I've been saying this for the last couple of years at least. Alot people who play MMOs today, aren't MMO players. They're converts from RTS, FPS, etc games. They don't want delayed rewards like MMOs are supposed to be. They want thier rewards now, and the sooner the better. They don't want to be doing something more than 30 minutes, that's why most RTS, FPS, etc games only last about 30 minutes maximum. MMO players want to sit down at thier computer for hours on end, just to chop down a tree or something to that effect lol.
Exactly. MMO players are insane, and you can't make a successfull game targeting tiny subgroup of insane people with lots of time to spend chopping down a tree.
People don't subscribe to games because, again, the majority of the market don't want to spend years in a single game. What we want is to buy a game, play it for a couple of months and delete it - migrate to another game, or, if a game is sensible and fun F2P or B2P leave it on our hard drives returning there for an hour or two every couple of weeks or months.
What we don't want is second life. I have my hands full with the first one, thankyouverymuch. And I already have a lifetime commitment - my wife - and she has ideas about second lifetime commitment. Anyway, when I'll finally turn her around on the whole idea of second lifetime commitment, it will not be a game either...
You can't stop it, because it's what most players want. If these games prevented grouping, then that would be one thing. But they offer both playstyles, so they cater to everyone (except the narrow niche of players who won't accept any soloing in their games. Yeah, all 200 of them amongst what has to be a 20+ million player genre.)
The only thing you can do is (a) enjoy your time grouping in modern MMORPGs or (b) languish as a bittervet in some really old MMORPG which forces grouping.
...one of those options sounds a lot more enjoyable than the other.
If most players wanted what you described, they'd still be subbing. Fact is, the WOW clone era has been a success only in terms of box sales (and the single game WOW), but mostly a disaster in terms of long-term subs.
Tons of different games to choose from is only part of the problem, but I cannot help but think that linear storyline forced gameplay just turns off folks from making an alt and going back through the same "movie" all over again. Just shallow gameplay.
'You can't stop it, because it's what most players want.'
There is a reason SWTOR was terrible (for example) most players DO NOT WANT the same old same old themepark mmorg. Evolution is perfectly normal in the gaming industry, and yet it has stalled in the mmorg gaming world, why is that? Well, a single game has had a monopoly on the mmorg market, and unfortunately has abused that monopoly by evolving a formulae that promotes addictive qualities over innovation and rich content. It is absolutely no coincidence that the mmorg game world has stagnated at THE EXACT time period that a single themepark mmorg has had a monopoly on the market.
Those that argue for the same game style to continue without evolution are following the same ignorant patterns that are usually argued by those who want status quo. The same ignorant patters that are replicated throughout any industry where there is no good regulation to promote innovation over max profit.
There are people that argue for stagnation/the status quo for profit (Blizzard) and there are those that argue for the status quo through fear of change or through a perception that their own personal happiness will be affected by change ( as seen a few posts back)
Evolution and gaming satisfaction is achieved through evolution, Roll on GW2 and TSW to offer genuine choice in this corrupted gaming market.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Maybe put some rp into your play, as that encourages interaction with players. Or if rp isn't your thing (and if it isn't please do stop using the mmorpg semantics argument) just be in chat and put yourself out there. Organize events, offer help,have fun and invite others to join. Sitting back and waiting for the game to force socializing for you wont fix the actual issue, because that kind of attitude means you wont take real advantage of such opprotunities anyway.
I think we all know that though.The problem is, devs don't. They're not making ORPGs. The games are multiplayer by concept, but there's no reason for the other players to be there.
There's people running around with you, but they might as well be AI.
They don't impact you at all, except for maybe the marketplace or the global chat.
What's everyone's opinion on this?
How can we stop it?
Even in muds back in the 90's grouping was optional mmorpg does NOT mean forced group, never has, see a lot of us were brought up on fantasy/action books and films where a single hero or villain kicks ass, many of the heroes in comic books work solo.
We do not need to be sheep following 4 other people around.
Why play a mmo then?
Because human beings are social by nature or most of us are, I rarely group because I am an explorer and like to take my time, being in a group usually means I can not spend my time taking screenshots or noting down things on a blog while roleplaying.
But put me in a town location in game and I will make friends and enjoy myself hell most online games in the past I had relationships and fun like that even cyber what makes you happy in an mmo is not what makes someone else happy.
