One of the best staff articles I've ever read on this site. And it's quite hillarious to see some of the responses by exactly the type of persons the OP was adressing it to.
This article has the "I didn't eat all the cake" argument all over it.
There's crumbs in the box and bits of frosting on the lid of the box.
Soloers didn't completely destroy MMOs, but you know for the most part you did.
Apologies are needed, not excuses.
Excuse me?
You are not owed shit because folks are playing the way they wish. If anything, I would say you folks owe us for being forced to endure all the whine posts in our game forums. You know....games there were not intended for the strictly grouping crowd.
Major props to OP on this opinion piece.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
The way soloers spoil the game for me is the class balancing. Every class is balanced for soloing and pvp, they can mostly all function on equal footing. Why should a cleric be able to fight aswell as a fighter who as spent his life learning to fight? Also a warrior (a chump with a heavy stick) should be absolutely terrified of a mage. His only chance being if he catches the mage quick and unawares. Yet because of soloers wanting balance a warrior is near equal to a mage (who's spells are little more than ranged "melee" attacks).
"It's like a finger pointing away to the moon... Don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss all the heavenly glory" (Bruce Lee)
(Insert your favourite mmo here): ......And behold, a pale horse.... And a million hellishly bad mmos followed with it.
I dont have issues with players who prefer to solo content, what I have an issue with is developers nerfing parts of the game ie mobs to try and gain more players to their game. softening the game to attract more players. As to free stuff, If I'm paying for my MMO on a monthly basis then I expect that money to pay for more content, not having to fork out more notes from my wallet I feel I've already paid for. The excuse that subs pay for the bandwidth doesnt wash anymore.
The problem with most MMO's that are and have been released the past few years, have had no real thought gone into them, the developers have not researched or done their homework and have thrown their products to the wolves who have chewed them up and spat them back out to the developers feet because they had a lack of meat. Trying to palm us of with clones and copies of already successful games to make a fast buck isnt the way to go. Developers need to get some talent and grow some.
Solo has a negative impact on MMO's. Why? The developers have to focus more effort on these 'soloers' that could be spent working on the second letter of MMO. If 'soloers' want to play 'solo', they should be doing what 'soloers' have been doing for a long time now. Single Player gaming. That's what it was made for.
Why waste resources catering to a batch of whiners (and oh yes, do the Soloers ever whine... and demand... etc) that constantly demand that they be catered for, when you could be building what an MMO exists for: Multiplayer content. The genre isn't called Massively Multiplayer Online for no reason. Since solo became a huge deal in most MMO's, they degenerated in to Single Player with online chat games. With so much focus on the 'solo' aspects of modern MMO's, it isn't a surprise that the group play has degenerated in to piles of dung. I honestly see the industry as an old man, attached to my back, waving an old fishing rod over my head, with something delicious attached to the hook. I blame 'solo' for this.
I could say the same of why waste the money on a minority of the mmo gaming community, as most of the players are soloist not group-ist players. Also i find it funny that as mmos have become more mainstream (in response also more profitable, and popular too.) that they have become more solo-based (hmm that might be from the fact that gamers prefer to game eeither with small groups they chose or alone maybe.), and so it is logical to place the focus on the area that is where the consumer wants it to be. You are funny with the entire soloers whine since actually groupers whine so much more then a solo player, most of all they are worse as they want to enforce a playstyle on another players that might not want to (by making the game forced grouping you completely remvoe the option to solo), compared to a soloer that merely wants to play as they determine yet also allows the grouper to do so as well (it is not the soloist fault that your friends or random people find spending time with you in a group worse then spending time alone without you. I mean i gladdly take a reduction in my leveling speed to group with friends as they do with me.). Also it is not the soloist that has made the game about reaching the end game as fast as possible making it that you must use the method that garners you the most experince per hour, it is the game starts at end game mentality that is making that.
I love your comment about soloers can always go back to single player games, but yet so could all the forced groupng players as well go back to their co-up and vs games too if they want group content. The M in MMO does not stand for forced grouping or anythign other then playing in a game that gives you the ability to play with, against, or merely alongside other layers in a massive world. So explain to me how a soloer playing their character along side 500 other players in a zones, regardless of if they are grouped with those players or not, is not a multiplayer experince or in the spirit of a mmo game. Honestly i would say forced grouping is more against what a mmo should be, as everyone in the world does not have to be rely on each other completely regardless (MMO worlds are supposed to be living breathing worlds like ours right.), and so we should have choices of going at it alone or teaming up without being forced.
Myself i would blame you [mod edit] for allowing your own views to paint the fact that others are taking away from you somethign, when in truth you are doing that yourself. There are many group centertic games or forced grouping games out there you can play, but yet you want the entirity of the mmo gaming experincce to cater to your sole style or desires. Then you chose to demean the genre or games for doing what players who pay good monney want so theat these gamers can enjoy their game that they paid for. You sound like some rich sonby brat of a child that goteverythign they wanted no matter what the cost to others, and if you did not get what you wanted you thru a tantrum till they bowed to your baby whining. I mea you trry and determine somethign to mean one thigns over what it actually means, then you whine about how you are not being catered to by the devs in games sayinng that their choices have damaged the genre now. I uess like many of the older gamers that i started UO with you still think you are entiled to have what you want even when you are in the minority, and you want the your content to be created with the money created by all those soloist that have subbed to the mmos now. I got no issues with rewarding and giving incentives for grouping or soloing, but i havve an issue with forcing grouping or even soloing on players that do not want it, and yet that is the issues not enouph games placce high enouph incentive on grouping right now.
