The real reason MMO's made more Single Player aspects of their games.
They could not figure out to make gamers not be assholes.
I grouped for years in EQ1, most of the players were pretty good...We shared the loot and split the gold fairly....By the time WoW rolled around I still did groups but it was a far cry from the caliber of EQ.....Players just rolled on everything whether they could use it or not, some of it even no drop and they still rolled....The genre became self centered, instant gratification dominated by that point and that was about the end of my grouping in MMOs...it was no longer hey lets work together, it was every man for himself.
Imho it is the people which killed the grouping, not the games. But I have to admit that I am also being more and more like that. For me it is also because the games became faster and easier so I really dont need to group. And if I group its mostly a bad experience because nowadays grouping is just goal oriented without much chatting and disbanding as soon as the work is done.
Imho it is the people which killed the grouping, not the games. But I have to admit that I am also being more and more like that. For me it is also because the games became faster and easier so I really dont need to group. And if I group its mostly a bad experience because nowadays grouping is just goal oriented without much chatting and disbanding as soon as the work is done.
Grouping can be tough when players are not on the same page as to what experience they are looking for.
I recall doing a Dungeons and Dragons Online group and when we entered everyone barreled through, smashing everything. I had to "run" just to keep up. Heck, I don't even remember contributing much as they just steamrolled over everything. Some ran to another room just to take on some sort of mini boss that was hidden (or some such thing) and I arrived just in time for it to be over (much like Elder Scrolls Online public bosses.)
I also remember another Elder Scrolls Online group where I was listening to the dialogue and everyone left to go to the next room.
Groups are really about working together for difficult encounters and that's about it.
They are not about discover nor are they about story based content.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
in a lot of mmo's you see people begging the devs to force people into grouping. that's just not how it works.
if you have to force them it's just not appealing enough.
i play mmo's and hardly interact with other people at all.. i just like to have them around doing whatever it is they're doing. best group things that i've experienced have always been random stuff. not some mandatory task.
ugh
people are looking for group centric games. Games where the content allows for groups to properly work, not steamroll over everything.
Games where you can group and actually do so for longer than one quick quest (looking at you Lord of the Rings Online)
most of them actually offer that. granted it's mostly instanced but how else would you really cater to that type? imo they spend way too much money on that niche group and it's a detriment to the rest.
When you build a game based on single player mechanics (vertical progression, linear content, loot drops etc), it's only natural that it will be played as a single player game.
If you start to design an MMORPG around actual multiplayer mechanics and, dare I say it, MASSIVELY multiplayer mechanics, then it will start to be played as a multiplayer game.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Imho it is the people which killed the grouping, not the games. But I have to admit that I am also being more and more like that. For me it is also because the games became faster and easier so I really dont need to group. And if I group its mostly a bad experience because nowadays grouping is just goal oriented without much chatting and disbanding as soon as the work is done.
Grouping can be tough when players are not on the same page as to what experience they are looking for.
I recall doing a Dungeons and Dragons Online group and when we entered everyone barreled through, smashing everything. I had to "run" just to keep up. Heck, I don't even remember contributing much as they just steamrolled over everything. Some ran to another room just to take on some sort of mini boss that was hidden (or some such thing) and I arrived just in time for it to be over (much like Elder Scrolls Online public bosses.)
I also remember another Elder Scrolls Online group where I was listening to the dialogue and everyone left to go to the next room.
Groups are really about working together for difficult encounters and that's about it.
They are not about discover nor are they about story based content.
This is where some networking is needed. I found a guild in ESO of like-minded folks who want to hear the story. The guild has a few hundred members that are all willing to let the dialogue play and let folks have the conversations as we work through the story dungeons. Has made the whole game more enjoyable.
The very best kind of grouping in MMOs happens casually, on the spot because you happen to be where the need to group exists. This was true in old games when you found yourself biting more than you could chew and you looked around and there were others facing the same problem.
Rift and a few other games took it a step further in the right direction by creating events that needed groups to deal with and then they gave you a simple yes/no choice to auto-group or not if you happened to be where the event was happening. That's the kind of grouping MMOs need more of.