What they need to do is incentives to group but do not penalize those of us who love to go solo.
2)Make everybody spend money on only things you like.
3)Devise a mind control device to control the minds of developers.
Or you could wake up one day and realize the world doesn't revolve around you and that every game doesn't have to be made for you. Then maybe you would play the games designed for you instead of complaining about the ones that aren't
The problem isn't so much gamers' different tastes as it is the single player game crowd hijacking MMORPG's, converting them to linear single player gameplay and bascially redefining the word MMORPG.
You'd complain too, if you like hamburgers, then hot dog eaters arrived en masse and redefined hamburgers as hot dogs, then told you that maybe you "no longer like hamburgers anymore". It's maddening.
Why aren't you on the board about hamburgers, talking about hamburgers? Instead your on the boards for hamburgers and hot dogs complaining about hot dogs.
If most players wanted what you described, they'd still be subbing. Fact is, the WOW clone era has been a success only in terms of box sales (and the single game WOW), but mostly a disaster in terms of long-term subs.
Tons of different games to choose from is only part of the problem, but I cannot help but think that linear storyline forced gameplay just turns off folks from making an alt and going back through the same "movie" all over again. Just shallow gameplay.
A game where you're not 100% reliant on others to advance is very obviously going to perform better than one where you have the option of either (as was the case in WOW.)
Whether a new game ceases to actually be a new game (clones WOW and captures 50% of WOW's fun, as a lot of modern MMORPGs do) is beside the point.
Whether or not a game is a WOW clone, if it's based heavily on progression and forces players to be 100% reliant on others, it's going to perform worse than a game with a 50/50 mix where grouping provides an advantage but it's not such a ridiculous advantage that it's the only viable playstyle.
This should be obvious.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
'You can't stop it, because it's what most players want.'
There is a reason SWTOR was terrible (for example) most players DO NOT WANT the same old same old themepark mmorg. Evolution is perfectly normal in the gaming industry, and yet it has stalled in the mmorg gaming world, why is that? Well, a single game has had a monopoly on the mmorg market, and unfortunately has abused that monopoly by evolving a formulae that promotes addictive qualities over innovation and rich content. It is absolutely no coincidence that the mmorg game world has stagnated at THE EXACT time period that a single themepark mmorg has had a monopoly on the market.
Those that argue for the same game style to continue without evolution are following the same ignorant patterns that are usually argued by those who want status quo. The same ignorant patters that are replicated throughout any industry where there is no good regulation to promote innovation over max profit.
There are people that argue for stagnation/the status quo for profit (Blizzard) and there are those that argue for the status quo through fear of change or through a perception that their own personal happiness will be affected by change ( as seen a few posts back)
Evolution and gaming satisfaction is achieved through evolution, Roll on GW2 and TSW to offer genuine choice in this corrupted gaming market.
1. You're assuming TOR captured even 80% of what made WOW fun. It was an alright game for a while, but the lack of mob variety meant all combat played the same, which meant it was nothing like WOW (which varies mobs quite a bit.)
2. You're confusing a discussion on solo vs. grouping with WOW cloning. They're two separate traits of a game: soloability, and WOW similarity. Regarless of how similar or dissimilar a game is to WOW, it's going to do better with a balanced mix of solo and group playstyles. If both playstyles are viable, players will always be able to choose for themselves which to do. This obviously appeals to more players than a game forcing players into one style or the other (and ToR certainly made the mistake of forcing soloing, due to how inconvenient grouping was.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think we all know that though.The problem is, devs don't. They're not making ORPGs. The games are multiplayer by concept, but there's no reason for the other players to be there.
There's people running around with you, but they might as well be AI.
They don't impact you at all, except for maybe the marketplace or the global chat.
What's everyone's opinion on this?
How can we stop it?
I don't agree. I mean how many times have you reached end-game completely solo? Sure a lot of the time you can get by on your own but almost every game eventually forces you to play with others. Of course this is where GW2 comes into the argument because it's the perfect example. In GW2 you'll be playing with others directly whether you like it or not. Before, the only hinderance to playing directly with others was organizing group play yourself but now you don't even have to do that anymore. So my opinion is that you're wrong to think devs don't want you interracting with eachother, they'd be foolish not to understand that concept. In the past they may not have known how to get kiddies to play together but Arena, more specifically GW2 is a shining example of dev's grasp on the concept.
