Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
If I go back to my days of DAoC I can tell you that I didn't do very many quests. However I did group a metric shit tonne so my community involvement was still there. I think it depends on the rest of the game because no game stands solely on it's quest mechanic.
No required quests! And if I decide I want to be an assassin-cartographer-dancer-pastry chef who lives only to stalk and kill interior decorators, then that's who I want to be, even if it takes me four years to max all the skills and everyone else thinks I'm freaking nuts. -Madimorga-
I'd prefer quests to be scaling though, so I could choose to tackle it solo or with a group and it would still retain a level of challenge. Two things I hate: Trivial content and arbitrary group requirements. Scaling solves both.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Since I play solo 99.999% of the time, absolutely, assuming it was a good game overall. In fact, any game that absolutely required grouping at all probably is going to get a pass from me. It ought to be an option, nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, I'd play without doubt. The time commitment in most grouping is more than I'm usually willing to spare. I like my games as pastimes now and a strong grouping requirement is more of a burden than enjoyment.
Personally, I really like the 'open group' scenarios in Warhammer and Champions - being able to just get stuck into a scenario without worrying about groups was one of the more appealing inventions. You could get rewards for making the first few objectives whether solo, a collection of soloists or then advance and complete the scenario by coming together to take on the unsoloable content.
It was never a requirement to do them, but fun and I think opened up free interaction with other players without concern over whether you had a healer, tank and dps in your 'group'.
I play MMOs and online games so I can play with other people.
Yes, I'm one of those strange people that plays a massive multi-player game, and doesn't solo as if I wasn't standing next to a dozen other people.
I wouldn't be on an MMO or online game in the first place if I was looking for a good solo experience. Single player games tend to have better controls and better story lines, so when I want that specifically, I play that specifically.
In turn, if I want a social experience, I play a game that's designed as a social game first and foremost. Which is rather the point of MMOs and online games.
So yeah, I'd be a wee bit miffed if my multi-player game just became a watered down single player one with a chat room.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It really depends on the games. Questing is only one of the many ways players interact with each other. To numerous players games with too hard group quests or have too low population or player interests to group are less appealing than the ones based on solo questings. DDO used to be such a game you could hardly do level without questing in group and it fell in hard time until they introduced the solo quest mode. DDO is a solid examples a lot of people enjoy solo quests.
Possibly, but It basically makes no sense. Why would a developer have solo quests, then NOT have group quests? Does the quest fairy look down and say, "Oh, you're playing with other people, no quests for you, sorry!" By the way, people like stories in their RPGs;) Its not about would or wouldn't you play. A game with quests will have both kinds. Its not really a question of IF at all. The game has quests or it doesn't. Theres no in-between.
A better question is WHY would a developer make solo quests and not group quests? What benefit is there? If theres this great dragon to kill, why wouldn't a story be attached to him?
Having more solo quests would allow more creativity. Developers could add puzzles and story to solo quests much easier. Group quests must be short and lacking in story for them to work well, as you need to play not only at your pace, but your group's pace too. While solo quests go at your pace, and nobody else's. One example of this would probably be runescape's quests. I know runescape has millions of flaws (And I really mean MILLIONS), but I have had more fun with their solo quests than another MMO. The longer, story based quests made the game exciting and interesting. Bottom line: Solo quests can* be more a lot more fun than group quests because you can make them longer and more interesting.
That being said, I probably would not play if they had no group content at all. Grouping is an essential and key part to MMOs. If they don't have it, then it's just a single player game with PVP and a persistent world.
*Only if they aren't "Kill ten rats" style of quests. I'm talking about quests with depth and story.
Maybe....*GASP*...the game doesn't have quests AT ALL!!! (or beyond a couple very easy n00b tutorial quests) OMG!!!! What WOULD we all do without the magic NPC and his glowing ! to tell us what to do????
We all would not be playing MMOs, thats what. Only the same few 100k basement dwellers would be playing, which would probably make those people quite happy=)
I would play a MMO that has no quests of any kind. In fact, that's about the only kind of MMO that I want to play.
Quests, the way that they are today, are more like quick, pointless menial tasks. They provide you with short-term goals rather than letting you make your own. 'Quests' are the developers' shortcut to content as all they do is mask the grind and limit your choices. At least until you realize that they are just as tedious killing random mobs repeatedly. Instead of adding real content by making large, dynamic, immersive worlds to explore and enjoy, they give you a simple way to make you feel better about the repetitive game play.