I don't think the issue has ever been that soloers or casuals destroy games. Both have existed in MMORPGs from the beginning.
The way I see it, the issue is that developers destroy games when they favor solo play to such a large degree that game mechanics for grouping and community interaction are contradicted, removed or gimped beyond usefulness.
About 1st sentence ...is not problem as casuals and soloer destroying anything, problem is with jobless people or "eternal" students that can afford to play every day strait i.e. 6 do 15 hours. But I do not have nothing against. Problem i see with so many of them that they are so VOCAL (obviusly having so much time). Well I do many times on weekends, vacations, ... but mainly I do not have luxury to be able to plan 1 week or more in advance for some raid and then commit staying in game for hours and hours.
As for 2nd ... kind'a agree. But as said when I log for 1 hour or 2, I will NOT lfg-ing for all this time and when finnaly get group I have to go. Will never forget that I have spent literaly 2 weeks to get my warlock mount when it was par of elite quest. So .... if I have to choose ... I prefer by large measure solo friendly game.
Same goes for PVP. I'm kind-a annyed by people (mainly kids I guess) roling on PVE(!) server to then bother all around and constantly for dueling. If you are such heroe ... go on PVP server.
I play also MMO's because they are supperior in design and gameplay to any other game you can install localy. But said this I would never bother with games like FF IX and pressing on players that enjoyit to make it solo friendly. FF IX is heavily group oriented game so never appealed to me. Darkfall is oriented only to PVP so I would never bother at all to download and try to play.
Said so however I'm not oriented toward dumbing down game that is doing well. Speaking of Wow that i will for sure go back and play.
But now I guess have found my ideal game in Swtor. Is completely up to player if will level doing only class quest + flash points or will - like me - solo through entire game. But what I love is that eventually will die from time to time. Not in wow anymore, one must be really dumber to die with any quest there. In swtor one need a lot of tactics. Said so I never buy in ah anything ... all epic guess game would become more easy then intented.
But at the end all goes to $ or € factor. And is up to company to decide how to manage to get money.
I wonder if many players see grouping more of a hassle then actual fun. There are several issues that always pop up on games forums about grouping that players complain about (also from groupfocussed players).
- Need/Greed issues when rolling for loot : This one is quite obvious in how easy it is that it will cause conflict.
- Finding the players for right group composition: No one likes to wait for hours untill they finally can play the game.
- Having to repeat groupcontent to at least have a chance of obtaining gear which only drops in that groupcontent : All content becomes boring if you have to repeat it too often to your liking.
And for me, my personal issue with grouping in many MMORPG's :
- Lack of mentor/sidekick system: I always play with rl friends of mine and we progress at different speed. When we are all online we like to group, but this is often not possible due to lvl difference.
I think that if these problems were solved a lot more players would group for fun, and not only because they think its needed for characterprogress. I think that Arenanet tries to do this with GW2. I also think that these problems should be solved in any MMO.
I still group despite these issues though, because I just want to see most of the content. I don't mind creating a group myself and finding likeminded players. But I would do it a lot more often if those issues were solved.
I would be best described as a casual solo player... have one character around lvl 50 and have never joined a guild and have had only one or two groups while playing up to this level... Join a guild? no thanks don't need the drama queen fest... If they didn't have solo stuff to do, then I wouldn't pay my subscription fee.. If I wanted to 'group' I would just fire up mIRC... I have been in exactly one raid since playing at the launch of EQ1.
I am not asking for extra perks because I solo... just the basic content to level my character and not have to group with a bunch of whiny loot whores. I have soloed in every MMO I have played from EQ1 onwards... any MMO that ignores people like myself won't be getting my money
now this I can only see as limited experience with guilds, I ve been in several guilds over the years....a couple of them Ive left because of drama, but those with active guild leaders there have never been a problem with drama queens, as those that have had conflicting intrests either have accepted the direction or been shown the door, they opened.
but ofc if you cant stand other people in your life then again I have no clue why you would play a MMO, have yet to play a MMO that wasnt terrible boring game if you d only play the basic day to day game, there is very far between a singleplayer game that is less inspired than MMOs....have yet to read an opinion why MMOs is better than singleplayer games, as a solo game, without it sounding like a bad exuce, so they dont have to admit they have wasted time on a genre they dont even like
I would be best described as a casual solo player... have one character around
.......
I am not asking for extra perks because I solo... just the basic content to level my character and not have to group with a bunch of whiny loot whores. I have soloed in every MMO I have played from EQ1 onwards... any MMO that ignores people like myself won't be getting my money
now this I can only see as limited experience with guilds, I ve been in several guilds over the years....a couple of them Ive left because of drama, but those with active guild leaders there have never been a problem with drama queens, as those that have had conflicting intrests either have accepted the direction or been shown the door, they opened.