#TeamVainlash Why did Marceline's dad eat her fries? I mean...cause she bought them and they were hers...
Originally posted by GamerUntouch MMORPG = Massively Multiplayer Role Playing GameI think we all know that though.The problem is, devs don't. They're not making ORPGs. The games are multiplayer by concept, but there's no reason for the other players to be there.There's people running around with you, but they might as well be AI.They don't impact you at all, except for maybe the marketplace or the global chat.What's everyone's opinion on this?How can we stop it?
I sure would rather interact with 5-8 players when online than 100 or more. I've never had an AI NPC help me out in a tough fight. I have yet to find an AI NPC give me directions other than "Over there." I have yet to find a group that wants to just explore.
It has been my experience with grouping that there is a goal and everyone works to get to that goal as quickly as possible. Then it is on to the next goal. Many times, that goal is just to level. Try sitting through the cut-scenes while the rest of your group waits for you. Try reading the quest text. More likely than not, your group may get impatient.
Now, don't get me wrong, when I group I tend to enjoy myself more often than not. But it is a very different gaming experience from when I take my time and solo.
When I played tabletop D&D, the group I was in was the same, almost every time I played. It was the same 5-7 friends. We did mundane things together. We ALL interacted with the NPCs (DM). I actually was able to "role-play" a dumb fighter, an overzealous priest, a goody-two-shoes paladin, a self-absorbed rogue, or an absent-minded wizard. Flawed characters were part of the game. Groups in MMOs do not work this way. Try being a dumb warrior in a group. You'll get kicked in 2 minutes. As you will should you "make a mistake" on purpose or not. Not many players want to adjust on the fly for things that should never go wrong
Forced grouping is a bad idea. With the caliber of players in the genre today, 75% (or more) of them I would rather not have to group with. We just disagree on what we find "fun."
I'm all for making grouping more feasible. Just don't make it mandatory.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
'You can't stop it, because it's what most players want.'
There is a reason SWTOR was terrible (for example) most players DO NOT WANT the same old same old themepark mmorg. Evolution is perfectly normal in the gaming industry, and yet it has stalled in the mmorg gaming world, why is that? Well, a single game has had a monopoly on the mmorg market, and unfortunately has abused that monopoly by evolving a formulae that promotes addictive qualities over innovation and rich content. It is absolutely no coincidence that the mmorg game world has stagnated at THE EXACT time period that a single themepark mmorg has had a monopoly on the market.
Those that argue for the same game style to continue without evolution are following the same ignorant patterns that are usually argued by those who want status quo. The same ignorant patters that are replicated throughout any industry where there is no good regulation to promote innovation over max profit.
There are people that argue for stagnation/the status quo for profit (Blizzard) and there are those that argue for the status quo through fear of change or through a perception that their own personal happiness will be affected by change ( as seen a few posts back)
Evolution and gaming satisfaction is achieved through evolution, Roll on GW2 and TSW to offer genuine choice in this corrupted gaming market.
1. You're assuming TOR captured even 80% of what made WOW fun. It was an alright game for a while, but the lack of mob variety meant all combat played the same, which meant it was nothing like WOW (which varies mobs quite a bit.)
2. You're confusing a discussion on solo vs. grouping with WOW cloning. They're two separate traits of a game: soloability, and WOW similarity. Regarless of how similar or dissimilar a game is to WOW, it's going to do better with a balanced mix of solo and group playstyles. If both playstyles are viable, players will always be able to choose for themselves which to do. This obviously appeals to more players than a game forcing players into one style or the other (and ToR certainly made the mistake of forcing soloing, due to how inconvenient grouping was.)
Im not assuming anything, SWTOR attempted to copy the WOW pattern, its well documented. Im not talking about solo v grouping at all, thats just a facet of mmorgs.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
The majority of gamers out there are wallflowers, content with just watching other's use chat and seeing an occasional passerby. All it takes these days.
Do many people do much more than talk to and hang out with immediate friends at a bar, club, amusement park, casino, etc?
You're looking for people to sudden act differently in an MMO than in any other social setting comprised of mixed company, which is a rather unreasonable expectation.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I think we all know that though.The problem is, devs don't. They're not making ORPGs. The games are multiplayer by concept, but there's no reason for the other players to be there.