MMOs are not Saturday night D&D games with you and 3 buddies. The sooner people stop trying to duplicate that with either min-maxed, manual, exclusive groups or PUGs the better the games will be.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Grouping is only hard for people who hate grouping. Most MMORPGs have what is called a guild, clan or whatever. This large body of players generally team up with each other. People who refuse to be part of a guild are the one's who suffer through PuGs. It's a personal choice, usually because some people hate other people aka anti social. That's not a problem for game developers to deal with. That's just a player's personal preference in gaming.
As long as MMORPGs have existed, I've been in a guild or played with real life friends. If you are relying on a group finder, more than likely, MMORPGs don't fit your lifestyle. This is why we have single player games.
Kind of proved wrong since most games are changed so far towards making solo play the easiest thing in the game.
People that like to group and form clans/guilds are niche. Just the way it is. If the devs want to attract the most people they seem to always go in the same direction on just about every game i have ever tried...it gets easier and easier to solo.
Games try to make up for this by having "raid" type things. But they still make the main game easy to solo with just about every class they have.
It always comes down to what will get the most people to spend money, and that seems to be having the leveling part of most games be easy to solo, and throw in some raids for end game.
Even in clans/guild what happens the most on other than raids, is you ask for help or group you get some high level types to "run" you through the tough part then they go back to what they were doing.
It is rare to have a guild type situation on anything other than a newer game where you can find groups at the different levels easily.
Most folks want to log in and go to have fun for as long as they have time then log. Having to spend 1/4 to 1/2 their time waiting around for group to form and get all together where the fighting is just not something today's players seem to want to put up with anymore.
Grouping is only hard for people who hate grouping. Most MMORPGs have what is called a guild, clan or whatever. This large body of players generally team up with each other. People who refuse to be part of a guild are the one's who suffer through PuGs. It's a personal choice, usually because some people hate other people aka anti social. That's not a problem for game developers to deal with. That's just a player's personal preference in gaming.
As long as MMORPGs have existed, I've been in a guild or played with real life friends. If you are relying on a group finder, more than likely, MMORPGs don't fit your lifestyle. This is why we have single player games.
Yeah but that's only if the guild/clan is selective about members.
People need to do their due diligence or else they will get into one of "those" guilds and then they are going to have a bad time.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Rift and a few other games took it a step further in the right direction by creating events that needed groups to deal with and then they gave you a simple yes/no choice to auto-group or not if you happened to be where the event was happening. That's the kind of grouping MMOs need more of.
It was like that also in Warhammer Online - you just click and join pvp raid or public quest, no need to beg, ask, look for, be prepared or what else, just click and join others for fun! I like that kind of grouping a lot!
Rift and a few other games took it a step further in the right direction by creating events that needed groups to deal with and then they gave you a simple yes/no choice to auto-group or not if you happened to be where the event was happening. That's the kind of grouping MMOs need more of.
It was like that also in Warhammer Online - you just click and join pvp raid or public quest, no need to beg, ask, look for, be prepared or what else, just click and join others for fun! I like that kind of grouping a lot!
Warhammer, Rift, Gw2 and even ESO to a lesser extent, all have that. IMO, Rift did it best with their zone invasions and that was 9 years ago. I would have hoped that new games would have improved on that by now but sadly they haven't
It's the sort of open world thing that sets MMORPGs apart from other genres. I wish they would leverage that and play to their strengths instead of just steering grouping to instanced exclusives that have more in common with lobby shooters than anything else.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
in a lot of mmo's you see people begging the devs to force people into grouping. that's just not how it works.
if you have to force them it's just not appealing enough.
i play mmo's and hardly interact with other people at all.. i just like to have them around doing whatever it is they're doing. best group things that i've experienced have always been random stuff. not some mandatory task.
ugh
people are looking for group centric games. Games where the content allows for groups to properly work, not steamroll over everything.
Games where you can group and actually do so for longer than one quick quest (looking at you Lord of the Rings Online)
most of them actually offer that. granted it's mostly instanced but how else would you really cater to that type? imo they spend way too much money on that niche group and it's a detriment to the rest.
