont want to stick around after. And yet in the endgame of most of these quest stuffed games you are forced into raiding where you are told to shut up as all that socializing interferes with the raid leaders commands. All these annoying little quests forces people to play solo and only team up for a few minutes at a time. Or to sit around at a dungeon or quest somewhere trying to get someone to help them do the quest as noone is there for loot or experience.
I agree 100%. Well, almost. I think a great game can be made where WoW-like questing exists, as long as it isn't the only really viable way of progressing. Let mob grinding in a group net you as much xp and gear as questing. Then things aren't quite as antisocial, and you aren't locking out the quester crowd either. The other thing about questing as the main way of advancement is that, if you want / need to go to a specific dungeon that doesn't have many (or any) quests that others are interested in, you're usually screwed. For example, in WoW, the level 30ish (I think) warrior quest requires you to go into a dungeon in Southern Barrens (I don't remember the name) that no one else ever wanted to go to because there were very few (if any) other quests there. So you always had to get higher players to help you (which I always hated, because no matter how willing they were to help, I felt like I was inconveniencing them). There are also some (not many) crafting items in WoW that you have to go to instances to get (dark iron ingots I believe was one), and if it was in a dungeon or a part of a dungeon where non-crafters didn't have any quests for, you'd normally be out of luck. This ties in pretty well with the elitest (sp?) attitude I think. "If you don't have the right gear, class, quests, etc. to be useful for ME to reach MY goal as quickly and effectively as possible, I don't want to have anything to do with you").
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]" (Wikipedia.org, 8-24-09)
I'd say quests ruined it for me. While some if not most quests are more easily done with a group, it bugs the hell out of me having to run back and forth getting new quests or the same quest again when I was just starting to enjoy myself. It also means that people might only visit at dungeon to get their quests done and as soon as they are, they move on leaving you to try it with new people every time. In some games it gives you so much xp to finish a quest that actually doing anything besides it has little impact on your experience. So it doesnt matter if you use a group or not. Just as long as you do as many quests as possible. And since there is no real reward for doing anything besides the quest, people dont want to stick around after. And yet in the endgame of most of these quest stuffed games you are forced into raiding where you are told to shut up as all that socializing interferes with the raid leaders commands. All these annoying little quests forces people to play solo and only team up for a few minutes at a time. Or to sit around at a dungeon or quest somewhere trying to get someone to help them do the quest as noone is there for loot or experience.
I would say at the time WoW came out, quests were practically a revolutionary thing (at least for myself coming from DAoC and UO, not Everquest) and new at the time. I would agree to say that a game solely revolving around quests within a single area is an outdated thing now and I would like to see an improvement upon this system and yes, not having to solely rely on it as the most convenient way to level. At the time, it sure beat the hell out of grouping up with 6 or 7 other people and holding down one spot to kill the same mobs over and over again. Now, I think its been exhausted and the general MMO crowd would like to see more, including myself.
When you think about now however, the games are progressing slowly, but surely. Now we have more and more games allowing leveling through PvP which is fairly new (1 year old since Warhammer is fairly new in my book especially when Warhammer seems to be going down). Personally, I would like to see quests laid out more like a journey. Embark on a singular but long and arduous quest that will land me in another town which provides me with a choice of a couple quests that'll embark me on another journey to another town with objectives along the way. It can be set up like those Pick-Your-Fate type books, just more in MMORPG format.
Honestly though, I think quests provided elitists more of a reason to try and separate themselves from the general population and have made it easier to level through games. I think enough to the point where there is a clear and set end game at maximum level ONLY these days and putting much of the emphasis on gear after that point. I would like to see leveling become more of a difficult thing, an achievement like in the old days. Make it more about the journey to max level then maybe it won't seem like a chore. Take away the end game and spread it out amongst the higher levels. Make getting to maximum level take a year of dedication (and great strategy, harsher death penalties would be a start). I think this can thin out the "elitist" crowd a bit at least from the real ones that are actually good players and the ones that think themselves "elitist" but just want to be place themselves higher than everyone else for no real reason aside from ego.
Well alot of it depends on which game we are talking about. FFXI I never had a problem finding groups and people where always cheery and fun. none of that elitest stuff.....
on the other hand with WoW, if you don't have the exact gear, or the exact level, or have the right macros and so on.... you can't get into alot of the groups. But I honestly think its the way the game was designed more then the community. Where the whole point of the game was to "level really fast and win!"
And since WoW is the big boy on the block I kinda think it set the president. so we have this HUGE number of new MMO players... who think thats how you act. and its starting to bleed into other MMO's. So for all of those people "which game is gunna kill WoW" I hope nothing does... let them keep there sub base. *yeck* I wouldn't want them ruining another game..
Wasn't FFXI the game where peopel could spend hours looking for a group because they did not meet the required 'qualifications'?
