Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Will we ever see a non-solo oriented mmo again?

1456810

Comments

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by CerebralM

    I think the oft " I don't want to wait to do something or want to need someone to do anything I want to do " stems from a level of personal selfishness and non-cooperative nature.

     

    If a game is designed around needing other people in the game to complete tasks and goals, it creates a community that is more apt to help each other out. I can emphatically say that I rarely see people go to lengths to help strangers in today's games as in the games of 10 years ago.

     

    Today its all, gimme gimme gimme what can I get for me, what can I do right now, what pushes me towards level cap and my goal as opposed to :

     

    I'm going to log in to my virtual character and have fun, see what pops up and get creative if I have to.

    You want to know why?  Because most people got to be assholes, and I don't mean people who refuse to help others, I mean the people who want help.  Back in the day, I used to hang around on Anarchy Online crafting and doing buffs for free for anyone who wanted them, usually while I was sitting around talking with my friends.  If people needed help, I offered to help them, no charge.  In fact, I had so much money, I used to buy people Yalms at 5 million a crack and they never had to pay me back.

    I did that right up until people started treating me like a public resource, like I owed them everything I could do for free.  Not only did virtually none of the people I helped ever say "thank you", if I was busy with someone else and couldn't get a buff off immediately, I got cussed out.  You're right, it's all gimme gimme gimme, that's why people don't help like they used to because they get sick and tired of being used.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • MindTriggerMindTrigger La Quinta, CAPosts: 2,596Member
    Originally posted by gaugemew

    No one is wiling to fail because of someone else.  A side result of this is that the content difficulty is being scaled to the least common denominator.  Since it has to be soloable.

    Our society is becoming very solo, even beyond video games.  No one cares about anyone else.  It's a cultural shift more than anything.  We need to get back to a time when we stop blaming people for failing and start helping them not fail.  On the other side of things, people who fail need to recognize they have failed and except help.

    You mean three year olds are not willing to fail because of others.  I personally prefer to work with a team, win or lose.

    I see this attitude in people with the servers in GW2 as well.  Everyone wants to transfer to Jade Quarry because they are zerg spanking all the other servers in WvW.  I actually transferred OUT of Jade Quarry to Fort Aspenwood because of this.

    A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    I believe I'm not confusing it. When the poster I am responding to phrases thier post in the form of  a question which explicitly calls for an explanation....

    "So the game should take away player choice on the solo/group?"

    "Why limit the choice for players?"

    "Some people don't like to group up so why should they be forced?"

    ... that clearly implies they don't understand why the individual they are responding to has the preferences that they do. Furthermore, they are making a false assumption within those questions.... that the "groupers" preference would result in a "limited choice" for players and by implication, the soloers preference does not.  

    Both cases clearly indicate a failure of understanding. As opposed to something like "I understand what you want, but those aren't my preferences, so I don't care about them".

     

     

     

    The problem is, it isn't a "grouping" choice or a "soloing" choice, it's a "forced" choice or a "free" choice.  Soloers do not insist that anyone solo.  If you choose to group, you can group.  It simply insists that no one can force anyone else to play one style or the other.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    Originally posted by gaugemew

    No one is wiling to fail because of someone else.  A side result of this is that the content difficulty is being scaled to the least common denominator.  Since it has to be soloable.

    Our society is becoming very solo, even beyond video games.  No one cares about anyone else.  It's a cultural shift more than anything.  We need to get back to a time when we stop blaming people for failing and start helping them not fail.  On the other side of things, people who fail need to recognize they have failed and except help.

    You mean three year olds are not willing to fail because of others.  I personally prefer to work with a team, win or lose.

    I see this attitude in people with the servers in GW2 as well.  Everyone wants to transfer to Jade Quarry because they are zerg spanking all the other servers in WvW.  I actually transferred OUT of Jade Quarry to Fort Aspenwood because of this.

    I am 45+ and i prefer not to fail because someone else is not playing the game well. Why would i want to stick with a losing team?

    I suppose i would stick with real world friends or relatives. But why would i want to stick with someone i don't know on the Internet?

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    I believe I'm not confusing it. When the poster I am responding to phrases thier post in the form of  a question which explicitly calls for an explanation....

    "So the game should take away player choice on the solo/group?"