I remember groups in Lineage 2 lasting ... well, a long time. And then a person would leave and we'd get another. Wasn't instanced.
Lord of the Rings online, I remember there was a group quest, we all grouped, got the quest objective, group disbanded.
Then again, one of the best groups I've ever had was in that game where these guys needed a tank for that turtle thing and we spent hours trying to finish that dungeon as the healers would leave, we got one healer who didn't heal but gave her opinion on what we should do, sometimes we didn't have a healer.
Hours.
And we finished the thing by the skin of our teeth.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Imho it is the people which killed the grouping, not the games. But I have to admit that I am also being more and more like that. For me it is also because the games became faster and easier so I really dont need to group. And if I group its mostly a bad experience because nowadays grouping is just goal oriented without much chatting and disbanding as soon as the work is done.
Grouping can be tough when players are not on the same page as to what experience they are looking for.
I recall doing a Dungeons and Dragons Online group and when we entered everyone barreled through, smashing everything. I had to "run" just to keep up. Heck, I don't even remember contributing much as they just steamrolled over everything. Some ran to another room just to take on some sort of mini boss that was hidden (or some such thing) and I arrived just in time for it to be over (much like Elder Scrolls Online public bosses.)
I also remember another Elder Scrolls Online group where I was listening to the dialogue and everyone left to go to the next room.
Groups are really about working together for difficult encounters and that's about it.
They are not about discover nor are they about story based content.
To me this is an example of failed design. They created a requirement for a group to enter, but not for the group to succeed. Neverwinter was the same.
in a lot of mmo's you see people begging the devs to force people into grouping. that's just not how it works.
if you have to force them it's just not appealing enough.
i play mmo's and hardly interact with other people at all.. i just like to have them around doing whatever it is they're doing. best group things that i've experienced have always been random stuff. not some mandatory task.
ugh
people are looking for group centric games. Games where the content allows for groups to properly work, not steamroll over everything.
Games where you can group and actually do so for longer than one quick quest (looking at you Lord of the Rings Online)
most of them actually offer that. granted it's mostly instanced but how else would you really cater to that type? imo they spend way too much money on that niche group and it's a detriment to the rest.
I remember groups in Lineage 2 lasting ... well, a long time. And then a person would leave and we'd get another. Wasn't instanced.
Lord of the Rings online, I remember there was a group quest, we all grouped, got the quest objective, group disbanded.
Then again, one of the best groups I've ever had was in that game where these guys needed a tank for that turtle thing and we spent hours trying to finish that dungeon as the healers would leave, we got one healer who didn't heal but gave her opinion on what we should do, sometimes we didn't have a healer.
Hours.
And we finished the thing by the skin of our teeth.
yes, nostalgia. how's that going to solve your problem?
yes, nostalgia. how's that going to solve your problem?
Well, when you can't tell the difference between nostalgia and actual preference, it can be a problem to have a proper discussion.
Considering I mostly play "old" video games, love "old" music, love "old movies" I feel pretty confident in my own tastes.
The only caveat that I will give to your comment is that I no longer want to spend the inordinate amount of time I spent in Lineage 2 making money. The grinding was fine though.
Also, you probably need to know that "nostalgia" in the realm of video game conversations is about recapturing the feelings of yesteryear but with no hope of actually doing so and playing games with the hopes that they will rekindle what you once felt.
There is a difference between that and acknowledging experiences that give very specific enjoyment and that aren't tied into wistful desire of what can never be.
Sieging in Lineage 2 was amazing. I'd pay for a game that was just that. Looking forward to Bannerlord because of that.
Getting an alliance together to take on another alliance is enjoyable. It will be as enjoyable today as it was years ago.
Helping an "f'ing" farmer in Lord of the Rings Online pick up his rakes so he can Abandon his farm and save his own life is "not."
Bad game play is bad game play. Though your mileage may vary.