The community on the server I used to play on (Siren) was very nice BUT they were the same as all the games if not moreso when choosing group members. You HAD to have certain spells as a red mage many of these back in the day cost more money than you would have accumulated in total at that lvl, you HAD to have certain sub classes or you would sit all day and night waiting. Yeah FFXI might have a nice community on the whole but to me it was one of the first games to really have that elitist mentality on group selection. This was mainly due to the steep penalties for failure and not so much in the we are better than you so you can't join us mentality. The reasons were different but it did exist, don't kid yourself.
Yep I played on 3 servers on FFXI for many years, Asura, Odin, and Leviathan. Every server I went to it was the same.
FFXI had MORE restrictions I feel than most games.
In the beginning people were getting refused from parties for having their sub job 1 level lower than what it should have been.
People were getting denied for not having a sub job at all.
People were getting refused at higher levels for not having a Scorpion Harness. List goes on for days. Out of all games I played, FFXI was the most elitest of them all by a long shot.
I wasn't the guy with a sub par sub job or the guy without the scorpion harness, but the fact that I witnessed all this crap go on for years, on top of the fact that grouping was forced and sometimes could take in upwards of 2 hours for a party, is what finally caused me to leave FFXI.
I know the grouping got somewhat fixed with the level syncing, but i returned for this when it was implemented, and it still took in upwards of 45 mins for a party at times.
45 mins isn't that big of a deal but still kinda a time sink.
FFXI was elitest, and as another poster states "don't kid yourself".
I put it in quotations in trying to be "all encompassing". Basically, if a particular person isn't interested in a game that involved interacting with other people (pretty much it doesn't matter what we define socializing, just the fact that you are doing something to or with other people), then their interest plainly does not lie within MMORPG's. I'm just afraid MMORPG's might one day devolve into (I think someone mentioned this within this thread or perhaps another) a glorified single player game with the convenience of other people buzzing around you like flies. This goes along with trying to satisfy the "solo player" and I think maybe some MMO's cater to this a bit too much. I have no problem with a player keeping to themselves, but I think its just a complete waste of space (and perhaps time for them) if they are feeling that they "have" to interact with other players in some way (and they should, if they are that antisocial, at least be semi-interested in killing them or working the economic system). Otherwise, its just a complete waste on both the player's end and the game's. I think more and more MMORPG's should really try working towards ways of interacting many players into a variety of things and worry less about trying to cater to the solo players out there.
The problem here is that you're asserting a characteristic for MMOs which is not demonstrable. These are MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER games. Not massively grouping. Not massively socializing. Their sole defining characteristic is having lots of people online at the same time and that is all. Even if you never talk to anyone at all, you're still playing a massively multiplayer game.
In the end, you're taking your personal playstyle and your personal preferences and demanding that because you like it, that's what the entire genre is.
The problem here is that you're asserting a characteristic for MMOs which is not demonstrable. These are MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER games. Not massively grouping. Not massively socializing. Their sole defining characteristic is having lots of people online at the same time and that is all. Even if you never talk to anyone at all, you're still playing a massively multiplayer game. In the end, you're taking your personal playstyle and your personal preferences and demanding that because you like it, that's what the entire genre is. You're wrong.
Without making clear implications that I am trying to take my own preferences and playstyle and actually read my post, HOW am I wrong?
It sounds like a waste for a player to not to take advantage of the multiplayer aspect of a massive multiplayer game. When speaking in terms of solo, I'm pretty sure I clearly implied solo in the purest form as in not doing anything even RELATED to activities involving more than one person. I have also clearly state that its perfectly fine for a player to not even say a word to anyone as long as they do things like PvP, participate in the economy etc., they can be said to be taking advantage of an MMO. When a player solely quests alone and makes no attempt on making no action that involves other players, I'm saying that is where a line is drawn to where that game probably will not be best for that particular player and they are better off playing a single player game, those games are more enriched and designed for those players. Those players opinions shouldn't matter if it doesn't involve the overall well being of many players, most likely their opinions will be from their own experience and I speak in terms of solo in the purest form.
Never did I say anything about having to group, having to talk, or having to do anything directly. I spoke very loosely in terms of just participating in activities that other players are involved in whether DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY. Now I think this is the part thats overlooked most of the time which I explained over and over again, I guess you can reread my post or maybe actually read it more thoroughly. I do not have a playstyle that is all encompassing or an interest that covers absolutely everything or even require anyone else to have that sort of attitude to actually be considered participating within an MMORPG. Its so easy to pick a paragraph and focus on it without taking the rest of my post (and previous posts) into consideration. It's clear you made an assumption that is entirely not true especially in terms of the tones I take in all my posts. Maybe you are wrong
Whoa, I'm gone for a while (FFXIVCore is an awesome fansite), and look which thread resurfaces...
To be honest, I don't really have much left to say on this matter.
All I can say is that there are always elitists of all kinds. Whether casual or hardcore and soloist or group player, each has their own type of "bad" elitist. All we can do to combat this is try to be establish a friendly community inside specified game.