About guilds and my experience in various mmo: in 99% they work ONLY if you have in them your REAL LIFE friends. Otherwise forget about "get a guild" solution for game with forced grouping.
I wonder if many players see grouping more of a hassle then actual fun. There are several issues that always pop up on games forums about grouping that players complain about (also from groupfocussed players).
- Need/Greed issues when rolling for loot : This one is quite obvious in how easy it is that it will cause conflict.
- Finding the players for right group composition: No one likes to wait for hours untill they finally can play the game.
- Having to repeat groupcontent to at least have a chance of obtaining gear which only drops in that groupcontent : All content becomes boring if you have to repeat it too often to your liking.
And for me, my personal issue with grouping in many MMORPG's :
- Lack of mentor/sidekick system: I always play with rl friends of mine and we progress at different speed. When we are all online we like to group, but this is often not possible due to lvl difference.
I think that if these problems were solved a lot more players would group for fun, and not only because they think its needed for characterprogress. I think that Arenanet tries to do this with GW2. I also think that these problems should be solved in any MMO.
I still group despite these issues though, because I just want to see most of the content. I don't mind creating a group myself and finding likeminded players. But I would do it a lot more often if those issues were solved.
Yes, the fact is creating a community and creating social structures for groups requires a lot more effort/input from players to put up with the demands of a group.
Hence why solo gameplay is a requirement when the best laid plans of developers does not work out or players do not work out stable groups/guilds for themselves for whatever reason.
Groups/Guilds that function NEED a strong commitment and an equally strong REASON. How many mmorpgs succeed at that? More could be asked: What is an optimum group size for people vs for content? What is an optimum range for a guild size? And server population size, density and selection...
Allowing solo is allowing a default for the game to be playable/enjoyable in the absence of the above being successfully answered. It could be argued some modern mmorpgs have allowed solo to creep into mmorpgs as de facto rather than default, but that is tangent to the main consideraton it needs be permissible/viable option for positive reasons as Jeff Strain reasons but also for shoulder the deficiency of the above.
Seems like another piece of opinion passed off as fact to me. There's nothing here to uphold the validity of the piece other than the writers opinion.
Well, guess what. We're all entitled to an opinion and ours are just as valid as yours. Whine all you want about "the whiners" but all you've really done with this article is had a rant about people who disagree with you while offering no proof of your argument.
People on these forums have a name for that. It's called Trolling.
Please dont forget what the RPG means as well as the MMO.
Role Play Game.
That means you roleplay a character. as in i roleplay a Ranger. He is an adventurer and explorer. You dont often find explorers wandering around with 100 other explorers as they all want to be the first to find x.
While this is my primary goal i also get involved in neighbourly disputes which usually result in a pvp battle. I will help any town of good people that are threatened by a Dragon, usaully in the form of joining a Raid.
When i am solo do i want to find treasure easily? of course not, nothing easy is worth the effort. Would i loike to sneak into the Dragons den by using stealth and cunning and sneak a piece of treasure without even waking the Dragon? yes i would! even if the raid fighting at the gate caused a distraction while i snook in.
Point is to me you group/raiders just want things too easy and are spoiling the game for the hardcore soloers like me.
I dont really mean that. it is just simply looking at it from the other angle. We are all intellegent enogh to realise that both types have been catered for from the very beggining of MMOs and theres no reason that cannot continue.
People group together to overcome obstacles that cannot be tackled alone. They dont group together to make things tougher, but to face tougher objectives easier.
Soloers are fine, I do it most of the time, but when you have a game that is designed to keep people mostly soloing SW *cough* TOR then there is something fundamentally wrong with it, in regards to MMORPGs.
Its the "I dont have time to spend hours playing an online game, but I still feel entitled to advance just as quickly as someone who does" types in particular that ruin things. Really, its like saying "I only work part time but I should get the same pay as full-time workers".
The sad thing is when you point this out to them, they dont understand just how warped a concept it is.
Please respond to the actual content of the article and not flame the writer. We will always have content that someone doesn't agree with and that is fine if it's presented in a civil manner.
The thing is that the article actually flames those that don't agree with the writer's PoV by accusing them of simply 'bitching' etc.
Having content that I don't agree with is fine, but the writer needs to watch her tone and how she refers to others IMO.
It shouldn't be acceptable for her to be able to criticise us and dismiss our views with cheap digs and us not be able to return the favour.
Soloers are fine, I do it most of the time, but when you have a game that is designed to keep people mostly soloing SW *cough* TOR then there is something fundamentally wrong with it, in regards to MMORPGs.
Yep, soloers ARE fine, I agree. I have soloed at times since I started EQ in '99 and it should always be an option.
It's solo focused game design thats the issue.
Enforcing solo play on some is no better then enforcing groupplay on others. It should be approached with care, and not the solo scorched earth design we have seen in the last few years.
<------ the quote I have under my avatar says it all for me tbh.
Anyway, Isabelle, great article! Though I'm not sure you put *anything* to rest.
Only thing I'd like to add is that raiders (specific sub-section of groupers) in the games I play and a few people on this thread, seem to have this weird idea that somehow their playstyle is more important than other playstyles and that other players are secondclass citizens. Thus the rewards should be scaled accordingly.