    "Why limit the choice for players?"

    "Some people don't like to group up so why should they be forced?"

    ... that clearly implies they don't understand why the individual they are responding to has the preferences that they do. Furthermore, they are making a false assumption within those questions.... that the "groupers" preference would result in a "limited choice" for players and by implication, the soloers preference does not.  

    Both cases clearly indicate a failure of understanding. As opposed to something like "I understand what you want, but those aren't my preferences, so I don't care about them".

     

     

     

    The problem is, it isn't a "grouping" choice or a "soloing" choice, it's a "forced" choice or a "free" choice.  Soloers do not insist that anyone solo.  If you choose to group, you can group.  It simply insists that no one can force anyone else to play one style or the other.

    The game design/mechanics NECCESARLY CHANGE to support one style of play or the other. As does the game environment when people are consistantly choosing one style of play over the other in large percentage.

    Now SOLOERS perhaps don't PERCIEVE or INTEND for thier play-style to eliminate (or at least severely degrades)  the possibility for those of us who prefer cooperative play to pursue our chosen play-style but that, INDEED, is the EFFECT.  Very much to the same degree that changing the game of baseball to make solo-ing in it viable would eliminate the prefered play-style of those who enjoy the game as it is now. The idea that a design which supports one play-style does not effect the other is simply FALSE.

    Many of us who prefer "Grouping/Team Based/Cooperative based play" don't wish to force "soloers" to group.  We're happy that they have MMO's to play which cater to thier prefered play-style. We simply do NOT wish to play in those same MMO's, because the mechanics and designs which make soloing viable in an MMO and the atmosphere it creates, by it's VERY NATURE eliminates our prefered play style. It creates a version of "grouping"...which frankly sucks for many fans of grouping/cooperative play.

    Note we (or at least I) are NOT saying that there should be no MMO's available to play which support the Solo play style...we are simply lamenting that there don't appear to be ANY which support ours.  Now how is that "freedom of choice"?

    99 percent of the MMO's on the market cater to your prefered play-style, how is it eliminating your "freedom of choice" by us desiring at least one or two that caters to ours?

    Edit: Replace "solo" and "group-oriented" play with "Fantasy" and "Sci-Fi" instead and perhaps what I'm talking about becomes clearer. While technically you can form a Group in most "solo oriented" MMO's......it's not nearly the same sort of experience most of us are talking about when we refer to "Group Oriented/Team/Cooperative Play"...... it's like calling McDonalds a "seafood resteraunt" because they technicaly have Fillet-O-Fish Sandwich on the menu.

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
     

    The game design/mechanics NECCESARLY CHANGE to support one style of play or the other. As does the game environment when people are consistantly choosing one style of play over the other in large percentage.

    Now SOLOERS perhaps don't PERCIEVE or INTEND for thier play-style to eliminate (or at least severely degrades)  the possibility for those of us who prefer cooperative play to pursue our chosen play-style but that, INDEED, is the EFFECT.  Very much to the same degree that changing the game of baseball to make solo-ing in it viable would eliminate the prefered play-style of those who enjoy the game as it is now. The idea that a design which supports one play-style does not effect the other is simply FALSE.

    Many of us who prefer "Grouping/Team Based/Cooperative based play" don't wish to force "soloers" to group.  We're happy that they have MMO's to play which cater to thier prefered play-style. We simply do NOT wish to play in those same MMO's, because the mechanics and designs which make soloing viable in an MMO and the atmosphere it creates, by it's VERY NATURE eliminates our prefered play style. It creates a version of "grouping"...which frankly sucks for many fans of grouping/cooperative play.

    Note we (or at least I) are NOT saying that there should be no MMO's available to play which support the Solo play style...we are simply lamenting that there don't appear to be ANY which support ours.  Now how is that "freedom of choice"?

    99 percent of the MMO's on the market cater to your prefered play-style, how is it eliminating your "freedom of choice" by us desiring at least one or two that caters to ours?

    Edit: Replace "solo" and "group-oriented" play with "Fantasy" and "Sci-Fi" instead and perhaps what I'm talking about becomes clearer. While technically you can form a Group in most "solo oriented" MMO's......it's not nearly the same sort of experience most of us are talking about when we refer to "Group Oriented/Team/Cooperative Play"...... it's like calling McDonalds a "seafood resteraunt" because they technicaly have Fillet-O-Fish Sandwich on the menu.

