The article seems to make a mess of a few different concepts, IMHO.
1) You have games that rely heavily on content meant for groups, but where finding a group doesn't require effort from the players (Rift and GW2 with public-quest type auto-grouping for rifts and hearts);
2) You have games where a big part of the content downright discourages grouping (SWTOR's personal storylines with their party class restrictions and complete lack of logical storyline flow when participating in the personal storylines of others);
3) And then in some games (arguably most) you just have enough solo content to keep people busy for so long they may not care about the type and quantity of group content available in the game (the article cites WOW, people have listed many more).
Looking at current MMOs I think #3 seems to be the rule, #1 seems to be the trend, and #2 seems to be a shot in the foot.
Originally posted by Avarix No, I think people should group because the genre is based on MULTIPLAYER. If you don't want to actually play with other players, that's fine. We already have a ton of those games, they are single player RPGs. Grouping should be encouraged because it's the difference between these two genres, among other things.It's because I am interested in MMORPGs. When I want to play alone I boot up something like "The Witcher".
Is "grouping" the ONLY multiplayer activity that you can think of? If I want to play with others, MUST I group in order to satisfy *your* definition of multiplayer?
Now, to really blow your mind... How does a PvPer who likes to solo fit in? Is he a multiplayer ONLY if he PvPs in groups?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Raid content - not soloable (not even multi-boxable) in vast majority of MMOs with the exception of EQ1 which is currently the most mult-boxable game.
thats the problem with mmos nowadays. They only make teamwork functional in instanced dungeons. Teamwork should be vital in the open world pve as well. I say make pve content hard for everyone. Add level scale so every area is relevant and anyone can have teamwork regardless of levels and still have a hard challenge. And for those times when you want to be a lone wolf but cant get things done, add henchmen like GW1 did. It would still be harder without a real group but not always you will find other people willing to help you so the option should be there.
EQ had groups because the mentality of the players was different at the time. When EQ was at it's height there were not many if any real competitors on the market in the late 90's. People cared about their standing in the communities because of the time investment you had in your character. The communities had their own sites for each server where "ninja-looting" would land you on the shit list and others in the community would turn their back on you.
In modern MMOs I can reroll a character in seconds and level them to max level in little to no time using experience potions or I could rename my character at any time. I could be a racist asshole and tomorrow nobody would remember or care. Every class can perform every job and my warrior can heal himself in a few seconds, in EQ if you took a beating you may loose your gear or have to sit and heal for 20+ min... different mentality.
Originally posted by Shmackpappy Gaming companies are businesses and will continue to produce games that people WANT to play. Obviously there is a big market in producing MMOs that are soloable. As mentioned by others, there is nothing stopping you fron grouping up. Every game I've been on has active guilds. Join one and group up with others. It doesn't mean that it should be at the exclusion of people who don't want to group.
This.
If forced grouping games are so "superior" they wouldnt go way of the do-do.
Every MMO offers both solo AND EXCLUSIVE GROUP CONTENT (while you can group solo content you cannot solo group content)
Its up the individual to play as he wants.
Oh, and btw, those 4 are pretty much most successful western games (besides EvE).
Forced grouping = ultra niche, so you can either take your niche in a larger MMO, with (obviosuly) more options besides forced grouping, or play some obsucure games with 1000 people total (which obviously these people dont want, they rather whine about the latter MMO with options besides forced grouping). Its also your pick.
EQ had groups because the mentality of the players was different at the time. When EQ was at it's height there were not many if any real competitors on the market in the late 90's. People cared about their standing in the communities because of the time investment you had in your character. The communities had their own sites for each server where "ninja-looting" would land you on the shit list and others in the community would turn their back on you.
In modern MMOs I can reroll a character in seconds and level them to max level in little to no time using experience potions or I could rename my character at any time. I could be a racist asshole and tomorrow nobody would remember or care. Every class can perform every job and my warrior can heal himself in a few seconds, in EQ if you took a beating you may loose your gear or have to sit and heal for 20+ min... different mentality.
And thats exactly why noone play EQ but games in the list.
I play MMORPG,'s not MSORPG's (Masivly singleplayer online) games. I play MMO's for the interaction & socialization with my fellow gamers. The more games I play with instancing the more I notice that the entire instance goes by without one player saying a single word to another player. Where as games I play that don't utilize much instancing (Vanguard is a prime example) , I'm noticing I talk with a LOT more folks.