There's people running around with you, but they might as well be AI.
They don't impact you at all, except for maybe the marketplace or the global chat.
What's everyone's opinion on this?
How can we stop it?
Don't know what you are smoking. How can you play a 5-man dungeon without other players? How can I go to a PUG raid without other players?
There is no need to stop anything. If a game is fun, play it. If not, don't. MMOs are like other games. There are good ones, and not so good ones.
If you are looking to point a finger, I say blame Facebook and texting. There are so many options today to be social electronically, that quite frankly, even old school MMO's are inferior. You can blame devs all you want. New gamers look less and less to online games for interaction with other people. Can you blame them as well?
Sure, design can certainly change how players interact with each other within a game, but long gone are the days of welcoming communities. If a forward-thinking company wants to create community, like in the golden days of MMO's, they better be ready to throw out the old templates...and ready to sit down with Mark Zuckerberg's personal assistant.
The majority of gamers out there are wallflowers, content with just watching other's use chat and seeing an occasional passerby. All it takes these days.
Do many people do much more than talk to and hang out with immediate friends at a bar, club, amusement park, casino, etc?
You're looking for people to sudden act differently in an MMO than in any other social setting comprised of mixed company, which is a rather unreasonable expectation.
you speak with your bartender who will get you your drinks, and maybe have a discussion about the drink if its not to busy. (buying food/drinks from a crafter player).you also have the stripper which you tip for an enjoyable night, and perhaps in some states/provinces is legal to bring home afterwards. you have the cap driver who will drive you home, another player/player interactions. (smugglers/pilots), then you also have the police officer who will stop your friend because he went and drove home while drunk. law enforcement etc.... i can keep going if you want.
in your daily lives you have interactions everywhere. now remove the NPCs and make em other players (classes/professions) and you have world. have a pure crafter class, have a combatant class for the militia, have a rogue smuggler class that will steal and kill etc... possibilities are ennormous. just switch the NPCs for players
the reason why this is not succeeding is simply because people want it NOW!!
the insane people are those who will run the same raid every day for months the same daily quest. i dont want a game, i want a world.
the difinition of an MMORPG contains the criterion : persistant WORLD, and not persistant game.
By accepting that some people have preferences or reasons for playing solo, and focusing on making sure that even solo play involves interacting with other people. Focus on a rich player-driven economy. Focus on solo players' actions having an effect on the world that affects other solo players (resource depletion, mob migration, open world player housing, etc.)
Seriously, you'll just end up like King Canute yelling at the sea if you tell people they must group up. The only group they'll join is the group of people leaving your game. You need to expand your mind and realize that interacting with other players in a virtual world can mean many different things beyond grouping with them or ganking them.
Im not assuming anything, SWTOR attempted to copy the WOW pattern, its well documented. Im not talking about solo v grouping at all, thats just a facet of mmorgs.
Eh...well uh...solo vs grouping is kinda the discussion at hand, guy.
Nobody's disputing TOR mimicked most of the WOW pattern. I was only pointing out that the reason that flopped is they failed to adequately copy the pattern.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Im not assuming anything, SWTOR attempted to copy the WOW pattern, its well documented. Im not talking about solo v grouping at all, thats just a facet of mmorgs.
Eh...well uh...solo vs grouping is kinda the discussion at hand, guy.
Nobody's disputing TOR mimicked most of the WOW pattern. I was only pointing out that the reason that flopped is they failed to adequately copy the pattern.
You could also add that despite "flopping" it is one of the more successful mmo's in terms of market share. On top of that if they had managed to keep it's bloated budget down it would have been a sweeping success.
By accepting that some people have preferences or reasons for playing solo, and focusing on making sure that even solo play involves interacting with other people. Focus on a rich player-driven economy. Focus on solo players' actions having an effect on the world that affects other solo players (resource depletion, mob migration, open world player housing, etc.)
Seriously, you'll just end up like King Canute yelling at the sea if you tell people they must group up. The only group they'll join is the group of people leaving your game. You need to expand your mind and realize that interacting with other players in a virtual world can mean many different things beyond grouping with them or ganking them.
Very true, that. As I've said earlier: I really like MMORPGs for their features, and 'grouping for content' is just one of the many things one can only find in an MMORPG.