     

    That is not true. MMOs are now catered to a lobby-based co-op grouping style, NOT a solo-style. Now you may dislike THIS kind of group style. But it is still grouping, NOT solo-ing.

     

  • BeartosserBeartosser Toronto, ONPosts: 92Member

    99% of MMO's on the market allow groupers to obtain gear that makes them far more effective at soloing mobs than soloers themselves. Until that changes, those MMO's can't even remotely be called solo oriented.

    In short, playing solo in an MMO is like being the protagonist in a long, drawn out version of Das Schloss.

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    The game design/mechanics NECCESARLY CHANGE to support one style of play or the other. As does the game environment when people are consistantly choosing one style of play over the other in large percentage.

    No it doesn't.  The only thing your argument does is assume that people are stupid and lazy and will always take the easy road.  Now personally, in a game that favors grouping, I will still solo, even if it is easier to play in a group, because I favor solo play regardless.  So why won't people who favor grouping do so regardless of the game?  If it is true what the groupers say and grouping is at least as popular a choice as soloing, then there should be tons of people who are choosing to group regardless of the tilt of the game.  So where are they?

    Now SOLOERS perhaps don't PERCIEVE or INTEND for thier play-style to eliminate (or at least severely degrades)  the possibility for those of us who prefer cooperative play to pursue our chosen play-style but that, INDEED, is the EFFECT.  Very much to the same degree that changing the game of baseball to make solo-ing in it viable would eliminate the prefered play-style of those who enjoy the game as it is now. The idea that a design which supports one play-style does not effect the other is simply FALSE.

    It just proves that either there aren't that many people who actually want to group, or that they're primarily lazy, which certainly doesn't say much for group advocates.

    Many of us who prefer "Grouping/Team Based/Cooperative based play" don't wish to force "soloers" to group.  We're happy that they have MMO's to play which cater to thier prefered play-style. We simply do NOT wish to play in those same MMO's, because the mechanics and designs which make soloing viable in an MMO and the atmosphere it creates, by it's VERY NATURE eliminates our prefered play style. It creates a version of "grouping"...which frankly sucks for many fans of grouping/cooperative play.

    No, what you want to do, or at least what lots of groupers want to do, is to bribe soloers into playing in groups, specifically so they will have lots of people to group with.  On a totally level playing field, where there is no specific advantage to playing solo vs. playing group, the majority of players will solo.  It's no longer a choice between soloing and grouping, it's a choice between lesser rewards and greater rewards.  It's a bribe.  However, grouping already inherently has advantages, simply because there are more people involved.  It can take on higher-level content faster, it can kill mobs faster, thus achieving a higher kill-per-hour ratio.  You will level faster in a group than you will on your own.  Grouping, in pretty much any game out there, is already inherently superior to soloing, so why do you have so much trouble attracting people to it?  It can't be the time required to put together groups, especially in light of the LFG systems out there, which lots of groupers seem to hate anyhow.  You can be in a group in a matter of minutes, you can shoot for harder content, better rewards, faster leveling... why does grouping continue to fail?

    Here's a hint:  It's not soloing.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • KaosProphetKaosProphet Edmonton, ABPosts: 379Member
    Originally posted by CerebralM

    I think the oft " I don't want to wait to do something or want to need someone to do anything I want to do " stems from a level of personal selfishness and non-cooperative nature.

     

    If a game is designed around needing other people in the game to complete tasks and goals, it creates a community that is more apt to help each other out. I can emphatically say that I rarely see people go to lengths to help strangers in today's games as in the games of 10 years ago.

     Today its all, gimme gimme gimme what can I get for me, what can I do right now, what pushes me towards level cap and my goal as opposed to :

     I'm going to log in to my virtual character and have fun, see what pops up and get creative if I have to.

    Indeed.

    But, curiously, my memories come from UO, in the period surrounding the Trammel/Fellucca split.  Where there was plenty of stuff I could do on my own, or at least without formal grouping (by which I mean, I wander down to whatever dungeon on my own, inside are a bunch of people already doing stuff, and I just join in,) if I wanted to.  It wasn't necessarily the top-end content, though I hear a good tamer or bard build could do much of that on his own as well.