Now that is a sense of entitlement. Its also classism.
I believe the rewards should be completely different - not better or worse. They should appeal to and aid that particular playstyle. I also believe that grouping should be fun and challenging in its own right, and should not need gear-carrots to get people to group. If people don't want to group for gear, give them a better reason!
Terrible article that accuses the readers that see things differently of 'bitching', as a cheap way of dismissing their perspective, when the whole thing was one long 'bitch'.
MMORPG.com used to be better then this kind of official troll piece.
The 'hatred' you dsecribe may well have been due to the fact that soloers have whined these games into a super casual anti-social soulless selfish shells of what they once were.
Well now you've gone and proved the OP is about something that does indeed happen, and deserves a counter which is of the same vitriol.
Players will bitch and moan, some will feel "left out" some will feel it's to hard, etc, etc, etc...
It's up to devs to do what is best even in the face of all of that whining.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The heavy focus on Solo play doesn't destroy MMOs, it just mutates them and pushes them away from the original design model that started 10+ years ago. The lack of dependancy on other players to complete content the majority of game content discourages the development of a strong supportive community which was a core reason many of us "old school" gamers played MMOs in the first place.
The article was ok I guess but it had a distinct flavor of "excuses" all through it. There are many different computer games out there and MMOs at their core were designed to be ; "co-op multilplayer" , "challenging" and "require a significant time investment".
The games that solo, casual, attention deprived players want is not an MMO but due to the money they are willing to spend MMO companies mutated the original model to get more cash. Now the original MMO players are disaapointed that the games they once played are gone and they are left playing games that aren't worthy the title MMO.
I thought grouping up was for protection? U know, safer in numbers. Ohh, that must of been 10yrs ago before mainstream tried to fit everyone in the world into the same damn box - increasing profits ofcourse, but finding out everyone is not the same. Viva the resistounce! Go Inde, save us all from each other. Ohh, wait, real games don't get funded, nevermind. Neocron.
Anyways, blame it on the investors guys, and start pointing some fingers at something tangible, and not at each other. That's just a no win, grey areas of subjectivity are why we goto war.
Its not the fact that they want to be able to solo that ruins games...
...its their insistance that EVERY game be centered around them thats screwing things up.
You guys are going to have to provide some real world gaming examples of this.
I've never seen an "endemic" gaming-community problem centered around players demanding certain types of challenges be "solo". To what are you referring to, exactly?
Lets try a test:
Would you say the Henchmen and Hero NPC development dynamic in Guild Wars is an example of "solo play" mechanics gone too far?
With all due respect, Isabelle, through all your ranting in that article you demonstrated one thing to me above all else. You don't seem to actually understand the real issue.
With all due respect, TP, if it's an issue to her...and an issue to other solo'ers who have encountered the "solo'ers are bad, you guys don't even belong in MMOs" attitude then she understands the issue perfectly. The fact that there are two perspectives to this...more, but certainly two in opposition...doesn't change the fact that she has a good hndle on this issue from her perspective. And, point in fact, you go to demonstrate that you have basically no respect for her view whatsoever.
You're complaining about all these things that, while common topics of debate, ultimately have nothing to do with how and why those of us who do believe that the focus on soloing has ruined the genre.
You are completely off-mark, Isabelle.
I do want to address at least part of your rant, however, because the irony is too much to pass up.
You go into the common territory of making the pro-soloing argument about "those who started playing 10 or 15 years ago now have kids", and so forth...
And? Your point would be...?
I'm pretty sure the point here is that while she has less time to game, and with priorities that prohibit dedicated gaming sessions on a routine basis, she still loves the genre and community and still loves to play MMOs, and wants to be able to keep doing that, on her terms. Without being able to solo the end-game world boss and without the purple shinies that come with that. And also without people telling her to group or gtfo.
Are you claiming that, because you have a job and children and a social life, that your gaming preferences are superior to others?
No, and it's not inferior either.
Are you claiming that those who perhaps haven't taken on those responsibilities yet are less deserving of an experience they would thoroughly enjoy, simply because "they haven't grown up yet"?
Nowhere did she ask to nerf grouping or group rewards or to stop designing for group/raid content. Get off your high horse. Nowhere did she ask for content to be dumbed down so she can complete group encounters.
What, exactly, is your point in making that argument, Isabelle?
Her point's not tough to see if you read what she wrote without a bias like you're demonstrating in your response.
What was that you were saying about how all pro-soloers don't have a sense of entitlement? Congratulations. You just planted yourself firmly in the category of those who do. It doesn't have to do with 'wanting things easy'. "Growing up and taking on more responsibility" does not entitle you to special treatment because you choose to continue playing games that are known to be heavily time-consuming.
She didn't ask for anything for free, she doesn't want anything handed to her, she wants, as a paying customer, to be able to enjoy challenging and rewarding gameplay as a solo'er. The game studios agree with her, by the way.
And while we're on the topic, who's this "we" you speak of? I thought you were writing a column about your thoughts on the situation, based on your views of it. So where does this "we" come into it? Are you committing the oh-so-often error of presuming to represent or speak for others?