It sounds like a waste for a player to not to take advantage of the multiplayer aspect of a massive multiplayer game. When speaking in terms of solo, I'm pretty sure I clearly implied solo in the purest form as in not doing anything even RELATED to activities involving more than one person. I have also clearly state that its perfectly fine for a player to not even say a word to anyone as long as they do things like PvP, participate in the economy etc., they can be said to be taking advantage of an MMO. When a player solely quests alone and makes no attempt on making no action that involves other players, I'm saying that is where a line is drawn to where that game probably will not be best for that particular player and they are better off playing a single player game, those games are more enriched and designed for those players. Those players opinions shouldn't matter if it doesn't involve the overall well being of many players, most likely their opinions will be from their own experience and I speak in terms of solo in the purest form. There you go again. *YOU* say it seems like a waste for a player not to play *YOUR* way. Obviously, many, many other people don't share your opinion. There's still no requirement in any MMO that anyone participates or interacts with anyone else whether you like it or not. In the end, it's none of your damn business to judge what is "best" for anyone but yourself, everyone is paying the same monthly fee, people can pay it and never even log on and it's none of your business whether they do or not. You're taking what *YOU* like and you're making an assertion that anyone not doing what *YOU* like is somehow doing it wrong. Never did I say anything about having to group, having to talk, or having to do anything directly. I spoke very loosely in terms of just participating in activities that other players are involved in whether DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY. Now I think this is the part thats overlooked most of the time which I explained over and over again, I guess you can reread my post or maybe actually read it more thoroughly. I do not have a playstyle that is all encompassing or an interest that covers absolutely everything or even require anyone else to have that sort of attitude to actually be considered participating within an MMORPG. Its so easy to pick a paragraph and focus on it without taking the rest of my post (and previous posts) into consideration. It's clear you made an assumption that is entirely not true especially in terms of the tones I take in all my posts. Maybe you are wrong Perhaps not you specifically, but if I was going to respond to you and only to you, I'd send you a private message. Publically-posted messages are open for anyone and let's be honest, there are people who do post on MMORPG.com that *DO* think exactly that and have posted as much. Stop acting like just because your message gets quoted, it's a private message for you.
Originally posted by Jairoe03 Without making clear implications that I am trying to take my own preferences and playstyle and actually read my post, HOW am I wrong?
You're wrong because you suggest games should whack players over the head and say, "No stupid, we're having fun playing the game I want to play!"
I dunno about you, but this sounds like some of the jerk kids from elementary school that I quickly learned to stop playing with.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
True. That seems to be all anyone cares about anymore in MMORPGs. Its really sad.
Why? It is very tangible and provides pleasure to the players. It is very logical that it has become a big part of MMOs.
MMOs are games. Whatever that makes it fun is fine. I don't see why people should be forced to socialize and make that the focus of fun.
True. That seems to be all anyone cares about anymore in MMORPGs. Its really sad.
Why? It is very tangible and provides pleasure to the players. It is very logical that it has become a big part of MMOs.
MMOs are games. Whatever that makes it fun is fine. I don't see why people should be forced to socialize and make that the focus of fun.
Underlined Part: Well, take out the part of people socializing, and you basically have an offline game. Of course, there's a difference between an asshat community and a helpful, nice community. And no one wants to deal with an asshat community. But still, without socializing, you lose one major aspect that makes an MMO an MMO.
True. That seems to be all anyone cares about anymore in MMORPGs. Its really sad.
Why? It is very tangible and provides pleasure to the players. It is very logical that it has become a big part of MMOs.
MMOs are games. Whatever that makes it fun is fine. I don't see why people should be forced to socialize and make that the focus of fun.
A fair point.
It's funny, but I never thought of RPing, PKing, exploring, raiding, crafting, questing, levelling, or harvesting as things I was "forced" to do in the early days when I first entered this genre. I liked some more than others, and at some points, I really disliked some aspects.
Believe me, there were times that I really hated the sound of the /tell beep going off six and seven times while the loading screen was still up on SWG. I didn't like it when I got PKed there at times. There were times when I thought harvesting was a chore in EQ2. And levelling in CoH can be a drag.
In each game I've been in, there were always things I liked to do and things I didn't like. But I put up with the things I didn't like because I knew there were people in the game that liked those aspects. Sometimes I even tried some activities I didn't initially like so much and found out they were actually enjoyable at some level: like PvP and roleplaying.
The thing I see on these boards a lot is "if you go out trying to please everybody you end up pleasing nobody." This is true, but in a different sense than people usually put it. Usually it is used to justify how catering to a diverse playerbase is flawed, and that successful publishers should design a game for a specific audience. But this is not entirely correct.
An equally valid maxim would also read "if you go out trying to please somebody (PvP, casual, raider, roleplayer) you end up pleasing nobody." Because the thing that makes (or made) this genre unique was that everybody has different likes and dislikes, yet they all contribute something to everyone else's play experience. That's a real community. That's being a citizen of a virtual world. And that's something no other gaming medium can duplicate.
And like all societies, one of the prerequisites of living in it is tolerance: a virtue that has pretty much died out to this whole entitlement attitude that "I shouldn't be forced to do things I don't like for the fee I pay."