    One didn't actually *need* other people for anything, it was more that the people were there whether you needed them or not.  Todays games are so instance-filled, that you hardly ever see anyone except at the quest-hubs.  Where they're mostly hanging around silently, checking the queues,  conversing on their private guild-chats and otherwise ignoring everyone else around them.

  • KaosProphetKaosProphet Edmonton, ABPosts: 379Member

     [quote] Originally posted by GrumpyMel2


    Originally posted by Cephus404

    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2 I believe I'm not confusing it. When the poster I am responding to phrases thier post in the form of  a question which explicitly calls for an explanation.... "So the game should take away player choice on the solo/group?" "Why limit the choice for players?" "Some people don't like to group up so why should they be forced?" ... that clearly implies they don't understand why the individual they are responding to has the preferences that they do. Furthermore, they are making a false assumption within those questions.... that the "groupers" preference would result in a "limited choice" for players and by implication, the soloers preference does not.   Both cases clearly indicate a failure of understanding. As opposed to something like "I understand what you want, but those aren't my preferences, so I don't care about them".       The problem is, it isn't a "grouping" choice or a "soloing" choice, it's a "forced" choice or a "free" choice.  Soloers do not insist that anyone solo.  If you choose to group, you can group.  It simply insists that no one can force anyone else to play one style or the other.
    The game design/mechanics NECCESARLY CHANGE to support one style of play or the other. As does the game environment when people are consistantly choosing one style of play over the other in large percentage.
    I am loathe to admit to ignorance, but I'm not seeing how this is true by necessity.  What, exactly, is required to support solo play that directly conflicts with group play - or vice versa? (Note: required, not merely "commonly correlated with." )
     
     

    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
    99 percent of the MMO's on the market cater to your prefered play-style, how is it eliminating your "freedom of choice" by us desiring at least one or two that caters to ours?

    How do they do so?

    I've been a bit out of the loop since Eve - which, oddly, is a game where one can run solo and do plenty of stuff (not everything, of course, but enough to keep one entertained) yet is mostly known for it's massive player alliance warfare.

    Most of the stuff I've glanced over outside of that looks like it's all about Group PvP and Group Raids for the endgame.  Sure, the game prior to that point might be soloable, maybe even 'solo encouraged,' but it's also dismissed by the community as being just the 'warmup' for the real game at the end.  So that's not *exacly* catering to the soloist.  It's more like a bait-and-switch.

    So, what am I missing?

  • sfc1971sfc1971 UtrechtPosts: 421Member

    I was working on an article yesterday that asked "what makes a MMORPG a MMORPG" and "Why have all new MMO's so far failed to increase the market like Everquest and World of Warcraft did".

    I came to the conclusion that what made these old games still playable while more modern games have come and gone, is that they forced social play. Social play isn't purely grouping, it is being in the world with other players and can be as simple as being in a long hallway with mobs and each player taking the next mob, leapfrogging each other cutting the number of mobs to fight in half. SWTOR became extra bad when it was losing players and you always had to fight full mobs in and out of dungeons rather then find them partially cleared by other players,

    GW2 does this most excellent with events, just work together, exchange a few a jokes in local chat and then go on your merry way. Sometimes you follow a small group through hard content, figuring that they might use a bit of extra damage while you gain some protection. Since loot and resource nodes are shared, nobody is competing for anything and people don't resent you being close to them or attacking a mob they were waiting for because everyone gets a gold star.

    But the game ALSO does it very badly, spend you time rezzing people and you get  bronze star for an event. At one event I used a warrior elite skills to ressurrect well over a dozen players and a lot of NPC's as I joined the event turning what was starting to look like a wipe into a victory and did the game reward me for that? Nope, bronze star since I didn't do as much DPS as the players who died.

    The WoW type games have always had the problem with healers being hard to find apparently, never had an issue with it myself but then I am perfectly willing to quest with a healer so they don't have to slow crawl through everything solo with their gimped damage output.

    In TSW, all the kiddies go for max DPS, then whine there are no healers or tanks. Hello, you need a healer or tank in TSW, you can respec yourself on the fly to play that role. Oh, you spent all your points on pure DPS, well sucks to be you then, I go and group with players who are actually flexible, who can turn themselves into DPS with reduced agro, or take a tank role or do some additional healing.