I edited for snarkiness.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
In my experiences pugging was fun. I don't understand people who only complain about it--like they need a perfect group to be happy. For me, the imperfection is what made it fun. A group where everything is perfectly understood and planned out is also very boring. It's much funner whne things are free wheeling--when it's heaven one moment and SHTF next. Perfect groups are like scientists. They kill the magic. They kill the fun. It becomes so perfect there's never any shakeup. There's never anything unexpected. Ofc that's what htey want because they want optimal experience gains. No interruption. No idling. No SHTF. No "side quest". Only their single minded destination.
I think grouping is at its best early on when nobody knows anything yet. They're still learning. SHTF happens more. Ther'es a lot more interaction and adjustment between group members. It's much more alive, as opposed to later on when groups become more like machines with a single minded focus on optimal experience and authoritarian obedience. It's the uknown that gives life. We should be like Kirk and the enterprise, always exploring.
Yeah, man , that's me! I play MMOs mostly for pugging! I love the feeling you never know whats next, how it will turn out - sometimes it is really bad and sometimes it goes great. And I love that you meet always different people, that's where MMO and fun is for me. Thus I never experience end game stuff, where real grouping, leading and serious guild is needed - I just cant stand when somebody is expecting me to follow their orders, fulfill expectations and be there right in time. When I hit this wall I leave the game, I like to play my way!
This is also reponsible for what another posted mentioned: groups swarming/speedrunning content. When players know a lot about the content, they tend to speedrun it and skip everything nonessential. So any lore or other content is missed in the pressing need to finish the quest or content. In a group this can prevent learning players from immersing in the content because they're rushed from one place to the next. There's never any time to enjoy some coffee while absorbing the content, or evne to understand what's going on.
Part of the blame is on how content is desinged. Typically it's a mission and the way it's completed is unchanged from one session to the next. This encourages players to speedrun it once htey've learned it. If MMORPGs adopted rogue-lite content (re)generation, it'd be different each time. This would slow down speedrunning. It would NOT--however--be the same as when you're first learning the content. Most of the lore or combat tactics, for example, would already be learned on repeated playthroughs. So even though some of the content woul be different, everything else would be the same so you'd "speedrun" that part of it.
All of this stems from myh experiences in Everquest. My fondest memories are of pugs and "noob" groups. They were the funnest because they were more spontaneous and there were more SHTF moments. I played a ranger, and loved to snare, root or heal when SHTF. In matured groups I rarely was able to use all my abilities because everything was so well executed. AS I matured as a gamer i started witnessing more and more of these mature/elite groups. These formed as result of veterans fully exploiting the gameplay to gain experience. Their objective was also to avoid dying or any unnecessary running around. Learning players followed orders in these groups, as opposed to being an equal member. This didn't happen early on because players didn't know the game well enough to exploit it this way. It became a lot more grindy--and right now I wonder if ti's partially responsible for the moniker EverCrack.
I also experienced speedrunning in DDO. I'd enter an instance with other players and the veterans would run us through beginning to end. I mean literally they'd RUN us through. Don't even think of stopping to smell the roses because they'll be miles away and finish without even asking where you're. I actually enjoyed to solo the instance on my own so I could play at my own pace--that is, playing it for the first time and know what's going on. I also had a few groups where most or all of them were new players and we could play slowly, and it was much more enjoyable that way.
I did raid in Everquest late in my "career". While I did enjoy it somewhat, and still have great respect for the effort and skil, there's something to be said about being one person in a couple dozen or more. It makes you feel a lot smaller. It made me feel like I didn't matter much. And it's VERY strict. It's almost like a job. If you don't show up, you earn less DKP (whatever it's called). DKP is your currency to purchase the raid drops the guild gets. If you mess up, EVERYONE will know about it. It's also hard to get into raid guilds since you usually need to fill out an application. There's also a lot of backend work going on (to setup the website and database for DKP). There's a lot more demand everyone uses voice chat. Honestly I wasn't surprised when I found out many of the members of the guild were also either in the military or former military service. I quit because I didn't want to spend the money anymore, and also because I was burnt out on the raiding schedule. I never had much time for myself it felt like.
yes, nostalgia. how's that going to solve your problem?