I see so many people say that they play MMO's solo because they like playing alone, but still want to know that there are other people out there that they can talk with and connect with. I respond to those people by saying, "Go play a singleplayer game and run facebook in the background or on your tablet at the same time." You will get a better game and the same socialization that way.
The real problem here is the player base. I solo most of the time not because I want to, the group dynamic for the most part is filled with elitism, and downright cruelty. If my gear isn't up to snuff and/or I haven't played 1000 dungeons and know exactly what to do and execute it perfectly, well it's not a good experience. So why keep doing it? Asshats have brought us to where we are now in solo vs group conversations and it's really too bad. If people would nurture and help newbs out a bit they would have a much more active grouping mechanism.
Well thats ok, now there's people like me who enjoy playing alone BECAUSE there are alot of people out there with little to no-brain (the so called noobs),. They are not called noobs because of the fact that they are new to a game but because they suck, they are unable to react (or even think)as fast as normal people and they will never be able to react as fast as hardcore players so... I don't have the time to play in a hardcore guild nor do i have the patience to play in a casual guild where half of the people there suck. I guess im forever alone and there are quite a few people like me out there.
Originally posted by StormNet The real problem here is the player base. I solo most of the time not because I want to, the group dynamic for the most part is filled with elitism, and downright cruelty. If my gear isn't up to snuff and/or I haven't played 1000 dungeons and know exactly what to do and execute it perfectly, well it's not a good experience. So why keep doing it? Asshats have brought us to where we are now in solo vs group conversations and it's really too bad. If people would nurture and help newbs out a bit they would have a much more active grouping mechanism.
One of the reasons I prefer and mostly group with guild mates.
example, just a few minutes ago I got off of lotro.
For a while we were duoing skirmishes and pushign the difficulty. Didnt' matter if we died we just wanted to push ourselves.
Then a third joined and we really pushed the difficulty, ended up caught on an encounter that took too long to kill and suddenly we were being attacked on all sides and couldn't kill them fast enough.
It was a spectacular failure. And a LOT of fun.
But try that with a pug and you will either get plaeyrs not keen on pushign the difficulty or railing against everyone if they fail.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I loved SWToR, but with a party limit of 4, you could only duo the x 4 zones and you couldn't take a party, because those companions would count as 2 people ! Thus, turning the mmo into a duo game more than a soloist game, although you can do the x 2 content by yourself with a companion, it really is most fun to duo it, since you can't attain any conversation social points solo.
Heroic-4s are meant to be played with four players, companions are dismissed when more than 2 players are invited. Of course you can do some of them just with companions, but it's your choice.
Having said that. Every MMO can be played solo or in group. It's really up to the person. Good guild is a must for enjoying game to the fullest. But then solo content is welcomed for times when you have have limited time or just want to play alone.Balanced solo and group content is a recipe for successful MMO.
While I enjoy just having some "me time" in an MMO the WoW model has destroyed what made the genre. The old school MMO's were not perfect, but the forced grouping developed a sense of community, something lacking these days.
MMO communities nowadays are filled with people in competition to see who can be the biggest ass. Back in the day if you did that you better have a guild full of them or you are not leveling.
While I enjoy just having some "me time" in an MMO the WoW model has destroyed what made the genre. The old school MMO's were not perfect, but the forced grouping developed a sense of community, something lacking these days.
MMO communities nowadays are filled with people in competition to see who can be the biggest ass. Back in the day if you did that you better have a guild full of them or you are not leveling.
Tall buildings are Tiger repellant.
Don't believe me? Even see wild Tigers stalking NYC?
That's the same logic you are using when you say, 'forced grouping developed a sense of community'.
The concept of MMO guilds was still in its infancy when EQ was big. You grouped up with others at random and took on forced grouping because you had to. You put up with pubs because there was no option.
What grew out of that were guilds. People joining together and filtering out the people they didn't like. That is there by default now. So when someone says, 'I used to love grouping up with PUGs and taking on a challenge we couldn't face alone.' the only current difference is instead of someone saying in public chat hey lets for a group for the BBEG, they say it on their guild's forums/mumble.
Grouping still happens, community is still there, it' just a gated community now because of all the lessons we learned from PUGs in games like EQ... (Well, that and we don't remember those times with rose-colored glasses on.)
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire: Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
So Rift is the best game game for multiplayer content? I mean if they are #5 but everyone else has a higher rank for solo play basically with the blanket #1.