    MMO's function as MMO's when it allows its players to play socially and when those players wish to play socially. Many games fail at this and so do a lot of gamers.

    A lot of gamers, the group-haters seem to actively resent the idea of having to share the game world with other people. What they seem to want is a single player game with ePenis waving room "look at the armor I got, worship me" rather then play a social game interacting with other people where it is the social interaction that is the major motivator. These people then burn through content, just as some people finish single player games in a single day and then there is nothing there for them. 

    Giving in to the solo crowd is like a dating site giving in to people who just don't want to date people. It kinda ruins the business case you have. It is like opening a steak restaurant for vegans. A solo friendly MMORPG is a contradiction in terms. What next? A racer for people who hate speeding? A FPS without guns? A puzzle game without puzzles?

    That recent single player RPG from the sports player company, that was a MMO design turned into a single player game, and it sucked because of it. Why play a MMORPG alone? It just seems that so far, no MMO that went that route thrived and the people that demand for it show zero loyality to a game, yet every game maker seems desperate to go this route.

    Lets hope at least some game developers learn from history and produce an old style MMORPG again.

  • KaosProphetKaosProphet Edmonton, ABPosts: 379Member
    Originally posted by sfc1971

    A lot of gamers, the group-haters seem to actively resent the idea of having to share the game world with other people. What they seem to want is a single player game with ePenis waving room "look at the armor I got, worship me" rather then play a social game interacting with other people where it is the social interaction that is the major motivator. These people then burn through content, just as some people finish single player games in a single day and then there is nothing there for them. 

    Funny.  I am arguably a "group-hater" (tho really I'm more of a "take it or leave it",) and that's the exact opposite of what I want.

    I do want to share the game world with other people.  What I don't want is to be forced into groups in order to do so.  I want the socialization to come because there are other people around me while I do stuff, not because I have to formally party-up with a group of other people in order to do stuff.

    Maybe it's just a semantic nitpick I'm getting at here:  the red bit, to me, is natural socialization but it seems to be what some people are calling 'forced socialization.'  To me, forced socialization is that thing where you go to an instance portal and it tells you "you need X players in your group to enter," and the only reason people group is to open that portal.

    And (in further support of the "maybe it's just sempantics" theory) calling it 'forced' just sets me off.

  • KhinRuniteKhinRunite ManilaPosts: 879Member
    I for one wish there's a couple of "non-solo oriented" AAA MMORPGs around. Not for me, but for them veterans. Especially the ones blaming the "new wave" MMO crowd for the state of their precious genre. 
  • itsneoitsneo HAMILTON, ONPosts: 18Member
    Originally posted by maji
    MMORPGs are for the masses. The masses don't want to be forced to look for other people to team up with. The masses want to log into the game, and do some questing and stuff. As such: sure, sooner or later such a game will be made, but it will be a rarity. Most games will be tailored for solo play.

    What then is the point of having it online if all we are doing is soloing?  Massively MULTIPLAYER..   implies more than one .. more than solo.   OP is right..   too much solo,   not enough Role playing in SOCIAL INTERACTIVE, IMMERSIVE game play..   

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member
    Originally posted by Cephus404

    No, what you want to do, or at least what lots of groupers want to do, is to bribe soloers into playing in groups, specifically so they will have lots of people to group with.  On a totally level playing field, where there is no specific advantage to playing solo vs. playing group, the majority of players will solo.  It's no longer a choice between soloing and grouping, it's a choice between lesser rewards and greater rewards.  It's a bribe.  However, grouping already inherently has advantages, simply because there are more people involved.  It can take on higher-level content faster, it can kill mobs faster, thus achieving a higher kill-per-hour ratio.  You will level faster in a group than you will on your own.  Grouping, in pretty much any game out there, is already inherently superior to soloing, so why do you have so much trouble attracting people to it?  It can't be the time required to put together groups, especially in light of the LFG systems out there, which lots of groupers seem to hate anyhow.  You can be in a group in a matter of minutes, you can shoot for harder content, better rewards, faster leveling... why does grouping continue to fail?

    Here's a hint:  It's not soloing.