And the whines could be heard from all across the community of people suddenly thinking they had a right to demand a game that worked for them, giving no regard for whether the game they wanted worked for anyone else.
And as a result, the powerclan players said to the developers, "I don't see why I should be forced to socialize and roleplay against my will," and so the games ceased to be places where socializers and roleplayers could find fulfillment.
And in turn, the carebears said to the developers, "I don't see why I should be forced to PvP against my will," and so the games ceased to be places where the PKers could find fulfillment.
And in turn, the FPS and action gamers said to the developers, "I don't see why I should be forced to travel long distances and camp spawns," and as a result, the games ceased to be places where explorers could find fulfillment.
And in turn, the casuals said to the developers, "I don't see why I should be forced to spend so much time levelling," and as a result, the games ceased to be places where the hardcore could find fulfillment.
And in turn, the achievers said to the developers, "I don't see why I should be forced to have my items decay or go to a crafter or grind a crafting alt to get gear," and as a result, the games ceased to be places where the crafters and non-combat players could find fulfillment.
And in turn, the soloers said to the developers, "I don't see why I should be forced to group to get loot," and as a result, the games ceased to be places where the guilds could find fulfillment.
So now, we have games where the developers ensured that nobody is ever "forced" or think themselves "forced" to do anything they don't particularly like so much. And as a result, our worlds are as shallow, hollow, repetitive, and meaningless as a glorified game of Pong.
But that's the only game that will suit players who refuse to participate in a collective experience with diverse interests. Because when nobody is willing to do or put up with aspects they don't particularly enjoy, they shouldn't expect anyone else to do or put up with aspects they do enjoy.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
True. That seems to be all anyone cares about anymore in MMORPGs. Its really sad.
Why? It is very tangible and provides pleasure to the players. It is very logical that it has become a big part of MMOs.
MMOs are games. Whatever that makes it fun is fine. I don't see why people should be forced to socialize and make that the focus of fun.
An equally valid maxim would also read "if you go out trying to please somebody (PvP, casual, raider, roleplayer) you end up pleasing nobody." Because the thing that makes (or made) this genre unique was that everybody has different likes and dislikes, yet they all contribute something to everyone else's play experience. That's a real community. That's being a citizen of a virtual world. And that's something no other gaming medium can duplicate.
But that's the only game that will suit players who refuse to participate in a collective experience with diverse interests. Because when nobody is willing to do or put up with aspects they don't particularly enjoy, they shouldn't expect anyone else to do or put up with aspects they do enjoy.
Personally, I think the second maxim posted is flawed, if you please a specific crowd, don't you end up pleasing said crowd (PvP, casual whatever) rather than nobody? Just doesn't appear right to me if you expend your resources in focusing at a particular niche (word of the day), that you wouldn't end up pleasing them at all.
I entirely agree that the social aspects of an MMORPG seem to be overshadowed by the actual game play of the MMORPG and appears to be underappreciated at times. For people that feel "forced" into social aspects while playing a MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER Online Game, those people should really reconsider the type of video games they are playing. There are plenty of single player games they should be playing that can probably meet their needs 10x better and they can't cry about balance/fairness either. I would much prefer these people to not ruin their respective MMO's that they are involved in if not the entire genre as a whole.
Ultimately, I firmly believe the social aspect of MMO's aren't brought out enough in MMORPG's as of lately and being tucked away into the background. Now I don't believe people should be forced to "socialize" and need other people to attain goals, but I think having friends and being socially involved within an MMORPG should provide some inherent advantages over the pure solo players (they should really be playing single player offline games). If playing with other players (whether you are killing with them or killing them) isn't something interesting to you and you want to complain about "having" to socialize within an MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER game, you SHOULD NOT be playing MMORPG's, this genre isn't for you plain and simple.
That really depends on wha you mean by 'socializing' or 'social aspects'. Chuck Norris jokes in trade chat are most certainly a form of socializing while grouping up to grind XP by itself is not a form of socializing.
I put it in quotations in trying to be "all encompassing". Basically, if a particular person isn't interested in a game that involved interacting with other people (pretty much it doesn't matter what we define socializing, just the fact that you are doing something to or with other people), then their interest plainly does not lie within MMORPG's. I'm just afraid MMORPG's might one day devolve into (I think someone mentioned this within this thread or perhaps another) a glorified single player game with the convenience of other people buzzing around you like flies. This goes along with trying to satisfy the "solo player" and I think maybe some MMO's cater to this a bit too much. I have no problem with a player keeping to themselves, but I think its just a complete waste of space (and perhaps time for them) if they are feeling that they "have" to interact with other players in some way (and they should, if they are that antisocial, at least be semi-interested in killing them or working the economic system). Otherwise, its just a complete waste on both the player's end and the game's. I think more and more MMORPG's should really try working towards ways of interacting many players into a variety of things and worry less about trying to cater to the solo players out there.