She wrote many of her points well enough that this thread is full of people who have agreed with her. It only would have taken one of them to make this snide and shrewish remark moot. So, no, she made no such error.
I fit into the category you describe quite squarely. I'm an adult, have a full-time job, myriad responsibilities, and don't have hours and hours to play MMOs anymore either. Regardless, when I do play, I still prefer a stronger focus on community, dependence on other players and group activities. I know there are others around here (whom may speak for themselves) who do as well.
Bully for you. And you know, it's perfectly possible for solo'ers to be very involved in the community while not grouping. Unless you intend to throw most crafters and explorers under the bus I would exersize caution in how you reply here...
I'm going to guess that you value your MMO experiences based on how much you're able to achieve in whatever limited time you have to play. Achievements might be getting a level or two, finishing a quest line, acquiring some new gear, etc. Would my guess be correct?
Did you read what she wrote? Seems less likely now, based on this comment. She wrote openly about her assessment scores and that fact that she is not focused on the achiver side of the game.
Assuming it is, and I know that's the case for others, that's where I fundamentally differ from you. For me, I value my time in a game based on how much fun I had doing whatever it was I did for that time. I don't care if it's sitting in one spot, chatting with guild-mates, xp'ing for a bit but not leveling-up, or giving a dungeon a go and failing. If I had fun in the process, then it was time well-spent. I value the experience of playing the game, not "how much did I accomplish while playing it". I don't care if I didn't get that next level, because leveling up isn't my specific "goal". Logging in and having fun doing "whatever" I end up doing, preferably involving other players.
Ah, that word "assume" at work. You see, you have just pointed out that a solo'er can be experiencing and enjoying the community as well as a grouper and that you did not need to be grouping to enjoy the game experience. Also, once again, you apparently skipped over the part in her article where she describes her gaming preferences/priorities.
Anyway, it'd be quite easy to pick apart and refute every argument you've made. For one, my stomach is screaming at me to feed it right now. For another, I'm sure others will have already done a fine job of it by now.
The core point is, you should really try to actually understand the point-of-view you're ranting against before you start ranting against it.
You've demonstrated that she understands it just fine, TP....just fine.
Yep, soloers ARE fine, I agree. I have soloed at times since I started EQ in '99 and it should always be an option.
It's solo focused game design thats the issue.
Enforcing solo play on some is no better then enforcing groupplay on others. It should be approached with care, and not the solo scorched earth design we have seen in the last few years.
<------ the quote I have under my avatar says it all for me tbh.
I agree for the most part, though puzzled by the very explicit claim of " . . . not the solo scorched earth design we have seen in the last few years."
Be specific. What games were designed with this model?
In my experience "solo play" is seen when dumbing down a game to promote fast levelling into an expansion's new zones occurs by the devs.
Or, perhaps some classes built with too many capabilities across too many disciplines allowing an inordinate amount of "solo play" other classes struggle with?
Or perhaps a flat out mechanics mess with unfettered gear and stat enhancement abilities that inevitably leads to god-like solo-ers, simply because they can:
WoW: When Burning Crusades released mobs and challenges across the game world were nerfed into the ground so that content was easier. Certainly soloable whereas in the original design not so much so. Examples: Elites in Stromgaarde, Arathi Highlands, and the Elite Ogres in that ruined town north of Southshore.
LOTRO: Hunters for a long time in that game were so capable they basically ruled maps to high degree. Including PvE play. Not only the highest DPS class in the game, but packed with a ton of long-lasting CC in both AoE and single target flavors, with more than enough mitigations to effectively tank off a huge % of the game worlds challenges if actually gotten to. They eventually were hit with the nerf-bat.
Runes of Magic: A drug addicts dream. A completely open-ended gear/stat enhancement paradigm that allowed end-game gear enchants, and "mounting" (Wings) common to high and low level characters, to be put on level 1's. End game players could then groom "lowbie" twinks to insane heights the likes of which you couldn't believe, particularly if they were nutjobs willing to spend hundreds, if not thousands, of real world dollars in the Cash Shop to complete augmentation. Broken, and badly.
What game(s) have you played that were DESIGNED around solo play so badly it represents "scorched earth" magnitude in the industry in general?
Its not the fact that they want to be able to solo that ruins games..
...its their insistance that EVERY game be centered around them thats screwing things up.
You guys are going to have to provide some real world gaming examples of this.
I've never seen an "endemic" gaming-community problem centered around players demanding certain types of challenges be "solo". To what are you referring to, exactly?
Lets try a test:
Would you say the Henchmen and Hero NPC development dynamic in Guild Wars is an example of "solo play" mechanics gone too far?
Can you give a 100% iron-clad guarantee that your response or acceptance of any answer given will be treated with completely objective consideration and weighed equally against your own preferences, and not immediately discounted or dismissed if it doesn't fit with your personal point-of-view?
If not, then your "test" is a farce, and indulging it would be a waste of time.
Comments
One of the best staff articles I've ever read on this site. And it's quite hillarious to see some of the responses by exactly the type of persons the OP was adressing it to.
Good stuff ;P
Excuse me?
You are not owed shit because folks are playing the way they wish. If anything, I would say you folks owe us for being forced to endure all the whine posts in our game forums. You know....games there were not intended for the strictly grouping crowd.