*skipi*
Bad game play is bad game play. Though your mileage may vary.
I edited for snarkiness.
I don't say this with malice. More and more I think bad game play depends on the player. It's true some gameplay will work for 40 percent, or maybe 80 percent of players. You might term it "good" gameplay. But then that same gameplay doesn't work for 10 or 30 percent of players. And if you take gameplay that's working for 5 percent and try to apply it to 60 percent, it's suddenly "bad" gameplay.
I think there is bad gameplay, but I also think it's a term used far too frequently to harass or margnialize others just for being themselves and liking what they like.
I agree with your post. There's a different between wanting somethign you know you can't have again, and actually having it again, and again and again...
In reality what's happenig is players, maybe only some, find games with gameplay they like and they tend to like it for a lifetime. Games tend to be created for large audiences, and when the audience is growing the gameplay will tend to change to accomodate. Gameplay might also change in response to cultural attitudes and early childhood development. But people themselves tend to stay very similar throughout their lifetime, so someone at 70 is still deriving enjoyment from gameplay they liked at 20. Meanwhile game developers are trying to fine tune their designs, but ultimately, they're being paid by us--and we the gamers decide what we pay/play.
A lot fo people will say they wouold never want to play XYZ game again because they just don't have the time, patience, tolerance or intention anymore. But I argue they never really liked it to begin with. It's also possible some people changed in response to cultural attitudes or experiences. Not every brain is the same either. Some brains might have more plasticity and change more easily over a lifetime.
But the main thing to take from this is people who champion older gameplay ACTUALLY like it. It's not imagined or illusion or nostalgia. It's an affection jsut as real as anybody elses.
I've always thought that developers made content that required groups, but really gave no incentive for the casual players to actually group, especially for PUGs. It really wouldn't be difficult to give a personal XP bonus (+10%) to an individual in a group with 3 people they've never grouped with before AND that individual give the group some smaller bonus (+5%). Using this scheme, a group composed of 6 strangers would have a bonus of +40%. (Changing these bonus numbers to +5/+1 would still provide bonuses of +11% for each person, if the developer wants a harder game). That gives some incentive to forming a group.
The belief is that the harder content will 'encourage' casual players to group. I don't know that that idea represents what actually happens in the real world.
Instead, difficulty encourages players to find another game, create another account/character in order to multi-box, join a guild, or look for ways to get around the system. Guilds can work for more dedicated players, but do little for casual players. I include things like power-leveling and purchasing characters/items in the 'ways to get around the system' category.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I've always thought that developers made content that required groups, but really gave no incentive for the casual players to actually group, especially for PUGs. It really wouldn't be difficult to give a personal XP bonus (+10%) to an individual in a group with 3 people they've never grouped with before AND that individual give the group some smaller bonus (+5%). Using this scheme, a group composed of 6 strangers would have a bonus of +40%. (Changing these bonus numbers to +5/+1 would still provide bonuses of +11% for each person, if the developer wants a harder game). That gives some incentive to forming a group.
The belief is that the harder content will 'encourage' casual players to group. I don't know that that idea represents what actually happens in the real world.
Instead, difficulty encourages players to find another game, create another account/character in order to multi-box, join a guild, or look for ways to get around the system. Guilds can work for more dedicated players, but do little for casual players. I include things like power-leveling and purchasing characters/items in the 'ways to get around the system' category.
I like how you put "join a guild" and "find another game" in the same list of options. Some of you folks are just hopeless.
I've always thought that developers made content that required groups, but really gave no incentive for the casual players to actually group, especially for PUGs. It really wouldn't be difficult to give a personal XP bonus (+10%) to an individual in a group with 3 people they've never grouped with before AND that individual give the group some smaller bonus (+5%). Using this scheme, a group composed of 6 strangers would have a bonus of +40%. (Changing these bonus numbers to +5/+1 would still provide bonuses of +11% for each person, if the developer wants a harder game). That gives some incentive to forming a group.
Lineage 2 used to give xp bonuses just for being in a group.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
yes, nostalgia. how's that going to solve your problem?