I put it in quotations in trying to be "all encompassing". Basically, if a particular person isn't interested in a game that involved interacting with other people (pretty much it doesn't matter what we define socializing, just the fact that you are doing something to or with other people), then their interest plainly does not lie within MMORPG's. I'm just afraid MMORPG's might one day devolve into (I think someone mentioned this within this thread or perhaps another) a glorified single player game with the convenience of other people buzzing around you like flies. This goes along with trying to satisfy the "solo player" and I think maybe some MMO's cater to this a bit too much. I have no problem with a player keeping to themselves, but I think its just a complete waste of space (and perhaps time for them) if they are feeling that they "have" to interact with other players in some way (and they should, if they are that antisocial, at least be semi-interested in killing them or working the economic system). Otherwise, its just a complete waste on both the player's end and the game's. I think more and more MMORPG's should really try working towards ways of interacting many players into a variety of things and worry less about trying to cater to the solo players out there.
You are equating 'solo player' with 'not social' which is just not true. You can refuse to group and be more social than a serious raider. Personally I find a lot of things about raiding and 'forced' grouping to be anti-social or counter-social.
I put it in quotations in trying to be "all encompassing". Basically, if a particular person isn't interested in a game that involved interacting with other people (pretty much it doesn't matter what we define socializing, just the fact that you are doing something to or with other people), then their interest plainly does not lie within MMORPG's. I'm just afraid MMORPG's might one day devolve into (I think someone mentioned this within this thread or perhaps another) a glorified single player game with the convenience of other people buzzing around you like flies. This goes along with trying to satisfy the "solo player" and I think maybe some MMO's cater to this a bit too much. I have no problem with a player keeping to themselves, but I think its just a complete waste of space (and perhaps time for them) if they are feeling that they "have" to interact with other players in some way (and they should, if they are that antisocial, at least be semi-interested in killing them or working the economic system). Otherwise, its just a complete waste on both the player's end and the game's. I think more and more MMORPG's should really try working towards ways of interacting many players into a variety of things and worry less about trying to cater to the solo players out there.
You are equating 'solo player' with 'not social' which is just not true. You can refuse to group and be more social than a serious raider. Personally I find a lot of things about raiding and 'forced' grouping to be anti-social or counter-social.
Umm, I believe you just made an assumption off my post. Please reread more thoroughly because I have never implied solo player to be associated with not social at all and I can even accept the fact that "not social" players can still play the game and be involved within an MMORPG. I think you have completely missed my point.
Your argument is that "Specializing pleases nobody", but your examples totally fail to support this because you're basically describing "Specializing displeases somebody" which (apart from being obvious) is not the same thing.
Which is sort of tragic because you spent time writing out an awful lot of "Specializing displeases somebody" examples.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I put it in quotations in trying to be "all encompassing". Basically, if a particular person isn't interested in a game that involved interacting with other people (pretty much it doesn't matter what we define socializing, just the fact that you are doing something to or with other people), then their interest plainly does not lie within MMORPG's. I'm just afraid MMORPG's might one day devolve into (I think someone mentioned this within this thread or perhaps another) a glorified single player game with the convenience of other people buzzing around you like flies. This goes along with trying to satisfy the "solo player" and I think maybe some MMO's cater to this a bit too much. I have no problem with a player keeping to themselves, but I think its just a complete waste of space (and perhaps time for them) if they are feeling that they "have" to interact with other players in some way (and they should, if they are that antisocial, at least be semi-interested in killing them or working the economic system). Otherwise, its just a complete waste on both the player's end and the game's. I think more and more MMORPG's should really try working towards ways of interacting many players into a variety of things and worry less about trying to cater to the solo players out there.
You are equating 'solo player' with 'not social' which is just not true. You can refuse to group and be more social than a serious raider. Personally I find a lot of things about raiding and 'forced' grouping to be anti-social or counter-social.
Umm, I believe you just made an assumption off my post. Please reread more thoroughly because I have never implied solo player to be associated with not social at all and I can even accept the fact that "not social" players can still play the game and be involved within an MMORPG. I think you have completely missed my point.
I really do not see how I could have read it any other way. You talk about how peopel who do not want to interact (socialize) do not belong in MMORPGs and then follow it up by saying that you are afraid that MMOs will become too much of a solo game. Your last sentence even suggests that the devs should focus more on ways to make the game more social rather than focusing so much on solo play.
I put it in quotations in trying to be "all encompassing". Basically, if a particular person isn't interested in a game that involved interacting with other people (pretty much it doesn't matter what we define socializing, just the fact that you are doing something to or with other people), then their interest plainly does not lie within MMORPG's. I'm just afraid MMORPG's might one day devolve into (I think someone mentioned this within this thread or perhaps another) a glorified single player game with the convenience of other people buzzing around you like flies. This goes along with trying to satisfy the "solo player" and I think maybe some MMO's cater to this a bit too much. I have no problem with a player keeping to themselves, but I think its just a complete waste of space (and perhaps time for them) if they are feeling that they "have" to interact with other players in some way (and they should, if they are that antisocial, at least be semi-interested in killing them or working the economic system). Otherwise, its just a complete waste on both the player's end and the game's. I think more and more MMORPG's should really try working towards ways of interacting many players into a variety of things and worry less about trying to cater to the solo players out there.