Major props to OP on this opinion piece.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
The way soloers spoil the game for me is the class balancing. Every class is balanced for soloing and pvp, they can mostly all function on equal footing. Why should a cleric be able to fight aswell as a fighter who as spent his life learning to fight? Also a warrior (a chump with a heavy stick) should be absolutely terrified of a mage. His only chance being if he catches the mage quick and unawares. Yet because of soloers wanting balance a warrior is near equal to a mage (who's spells are little more than ranged "melee" attacks).
"It's like a finger pointing away to the moon... Don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss all the heavenly glory" (Bruce Lee)
(Insert your favourite mmo here): ......And behold, a pale horse.... And a million hellishly bad mmos followed with it.
I dont have issues with players who prefer to solo content, what I have an issue with is developers nerfing parts of the game ie mobs to try and gain more players to their game. softening the game to attract more players. As to free stuff, If I'm paying for my MMO on a monthly basis then I expect that money to pay for more content, not having to fork out more notes from my wallet I feel I've already paid for. The excuse that subs pay for the bandwidth doesnt wash anymore.
The problem with most MMO's that are and have been released the past few years, have had no real thought gone into them, the developers have not researched or done their homework and have thrown their products to the wolves who have chewed them up and spat them back out to the developers feet because they had a lack of meat. Trying to palm us of with clones and copies of already successful games to make a fast buck isnt the way to go. Developers need to get some talent and grow some.
I could say the same of why waste the money on a minority of the mmo gaming community, as most of the players are soloist not group-ist players. Also i find it funny that as mmos have become more mainstream (in response also more profitable, and popular too.) that they have become more solo-based (hmm that might be from the fact that gamers prefer to game eeither with small groups they chose or alone maybe.), and so it is logical to place the focus on the area that is where the consumer wants it to be. You are funny with the entire soloers whine since actually groupers whine so much more then a solo player, most of all they are worse as they want to enforce a playstyle on another players that might not want to (by making the game forced grouping you completely remvoe the option to solo), compared to a soloer that merely wants to play as they determine yet also allows the grouper to do so as well (it is not the soloist fault that your friends or random people find spending time with you in a group worse then spending time alone without you. I mean i gladdly take a reduction in my leveling speed to group with friends as they do with me.). Also it is not the soloist that has made the game about reaching the end game as fast as possible making it that you must use the method that garners you the most experince per hour, it is the game starts at end game mentality that is making that.
I love your comment about soloers can always go back to single player games, but yet so could all the forced groupng players as well go back to their co-up and vs games too if they want group content. The M in MMO does not stand for forced grouping or anythign other then playing in a game that gives you the ability to play with, against, or merely alongside other layers in a massive world. So explain to me how a soloer playing their character along side 500 other players in a zones, regardless of if they are grouped with those players or not, is not a multiplayer experince or in the spirit of a mmo game. Honestly i would say forced grouping is more against what a mmo should be, as everyone in the world does not have to be rely on each other completely regardless (MMO worlds are supposed to be living breathing worlds like ours right.), and so we should have choices of going at it alone or teaming up without being forced.
Myself i would blame you [mod edit] for allowing your own views to paint the fact that others are taking away from you somethign, when in truth you are doing that yourself. There are many group centertic games or forced grouping games out there you can play, but yet you want the entirity of the mmo gaming experincce to cater to your sole style or desires. Then you chose to demean the genre or games for doing what players who pay good monney want so theat these gamers can enjoy their game that they paid for. You sound like some rich sonby brat of a child that goteverythign they wanted no matter what the cost to others, and if you did not get what you wanted you thru a tantrum till they bowed to your baby whining. I mea you trry and determine somethign to mean one thigns over what it actually means, then you whine about how you are not being catered to by the devs in games sayinng that their choices have damaged the genre now. I uess like many of the older gamers that i started UO with you still think you are entiled to have what you want even when you are in the minority, and you want the your content to be created with the money created by all those soloist that have subbed to the mmos now. I got no issues with rewarding and giving incentives for grouping or soloing, but i havve an issue with forcing grouping or even soloing on players that do not want it, and yet that is the issues not enouph games placce high enouph incentive on grouping right now.
About 1st sentence ...is not problem as casuals and soloer destroying anything, problem is with jobless people or "eternal" students that can afford to play every day strait i.e. 6 do 15 hours. But I do not have nothing against. Problem i see with so many of them that they are so VOCAL (obviusly having so much time). Well I do many times on weekends, vacations, ... but mainly I do not have luxury to be able to plan 1 week or more in advance for some raid and then commit staying in game for hours and hours.
As for 2nd ... kind'a agree. But as said when I log for 1 hour or 2, I will NOT lfg-ing for all this time and when finnaly get group I have to go. Will never forget that I have spent literaly 2 weeks to get my warlock mount when it was par of elite quest. So .... if I have to choose ... I prefer by large measure solo friendly game.
Same goes for PVP. I'm kind-a annyed by people (mainly kids I guess) roling on PVE(!) server to then bother all around and constantly for dueling. If you are such heroe ... go on PVP server.