Well, when you can't tell the difference between nostalgia and actual preference, it can be a problem to have a proper discussion.
Considering I mostly play "old" video games, love "old" music, love "old movies" I feel pretty confident in my own tastes.
The only caveat that I will give to your comment is that I no longer want to spend the inordinate amount of time I spent in Lineage 2 making money. The grinding was fine though.
Also, you probably need to know that "nostalgia" in the realm of video game conversations is about recapturing the feelings of yesteryear but with no hope of actually doing so and playing games with the hopes that they will rekindle what you once felt.
There is a difference between that and acknowledging experiences that give very specific enjoyment and that aren't tied into wistful desire of what can never be.
Sieging in Lineage 2 was amazing. I'd pay for a game that was just that. Looking forward to Bannerlord because of that.
Getting an alliance together to take on another alliance is enjoyable. It will be as enjoyable today as it was years ago.
Helping an "f'ing" farmer in Lord of the Rings Online pick up his rakes so he can Abandon his farm and save his own life is "not."
Bad game play is bad game play. Though your mileage may vary.
I edited for snarkiness.
This is correct.
There's a massive difference between nostalgia and preference, otherwise older games wouldn't still exist.
I saw you mentioned earlier L2 groups lasted a long time. The reason behind that was grouping benefited everyone involved, and didn't focus on finishing something to move onto something else. The game had grinding, you could solo or group. Grouping yielded less exp overall but you could get better item drops (those sweet 1 and 10000000 drop rates) and you could get quicker exp over a long period of time with a big group killing monsters. But it also allowed classes that couldn't solo to be a benefit to a party and you could really feel like you are helping. Plus it was nice to chat with people.
Sieges were insanely fun, and I can't wait until a game can properly recreate the alliance drama and warfare L2 had. I remember clans had to actively interview any applicant because they were worried other alliances had created "spy" characters to tell them things about the internals.
OP, you mention some of the big problems with Vertical Progression, but then discount Horizontal Progression because players want that feeling of power gain. But a player would get more powerful with Horizontal Progression simply by having more options. More options are MORE FUN.
I'll never understand players who want these ungodly power gains. It's fake as can be. They think they're elite or something? Everyone else gets it too, the player's character is not elite. They are TYPICAL! Worse, the content moves up with you, and Goblins become super Goblins, and then become Demi-God-Goblins, and then full on God-Goblins. Old content becomes useless and boring, and most of the game world is useless or unavailable. It's all so cheap!
However, I believe that a little Vertical Progression is more desirable. About 20% Vertical and 80% Horizontal. With LOTS OF NEW ABILITIES in the Horizontal side of Progression.
As a description of what I mean by these terms (in very simplistic words)... Vertical Progression = A new skill, special attack, or spell that does more damage. Horizontal Progression = A new skill, special attack, or spell that does something specific, but doesn't add more power outside of that specific thing.
Same for defensive skills.
We could all have much better games that are much more fun, and much more entertaining, for a much longer time, if players would just get over this false sense of Power through Level Grinds.
Comments
I grouped for years in EQ1, most of the players were pretty good...We shared the loot and split the gold fairly....By the time WoW rolled around I still did groups but it was a far cry from the caliber of EQ.....Players just rolled on everything whether they could use it or not, some of it even no drop and they still rolled....The genre became self centered, instant gratification dominated by that point and that was about the end of my grouping in MMOs...it was no longer hey lets work together, it was every man for himself.
But I have to admit that I am also being more and more like that. For me it is also because the games became faster and easier so I really dont need to group.
And if I group its mostly a bad experience because nowadays grouping is just goal oriented without much chatting and disbanding as soon as the work is done.
1997 Meridian 59 'til 2019 ESO
Waiting for Camelot Unchained & Pantheon
I recall doing a Dungeons and Dragons Online group and when we entered everyone barreled through, smashing everything. I had to "run" just to keep up. Heck, I don't even remember contributing much as they just steamrolled over everything. Some ran to another room just to take on some sort of mini boss that was hidden (or some such thing) and I arrived just in time for it to be over (much like Elder Scrolls Online public bosses.)