You are equating 'solo player' with 'not social' which is just not true. You can refuse to group and be more social than a serious raider. Personally I find a lot of things about raiding and 'forced' grouping to be anti-social or counter-social.
Umm, I believe you just made an assumption off my post. Please reread more thoroughly because I have never implied solo player to be associated with not social at all and I can even accept the fact that "not social" players can still play the game and be involved within an MMORPG. I think you have completely missed my point.
I really do not see how I could have read it any other way. You talk about how peopel who do not want to interact (socialize) do not belong in MMORPGs and then follow it up by saying that you are afraid that MMOs will become too much of a solo game. Your last sentence even suggests that the devs should focus more on ways to make the game more social rather than focusing so much on solo play.
I only keep the boxes up there to keep the whole thing together for you to see and read. It is easier to point out my own writing from here and to clarify what I mean.
When typing my final response, I tend to leave room for flexibility and have stated its total fine if a player wants to keep to themselves. My ultimate point in that whole response was the fact that if a player is playing a game that involves a large amount of other players and have no interest in having any kind of interaction with them (no matter what it is, directly or indirectly), then they shouldn't be playing. In this I mean, if they aren't going to take advantage of having other players within the same world as themselves, they should really look into single player games.
This means a solo player can be perfectly justified in solo'ing and still being involved in an MMORPG if he feels to live in a world preying on the weak and killing them. That's interacting with players. He doesn't have to say a word to them, but that's taking advantage of having other players within the same world. He can take advantage of the trade system and spend most of his time doing that and he'll be taking advantage of an MMORPG all the same as the previous example in a very indirect way. However, if the player just chooses to sit there and perform solo quests all day and not bother to associate themselves, do anything with or to other players, then that player is not taking advantage of an MMO world. That player is best spending his or her money in a single player campaign. In turn, I much rather not have those players have an opinion that actually matters to a designer because they aren't involved within the MMO, just playing purely for themselves within their own bubble.
I mention developers should really emphasized more on interacting others and less on catering to the last example and form of a pure solo player in my previous paragraph in not necessarily forcing people to group up or anything but finding more diverse and creative ways of interacting players together whether direct or indirectly. I believe there isn't enough of it in MMORPG's these days aside from the basic group for dungeons/raids/PvP which ultimately is motivated by a very personal goals of the individuals within the group hence promotes individual attitudes within the game. I'm sure you can understand if you ever tried running a large group raid and a pompous "elitist" leaves on the first sign of failure because that person feels like everyone else is wasting their time or that they might not get a shot at their sought-after item.
I figured I didn't need to spell it out this plainly, but I can't see how much plainer I can be with it. If you don't understand my post at this point, then maybe its not meant for you to understand
Just speaking from the point of view of someone who has occasionally left groups - you shouldn't be so quick to call people names. Just because someone decides to leave your group, it doesn't necessarily mean they are a "pompous elitist".
I've been in your position. I've been pissed off when someone's left after the first wipe. It's annoying. But in most cases I've gone on to find a replacement and complete the instance - so it was more their loss than mine.
I've also left groups after a single wipe. Whilst I'm prepared to spend a certain amount of time wiping and allowing people to make mistakes, sometimes I can look at a group I'm in and realise "this group isn't good enough". If one or two people aren't good enough then I may talk to the group leader and suggest they should be replaced - but when 1/2 the group is substandard, then the only real option is to leave. Not every player is good enough to do all content, and wiping endlessly trying to prove otherwise is pointless - better to get out before the repair bills than afterwards. If a boss takes an average of 2.5k DPS to beat the enrage timer, and only 3 people in your 25 man raid are above that value, then that raid simply cannot succeed.
Then again - that's my attitude to pugs. With guildies I'm prepared to wipe all night on bosses where we don't have a hope of success - that's part of learning, and I wouldn't guild with people who couldn't learn.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
Your argument is that "Specializing pleases nobody", but your examples totally fail to support this because you're basically describing "Specializing displeases somebody" which (apart from being obvious) is not the same thing.
Which is sort of tragic because you spent time writing out an awful lot of "Specializing displeases somebody" examples.
Yes it's true, specializing does displease somebody. It also doesn't please the group it was designed to please, at least not for very long.
I've seen games that were designed for PvP interests(Shadowbane) that have failed to attract as many PvPers as games that weren't designed specifically for PvPers (WoW).
I've seen games that were designed for casuals (DDO) that have failed to attract as many casuals as games that weren't designed for casuals (EQ).
The tragic thing is that at one time we had games that succeeded in catering to many different kinds of players. Then the whines set in, and the games got the things players liked about them nerfed.
Most of the games we have now don't really please anybody very well, but please everybody moderately well (WoW). But the only reason these games are doing well, I suspect, is that the players who play them refuse to toleate mechanics that satisfy playstyles they don't enjoy so much.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Your argument is that "Specializing pleases nobody", but your examples totally fail to support this because you're basically describing "Specializing displeases somebody" which (apart from being obvious) is not the same thing.