I would basically agree with this. Because despite what the OP has to say about auto forming groups, let's be real here, at least people are doing things together in groups and quite often large groups. People may not talk to each other, or they will, but it is up to them. When you start making it hard to do things together in groups you are basically putting up walls. Forced grouping for content doesn't ensure people will group up communicate and overcome it, it ensures that people won't do it.(unless of course you dumb it down like LFR) If you want people to do things together and have fun, you have to start with easy grouping and no walls, build on the system from there by adding ways to encourage communication, but you aren't going to get people grouping and communicating by making it a pain in the ass.
While I enjoy just having some "me time" in an MMO the WoW model has destroyed what made the genre. The old school MMO's were not perfect, but the forced grouping developed a sense of community, something lacking these days.
MMO communities nowadays are filled with people in competition to see who can be the biggest ass. Back in the day if you did that you better have a guild full of them or you are not leveling.
Tall buildings are Tiger repellant.
Don't believe me? Even see wild Tigers stalking NYC?
That's the same logic you are using when you say, 'forced grouping developed a sense of community'.
The concept of MMO guilds was still in its infancy when EQ was big. You grouped up with others at random and took on forced grouping because you had to. You put up with pubs because there was no option.
What grew out of that were guilds. People joining together and filtering out the people they didn't like. That is there by default now. So when someone says, 'I used to love grouping up with PUGs and taking on a challenge we couldn't face alone.' the only current difference is instead of someone saying in public chat hey lets for a group for the BBEG, they say it on their guild's forums/mumble.
Grouping still happens, community is still there, it' just a gated community now because of all the lessons we learned from PUGs in games like EQ... (Well, that and we don't remember those times with rose-colored glasses on.)
Lessons learned in EQ you say? That very system of forced interdependency is the reason that during it's day EQ had such an amazing community. People who had bad reputations didn't get groups and would therefore have trouble progressing or getting into a guild. Anything remotely resembling the whole concept of "Barrens chat" was preposterous. People weren't just a random voice in the wind and what you did mattered. Nobody was entitled to something simply because they paid their monthly fee.
All areas of the game were cooperative for a reason!
Maybe those ideas are just considered "old school" now though? Having to work hard for a reward? Not being entitled to something just for breathing on a keyboard?
EQ indeed had many serious flaws, and WoW had originally got so many of the corrections right. We learned some extremely valuable lessons in EQ and it allowed us to collectively create the magnificence of Vanilla WoW. What Blizzard has allowed their game to become, and what that influence has had on the entire genre has been absolutely devastating.
Somebody needs to step up and soon. There is a playerbase out there absolutely foaming at the mouth for a new MMO to revitalize this stale genre.
While I enjoy just having some "me time" in an MMO the WoW model has destroyed what made the genre. The old school MMO's were not perfect, but the forced grouping developed a sense of community, something lacking these days.
MMO communities nowadays are filled with people in competition to see who can be the biggest ass. Back in the day if you did that you better have a guild full of them or you are not leveling.
Tall buildings are Tiger repellant.
Don't believe me? Even see wild Tigers stalking NYC?
That's the same logic you are using when you say, 'forced grouping developed a sense of community'.
The concept of MMO guilds was still in its infancy when EQ was big. You grouped up with others at random and took on forced grouping because you had to. You put up with pubs because there was no option.
What grew out of that were guilds. People joining together and filtering out the people they didn't like. That is there by default now. So when someone says, 'I used to love grouping up with PUGs and taking on a challenge we couldn't face alone.' the only current difference is instead of someone saying in public chat hey lets for a group for the BBEG, they say it on their guild's forums/mumble.
Grouping still happens, community is still there, it' just a gated community now because of all the lessons we learned from PUGs in games like EQ... (Well, that and we don't remember those times with rose-colored glasses on.)
Lessons learned in EQ you say? That very system of forced interdependency is the reason that during it's day EQ had such an amazing community. People who had bad reputations didn't get groups and would therefore have trouble progressing or getting into a guild. Anything remotely resembling the whole concept of "Barrens chat" was preposterous. People weren't just a random voice in the wind and what you did mattered. Nobody was entitled to something simply because they paid their monthly fee.
All areas of the game were cooperative for a reason!
Maybe those ideas are just considered "old school" now though? Having to work hard for a reward? Not being entitled to something just for breathing on a keyboard?