I'm in and by myself a lone wolf, inside the game and outside. But I do enjoy a world that is not only populated by automata. Where I have a persistent world, where encounters are dynamic (meaning that there's always the chance another players is in 'my' area), where there are social interactions apart from "lf1m heal for X". I enjoy helping people out with my knowledge of the game world.
But I HATE grouping. I like to discover and do things in my own pace, not feeling constantly pressured to not hold my group members back by being slow. I also hate it when there's nothing I can spontaneously do because I would need a group for it.
And I hope to all Gods, demi-gods and whathaveyou that that ancient dinosaur of "what can we do to force people to play together" dies a quick death. It's being reanimated long beyond its life cycle. Yeah, maybe I'm not a 'real' MMORPG player, but considering what a 'real' MMORPG player looks like, I'm freaking glad I am not. "Oh, only threehundred more Wargs until I get a 0.1% increase to my to hit chance against beasts!"
By the way, TSW features 'Lair' areas in every zone. They're home to very powerful monsters that cannot be taken on alone. I'm totally okay with that because they're not needed for my progress through the story. They're there for people who enjoy grouping up, and defeating world bosses.
There isn't much to stop. The target audience for big MMOs has changed.
What you can change is your expectations.
If you like a niche MMO setup (be it FFAPvP, a sandbox, forced grouping, all mobs are rabbits, whatever), you have to accept that it will most likely not be AAA quality.
Devs won't sink 30+ mil. into a niche MMO. They will always aim for the masses in order to make the most profit.
So either we start accepting a bit lower quality for our niche MMOs and hope that with more of us putting our wallets where are mouths are quality of upcoming games is going to increase or there is not much point in complaining that we don't get what we want.
honestly i use to agree with playing with others should be a main factor in MMOs. but anymore i dont think i want to play with the communities in these games. i mean dont you see what goes on in global chats? do YOU want to be forced to group with those people?
it seems like most of the people i run into anymore in these games are the " r u mad bro " fools who spend more time trying as hard as they can to put others down than they do actually playing the game. i dont want to group with those people.
I think we all know that though.The problem is, devs don't. They're not making ORPGs. The games are multiplayer by concept, but there's no reason for the other players to be there.
There's people running around with you, but they might as well be AI.
They don't impact you at all, except for maybe the marketplace or the global chat.
I think we all know that though.The problem is, devs don't. They're not making ORPGs. The games are multiplayer by concept, but there's no reason for the other players to be there.
There's people running around with you, but they might as well be AI.
They don't impact you at all, except for maybe the marketplace or the global chat.
What's everyone's opinion on this?
How can we stop it?
although i agree with you
i would like to add 2 thins
1. In any MMORPG you SHOULD NEVER be self sufficient. you need to interact with others. grouping is a must to achieve things. solo play should be available but only as a "super hard mode" and should not give better rewards than when you do something with a group. now some might say, its hard to find PUGs, you dont always have time to do something and people quit all the time. i say, its the game that is not properly made. for one, its hard to find decent PUGs because everyone is going solo since its more rewarding. but i can assure you that if EVERYONE required to group to do missions, you would have EVERYONE looking for groups. adding a game mechanic that would allow to Identify good players from grieffers. (one thing would be a kill/death ratio. another can be guild history with timestamps. achievements saying what you have completed etc.
2. player economy. this will force interaction. and force people to actually talk with their crafters or ressource suppliers.
now the excuses are that you dont always have time to look for crafters or vendors that you just want to log in play a bit and log out.
buy skyrim and play a single player game. you dont register to a football (soccer, futbol) league and whine that you cant use your hands. they will simply tell you to go play handball or basketball.
but if i look at the other side of the medal, people are willing to pay a subscription to play single player games online?
as an investor and company i see 1,000,000 subscribers who want a single player online game and 300,000 who want a real MMORPG. the decision is easy. all my money goes to the development of the single player online game. i played UO > SWG > EvE > and if no one is online to do anything i load up skyrim or ME3 or any other single player game if i feel like PVE or TF2 or Tribes when i feel like PvP i dont go out complaining that i cant play solo in a game made for multiplayer, the same i dont complain that i cant touch the ball with my hands in futbol a game made to be played with your feet.
Well said! Thank you Squal'Zell.
Above all else... never ever piss off the penguin.