Which is sort of tragic because you spent time writing out an awful lot of "Specializing displeases somebody" examples.
Yes it's true, specializing does displease somebody. It also doesn't please the group it was designed to please, at least not for very long.
I've seen games that were designed for PvP interests(Shadowbane) that have failed to attract as many PvPers as games that weren't designed specifically for PvPers (WoW).
I've seen games that were designed for casuals (DDO) that have failed to attract as many casuals as games that weren't designed for casuals (EQ).
The tragic thing is that at one time we had games that succeeded in catering to many different kinds of players. Then the whines set in, and the games got the things players liked about them nerfed.
Most of the games we have now don't really please anybody very well, but please everybody moderately well (WoW). But the only reason these games are doing well, I suspect, is that the players who play them refuse to toleate mechanics that satisfy playstyles they don't enjoy so much.
I would safely like to think for argument sake that directing any effort towards a more focused audience rather than for all audiences will please the focused audience more so than the audience that efforts weren't focused towards. I.E a Game designed for PvP will more likely satisfy players that like to PvP rather than the PvE crowd. Now, to the level of what some games have actually acquired their goals is entirely a different subject. Then again, this thread has deviated fromits original thread which was about the elitist and why it has come around.
I think it definitely came around as soon as MMORPG's existed as I have argued much earlier in this thread. I think its just part a specific person's nature to be an "elitist" and have that general attitude. Now the definition of elitist is also arguable and usually is used for people that tend to place themselves above most. I also firmly believe this "elitist attitude" that these specific people carry within game is just something that they also carry within their own lives. Ultimately, its a matter of a person's personality.
Well nowhere did I say "once you've decided to specialize, your game will be perfect." Assuming you target an audience that makes sense, you still have to design the game well. Choosing who your intended audience(s) will be is only the first of very many steps.
Also specializing brings all your dev muscle to bear on one target, but doesn't increase the amount of dev muscle you have. If your team is weak, you're going to release a lackluster product regardless.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'd say quests ruined it for me.
While some if not most quests are more easily done with a group, it bugs the hell out of me having to run back and forth getting new quests or the same quest again when I was just starting to enjoy myself.
It also means that people might only visit at dungeon to get their quests done and as soon as they are, they move on leaving you to try it with new people every time.
In some games it gives you so much xp to finish a quest that actually doing anything besides it has little impact on your experience. So it doesnt matter if you use a group or not. Just as long as you do as many quests as possible.
And since there is no real reward for doing anything besides the quest, people dont want to stick around after.
And yet in the endgame of most of these quest stuffed games you are forced into raiding where you are told to shut up as all that socializing interferes with the raid leaders commands. All these annoying little quests forces people to play solo and only team up for a few minutes at a time. Or to sit around at a dungeon or quest somewhere trying to get someone to help them do the quest as noone is there for loot or experience.
Beatnik, if I could nail your post above to the doors of every MMO developer I would. Brilliant and eloquent post.
Edit for clarification: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3016325#3016325
I agree 100%. Well, almost. I think a great game can be made where WoW-like questing exists, as long as it isn't the only really viable way of progressing. Let mob grinding in a group net you as much xp and gear as questing. Then things aren't quite as antisocial, and you aren't locking out the quester crowd either. The other thing about questing as the main way of advancement is that, if you want / need to go to a specific dungeon that doesn't have many (or any) quests that others are interested in, you're usually screwed. For example, in WoW, the level 30ish (I think) warrior quest requires you to go into a dungeon in Southern Barrens (I don't remember the name) that no one else ever wanted to go to because there were very few (if any) other quests there. So you always had to get higher players to help you (which I always hated, because no matter how willing they were to help, I felt like I was inconveniencing them). There are also some (not many) crafting items in WoW that you have to go to instances to get (dark iron ingots I believe was one), and if it was in a dungeon or a part of a dungeon where non-crafters didn't have any quests for, you'd normally be out of luck. This ties in pretty well with the elitest (sp?) attitude I think. "If you don't have the right gear, class, quests, etc. to be useful for ME to reach MY goal as quickly and effectively as possible, I don't want to have anything to do with you").
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]" (Wikipedia.org, 8-24-09)
The best way to deal with trolls:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/ [IGNORE THEM, THEY JUST WANT ATTENTION!]
I would say at the time WoW came out, quests were practically a revolutionary thing (at least for myself coming from DAoC and UO, not Everquest) and new at the time. I would agree to say that a game solely revolving around quests within a single area is an outdated thing now and I would like to see an improvement upon this system and yes, not having to solely rely on it as the most convenient way to level. At the time, it sure beat the hell out of grouping up with 6 or 7 other people and holding down one spot to kill the same mobs over and over again. Now, I think its been exhausted and the general MMO crowd would like to see more, including myself.