EQ indeed had many serious flaws, and WoW had originally got so many of the corrections right. We learned some extremely valuable lessons in EQ and it allowed us to collectively create the magnificence of Vanilla WoW. What Blizzard has allowed their game to become, and what that influence has had on the entire genre has been absolutely devastating.
Somebody needs to step up and soon. There is a playerbase out there absolutely foaming at the mouth for a new MMO to revitalize this stale genre.
Yeah, I think WoW has now gone too far in the wrong direction with the over simplification. I think vanilla had the right ideas and they polished and built on those ideas in BC and Wrath, but they just kept on continuing to simplify the game and now it seems they have gone too far and it feels shallow IMHO.
Comments
The article seems to make a mess of a few different concepts, IMHO.
1) You have games that rely heavily on content meant for groups, but where finding a group doesn't require effort from the players (Rift and GW2 with public-quest type auto-grouping for rifts and hearts);
2) You have games where a big part of the content downright discourages grouping (SWTOR's personal storylines with their party class restrictions and complete lack of logical storyline flow when participating in the personal storylines of others);
3) And then in some games (arguably most) you just have enough solo content to keep people busy for so long they may not care about the type and quantity of group content available in the game (the article cites WOW, people have listed many more).
Looking at current MMOs I think #3 seems to be the rule, #1 seems to be the trend, and #2 seems to be a shot in the foot.
Now, to really blow your mind... How does a PvPer who likes to solo fit in? Is he a multiplayer ONLY if he PvPs in groups?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
A good article.
Why are there so many off topic comments on the group vs solo debate?
If you throw a bone to wolves what do you expect them to do? But hey it bumped up the site post count.
Short list.
thats the problem with mmos nowadays. They only make teamwork functional in instanced dungeons. Teamwork should be vital in the open world pve as well. I say make pve content hard for everyone. Add level scale so every area is relevant and anyone can have teamwork regardless of levels and still have a hard challenge. And for those times when you want to be a lone wolf but cant get things done, add henchmen like GW1 did. It would still be harder without a real group but not always you will find other people willing to help you so the option should be there.
>>SMITE<<
>>Strife: best ever MOBA<<
>>Rift: FREE Ally of the Ascended Pack<<
Anarchy Online solo missions use to make me feel all James Bond.
World of Warcraft has certainly been the most enjoyable due to the quests (especially since the revamp).
EQ had groups because the mentality of the players was different at the time. When EQ was at it's height there were not many if any real competitors on the market in the late 90's. People cared about their standing in the communities because of the time investment you had in your character. The communities had their own sites for each server where "ninja-looting" would land you on the shit list and others in the community would turn their back on you.
In modern MMOs I can reroll a character in seconds and level them to max level in little to no time using experience potions or I could rename my character at any time. I could be a racist asshole and tomorrow nobody would remember or care. Every class can perform every job and my warrior can heal himself in a few seconds, in EQ if you took a beating you may loose your gear or have to sit and heal for 20+ min... different mentality.
This.
If forced grouping games are so "superior" they wouldnt go way of the do-do.
Every MMO offers both solo AND EXCLUSIVE GROUP CONTENT (while you can group solo content you cannot solo group content)
Its up the individual to play as he wants.
Oh, and btw, those 4 are pretty much most successful western games (besides EvE).
Forced grouping = ultra niche, so you can either take your niche in a larger MMO, with (obviosuly) more options besides forced grouping, or play some obsucure games with 1000 people total (which obviously these people dont want, they rather whine about the latter MMO with options besides forced grouping). Its also your pick.
And thats exactly why noone play EQ but games in the list.
I play MMORPG,'s not MSORPG's (Masivly singleplayer online) games. I play MMO's for the interaction & socialization with my fellow gamers. The more games I play with instancing the more I notice that the entire instance goes by without one player saying a single word to another player. Where as games I play that don't utilize much instancing (Vanguard is a prime example) , I'm noticing I talk with a LOT more folks.
I see so many people say that they play MMO's solo because they like playing alone, but still want to know that there are other people out there that they can talk with and connect with. I respond to those people by saying, "Go play a singleplayer game and run facebook in the background or on your tablet at the same time." You will get a better game and the same socialization that way.
One of the reasons I prefer and mostly group with guild mates.
example, just a few minutes ago I got off of lotro.