    No, what I want to do is play an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT GAME then soloers. I don't even neccesarly want to play a game based on leveling or advancement at all. I do, however, want to play a game DESIGNED around the neccessity of player cooperation and interaction to ACHIEVE ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT in the game.

    Here's a hint: If you're prefered playing style is solo....I'm happy you have titles to play that you enjoy...but I DON'T WANT to play those titles with you...They suck for me. Just like I'm would be happy if someone really enjoys Accounting that a game called CPA Online would be created....but I certainly wouldn't want to play Certified Public Accounting Online myself....and I really wouldn't be happy if that person insisted that all MMO's from then on be designed so they feature Accounting.

     

     

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    @Kaosprophet -

    A game which is focused on solo-play eliminates the NECCESITY for Teamwork, social interaction and player cooperation for significant achievment in the game. By it's very DEFINITION it does that. I'll give you some practical examples....

    I used to play a MUD where if you died while out adventuring you NEEDED someone to come out and rescue your corpse. If they didn't within a certain amount of time, your body would decay, not only would you lose experience, you'd loose all the gear you had on you. You could even suffer perma-death if you hadn't taken some (rather easy) preperations. That meant that you either adventured with someone else or you established a social connection with people who would come out and rescue you. It created a sense of comradeship against shared adversity and a great community. Can't have that with solo-focused play because the soloers would all complain about having to rely on others.

    In the same MUD, if you fell or were injured, you could drop what was carried in your hands (weapons, shields, wands, etc). The mobs could then pick these up and use them, which made them very dangerous. You needed people to come out and help you when this happaned and to retrieve your weapons from the mobs. Again, can't have this in a solo focused game because the soloers would complain about having to rely on someone else.

    Same MUD, would often have "invasions" or GM played creatures appearing both in town and out in the wilderness (not instanced, open adventuring areas). Most of these were quite dangerours and required teamwork in order to defeat. Can't have this in a solo-focused game because soloers will complain as to how it cramps thier adventuring style.

    Combat, can't really have much in the way of highly specialized combat roles or monsters that are really vulnerable to different types of attacks or require combined teamwork to effectively defeat. Everyones got to be able to defeat everything or soloers will complain that they "can't do content" on thier own. Thus everyones pretty much the same except for the graphics...and any specialized monsters have to be segregated away in "group instances" and even there they are typicaly "scaled" so they can be defeated by a soloer of any class.

    Ever try to group with 1 or 2 other people in open world adventuring...it's so mind numbingly easy that you could do it blind-folded, because everything has to be scaled to the combat output of solo players.

    Multi-Crewed combat vehicles....forget it. Soloers complain

    Multi-Person attacks....forget it. Soloers complain.

    True player driven crafting based economy...forget it soloers complain.

    If group players want content actualy designed for groups they are segregated to instanced "ghetto's" called raids or group adventures....and these, if you are LUCKY comprise maybe 5% of the content in todays RAIDS.

    Look at something like LOTRO....even at the start it was pretty solo-freindly but occasionaly in an Epic Book Quest or Major Questline you'd get 1 or 2 quests designed for groups (even if they were instanced)....comprised maybe 5-10 percent of the content. The last expansion....of something like over 600 quests, exactly ONE was actualy designed for groups.... But yeah, please try to tell me how solo-oriented games don't effect my ability to play in a group or interact with others.

    I'm a RP-er....people actualy used to occasionaly try to RP in games....now it's so bad people won't even speak with you at all. They are all busy doing thier own things. That's the kind of environment solo-focused games create.  Who wants to even TRY to RP in an environment full of people who have no interest in interacting with anyone else...so even those who might otherwise be inclined are discouraged from trying...and so no one does.

    No I don't want to play in an environment like that...it's not any fun. I want to play in an environment that's specificaly designed and designated for players who have similar/compatible interests to my own.

  • TibernicusTibernicus Fall River, MAPosts: 433Member

    MMOs were always about playing with others in a massive virtual world. The primary reason for the failure of the monthly sub, and the failure of all the WoW clones, is that modern MMOs have forgotten that.

    Why play a bad version of a singleplayer game? For the chat? No. If you make it like a singleplayer game, people will treat it like one. They'll go through the mediocre quests, then unsubscribe..