Originally posted by GamerUntouch MMORPG = Massively Multiplayer Role Playing GameI think we all know that though.The problem is, devs don't. They're not making ORPGs. The games are multiplayer by concept, but there's no reason for the other players to be there.There's people running around with you, but they might as well be AI.They don't impact you at all, except for maybe the marketplace or the global chat.What's everyone's opinion on this?How can we stop it?
You can stop it with three words.
"Thermal Nuclear War"
1. PvP... Its best reason to group up
2. Unless the A.I gets a massive overhaul, you plus 5 A.I pets = full group of 6... defeating A.I doesnt require much thinking or planning
Originally posted by DrunkWolf honestly i use to agree with playing with others should be a main factor in MMOs. but anymore i don't think i want to play with the communities in these games. i mean don't you see what goes on in global chats? do YOU want to be forced to group with those people?it seems like most of the people i run into anymore in these games are the " r u mad bro " fools who spend more time trying as hard as they can to put others down than they do actually playing the game. i don't want to group with those people.
The thing with this is communities develop as developers allow them to- when games allow progression with little to no dependence on other players then all players can be like you described with no repercussion.
Games developed to cater to fools will attract fools.
Comments
Exactly. MMO players are insane, and you can't make a successfull game targeting tiny subgroup of insane people with lots of time to spend chopping down a tree.
People don't subscribe to games because, again, the majority of the market don't want to spend years in a single game. What we want is to buy a game, play it for a couple of months and delete it - migrate to another game, or, if a game is sensible and fun F2P or B2P leave it on our hard drives returning there for an hour or two every couple of weeks or months.
What we don't want is second life. I have my hands full with the first one, thankyouverymuch. And I already have a lifetime commitment - my wife - and she has ideas about second lifetime commitment. Anyway, when I'll finally turn her around on the whole idea of second lifetime commitment, it will not be a game either...
'You can't stop it, because it's what most players want.'
There is a reason SWTOR was terrible (for example) most players DO NOT WANT the same old same old themepark mmorg. Evolution is perfectly normal in the gaming industry, and yet it has stalled in the mmorg gaming world, why is that? Well, a single game has had a monopoly on the mmorg market, and unfortunately has abused that monopoly by evolving a formulae that promotes addictive qualities over innovation and rich content. It is absolutely no coincidence that the mmorg game world has stagnated at THE EXACT time period that a single themepark mmorg has had a monopoly on the market.
Those that argue for the same game style to continue without evolution are following the same ignorant patterns that are usually argued by those who want status quo. The same ignorant patters that are replicated throughout any industry where there is no good regulation to promote innovation over max profit.
There are people that argue for stagnation/the status quo for profit (Blizzard) and there are those that argue for the status quo through fear of change or through a perception that their own personal happiness will be affected by change ( as seen a few posts back)
Evolution and gaming satisfaction is achieved through evolution, Roll on GW2 and TSW to offer genuine choice in this corrupted gaming market.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Even in muds back in the 90's grouping was optional mmorpg does NOT mean forced group, never has, see a lot of us were brought up on fantasy/action books and films where a single hero or villain kicks ass, many of the heroes in comic books work solo.
We do not need to be sheep following 4 other people around.
Why play a mmo then?
Because human beings are social by nature or most of us are, I rarely group because I am an explorer and like to take my time, being in a group usually means I can not spend my time taking screenshots or noting down things on a blog while roleplaying.
But put me in a town location in game and I will make friends and enjoy myself hell most online games in the past I had relationships and fun like that even cyber
what makes you happy in an mmo is not what makes someone else happy.
What they need to do is incentives to group but do not penalize those of us who love to go solo.
Why aren't you on the board about hamburgers, talking about hamburgers? Instead your on the boards for hamburgers and hot dogs complaining about hot dogs.
A game where you're not 100% reliant on others to advance is very obviously going to perform better than one where you have the option of either (as was the case in WOW.)
Whether a new game ceases to actually be a new game (clones WOW and captures 50% of WOW's fun, as a lot of modern MMORPGs do) is beside the point.
Whether or not a game is a WOW clone, if it's based heavily on progression and forces players to be 100% reliant on others, it's going to perform worse than a game with a 50/50 mix where grouping provides an advantage but it's not such a ridiculous advantage that it's the only viable playstyle.