For a while we were duoing skirmishes and pushign the difficulty. Didnt' matter if we died we just wanted to push ourselves.
Then a third joined and we really pushed the difficulty, ended up caught on an encounter that took too long to kill and suddenly we were being attacked on all sides and couldn't kill them fast enough.
It was a spectacular failure. And a LOT of fun.
But try that with a pug and you will either get plaeyrs not keen on pushign the difficulty or railing against everyone if they fail.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
got to disagree with
"#1 - Every MMO Currently in Live Status"
just to name a few currently live mmos off the top of my head where you need to group really to do anything
EVE
age of Wushu
planetside 2
new final fantasy
warhammer (until it shuts)
everquest
daoc
ac 1 & 2
wurm
Heroic-4s are meant to be played with four players, companions are dismissed when more than 2 players are invited. Of course you can do some of them just with companions, but it's your choice.
Having said that. Every MMO can be played solo or in group. It's really up to the person. Good guild is a must for enjoying game to the fullest. But then solo content is welcomed for times when you have have limited time or just want to play alone.Balanced solo and group content is a recipe for successful MMO.
Sith Warrior - Story of Hate and Love http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxKrlwXt7Ao
Imperial Agent - Rise of Cipher Nine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBBj3eJWBvU&feature=youtu.be
Imperial Agent - Hunt for the Eagle Part 1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQqjYYU128E
While I enjoy just having some "me time" in an MMO the WoW model has destroyed what made the genre. The old school MMO's were not perfect, but the forced grouping developed a sense of community, something lacking these days.
MMO communities nowadays are filled with people in competition to see who can be the biggest ass. Back in the day if you did that you better have a guild full of them or you are not leveling.
Tall buildings are Tiger repellant.
Don't believe me? Even see wild Tigers stalking NYC?
That's the same logic you are using when you say, 'forced grouping developed a sense of community'.
The concept of MMO guilds was still in its infancy when EQ was big. You grouped up with others at random and took on forced grouping because you had to. You put up with pubs because there was no option.
What grew out of that were guilds. People joining together and filtering out the people they didn't like. That is there by default now. So when someone says, 'I used to love grouping up with PUGs and taking on a challenge we couldn't face alone.' the only current difference is instead of someone saying in public chat hey lets for a group for the BBEG, they say it on their guild's forums/mumble.
Grouping still happens, community is still there, it' just a gated community now because of all the lessons we learned from PUGs in games like EQ... (Well, that and we don't remember those times with rose-colored glasses on.)
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
So Rift is the best game game for multiplayer content? I mean if they are #5 but everyone else has a higher rank for solo play basically with the blanket #1.
I would basically agree with this. Because despite what the OP has to say about auto forming groups, let's be real here, at least people are doing things together in groups and quite often large groups. People may not talk to each other, or they will, but it is up to them. When you start making it hard to do things together in groups you are basically putting up walls. Forced grouping for content doesn't ensure people will group up communicate and overcome it, it ensures that people won't do it.(unless of course you dumb it down like LFR) If you want people to do things together and have fun, you have to start with easy grouping and no walls, build on the system from there by adding ways to encourage communication, but you aren't going to get people grouping and communicating by making it a pain in the ass.
Lessons learned in EQ you say? That very system of forced interdependency is the reason that during it's day EQ had such an amazing community. People who had bad reputations didn't get groups and would therefore have trouble progressing or getting into a guild. Anything remotely resembling the whole concept of "Barrens chat" was preposterous. People weren't just a random voice in the wind and what you did mattered. Nobody was entitled to something simply because they paid their monthly fee.
All areas of the game were cooperative for a reason!
Maybe those ideas are just considered "old school" now though? Having to work hard for a reward? Not being entitled to something just for breathing on a keyboard?
EQ indeed had many serious flaws, and WoW had originally got so many of the corrections right. We learned some extremely valuable lessons in EQ and it allowed us to collectively create the magnificence of Vanilla WoW. What Blizzard has allowed their game to become, and what that influence has had on the entire genre has been absolutely devastating.
Somebody needs to step up and soon. There is a playerbase out there absolutely foaming at the mouth for a new MMO to revitalize this stale genre.
Yeah, I think WoW has now gone too far in the wrong direction with the over simplification. I think vanilla had the right ideas and they polished and built on those ideas in BC and Wrath, but they just kept on continuing to simplify the game and now it seems they have gone too far and it feels shallow IMHO.