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    No, what I want to do is play an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT GAME then soloers. I don't even neccesarly want to play a game based on leveling or advancement at all. I do, however, want to play a game DESIGNED around the neccessity of player cooperation and interaction to ACHIEVE ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT in the game.

    Here's a hint: If you're prefered playing style is solo....I'm happy you have titles to play that you enjoy...but I DON'T WANT to play those titles with you...They suck for me. Just like I'm would be happy if someone really enjoys Accounting that a game called CPA Online would be created....but I certainly wouldn't want to play Certified Public Accounting Online myself....and I really wouldn't be happy if that person insisted that all MMO's from then on be designed so they feature Accounting.

     

    Then you need to provide developers with a reason to make such a game and the way to do that is to show them there are hundreds of thousands of people who are willing to pay for a grouping game and make it worth their financial while to spend years of their lives and millions of dollars making that game.

    Unfortunately, that hasn't been proved to developers or they would have made that game already.

    Welcome to the world of business.  Nobody owes you a thing.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by itsneo
    Originally posted by maji
    MMORPGs are for the masses. The masses don't want to be forced to look for other people to team up with. The masses want to log into the game, and do some questing and stuff. As such: sure, sooner or later such a game will be made, but it will be a rarity. Most games will be tailored for solo play.

    What then is the point of having it online if all we are doing is soloing?  Massively MULTIPLAYER..   implies more than one .. more than solo.   OP is right..   too much solo,   not enough Role playing in SOCIAL INTERACTIVE, IMMERSIVE game play..   

    Who says MMOs are mostly solo? Not even WOW is like that. MMO today is about small group co-op LFD content, and you can't do that without online.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Tibernicus

    MMOs were always about playing with others in a massive virtual world. The primary reason for the failure of the monthly sub, and the failure of all the WoW clones, is that modern MMOs have forgotten that.

    Why play a bad version of a singleplayer game? For the chat? No. If you make it like a singleplayer game, people will treat it like one. They'll go through the mediocre quests, then unsubscribe..

    Because SP game don't have co-op online play? Because there is no AH?

    And what does online has to do with length of play?

    MMO is no longer about massive virtual world. It is about lobby based co-op (or pvp) instanced online adventures. I don't think anyone is "forgetting" the virtual world. It is just that instanced small group gameplay resonate BETTER with gamers.

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    No, what I want to do is play an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT GAME then soloers. I don't even neccesarly want to play a game based on leveling or advancement at all. I do, however, want to play a game DESIGNED around the neccessity of player cooperation and interaction to ACHIEVE ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT in the game.

    Here's a hint: If you're prefered playing style is solo....I'm happy you have titles to play that you enjoy...but I DON'T WANT to play those titles with you...They suck for me. Just like I'm would be happy if someone really enjoys Accounting that a game called CPA Online would be created....but I certainly wouldn't want to play Certified Public Accounting Online myself....and I really wouldn't be happy if that person insisted that all MMO's from then on be designed so they feature Accounting.

     

    Then you need to provide developers with a reason to make such a game and the way to do that is to show them there are hundreds of thousands of people who are willing to pay for a grouping game and make it worth their financial while to spend years of their lives and millions of dollars making that game.

    Unfortunately, that hasn't been proved to developers or they would have made that game already.

    Welcome to the world of business.  Nobody owes you a thing.

    Who said they did?   I'm hopefull that some Developers will make AAA MMO's that focus on  team and cooperative play and I've got my eye on a couple upcoming ones that look hopefull ( Planetside2 and Pathfinder Online). Absent paid for market research (which is too valuable to release for free to the public),  my best arguement  is that there are other types of games (FPS and Social Networking)  which focus on social interaction and cooperative play and are also widely popular. So I think a reasonable business case can be made that it's not  social interaction or "forced" cooperative play themselves which  are upopular concepts.

    Nevertheless while I may be dissappointed that most developers have chosen to be so deirivitive in thier work, thier motivations are completely understandable. They are businesses, they work hard to produce products. They want to make a proffit off the products that they produce so they do what they PERCIEVE will net them good returns, nothing wrong with that. Sometimes thier perceptions are on target, other times not so much.