I play also MMO's because they are supperior in design and gameplay to any other game you can install localy. But said this I would never bother with games like FF IX and pressing on players that enjoyit to make it solo friendly. FF IX is heavily group oriented game so never appealed to me. Darkfall is oriented only to PVP so I would never bother at all to download and try to play.
Said so however I'm not oriented toward dumbing down game that is doing well. Speaking of Wow that i will for sure go back and play.
But now I guess have found my ideal game in Swtor. Is completely up to player if will level doing only class quest + flash points or will - like me - solo through entire game. But what I love is that eventually will die from time to time. Not in wow anymore, one must be really dumber to die with any quest there. In swtor one need a lot of tactics. Said so I never buy in ah anything ... all epic guess game would become more easy then intented.
But at the end all goes to $ or € factor. And is up to company to decide how to manage to get money.
I wonder if many players see grouping more of a hassle then actual fun. There are several issues that always pop up on games forums about grouping that players complain about (also from groupfocussed players).
- Need/Greed issues when rolling for loot : This one is quite obvious in how easy it is that it will cause conflict.
- Finding the players for right group composition: No one likes to wait for hours untill they finally can play the game.
- Having to repeat groupcontent to at least have a chance of obtaining gear which only drops in that groupcontent : All content becomes boring if you have to repeat it too often to your liking.
And for me, my personal issue with grouping in many MMORPG's :
- Lack of mentor/sidekick system: I always play with rl friends of mine and we progress at different speed. When we are all online we like to group, but this is often not possible due to lvl difference.
I think that if these problems were solved a lot more players would group for fun, and not only because they think its needed for characterprogress. I think that Arenanet tries to do this with GW2. I also think that these problems should be solved in any MMO.
I still group despite these issues though, because I just want to see most of the content. I don't mind creating a group myself and finding likeminded players. But I would do it a lot more often if those issues were solved.
now this I can only see as limited experience with guilds, I ve been in several guilds over the years....a couple of them Ive left because of drama, but those with active guild leaders there have never been a problem with drama queens, as those that have had conflicting intrests either have accepted the direction or been shown the door, they opened.
but ofc if you cant stand other people in your life then again I have no clue why you would play a MMO, have yet to play a MMO that wasnt terrible boring game if you d only play the basic day to day game, there is very far between a singleplayer game that is less inspired than MMOs....have yet to read an opinion why MMOs is better than singleplayer games, as a solo game, without it sounding like a bad exuce, so they dont have to admit they have wasted time on a genre they dont even like
About guilds and my experience in various mmo: in 99% they work ONLY if you have in them your REAL LIFE friends. Otherwise forget about "get a guild" solution for game with forced grouping.
Yes, the fact is creating a community and creating social structures for groups requires a lot more effort/input from players to put up with the demands of a group.
Hence why solo gameplay is a requirement when the best laid plans of developers does not work out or players do not work out stable groups/guilds for themselves for whatever reason.
Groups/Guilds that function NEED a strong commitment and an equally strong REASON. How many mmorpgs succeed at that? More could be asked: What is an optimum group size for people vs for content? What is an optimum range for a guild size? And server population size, density and selection...
Allowing solo is allowing a default for the game to be playable/enjoyable in the absence of the above being successfully answered. It could be argued some modern mmorpgs have allowed solo to creep into mmorpgs as de facto rather than default, but that is tangent to the main consideraton it needs be permissible/viable option for positive reasons as Jeff Strain reasons but also for shoulder the deficiency of the above.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Seems like another piece of opinion passed off as fact to me. There's nothing here to uphold the validity of the piece other than the writers opinion.
Well, guess what. We're all entitled to an opinion and ours are just as valid as yours. Whine all you want about "the whiners" but all you've really done with this article is had a rant about people who disagree with you while offering no proof of your argument.
People on these forums have a name for that. It's called Trolling.
This is all in my opinion.
Please dont forget what the RPG means as well as the MMO.
Role Play Game.
That means you roleplay a character. as in i roleplay a Ranger. He is an adventurer and explorer. You dont often find explorers wandering around with 100 other explorers as they all want to be the first to find x.
While this is my primary goal i also get involved in neighbourly disputes which usually result in a pvp battle. I will help any town of good people that are threatened by a Dragon, usaully in the form of joining a Raid.
When i am solo do i want to find treasure easily? of course not, nothing easy is worth the effort. Would i loike to sneak into the Dragons den by using stealth and cunning and sneak a piece of treasure without even waking the Dragon? yes i would! even if the raid fighting at the gate caused a distraction while i snook in.
Point is to me you group/raiders just want things too easy and are spoiling the game for the hardcore soloers like me.
I dont really mean that. it is just simply looking at it from the other angle. We are all intellegent enogh to realise that both types have been catered for from the very beggining of MMOs and theres no reason that cannot continue.
People group together to overcome obstacles that cannot be tackled alone. They dont group together to make things tougher, but to face tougher objectives easier.
Its the "I dont have time to spend hours playing an online game, but I still feel entitled to advance just as quickly as someone who does" types in particular that ruin things. Really, its like saying "I only work part time but I should get the same pay as full-time workers".
The sad thing is when you point this out to them, they dont understand just how warped a concept it is.