This should be obvious.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
1. You're assuming TOR captured even 80% of what made WOW fun. It was an alright game for a while, but the lack of mob variety meant all combat played the same, which meant it was nothing like WOW (which varies mobs quite a bit.)
2. You're confusing a discussion on solo vs. grouping with WOW cloning. They're two separate traits of a game: soloability, and WOW similarity. Regarless of how similar or dissimilar a game is to WOW, it's going to do better with a balanced mix of solo and group playstyles. If both playstyles are viable, players will always be able to choose for themselves which to do. This obviously appeals to more players than a game forcing players into one style or the other (and ToR certainly made the mistake of forcing soloing, due to how inconvenient grouping was.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't agree. I mean how many times have you reached end-game completely solo? Sure a lot of the time you can get by on your own but almost every game eventually forces you to play with others. Of course this is where GW2 comes into the argument because it's the perfect example. In GW2 you'll be playing with others directly whether you like it or not. Before, the only hinderance to playing directly with others was organizing group play yourself but now you don't even have to do that anymore. So my opinion is that you're wrong to think devs don't want you interracting with eachother, they'd be foolish not to understand that concept. In the past they may not have known how to get kiddies to play together but Arena, more specifically GW2 is a shining example of dev's grasp on the concept.
#TeamVainlash
Why did Marceline's dad eat her fries? I mean...cause she bought them and they were hers...
It has been my experience with grouping that there is a goal and everyone works to get to that goal as quickly as possible. Then it is on to the next goal. Many times, that goal is just to level. Try sitting through the cut-scenes while the rest of your group waits for you. Try reading the quest text. More likely than not, your group may get impatient.
Now, don't get me wrong, when I group I tend to enjoy myself more often than not. But it is a very different gaming experience from when I take my time and solo.
When I played tabletop D&D, the group I was in was the same, almost every time I played. It was the same 5-7 friends. We did mundane things together. We ALL interacted with the NPCs (DM). I actually was able to "role-play" a dumb fighter, an overzealous priest, a goody-two-shoes paladin, a self-absorbed rogue, or an absent-minded wizard. Flawed characters were part of the game. Groups in MMOs do not work this way. Try being a dumb warrior in a group. You'll get kicked in 2 minutes. As you will should you "make a mistake" on purpose or not. Not many players want to adjust on the fly for things that should never go wrong
Forced grouping is a bad idea. With the caliber of players in the genre today, 75% (or more) of them I would rather not have to group with. We just disagree on what we find "fun."
I'm all for making grouping more feasible. Just don't make it mandatory.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Im not assuming anything, SWTOR attempted to copy the WOW pattern, its well documented. Im not talking about solo v grouping at all, thats just a facet of mmorgs.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Do many people do much more than talk to and hang out with immediate friends at a bar, club, amusement park, casino, etc?
You're looking for people to sudden act differently in an MMO than in any other social setting comprised of mixed company, which is a rather unreasonable expectation.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Don't know what you are smoking. How can you play a 5-man dungeon without other players? How can I go to a PUG raid without other players?
There is no need to stop anything. If a game is fun, play it. If not, don't. MMOs are like other games. There are good ones, and not so good ones.
I fully agree about a player run economy. I remember Runescape's golden age died with the introduction of the grand exchange
If you are looking to point a finger, I say blame Facebook and texting. There are so many options today to be social electronically, that quite frankly, even old school MMO's are inferior. You can blame devs all you want. New gamers look less and less to online games for interaction with other people. Can you blame them as well?
Sure, design can certainly change how players interact with each other within a game, but long gone are the days of welcoming communities. If a forward-thinking company wants to create community, like in the golden days of MMO's, they better be ready to throw out the old templates...and ready to sit down with Mark Zuckerberg's personal assistant.
you speak with your bartender who will get you your drinks, and maybe have a discussion about the drink if its not to busy. (buying food/drinks from a crafter player).you also have the stripper which you tip for an enjoyable night, and perhaps in some states/provinces is legal to bring home afterwards. you have the cap driver who will drive you home, another player/player interactions. (smugglers/pilots), then you also have the police officer who will stop your friend because he went and drove home while drunk. law enforcement etc.... i can keep going if you want.
in your daily lives you have interactions everywhere. now remove the NPCs and make em other players (classes/professions) and you have world. have a pure crafter class, have a combatant class for the militia, have a rogue smuggler class that will steal and kill etc... possibilities are ennormous. just switch the NPCs for players
the reason why this is not succeeding is simply because people want it NOW!!
the insane people are those who will run the same raid every day for months the same daily quest. i dont want a game, i want a world.
the difinition of an MMORPG contains the criterion : persistant WORLD, and not persistant game.