Two games had quests that I actually enjoyed. Runescape and Final Fantasy XI.
One of the few things I liked about RS when I played it almost a decade ago were the excellent quests. These quests were not a grind at all; they were like taking a journey as I imagine an actual hero in a fantasy world would take. Most were long, eventful and provided an entertaining story.
Quests in FFXI were even better. There were main story quests that one would have to do in order and of course these provided a great storyline; as good as you'd expect from a good single player RPG in my opinion. There were also many optional side quests which were designed simply as side stories with small rewards or sometimes good rewards in the form of a unique or valuable item. But rarely ever experience points. Quests were there to actually enjoy and not as a primary means of progression. They were mostly long and provided a journey for the character to take, often with friends. They were truly epic and unlike all quests in your typical modern MMO, I actually remember doing almost every single quest. Especially the ones that required or encouraged grouping with others.
So would I play a game with your average quest-grind but lacking the group quests? No, I wouldn't consider it for a second, but I'm also not very interested in the one's with group quests either these days. Give me a journey or don't bother with your silly little tasks at all.
Maybe....*GASP*...the game doesn't have quests AT ALL!!! (or beyond a couple very easy n00b tutorial quests) OMG!!!! What WOULD we all do without the magic NPC and his glowing ! to tell us what to do????
We all would not be playing MMOs, thats what. Only the same few 100k basement dwellers would be playing, which would probably make those people quite happy=)
See, I remember the days when MMORPGs were about virtual worlds.....instead of fetching random animal parts for 1000's of NPCs scattered all over every town, just waiting for some big "hero" (or group of them...each and every one of them the "chosen one, savior of the world") to come along.
Thankfully, a couple of games lately are heading back to this concept.
Yes....millions of people NEED someone else to tell them what to do.....and personally I find that quite pathetic.
I generally just skip group quests unless I'm running around with some folks already. Even the dungeon quests I will generally only pick up if I am lucky or if someone else shares them. I love to group and run dungeons or just quest or farm with friends, so the group quests themselves don't really mean that much to me.
TLDR: yes.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Everquest had few group quests iirc. Would I play? As long as there was incentive to group for some reason- though that possibly prerequisites a quest.
Incentive to group? Is the fact that you are paying a monthly subscripton fee to play with other players not incentive enough? Isn't that why people play multiplayer games?
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I would phrase my answer slightly different. I would not play an MMO with enough group content period. Quests to me I can take or leave as most are pretty boring anyways. In most games I would rather grind a dungeon than grind a bunch of stupid quests.
This exact reason is why so many people are concerned about TOR.
I most definately would not play an MMO like this... there'd be no meaningful community because no one would ever group. The WoW community has proven that the majority will take the path of least resistance so if there are no group quests, there will be no reason to group, and so most never will even if such an option is present.
I'd much rather we just see all quests scrapped altogether and have a return to player-driven content (with sufficient tools provided of course). Lose the obsessive focus on combat and let people play an actual character with a place in the (virtual) world.
Rather not as long as there are mmorpgs out there that have.
FE is a bit like that, together with the absence of a global channel it was pretty mute with tons of soloquests.
____________________ It`s alright
AC2,AO,D&L,Lotro,VsoH,SWG,Uo,HGL,Drunners,CoH,GW,Potbs,PWI Eq2,Dofus,WoW,WWIIO,Ryzom,Planetside,EvE,TR,DDO,RFonline,FOM,VC,..etc blabla also hobbies....staring at loadingbars
I don't have a problem with group quests. I do have a problem with group quests at the end of a long quest chain. It gets to be a bit annoying when you see "LFG for super tough mob" when I'm one or two steps behind on the quest chain only for them to be finished by the time I'm at that step.
As long as grouping is a viable way to progress, and there are interesting challenges to be had while grouping, then it doesn't matter if there are group quests.
But if it's like Champions Online, where grouping was simply a bad idea, then I won't play long. Well...unless gameplay is of comparable quality to singleplayer games I suppose.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
No, probably not. Though I would like to see a mechanics put in place that make finding a group easier.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I wouldnt use that as a litmus test, but I doubt such a game would hold me for long.