When you think about now however, the games are progressing slowly, but surely. Now we have more and more games allowing leveling through PvP which is fairly new (1 year old since Warhammer is fairly new in my book especially when Warhammer seems to be going down). Personally, I would like to see quests laid out more like a journey. Embark on a singular but long and arduous quest that will land me in another town which provides me with a choice of a couple quests that'll embark me on another journey to another town with objectives along the way. It can be set up like those Pick-Your-Fate type books, just more in MMORPG format.
Honestly though, I think quests provided elitists more of a reason to try and separate themselves from the general population and have made it easier to level through games. I think enough to the point where there is a clear and set end game at maximum level ONLY these days and putting much of the emphasis on gear after that point. I would like to see leveling become more of a difficult thing, an achievement like in the old days. Make it more about the journey to max level then maybe it won't seem like a chore. Take away the end game and spread it out amongst the higher levels. Make getting to maximum level take a year of dedication (and great strategy, harsher death penalties would be a start). I think this can thin out the "elitist" crowd a bit at least from the real ones that are actually good players and the ones that think themselves "elitist" but just want to be place themselves higher than everyone else for no real reason aside from ego.
Wasn't FFXI the game where peopel could spend hours looking for a group because they did not meet the required 'qualifications'?
The community on the server I used to play on (Siren) was very nice BUT they were the same as all the games if not moreso when choosing group members. You HAD to have certain spells as a red mage many of these back in the day cost more money than you would have accumulated in total at that lvl, you HAD to have certain sub classes or you would sit all day and night waiting. Yeah FFXI might have a nice community on the whole but to me it was one of the first games to really have that elitist mentality on group selection. This was mainly due to the steep penalties for failure and not so much in the we are better than you so you can't join us mentality. The reasons were different but it did exist, don't kid yourself.
Yep I played on 3 servers on FFXI for many years, Asura, Odin, and Leviathan. Every server I went to it was the same.
FFXI had MORE restrictions I feel than most games.
In the beginning people were getting refused from parties for having their sub job 1 level lower than what it should have been.
People were getting denied for not having a sub job at all.
People were getting refused at higher levels for not having a Scorpion Harness. List goes on for days. Out of all games I played, FFXI was the most elitest of them all by a long shot.
I wasn't the guy with a sub par sub job or the guy without the scorpion harness, but the fact that I witnessed all this crap go on for years, on top of the fact that grouping was forced and sometimes could take in upwards of 2 hours for a party, is what finally caused me to leave FFXI.
I know the grouping got somewhat fixed with the level syncing, but i returned for this when it was implemented, and it still took in upwards of 45 mins for a party at times.
45 mins isn't that big of a deal but still kinda a time sink.
FFXI was elitest, and as another poster states "don't kid yourself".
The problem here is that you're asserting a characteristic for MMOs which is not demonstrable. These are MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER games. Not massively grouping. Not massively socializing. Their sole defining characteristic is having lots of people online at the same time and that is all. Even if you never talk to anyone at all, you're still playing a massively multiplayer game.
In the end, you're taking your personal playstyle and your personal preferences and demanding that because you like it, that's what the entire genre is.
You're wrong.
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
Without making clear implications that I am trying to take my own preferences and playstyle and actually read my post, HOW am I wrong?
It sounds like a waste for a player to not to take advantage of the multiplayer aspect of a massive multiplayer game. When speaking in terms of solo, I'm pretty sure I clearly implied solo in the purest form as in not doing anything even RELATED to activities involving more than one person. I have also clearly state that its perfectly fine for a player to not even say a word to anyone as long as they do things like PvP, participate in the economy etc., they can be said to be taking advantage of an MMO. When a player solely quests alone and makes no attempt on making no action that involves other players, I'm saying that is where a line is drawn to where that game probably will not be best for that particular player and they are better off playing a single player game, those games are more enriched and designed for those players. Those players opinions shouldn't matter if it doesn't involve the overall well being of many players, most likely their opinions will be from their own experience and I speak in terms of solo in the purest form.
Never did I say anything about having to group, having to talk, or having to do anything directly. I spoke very loosely in terms of just participating in activities that other players are involved in whether DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY. Now I think this is the part thats overlooked most of the time which I explained over and over again, I guess you can reread my post or maybe actually read it more thoroughly. I do not have a playstyle that is all encompassing or an interest that covers absolutely everything or even require anyone else to have that sort of attitude to actually be considered participating within an MMORPG. Its so easy to pick a paragraph and focus on it without taking the rest of my post (and previous posts) into consideration. It's clear you made an assumption that is entirely not true especially in terms of the tones I take in all my posts. Maybe you are wrong
Whoa, I'm gone for a while (FFXIVCore is an awesome fansite), and look which thread resurfaces...
To be honest, I don't really have much left to say on this matter.
All I can say is that there are always elitists of all kinds. Whether casual or hardcore and soloist or group player, each has their own type of "bad" elitist. All we can do to combat this is try to be establish a friendly community inside specified game.
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
You're wrong because you suggest games should whack players over the head and say, "No stupid, we're having fun playing the game I want to play!"
I dunno about you, but this sounds like some of the jerk kids from elementary school that I quickly learned to stop playing with.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver