Five Things MMO Fans Need to Get Over - The List at MMORPG.com

1234568»

Comments

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,711
    Dullahan said:
    Sorry, but there's no room to budge on the group vs solo issue. The catering to solo gameplay is what has brought the mmorpg genre to the brink of destruction, and the only thing that is going to save it will be infusing it once again with the heavily cooperative play that made it so fantastic to begin with.

    Catering to solo gameplay is merely a symptom of the real problem. MMOs didn't force people to solo content, the players drove that. You won't solve the problem by implementing group-heavy gameplay, you'll just end up with a game that flops. 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • ChromeBallzChromeBallz Member UncommonPosts: 340
    Dullahan said:
    Sorry, but there's no room to budge on the group vs solo issue. The catering to solo gameplay is what has brought the mmorpg genre to the brink of destruction, and the only thing that is going to save it will be infusing it once again with the heavily cooperative play that made it so fantastic to begin with.
    That's simply a blatant misunderstanding of the problem.

    Solo content is necessary to keep the playerbase engaged. If you force progress - any progress whatsoever - through group content only, players will leave the game in droves. The vast majority of gamers cannot dedicate the necessary amount of time to group content. They have jobs, families, social lives, other games to play, you name it. 

    The classic model where raiding is paramount and the only way to get progression 'in the endgame' is fatally flawed in this way, as it caters to a very specific audience which does not have the time or is willing to adjust their schedules to partake in it. Maybe you are willing to do the grind *and* the raid every evening between 19:00 and 0:00, but time is an increasingly precious thing for most people able to actually play these games. Even younger audiences (students and highschoolers mostly) who used to have oodles of free time now have an increasingly busy schedule in recent years.

    The people who can spend the time on group content or can move their schedules around it (or are willing to) are more and more falling into a minority. This is made clear by the exponential rise in casual gaming in the past decade, and has been the impetus for Blizzard for example to make their group content accessible to the point of being almost irrelevant through the LFG and raid finder tools.

    Getting a fixed group together for anything, even an online game, is difficult at best. Anyone who's ever played any P&P game knows this ;)

    MMO's which make group content optional rather than necessary are the norm, and will remain so for the forseeable future, unless someone finds out the magic formula for a game which will make everyone a) give up their current game and b) reschedule their life around a videogame.

    Of course, you can go to a complete other extreme and remove group content alltogether, which is also obviously a bad idea. Why play an MMO when there's no multiplayer? BDO is a game which suffers from this to some extent, where group content is actually almost detrimental to progress rather than helpful in most cases.

    A balance needs to be found here. Group content for when people *can* play together and solo content for when they *can't*, so they can still play the game without feeling that there's nothing to do in the time they actually have to play it. 

    Playing: BDO
    Played: WoW, GW2, L2, WAR, AoC, DnL (2005), GW, LotRO, EQ2, TOR, CoH (RIP), STO, TSW, TERA, EVE, ESO
    Tried: EQ, UO, AO, EnB, TCoS, Fury, Ryzom, EU, DDO, TR, RF, CO, Aion, VG, DN, Vindictus

  • YashaXYashaX Baldurs GateMember RarePosts: 1,920
    Dullahan said:
    Sorry, but there's no room to budge on the group vs solo issue. The catering to solo gameplay is what has brought the mmorpg genre to the brink of destruction, and the only thing that is going to save it will be infusing it once again with the heavily cooperative play that made it so fantastic to begin with.
    I actually think you are on to something here, but at the same time you have to acknowledge the reasons behind the move to solo content.

    I'd like to see a game with basically all group content but a really easy drop-in drop-out grouping system so that groups could kind of organically form without the need for long commitment and/or voice coms.  I've seen that in some games already, but its mainly only used in pvp or for world bosses/dungeons. Using a similar set up for general questing/adventuring might address some of the issues behind solo play.


    ....
  • cameltosiscameltosis ipswichMember EpicPosts: 1,557
    YashaX said:
    Dullahan said:
    Sorry, but there's no room to budge on the group vs solo issue. The catering to solo gameplay is what has brought the mmorpg genre to the brink of destruction, and the only thing that is going to save it will be infusing it once again with the heavily cooperative play that made it so fantastic to begin with.
    I actually think you are on to something here, but at the same time you have to acknowledge the reasons behind the move to solo content.

    I'd like to see a game with basically all group content but a really easy drop-in drop-out grouping system so that groups could kind of organically form without the need for long commitment and/or voice coms.  I've seen that in some games already, but its mainly only used in pvp or for world bosses/dungeons. Using a similar set up for general questing/adventuring might address some of the issues behind solo play.


    The open group system from WAR worked relatively well. 

    Basically, by default when you started a group, it was "open". Any players that came near your group in the game would get a notification that there was an open group nearby, tell you how many players were in it and, if obvious, would tell you what they were doing. 

    The open groups generally only worked for two activities: public quests and pvp. 

    For public quests they were great. The locations were fixed, the group sizes flexible, so for the first 6 months of the game you could pretty much walk up to any PQ, find a group, join it and have fun for 10-15 minutes. Eventually people realised that doing any PvE in the game would harm you, so PQs stopped being run, but for a while they were fun. 

    For PvP, it was also pretty good. You'd enter the PvP lake and get a popup telling you about open groups. During peak times, there might be 4 or 5 open groups running about, so you pick one that looks good (generally most amount of players), click join and thats it, you're in the raid. 


    If they could somehow add this open group system, with the ingame voice chat from lotro, plus some sort of content scaling so that content scales to your group size, then we've got a winner!
  • hatefulpeacehatefulpeace nyMember UncommonPosts: 621
    SBFord said:
    imageFive Things MMO Fans Need to Get Over - The List at MMORPG.com

    I’ll start right off - this list is going to ruffle feathers. But also, if you actually read this far before getting angry with me, note - I am guilty of each of these five things myself. The MMO Genre is in the middle of the awkward teenage years (even if it’s closer to drinking age). At this time in our favorite pastime’s life, it’s natural to be brazen d*ckheads bicking with anyone and everyone about every little thing we think is important or righteous.

    Read the full story here

    What does that have to do with the devs making better mmos? You don't honestly believe that if every one got along, the devs would make better games?
  • YashaXYashaX Baldurs GateMember RarePosts: 1,920
    YashaX said:
    Dullahan said:
    Sorry, but there's no room to budge on the group vs solo issue. The catering to solo gameplay is what has brought the mmorpg genre to the brink of destruction, and the only thing that is going to save it will be infusing it once again with the heavily cooperative play that made it so fantastic to begin with.
    I actually think you are on to something here, but at the same time you have to acknowledge the reasons behind the move to solo content.

    I'd like to see a game with basically all group content but a really easy drop-in drop-out grouping system so that groups could kind of organically form without the need for long commitment and/or voice coms.  I've seen that in some games already, but its mainly only used in pvp or for world bosses/dungeons. Using a similar set up for general questing/adventuring might address some of the issues behind solo play.


    The open group system from WAR worked relatively well. 

    Basically, by default when you started a group, it was "open". Any players that came near your group in the game would get a notification that there was an open group nearby, tell you how many players were in it and, if obvious, would tell you what they were doing. 

    The open groups generally only worked for two activities: public quests and pvp. 

    For public quests they were great. The locations were fixed, the group sizes flexible, so for the first 6 months of the game you could pretty much walk up to any PQ, find a group, join it and have fun for 10-15 minutes. Eventually people realised that doing any PvE in the game would harm you, so PQs stopped being run, but for a while they were fun. 

    For PvP, it was also pretty good. You'd enter the PvP lake and get a popup telling you about open groups. During peak times, there might be 4 or 5 open groups running about, so you pick one that looks good (generally most amount of players), click join and thats it, you're in the raid. 


    If they could somehow add this open group system, with the ingame voice chat from lotro, plus some sort of content scaling so that content scales to your group size, then we've got a winner!
    That was actually exactly the game I was thinking of! Loved that system. 
    ....
  • acidbloodacidblood melbourneMember UncommonPosts: 605
    edited April 12
    ....
    If they could somehow add this open group system, with the ingame voice chat from lotro, plus some sort of content scaling so that content scales to your group size, then we've got a winner!

    IMO, to really have a winner you need to not only make grouping as accessible as possible, but also more rewarding and less effort overall than soloing; and I think this is where pretty much every MMO of the post WOW era has fallen down.

    Probably the best example of this is quests, and quest design in general. i.e. Most 'modern' MMOs make solo questing not only the best EXP per hour you can get, but also seem to actively make it difficult, if not impossible, to do quests in a group (and it is rarely more rewarding), which IMO is simply the wrong design for a so called MMO.

    Note that this does not mean you need to ditch solo content altogether, just that everything should be tuned with grouping in mind. For example: Instead of a quest that requires you to kill 10 easily soloable rats, make it a quest to kill 100 points worth of rats, with soloable rats worth 5 points (20 needed), duo / trio rats worth 12 points (8+1 needed), and full group rats worth 25 points (only 4 needed). And if you have scaling, make it so that soloing a dungeon gives significantly less EXP per hour and loot than doing that same dungeon in group, even if that group is only a duo or trio.

    Which does not mean locking all your best rewards behind the largest group sizes your server will handle, simply that doing group content should get you rewards faster than soloing. For example: If it takes the average raider 5 weeks to get a BiS weapon, then a similar (or slightly less powerful) weapon should be available from 'lesser' content, but should take a minimum of 10 weeks, and a greater overall effort (i.e. in hours) to get (with shortcuts for group content vs. doing it purely solo).

    In short, players should still be able to play an MMO solo, and have it be any enjoyable and rewarding experience, but only if that is truly the playstyle they desire (i.e. not what we have now where it almost seems forced), however grouping should always be 'the best way to play', right from level 1.

    Post edited by acidblood on
  • borghive49borghive49 Pittsburgh, PAMember UncommonPosts: 316
    Dullahan said:
    Sorry, but there's no room to budge on the group vs solo issue. The catering to solo gameplay is what has brought the mmorpg genre to the brink of destruction, and the only thing that is going to save it will be infusing it once again with the heavily cooperative play that made it so fantastic to begin with.
    That's simply a blatant misunderstanding of the problem.

    Solo content is necessary to keep the playerbase engaged. If you force progress - any progress whatsoever - through group content only, players will leave the game in droves. The vast majority of gamers cannot dedicate the necessary amount of time to group content. They have jobs, families, social lives, other games to play, you name it. 

    The classic model where raiding is paramount and the only way to get progression 'in the endgame' is fatally flawed in this way, as it caters to a very specific audience which does not have the time or is willing to adjust their schedules to partake in it. Maybe you are willing to do the grind *and* the raid every evening between 19:00 and 0:00, but time is an increasingly precious thing for most people able to actually play these games. Even younger audiences (students and highschoolers mostly) who used to have oodles of free time now have an increasingly busy schedule in recent years.

    The people who can spend the time on group content or can move their schedules around it (or are willing to) are more and more falling into a minority. This is made clear by the exponential rise in casual gaming in the past decade, and has been the impetus for Blizzard for example to make their group content accessible to the point of being almost irrelevant through the LFG and raid finder tools.

    Getting a fixed group together for anything, even an online game, is difficult at best. Anyone who's ever played any P&P game knows this ;)

    MMO's which make group content optional rather than necessary are the norm, and will remain so for the forseeable future, unless someone finds out the magic formula for a game which will make everyone a) give up their current game and b) reschedule their life around a videogame.

    Of course, you can go to a complete other extreme and remove group content alltogether, which is also obviously a bad idea. Why play an MMO when there's no multiplayer? BDO is a game which suffers from this to some extent, where group content is actually almost detrimental to progress rather than helpful in most cases.

    A balance needs to be found here. Group content for when people *can* play together and solo content for when they *can't*, so they can still play the game without feeling that there's nothing to do in the time they actually have to play it. 
    I think wrong Chrome, while a game that requires more forced grouping  might not attract WoW like numbers, there is definitely a market for a game like this. You realize entire reason the genre has been suffering the last 8 years or so, is because we are playing the same solo oriented themepark, and please for the love of god don't use Wildstar as an example for a failed "hardore" game example. 

    Also, in regards to "people don't have time" to play, I think you are wrong here as well, people had just as many responsibilities as they did 15 years ago as they do today. I mean I played with tons of working adults and students back then that had full schedules and were still able to manage to raid and do a lot of the group content that was spread out through the non-instanced world. I'd also argue the kids playing MOBAs all day, sometimes for every long extended periods would also counter your argument that people don't have time.

    The problem MMOs have now is that over the years they attracted a lot of people who really don't like MMOs, and a lot of companies, especially Blizzard have been chasing these customers hardcore the last 10 years or so. I'd wager to bet that these types of players make up a good bit of the MMO potential audience now. That is why you see the mindset that old school MMO mechanics wouldn't work for the modern MMO gamer, because the reality is, they were never MMO gamers to begin with. 

    Thankfully the indie MMO developers have seen the light, now whether or not they have the resources to deliver on this remains to be seen. I think MMO gaming is going to return to it's roots the next 5 years of being a niche genre for a niche audience. I long for the days when I can play a real MMO again, and not worry about  that game catering to some person that really doesn't care for a lot of what for me, made MMOs special in the first place.  Sure these games might not attract WoW like numbers, but that is okay, it has been made very clear by these developers that they don't need to cater to a mass audience in order to survive. 


    TheScavenger
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,711
    Dullahan said:
    Sorry, but there's no room to budge on the group vs solo issue. The catering to solo gameplay is what has brought the mmorpg genre to the brink of destruction, and the only thing that is going to save it will be infusing it once again with the heavily cooperative play that made it so fantastic to begin with.
    That's simply a blatant misunderstanding of the problem.

    Solo content is necessary to keep the playerbase engaged. If you force progress - any progress whatsoever - through group content only, players will leave the game in droves. The vast majority of gamers cannot dedicate the necessary amount of time to group content. They have jobs, families, social lives, other games to play, you name it. 

    The classic model where raiding is paramount and the only way to get progression 'in the endgame' is fatally flawed in this way, as it caters to a very specific audience which does not have the time or is willing to adjust their schedules to partake in it. Maybe you are willing to do the grind *and* the raid every evening between 19:00 and 0:00, but time is an increasingly precious thing for most people able to actually play these games. Even younger audiences (students and highschoolers mostly) who used to have oodles of free time now have an increasingly busy schedule in recent years.

    The people who can spend the time on group content or can move their schedules around it (or are willing to) are more and more falling into a minority. This is made clear by the exponential rise in casual gaming in the past decade, and has been the impetus for Blizzard for example to make their group content accessible to the point of being almost irrelevant through the LFG and raid finder tools.

    Getting a fixed group together for anything, even an online game, is difficult at best. Anyone who's ever played any P&P game knows this ;)

    MMO's which make group content optional rather than necessary are the norm, and will remain so for the forseeable future, unless someone finds out the magic formula for a game which will make everyone a) give up their current game and b) reschedule their life around a videogame.

    Of course, you can go to a complete other extreme and remove group content alltogether, which is also obviously a bad idea. Why play an MMO when there's no multiplayer? BDO is a game which suffers from this to some extent, where group content is actually almost detrimental to progress rather than helpful in most cases.

    A balance needs to be found here. Group content for when people *can* play together and solo content for when they *can't*, so they can still play the game without feeling that there's nothing to do in the time they actually have to play it. 
    I think wrong Chrome, while a game that requires more forced grouping  might not attract WoW like numbers, there is definitely a market for a game like this. You realize entire reason the genre has been suffering the last 8 years or so, is because we are playing the same solo oriented themepark, and please for the love of god don't use Wildstar as an example for a failed "hardore" game example. 

    Also, in regards to "people don't have time" to play, I think you are wrong here as well, people had just as many responsibilities as they did 15 years ago as they do today. I mean I played with tons of working adults and students back then that had full schedules and were still able to manage to raid and do a lot of the group content that was spread out through the non-instanced world. I'd also argue the kids playing MOBAs all day, sometimes for every long extended periods would also counter your argument that people don't have time.

    The problem MMOs have now is that over the years they attracted a lot of people who really don't like MMOs, and a lot of companies, especially Blizzard have been chasing these customers hardcore the last 10 years or so. I'd wager to bet that these types of players make up a good bit of the MMO potential audience now. That is why you see the mindset that old school MMO mechanics wouldn't work for the modern MMO gamer, because the reality is, they were never MMO gamers to begin with. 

    Thankfully the indie MMO developers have seen the light, now whether or not they have the resources to deliver on this remains to be seen. I think MMO gaming is going to return to it's roots the next 5 years of being a niche genre for a niche audience. I long for the days when I can play a real MMO again, and not worry about  that game catering to some person that really doesn't care for a lot of what for me, made MMOs special in the first place.  Sure these games might not attract WoW like numbers, but that is okay, it has been made very clear by these developers that they don't need to cater to a mass audience in order to survive. 




    I agree with you that there are some projects which will ultimately return MMOs to their roots over the next few years. That's about the end of where I agree with you, though :) 

    I think that the biggest problem facing these games is nostalgic players. You are correct that there is a niche market who probably still does want an old school MMORPG (like an actual MMORPG). These are people who still play DAOC or MUDs or EQ or some other game where gameplay trumps graphics. However, if you released that same game today, would it thrive? Would it even get 4 digits of concurrent users? Probably not. DBG showed this with SWG-emu. They effective gave them license to run wild with it, and the numbers are still not large enough to justify any sort of development effort, and SWG could be the most beloved old-schoolish game in the history of gaming. 

    Pantheon looks encouraging. I think you could actually see 6-digit box sales for that. Is it sustainable, though? I have no clue. 

    What's cool, though, is that we'll be here to witness the death or rebirth or re-invetion of the genre, one way or another. That's pretty significant and pretty cool. It's one of those stories we'll tell our grand kids about "How back in our day, MMOs worked like this..." 


    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • cameltosiscameltosis ipswichMember EpicPosts: 1,557
    acidblood said:
    ....
    If they could somehow add this open group system, with the ingame voice chat from lotro, plus some sort of content scaling so that content scales to your group size, then we've got a winner!

    IMO, to really have a winner you need to not only make grouping as accessible as possible, but also more rewarding and less effort overall than soloing; and I think this is where pretty much every MMO of the post WOW era has fallen down.

    Probably the best example of this is quests, and quest design in general. i.e. Most 'modern' MMOs make solo questing not only the best EXP per hour you can get, but also seem to actively make it difficult, if not impossible, to do quests in a group (and it is rarely more rewarding), which IMO is simply the wrong design for a so called MMO.

    I don't agree that grouping should be encouraged by a rewards system - it may work if the reward difference is significant, but if the difference in rewards isn't all that much, then convenience wins out. 


    I agree with your thoughts on questing though. It is an inherent problem with making linear storylines and breaking those storylines up into quests. Your progress through the quests automatically limits the people you can group with and if you force grouping then progression becomes really difficult later on in life as the population dwindles. Scaling technology (as in scaling to group size) has yet to be done well, so solo quests do, unfortunately, offer the best solution for story telling in MMOs. 


    What I'd prefer to see is to separate character progression from story progression. So, no exp gained from completing quests. 

    I feel if we went this route, then people like me who find the stories badly written and predictable could completely avoid quests and treat the game more like a sandbox - just find nice spots to grind and spend our time perfecting combat, looting trash and gold, then buying gear on the auction house. Those who prefer the themepark route could do the quests purely for the storyline, but they would still earn xp from killing stuff along the way and so would still level up, they just might have to stop and grind mobs for a bit every now and again if their natural xp wasn't enough to keep up with the quest direction. 
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,711
    acidblood said:
    ....
    If they could somehow add this open group system, with the ingame voice chat from lotro, plus some sort of content scaling so that content scales to your group size, then we've got a winner!

    IMO, to really have a winner you need to not only make grouping as accessible as possible, but also more rewarding and less effort overall than soloing; and I think this is where pretty much every MMO of the post WOW era has fallen down.

    Probably the best example of this is quests, and quest design in general. i.e. Most 'modern' MMOs make solo questing not only the best EXP per hour you can get, but also seem to actively make it difficult, if not impossible, to do quests in a group (and it is rarely more rewarding), which IMO is simply the wrong design for a so called MMO.

    I don't agree that grouping should be encouraged by a rewards system - it may work if the reward difference is significant, but if the difference in rewards isn't all that much, then convenience wins out. 



    Here's an alternate perspective to the idea of grouping being rewarding. How about just not punishing grouping, lol. I mean as it stands the vast majority of systems punish groups, so you get reduced experience, high-level players have no reason to help lower-level players, etc. etc. I understand that they want to ensure that the pacing of the game is "right", but people who actually care about the story will ultimately continue on with it, even if they need to do half the game at max level, and the other half will be happy that they got an alt leveled up 2, 3, 4 times faster than usual. 


    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • laseritlaserit Vancouver, BCMember EpicPosts: 4,814
    Make an immersive virtual world with a ton of places you can adventure solo and a ton of places where you need a group to survive.

    Too much emphasis on XP IMHO

    Personally I like good content.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • dreamer05dreamer05 Kansas City, MOMember UncommonPosts: 654
    Having some solo content is healthy, but it should always be slower and less efficient than group content, and the best content should always be reserved for groups. Full stop. This era of single player MMOs is disturbing and unnecessary.

    image

    "God, please help us sinful children of Ivalice.."

  • OrthelianOrthelian Barrington, RIMember UncommonPosts: 1,002
    edited April 14


    Oh, Bill, we all know by now that you like to ruffle our feathers. :P When has B2P been a new trend? I thought that B2P was an old payment model, that is making a comeback, either way, that is what I prefer.

    Old in the sense that Guild Wars did it 12 years ago, sure. Though of course at the time that was because "it's not an MMO." But other than that and the last decade of F2P, everything's always been charged by month, hour, or minute. B2P's only recently a trend.
    Post edited by Orthelian on

    Favorites: EVETORVanguard | Playing: None, overtaken by VR | Anticipating: CUPantheon
  • GreenBeanDemonGreenBeanDemon GBDMember UncommonPosts: 10
    The entirety of this list can basically be boiled down to one core principle - put your dollars into the games that meet your standards. <-- Yes this!<br />
    Be sure to pay people who meet these your standards for sure! Even during times you are not required too ( I would love a Tip Jar for this idea! just give people money for doing good work and nothing in return )

    We are also seeing a trend of companies that want addicts more than customers and desire to run unregulated Casinos aka games of chance more than the games we love to play. Seriously, STOP PAYING THESE PEOPLE, unless you REALLY want Video Game Themed Unregulated Casinos. Where the people in charge have no repercussions in place to stop them from changing the rules in order to drain more profit from you.

    BDO is trending slowly in this direction. Personally with no weekly cap on certain items, I find it closer to this idea than not. Be certain of your standards far before they are breached. Once they are, they may not return.
  • KellerKeller UtrechtMember UncommonPosts: 402
    Can we please agree that D2 is Diablo 2 and that we need to find a new calling sign for Destiny 2?
  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonMember RarePosts: 1,547

    Keller said:

    Can we please agree that D2 is Diablo 2 and that we need to find a new calling sign for Destiny 2?


    <hipster hat on>
    Hey doooood, you need to get over that!
    After all, if MMO can mean anything we like at the time, why can't D2. After all Diablo 2 is so last century!
    <hipster hat off>  (It was beginning to hurt my forehead, and give me a compression headache.
  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,050

    CrazKanuk said:






    Dullahan said:

    Sorry, but there's no room to budge on the group vs solo issue. The catering to solo gameplay is what has brought the mmorpg genre to the brink of destruction, and the only thing that is going to save it will be infusing it once again with the heavily cooperative play that made it so fantastic to begin with.


    That's simply a blatant misunderstanding of the problem.

    Solo content is necessary to keep the playerbase engaged. If you force progress - any progress whatsoever - through group content only, players will leave the game in droves. The vast majority of gamers cannot dedicate the necessary amount of time to group content. They have jobs, families, social lives, other games to play, you name it. 

    The classic model where raiding is paramount and the only way to get progression 'in the endgame' is fatally flawed in this way, as it caters to a very specific audience which does not have the time or is willing to adjust their schedules to partake in it. Maybe you are willing to do the grind *and* the raid every evening between 19:00 and 0:00, but time is an increasingly precious thing for most people able to actually play these games. Even younger audiences (students and highschoolers mostly) who used to have oodles of free time now have an increasingly busy schedule in recent years.

    The people who can spend the time on group content or can move their schedules around it (or are willing to) are more and more falling into a minority. This is made clear by the exponential rise in casual gaming in the past decade, and has been the impetus for Blizzard for example to make their group content accessible to the point of being almost irrelevant through the LFG and raid finder tools.

    Getting a fixed group together for anything, even an online game, is difficult at best. Anyone who's ever played any P&P game knows this ;)

    MMO's which make group content optional rather than necessary are the norm, and will remain so for the forseeable future, unless someone finds out the magic formula for a game which will make everyone a) give up their current game and b) reschedule their life around a videogame.

    Of course, you can go to a complete other extreme and remove group content alltogether, which is also obviously a bad idea. Why play an MMO when there's no multiplayer? BDO is a game which suffers from this to some extent, where group content is actually almost detrimental to progress rather than helpful in most cases.

    A balance needs to be found here. Group content for when people *can* play together and solo content for when they *can't*, so they can still play the game without feeling that there's nothing to do in the time they actually have to play it. 


    I think wrong Chrome, while a game that requires more forced grouping  might not attract WoW like numbers, there is definitely a market for a game like this. You realize entire reason the genre has been suffering the last 8 years or so, is because we are playing the same solo oriented themepark, and please for the love of god don't use Wildstar as an example for a failed "hardore" game example. 

    Also, in regards to "people don't have time" to play, I think you are wrong here as well, people had just as many responsibilities as they did 15 years ago as they do today. I mean I played with tons of working adults and students back then that had full schedules and were still able to manage to raid and do a lot of the group content that was spread out through the non-instanced world. I'd also argue the kids playing MOBAs all day, sometimes for every long extended periods would also counter your argument that people don't have time.

    The problem MMOs have now is that over the years they attracted a lot of people who really don't like MMOs, and a lot of companies, especially Blizzard have been chasing these customers hardcore the last 10 years or so. I'd wager to bet that these types of players make up a good bit of the MMO potential audience now. That is why you see the mindset that old school MMO mechanics wouldn't work for the modern MMO gamer, because the reality is, they were never MMO gamers to begin with. 

    Thankfully the indie MMO developers have seen the light, now whether or not they have the resources to deliver on this remains to be seen. I think MMO gaming is going to return to it's roots the next 5 years of being a niche genre for a niche audience. I long for the days when I can play a real MMO again, and not worry about  that game catering to some person that really doesn't care for a lot of what for me, made MMOs special in the first place.  Sure these games might not attract WoW like numbers, but that is okay, it has been made very clear by these developers that they don't need to cater to a mass audience in order to survive. 






    I agree with you that there are some projects which will ultimately return MMOs to their roots over the next few years. That's about the end of where I agree with you, though :) 

    I think that the biggest problem facing these games is nostalgic players. You are correct that there is a niche market who probably still does want an old school MMORPG (like an actual MMORPG). These are people who still play DAOC or MUDs or EQ or some other game where gameplay trumps graphics. However, if you released that same game today, would it thrive? Would it even get 4 digits of concurrent users? Probably not. DBG showed this with SWG-emu. They effective gave them license to run wild with it, and the numbers are still not large enough to justify any sort of development effort, and SWG could be the most beloved old-schoolish game in the history of gaming. 

    Pantheon looks encouraging. I think you could actually see 6-digit box sales for that. Is it sustainable, though? I have no clue. 

    What's cool, though, is that we'll be here to witness the death or rebirth or re-invetion of the genre, one way or another. That's pretty significant and pretty cool. It's one of those stories we'll tell our grand kids about "How back in our day, MMOs worked like this..." 




    My son who enjoys modern RPGs still looks at me strangely when I tell him we used to map our location on graph paper.

    ;)


    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - Screw off-grid PVE boosting changes

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon


  • lyinggod0lyinggod0 Poulsbo, WAMember UncommonPosts: 8
    edited April 14
    Here's something to stop. The incorrect use of the term RPG. RPGs or Roleplaying Games are don't use electronic anything to play; dice, paper, real people are all that is needed. Computerized RPG (CRPG) or Simulated RPG (SRPG) are correct terms as they are a simulation of an actual RPG. CRPGs are either highly scripted with limited options (ie WoW) or are substantially devoid any substance beyond eye candy. CRPGs are, at best, a very poorly implemented imitation of the RPGs. To claim otherwise to not understand what a (real) RPG is.
    Post edited by lyinggod0 on
  • AzarealAzareal Kuala LumpurMember UncommonPosts: 144
    This article definitely says a lot of things that needed to be said. So many times I've met those who put down PVE'ers and vice versa So many times people 'frown' on you if you like solo'ing or if you like a theme park format or just totally love to shove their 'ideas' down your throat.

    For the record I like all types of games, even pvp, although I'm crap at it but I don't go around forcing people to do things my way. Doing that just shows how immature one can be; like a child throwing a tantrum if mommy and daddy won't take him to Disneyland.

    When all I can think of is "Dude, I'm not playing this game because I owe you something. I'm playing this game because I want to."
  • AreteoAreteo Granville, NYMember UncommonPosts: 18
    I want to play this non-existent game. :(

    -- retired former MMO player who can't find any games he likes anymore


    Dauzqul said:

    Who am I to tell someone what to like? I just think that people who don't like what I like are like brain-dead lemmings.



    #1. Loads and loads of PvE (EverQuest / World of Warcraft).

    #2. Deep and complex crafting (Star Wars Galaxies).

    #3. Gigantic and seamless world (Vanguard / ArcheAge).

    #4. Optional World PvP Server (EverQuest 2)

    #5. Endless amounts of armor and clothing (Star Wars Galaxies).

    #6. Loads of social features, e.g., incentives to hang out in Taverns, unique professions such as clothing designers, mechanics, shop owners, the ability to play musical instruments, etc (Star Wars Galaxies, Lord of the Rings Online).

    #7. Action-packed combat (The Force Unleashed / Black Desert / Chivalry).

    #8. World Housing (Star Wars Galaxies).

    #9. Deep character customization experience (APB).






  • RufusUORufusUO Member UncommonPosts: 29
    I would love it if people got over graphics quality in gaming. This is why we're seeing a resurgence in the success of retro-stylized games. If people focused more on quality and less on graphics, I can think of consoles, component manufacturers, and many studios that would instantly go bankrupt... and (personally) I wouldn't be all that upset.

    I get more enjoyment nowadays from running a Diablo 1 ISO, downloading Imperialism (strategy game) from GoG, or booting up Baldur's Gate 2. Horrendous graphics by today's standards but way more fun than I'd get versus dropping $60 on most of today's games.

    Wait, did I say $60? I meant $120 for a founder's copy that gives you the ability to assist in debugging an unreleased game for 3 years, after which you must either re-purchase the game, purchase access to premium features, or spend several hundred more $$ in microtransactions to stay competitive.
Sign In or Register to comment.