    What is completely unfathomable is the "soloers" who seem to fail to recognize that NOT EVERY GAME MUST be designed to cater to thier individual preferences and thier prefered play style. Those who invade every single thread on these boards with an objection to even the concept of a single game being made that doesn't support thier prefered style. It's the equivalent of saying "I don't like chinese food, so I object to the EXISTANCE of ANY resteraunt which choses to specialize in it".  Get over yourselves. The world is a big enough and varied enough place that there is room for all sorts of different games that cater to all sorts of different preferences. You don't need to object to people who want to play a different type of game then you do....and you don't need to paint it as if we are trying to "force"  you to do ANYTHING. If anyone ever does make a "Grouping Only" MMO....I promise I'm not going to stand behind you with a gun and "force" you to play it.

    You need to accept that not every game need be designed to support your individual preferences, just like I accept not every game need be designed to support mine.

  • GravargGravarg Harker Heights, TXPosts: 3,332Member Uncommon
    The only problem with a group oriented MMO, like FFXI, is that when the game gets older players start to spend more time looking for a group than actually playing.  There are ways around this with level mentoring and such, like FFXI implemented, but it's not the same.  Some of the best times I ever had were in FFXI, just sitting at the local outpost chatting while the RNG or THF pulled the next overpowered mob for the group to kill.  Unfortunately the longevity of group oriented games isn't as long as solo games.  People start to drop like flies once they have to wait 20-30 minutes before they can go out and actually kill stuff.  Even the die hard fans start to leave when you have to wait for an hour or more.
  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Tibernicus

    MMOs were always about playing with others in a massive virtual world. The primary reason for the failure of the monthly sub, and the failure of all the WoW clones, is that modern MMOs have forgotten that.

    Why play a bad version of a singleplayer game? For the chat? No. If you make it like a singleplayer game, people will treat it like one. They'll go through the mediocre quests, then unsubscribe..

    Because SP game don't have co-op online play? Because there is no AH?

    And what does online has to do with length of play?

    MMO is no longer about massive virtual world. It is about lobby based co-op (or pvp) instanced online adventures. I don't think anyone is "forgetting" the virtual world. It is just that instanced small group gameplay resonate BETTER with gamers.

    If you edited your post to rephrase it as "SOME gamers", I'd have no problem with what you said...but you really presume alot when you try to speak for all gamer-dom.

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member
    Originally posted by Gravarg
    The only problem with a group oriented MMO, like FFXI, is that when the game gets older players start to spend more time looking for a group than actually playing.  There are ways around this with level mentoring and such, like FFXI implemented, but it's not the same.  Some of the best times I ever had were in FFXI, just sitting at the local outpost chatting while the RNG or THF pulled the next overpowered mob for the group to kill.  Unfortunately the longevity of group oriented games isn't as long as solo games.  People start to drop like flies once they have to wait 20-30 minutes before they can go out and actually kill stuff.  Even the die hard fans start to leave when you have to wait for an hour or more.

    Again you are making alot of presumptions about the exact format of "group/cooperative play" in such games. It's even a presumption that "killing stuff" is the primary focus of play for all/most players.

    Even in that case, it's rare that you are quite literarly, the only one around on the server. You don't see that in FPS games....no one sits around for an hour waiting to play. Even in cases where you don't really have access to the types of kits/equipment ideal for the situation (say no one has unlocked them, or no one wants to switch out of thier prefered kit). You go out and try to make the best use of what you have availble on hand to deal with the situation.

  • TibernicusTibernicus Fall River, MAPosts: 433Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Tibernicus

    MMOs were always about playing with others in a massive virtual world. The primary reason for the failure of the monthly sub, and the failure of all the WoW clones, is that modern MMOs have forgotten that.

    Why play a bad version of a singleplayer game? For the chat? No. If you make it like a singleplayer game, people will treat it like one. They'll go through the mediocre quests, then unsubscribe..

    Because SP game don't have co-op online play?

    Most do, there's an entire genre of games for that kind of thing. Neverwinter, Torchlight, Titan's Quest, Diablo. You've made it very clear you don't like MMOs and that you want all current MMOS to be mobas. You can stop chanting it.

    If instanced lobby MMOs resonated better with gamers, than virtually every MMO that ever tried that wouldn't have failed, don't you think? But no, keep ignoring evidence. I'll just count the number of failed dungeon crawlers...

Sign In or Register to comment.