"How can we stop it?"
By accepting that some people have preferences or reasons for playing solo, and focusing on making sure that even solo play involves interacting with other people. Focus on a rich player-driven economy. Focus on solo players' actions having an effect on the world that affects other solo players (resource depletion, mob migration, open world player housing, etc.)
Seriously, you'll just end up like King Canute yelling at the sea if you tell people they must group up. The only group they'll join is the group of people leaving your game. You need to expand your mind and realize that interacting with other players in a virtual world can mean many different things beyond grouping with them or ganking them.
Eh...well uh...solo vs grouping is kinda the discussion at hand, guy.
Nobody's disputing TOR mimicked most of the WOW pattern. I was only pointing out that the reason that flopped is they failed to adequately copy the pattern.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You could also add that despite "flopping" it is one of the more successful mmo's in terms of market share. On top of that if they had managed to keep it's bloated budget down it would have been a sweeping success.
Very true, that. As I've said earlier: I really like MMORPGs for their features, and 'grouping for content' is just one of the many things one can only find in an MMORPG.
I'm in and by myself a lone wolf, inside the game and outside. But I do enjoy a world that is not only populated by automata. Where I have a persistent world, where encounters are dynamic (meaning that there's always the chance another players is in 'my' area), where there are social interactions apart from "lf1m heal for X". I enjoy helping people out with my knowledge of the game world.
But I HATE grouping. I like to discover and do things in my own pace, not feeling constantly pressured to not hold my group members back by being slow. I also hate it when there's nothing I can spontaneously do because I would need a group for it.
And I hope to all Gods, demi-gods and whathaveyou that that ancient dinosaur of "what can we do to force people to play together" dies a quick death. It's being reanimated long beyond its life cycle. Yeah, maybe I'm not a 'real' MMORPG player, but considering what a 'real' MMORPG player looks like, I'm freaking glad I am not. "Oh, only threehundred more Wargs until I get a 0.1% increase to my to hit chance against beasts!"
By the way, TSW features 'Lair' areas in every zone. They're home to very powerful monsters that cannot be taken on alone. I'm totally okay with that because they're not needed for my progress through the story. They're there for people who enjoy grouping up, and defeating world bosses.
To conclude, here's a nice article about why even solo players like playing MMORPGs: http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/06/05/the-soapbox-why-solo-players-dont-just-play-a-single-player-ga/
"How can we stop it?"
There isn't much to stop. The target audience for big MMOs has changed.
What you can change is your expectations.
If you like a niche MMO setup (be it FFAPvP, a sandbox, forced grouping, all mobs are rabbits, whatever), you have to accept that it will most likely not be AAA quality.
Devs won't sink 30+ mil. into a niche MMO. They will always aim for the masses in order to make the most profit.
So either we start accepting a bit lower quality for our niche MMOs and hope that with more of us putting our wallets where are mouths are quality of upcoming games is going to increase or there is not much point in complaining that we don't get what we want.
honestly i use to agree with playing with others should be a main factor in MMOs. but anymore i dont think i want to play with the communities in these games. i mean dont you see what goes on in global chats? do YOU want to be forced to group with those people?
it seems like most of the people i run into anymore in these games are the " r u mad bro " fools who spend more time trying as hard as they can to put others down than they do actually playing the game. i dont want to group with those people.
You can stop it with three words.
"Thermal Nuclear War"
Evil will always triumph because good is dumb....
Well said! Thank you Squal'Zell.
Above all else... never ever piss off the penguin.
You can stop it with three words.
"Thermal Nuclear War"
1. PvP... Its best reason to group up
2. Unless the A.I gets a massive overhaul, you plus 5 A.I pets = full group of 6... defeating A.I doesnt require much thinking or planning
The thing with this is communities develop as developers allow them to- when games allow progression with little to no dependence on other players then all players can be like you described with no repercussion.
Games developed to cater to fools will attract fools.