The thing is that the article actually flames those that don't agree with the writer's PoV by accusing them of simply 'bitching' etc.
Having content that I don't agree with is fine, but the writer needs to watch her tone and how she refers to others IMO.
It shouldn't be acceptable for her to be able to criticise us and dismiss our views with cheap digs and us not be able to return the favour.
Yep, soloers ARE fine, I agree. I have soloed at times since I started EQ in '99 and it should always be an option.
It's solo focused game design thats the issue.
Enforcing solo play on some is no better then enforcing groupplay on others. It should be approached with care, and not the solo scorched earth design we have seen in the last few years.
<------ the quote I have under my avatar says it all for me tbh.
Anyway, Isabelle, great article! Though I'm not sure you put *anything* to rest.
Only thing I'd like to add is that raiders (specific sub-section of groupers) in the games I play and a few people on this thread, seem to have this weird idea that somehow their playstyle is more important than other playstyles and that other players are secondclass citizens. Thus the rewards should be scaled accordingly.
Now that is a sense of entitlement. Its also classism.
I believe the rewards should be completely different - not better or worse. They should appeal to and aid that particular playstyle. I also believe that grouping should be fun and challenging in its own right, and should not need gear-carrots to get people to group. If people don't want to group for gear, give them a better reason!
Happily for you, you can easily knock down straw men solo.
Well now you've gone and proved the OP is about something that does indeed happen, and deserves a counter which is of the same vitriol.
Players will bitch and moan, some will feel "left out" some will feel it's to hard, etc, etc, etc...
It's up to devs to do what is best even in the face of all of that whining.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The heavy focus on Solo play doesn't destroy MMOs, it just mutates them and pushes them away from the original design model that started 10+ years ago. The lack of dependancy on other players to complete content the majority of game content discourages the development of a strong supportive community which was a core reason many of us "old school" gamers played MMOs in the first place.
The article was ok I guess but it had a distinct flavor of "excuses" all through it. There are many different computer games out there and MMOs at their core were designed to be ; "co-op multilplayer" , "challenging" and "require a significant time investment".
The games that solo, casual, attention deprived players want is not an MMO but due to the money they are willing to spend MMO companies mutated the original model to get more cash. Now the original MMO players are disaapointed that the games they once played are gone and they are left playing games that aren't worthy the title MMO.
woops
I thought grouping up was for protection? U know, safer in numbers. Ohh, that must of been 10yrs ago before mainstream tried to fit everyone in the world into the same damn box - increasing profits ofcourse, but finding out everyone is not the same. Viva the resistounce! Go Inde, save us all from each other. Ohh, wait, real games don't get funded, nevermind. Neocron.
Anyways, blame it on the investors guys, and start pointing some fingers at something tangible, and not at each other. That's just a no win, grey areas of subjectivity are why we goto war.
You guys are going to have to provide some real world gaming examples of this.
I've never seen an "endemic" gaming-community problem centered around players demanding certain types of challenges be "solo". To what are you referring to, exactly?
Lets try a test:
Would you say the Henchmen and Hero NPC development dynamic in Guild Wars is an example of "solo play" mechanics gone too far?
Wherever you go, there you are.
I agree for the most part, though puzzled by the very explicit claim of " . . . not the solo scorched earth design we have seen in the last few years."
Be specific. What games were designed with this model?
In my experience "solo play" is seen when dumbing down a game to promote fast levelling into an expansion's new zones occurs by the devs.
Or, perhaps some classes built with too many capabilities across too many disciplines allowing an inordinate amount of "solo play" other classes struggle with?
Or perhaps a flat out mechanics mess with unfettered gear and stat enhancement abilities that inevitably leads to god-like solo-ers, simply because they can:
WoW: When Burning Crusades released mobs and challenges across the game world were nerfed into the ground so that content was easier. Certainly soloable whereas in the original design not so much so. Examples: Elites in Stromgaarde, Arathi Highlands, and the Elite Ogres in that ruined town north of Southshore.
LOTRO: Hunters for a long time in that game were so capable they basically ruled maps to high degree. Including PvE play. Not only the highest DPS class in the game, but packed with a ton of long-lasting CC in both AoE and single target flavors, with more than enough mitigations to effectively tank off a huge % of the game worlds challenges if actually gotten to. They eventually were hit with the nerf-bat.
Runes of Magic: A drug addicts dream. A completely open-ended gear/stat enhancement paradigm that allowed end-game gear enchants, and "mounting" (Wings) common to high and low level characters, to be put on level 1's. End game players could then groom "lowbie" twinks to insane heights the likes of which you couldn't believe, particularly if they were nutjobs willing to spend hundreds, if not thousands, of real world dollars in the Cash Shop to complete augmentation. Broken, and badly.
What game(s) have you played that were DESIGNED around solo play so badly it represents "scorched earth" magnitude in the industry in general?
Wherever you go, there you are.
Can you give a 100% iron-clad guarantee that your response or acceptance of any answer given will be treated with completely objective consideration and weighed equally against your own preferences, and not immediately discounted or dismissed if it doesn't fit with your personal point-of-view?
If not, then your "test" is a farce, and indulging it would be a waste of time.