I also remember another Elder Scrolls Online group where I was listening to the dialogue and everyone left to go to the next room.
Groups are really about working together for difficult encounters and that's about it.
They are not about discover nor are they about story based content.
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
I had fun once, it was terrible.
This is where some networking is needed. I found a guild in ESO of like-minded folks who want to hear the story. The guild has a few hundred members that are all willing to let the dialogue play and let folks have the conversations as we work through the story dungeons. Has made the whole game more enjoyable.
Rift and a few other games took it a step further in the right direction by creating events that needed groups to deal with and then they gave you a simple yes/no choice to auto-group or not if you happened to be where the event was happening. That's the kind of grouping MMOs need more of.
MMOs are not Saturday night D&D games with you and 3 buddies. The sooner people stop trying to duplicate that with either min-maxed, manual, exclusive groups or PUGs the better the games will be.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
People that like to group and form clans/guilds are niche. Just the way it is. If the devs want to attract the most people they seem to always go in the same direction on just about every game i have ever tried...it gets easier and easier to solo.
Games try to make up for this by having "raid" type things. But they still make the main game easy to solo with just about every class they have.
It always comes down to what will get the most people to spend money, and that seems to be having the leveling part of most games be easy to solo, and throw in some raids for end game.
Even in clans/guild what happens the most on other than raids, is you ask for help or group you get some high level types to "run" you through the tough part then they go back to what they were doing.
It is rare to have a guild type situation on anything other than a newer game where you can find groups at the different levels easily.
Most folks want to log in and go to have fun for as long as they have time then log. Having to spend 1/4 to 1/2 their time waiting around for group to form and get all together where the fighting is just not something today's players seem to want to put up with anymore.
People need to do their due diligence or else they will get into one of "those" guilds and then they are going to have a bad time.
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
It's the sort of open world thing that sets MMORPGs apart from other genres. I wish they would leverage that and play to their strengths instead of just steering grouping to instanced exclusives that have more in common with lobby shooters than anything else.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
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
Damn you Quizzical and your delete-esque click bait title.
I had fun once, it was terrible.
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
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
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
There's a massive difference between nostalgia and preference, otherwise older games wouldn't still exist.
I saw you mentioned earlier L2 groups lasted a long time. The reason behind that was grouping benefited everyone involved, and didn't focus on finishing something to move onto something else. The game had grinding, you could solo or group. Grouping yielded less exp overall but you could get better item drops (those sweet 1 and 10000000 drop rates) and you could get quicker exp over a long period of time with a big group killing monsters. But it also allowed classes that couldn't solo to be a benefit to a party and you could really feel like you are helping. Plus it was nice to chat with people.
Sieges were insanely fun, and I can't wait until a game can properly recreate the alliance drama and warfare L2 had. I remember clans had to actively interview any applicant because they were worried other alliances had created "spy" characters to tell them things about the internals.
But a player would get more powerful with Horizontal Progression simply by having more options.
More options
are
MORE FUN.
I'll never understand players who want these ungodly power gains. It's fake as can be. They think they're elite or something? Everyone else gets it too, the player's character is not elite. They are TYPICAL!
Worse, the content moves up with you, and Goblins become super Goblins, and then become Demi-God-Goblins, and then full on God-Goblins.
Old content becomes useless and boring, and most of the game world is useless or unavailable.
It's all so cheap!
However, I believe that a little Vertical Progression is more desirable. About 20% Vertical and 80% Horizontal. With LOTS OF NEW ABILITIES in the Horizontal side of Progression.
As a description of what I mean by these terms (in very simplistic words)...
Vertical Progression = A new skill, special attack, or spell that does more damage.
Horizontal Progression = A new skill, special attack, or spell that does something specific, but doesn't add more power outside of that specific thing.
Same for defensive skills.
We could all have much better games that are much more fun,
and much more entertaining,
for a much longer time,
if players would just get over this false sense of Power through Level Grinds.
Once upon a time....