If I go back to my days of DAoC I can tell you that I didn't do very many quests. However I did group a metric shit tonne so my community involvement was still there. I think it depends on the rest of the game because no game stands solely on it's quest mechanic.
No required quests! And if I decide I want to be an assassin-cartographer-dancer-pastry chef who lives only to stalk and kill interior decorators, then that's who I want to be, even if it takes me four years to max all the skills and everyone else thinks I'm freaking nuts. -Madimorga-
No to OP
Yes....I hate quests.....period.
Yup, I'd play it.
I'd prefer quests to be scaling though, so I could choose to tackle it solo or with a group and it would still retain a level of challenge. Two things I hate: Trivial content and arbitrary group requirements. Scaling solves both.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Since I play solo 99.999% of the time, absolutely, assuming it was a good game overall. In fact, any game that absolutely required grouping at all probably is going to get a pass from me. It ought to be an option, nothing more, nothing less.
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
Yes, I'd play without doubt. The time commitment in most grouping is more than I'm usually willing to spare. I like my games as pastimes now and a strong grouping requirement is more of a burden than enjoyment.
Personally, I really like the 'open group' scenarios in Warhammer and Champions - being able to just get stuck into a scenario without worrying about groups was one of the more appealing inventions. You could get rewards for making the first few objectives whether solo, a collection of soloists or then advance and complete the scenario by coming together to take on the unsoloable content.
It was never a requirement to do them, but fun and I think opened up free interaction with other players without concern over whether you had a healer, tank and dps in your 'group'.
If I can run dungeons with a group and not quest, sure.
I would much rather do PVE battle than collect 'rat tails'.
Ken
www.ActionMMORPG.com
One man, a small pile of money, and the screwball idea of a DIY Indie MMORPG? Yep, that's him. ~sigh~
I play MMOs and online games so I can play with other people.
Yes, I'm one of those strange people that plays a massive multi-player game, and doesn't solo as if I wasn't standing next to a dozen other people.
I wouldn't be on an MMO or online game in the first place if I was looking for a good solo experience. Single player games tend to have better controls and better story lines, so when I want that specifically, I play that specifically.
In turn, if I want a social experience, I play a game that's designed as a social game first and foremost. Which is rather the point of MMOs and online games.
So yeah, I'd be a wee bit miffed if my multi-player game just became a watered down single player one with a chat room.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It really depends on the games. Questing is only one of the many ways players interact with each other. To numerous players games with too hard group quests or have too low population or player interests to group are less appealing than the ones based on solo questings. DDO used to be such a game you could hardly do level without questing in group and it fell in hard time until they introduced the solo quest mode. DDO is a solid examples a lot of people enjoy solo quests.
Possibly, but It basically makes no sense. Why would a developer have solo quests, then NOT have group quests? Does the quest fairy look down and say, "Oh, you're playing with other people, no quests for you, sorry!" By the way, people like stories in their RPGs;) Its not about would or wouldn't you play. A game with quests will have both kinds. Its not really a question of IF at all. The game has quests or it doesn't. Theres no in-between.
A better question is WHY would a developer make solo quests and not group quests? What benefit is there? If theres this great dragon to kill, why wouldn't a story be attached to him?
Maybe....*GASP*...the game doesn't have quests AT ALL!!! (or beyond a couple very easy n00b tutorial quests)
OMG!!!! What WOULD we all do without the magic NPC and his glowing ! to tell us what to do????
Having more solo quests would allow more creativity. Developers could add puzzles and story to solo quests much easier. Group quests must be short and lacking in story for them to work well, as you need to play not only at your pace, but your group's pace too. While solo quests go at your pace, and nobody else's. One example of this would probably be runescape's quests. I know runescape has millions of flaws (And I really mean MILLIONS), but I have had more fun with their solo quests than another MMO. The longer, story based quests made the game exciting and interesting. Bottom line: Solo quests can* be more a lot more fun than group quests because you can make them longer and more interesting.
That being said, I probably would not play if they had no group content at all. Grouping is an essential and key part to MMOs. If they don't have it, then it's just a single player game with PVP and a persistent world.
*Only if they aren't "Kill ten rats" style of quests. I'm talking about quests with depth and story.
This statement is false.
We all would not be playing MMOs, thats what. Only the same few 100k basement dwellers would be playing, which would probably make those people quite happy=)
I would play a MMO that has no quests of any kind. In fact, that's about the only kind of MMO that I want to play.
Quests, the way that they are today, are more like quick, pointless menial tasks. They provide you with short-term goals rather than letting you make your own. 'Quests' are the developers' shortcut to content as all they do is mask the grind and limit your choices. At least until you realize that they are just as tedious killing random mobs repeatedly. Instead of adding real content by making large, dynamic, immersive worlds to explore and enjoy, they give you a simple way to make you feel better about the repetitive game play.
Two games had quests that I actually enjoyed. Runescape and Final Fantasy XI.
One of the few things I liked about RS when I played it almost a decade ago were the excellent quests. These quests were not a grind at all; they were like taking a journey as I imagine an actual hero in a fantasy world would take. Most were long, eventful and provided an entertaining story.
Quests in FFXI were even better. There were main story quests that one would have to do in order and of course these provided a great storyline; as good as you'd expect from a good single player RPG in my opinion. There were also many optional side quests which were designed simply as side stories with small rewards or sometimes good rewards in the form of a unique or valuable item. But rarely ever experience points. Quests were there to actually enjoy and not as a primary means of progression. They were mostly long and provided a journey for the character to take, often with friends. They were truly epic and unlike all quests in your typical modern MMO, I actually remember doing almost every single quest. Especially the ones that required or encouraged grouping with others.
So would I play a game with your average quest-grind but lacking the group quests? No, I wouldn't consider it for a second, but I'm also not very interested in the one's with group quests either these days. Give me a journey or don't bother with your silly little tasks at all.
We all would not be playing MMOs, thats what. Only the same few 100k basement dwellers would be playing, which would probably make those people quite happy=)
See, I remember the days when MMORPGs were about virtual worlds.....instead of fetching random animal parts for 1000's of NPCs scattered all over every town, just waiting for some big "hero" (or group of them...each and every one of them the "chosen one, savior of the world") to come along.
Thankfully, a couple of games lately are heading back to this concept.
Yes....millions of people NEED someone else to tell them what to do.....and personally I find that quite pathetic.
I generally just skip group quests unless I'm running around with some folks already. Even the dungeon quests I will generally only pick up if I am lucky or if someone else shares them. I love to group and run dungeons or just quest or farm with friends, so the group quests themselves don't really mean that much to me.
TLDR: yes.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Incentive to group? Is the fact that you are paying a monthly subscripton fee to play with other players not incentive enough? Isn't that why people play multiplayer games?
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I would phrase my answer slightly different. I would not play an MMO with enough group content period. Quests to me I can take or leave as most are pretty boring anyways. In most games I would rather grind a dungeon than grind a bunch of stupid quests.
This exact reason is why so many people are concerned about TOR.
I most definately would not play an MMO like this... there'd be no meaningful community because no one would ever group. The WoW community has proven that the majority will take the path of least resistance so if there are no group quests, there will be no reason to group, and so most never will even if such an option is present.
I'd much rather we just see all quests scrapped altogether and have a return to player-driven content (with sufficient tools provided of course). Lose the obsessive focus on combat and let people play an actual character with a place in the (virtual) world.
Rather not as long as there are mmorpgs out there that have.
FE is a bit like that, together with the absence of a global channel it was pretty mute with tons of soloquests.
____________________
It`s alright
AC2,AO,D&L,Lotro,VsoH,SWG,Uo,HGL,Drunners,CoH,GW,Potbs,PWI
Eq2,Dofus,WoW,WWIIO,Ryzom,Planetside,EvE,TR,DDO,RFonline,FOM,VC,..etc blabla
also hobbies....staring at loadingbars
I don't have a problem with group quests. I do have a problem with group quests at the end of a long quest chain. It gets to be a bit annoying when you see "LFG for super tough mob" when I'm one or two steps behind on the quest chain only for them to be finished by the time I'm at that step.
As long as grouping is a viable way to progress, and there are interesting challenges to be had while grouping, then it doesn't matter if there are group quests.
But if it's like Champions Online, where grouping was simply a bad idea, then I won't play long. Well...unless gameplay is of comparable quality to singleplayer games I suppose.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver