Howdy, Stranger!

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

The 'Group Play vs Solo Play in an MMO' Thread

1636466686988

Comments

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,698Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
     

    Oh I didn't say that it wouldn't be hard, or that it wouldn't suck.  But it can be done, might be a terrible game play experience but it can still be one. 

    I agree that it will significantly hinder your ability for success.  And in that type of game it should.

    How can you have a match in an online shooter (team based) in which you have zero interaction or impact on/from another player?

    The same way that you would in an PvP mmo that people are always saying you can have zero interaction. You can't. 

    You don't need to talk with anyone, or speak with anyone or team with anyone.  But in an MMO pvp world there will be some level of interaction or impact. 

    So if people think that is soloing in a pvp MMO than I guess it's soloing in a pvp shooter.  The definition works both ways.

    ---------

    But in reality the games offer a solo mode.  At least CoD does.  And you can play in solo survival mode. 

    Thats what I am saying.  The game lets you play both ways.  Solo and with a team. 

    Also I am saying a team based game is a subgroup of mulitplayer and not the definition of multiplayer, and I'm saying it has always been this way.

    -

    Some would argue that the free for all mode in CoD is the same as soloing in a pvp mmo.  I sure would. 

    There are more ways of interacting than grouping.  This is whay we have always and will continue to say.  Grouping does not define multiplayer, and multiplayer does not mean grouping.  Just interaction. 

  • immodiumimmodium ManchesterPosts: 1,960Member Uncommon

    It really depends on what I'm doing. PvE I solo, PvP I don't mind grouping up.

    In PvE I find the only reason why I need to group up is because the enemy has more HP or better gear than me. Not that the AI is more skillfull.

    If AI becomes human like then I may group up for PvE, as I may feel like I have accomplished something.

    image
  • CorvusCoraxCorvusCorax stockholmPosts: 38Member
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    But you can solo in Call of Duty and Battlefied. You can choose to solo and you can choose to play a a team.  Funny enough, just like an MMO. So I agree with the definition of muliplayer, it just means you can, you have the opportunity for group play. 

    No the difference is that you CAN play the singple player campaign but it will always be nothing more than single player. If you chose to play multiplayer in CoD it can never be anything else but multiplayer. It is the same as if I was to chose a private game on battle net in Diablo 2 while playing alone. Yes battle net enables multiplayer but if I am playing in my own game I am still playing single player even if it is online.

     

    Multiplayer has and always will mean that another player(s) is directly involved in your gameplay experience. In the same way you cant PvP solo you cant group or raid PvE solo and thats just the way it is. You cant have multiplayer without it dictating that other players are directly involved.

     

    You can play single player in CoD campaign but it will always be single player, it wont be multiplayer untill you go online and join matches. The same waya  MMORPG is and always wills be a multiplayer game with groups and raids, you can solo some quests and what not but soloing in a MMORPG will never be multiplayer gameplay.

    image
  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,528Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by UsualSuspect
    Originally posted by Cephus404   I wish someone would make an MMO with decent people playing it.  I just know that won't happen, that any MMO I play will continue to be populated by mental midgets and obnoxious assholes so I just don't play.  Nobody owes me the game I want to play.  I can still want it, I just know that it won't happen.
    What you actually need to play then is a group orientated game, as it's actually been proven that the more solo oriented the gameplay the more of a dick the player becomes.

    http://www.gamefront.com/study-team-gamers-less-likely-to-be-jerks/

    I've been saying this for a long time - you can probably find it in one of my many posts in this oversized thread - that the more solo orientated a game becomes, the more the community suffers. It seems a study has proven me right.


    Of all the posts here, this is the one I wish to quote. Cephus' subsequent post, "casting a wider net will yield more bottom-feeders" flits with brilliance as well.

    /agree!!

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,698Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by CorvusCorax
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    But you can solo in Call of Duty and Battlefied. You can choose to solo and you can choose to play a a team.  Funny enough, just like an MMO. So I agree with the definition of muliplayer, it just means you can, you have the opportunity for group play. 

    No the difference is that you CAN play the singple player campaign but it will always be nothing more than single player. If you chose to play multiplayer in CoD it can never be anything else but multiplayer. It is the same as if I was to chose a private game on battle net in Diablo 2 while playing alone. Yes battle net enables multiplayer but if I am playing in my own game I am still playing single player even if it is online.

     

    Multiplayer has and always will mean that another player(s) is directly involved in your gameplay experience. In the same way you cant PvP solo you cant group or raid PvE solo and thats just the way it is. You cant have multiplayer without it dictating that other players are directly involved.

     

    You can play single player in CoD campaign but it will always be single player, it wont be multiplayer untill you go online and join matches. The same waya  MMORPG is and always wills be a multiplayer game with groups and raids, you can solo some quests and what not but soloing in a MMORPG will never be multiplayer gameplay.

    I disagree.  Soloing has almost always been considered not grouping, not just not having any impact or no interaction.  People talk about grouping.

    Therefore if I play a MMO pvp and do not group I'm still playing solo.   Just like joining a free for all CoD.  I'm not grouped, therefore it's solo.  That is the same definition people apply to MMO's.

    They say not grouping, only when it's pointed out that there are other ways to interact do they change the definition to no interacton or at all which is just silly. 

  • NinethousandNinethousand ThisiscityPosts: 4Member

    It is my understanding that all these threads of the format This vs That tend to quickly degenerate into an endless exchange of "things should be like this" or "they are intrinsecally meant to be that way" responses, instead of the discussion about the advantages and disadvantages that come with each of the options (and optionally how to avoid the latters). Truth is there are (and always will be) players who like soloing, players who like grouping and players who like both; there are people who enjoy the challenge of an unforgiving world where grouping is almost mandatory (and the sense of community that tends to bring with it), while other people dislike that approach in favor of going through the world solo (while still enjoying being surrounded with other players, or interacting with them in other ways).

    There's absolutely nothing wrong or selfish with any approach. There's room, and market, for every kind of MMO: be it solo-friendly, group-only, or a mix of the two in whatever manner you want to imagine. MMO is a game mode allowing multiple people to play it at the same time with the grade of interaction they choose; the rest of the meaning implied by that acronym we give it ourselves, and is different for everyone.

    This said, I can understand how the people partial to purely group-oriented gameplay feel frustrated in view of the current gaming panorama (which admittedly lacks any strong titles in that direction), and the players who prefer solo react to that discontent defensively because it seems as if the others were pressing for an undesired change in the existing games they enjoy.

    However, I think there's room for optimism here. The enormous success of World of Warcraft (very solo-friendly in many ways) in the last decade started a proportional wave of titles that tried to follow its success by adopting its gameplay style. The failure of this trend (and I use failure very loosely: those games still made huge money, just not as much as intended) only became apparent about 4-5 years ago (which conicidently is the typical development time of most MMORPGs). It is my belief that soon we will start to see a wider variety in the MMO selection, better suiting the different audiences willing to buy them.

  • Lethargic_SynapseLethargic_Synapse Kissimmee, FLPosts: 67Member
    Originally posted by Arclan
      Originally posted by UsualSuspect
    Originally posted by Cephus404   I wish someone would make an MMO with decent people playing it.  I just know that won't happen, that any MMO I play will continue to be populated by mental midgets and obnoxious assholes so I just don't play.  Nobody owes me the game I want to play.  I can still want it, I just know that it won't happen.
    What you actually need to play then is a group orientated game, as it's actually been proven that the more solo oriented the gameplay the more of a dick the player becomes.

     

    http://www.gamefront.com/study-team-gamers-less-likely-to-be-jerks/

    I've been saying this for a long time - you can probably find it in one of my many posts in this oversized thread - that the more solo orientated a game becomes, the more the community suffers. It seems a study has proven me right.


     

    Of all the posts here, this is the one I wish to quote. Cephus' subsequent post, "casting a wider net will yield more bottom-feeders" flits with brilliance as well.

    /agree!!

     

    That was me, not Cephus, but thanks.

  • Lethargic_SynapseLethargic_Synapse Kissimmee, FLPosts: 67Member
    Originally posted by Ninethousand
    It is my understanding that all these threads of the format This vs That tend to quickly degenerate into an endless exchange of "things should be like this" or "they are intrinsecally meant to be that way" responses, instead of the discussion about the advantages and disadvantages that come with each of the options (and optionally how to avoid the latters). Truth is there are (and always will be) players who like soloing, players who like grouping and players who like both; there are people who enjoy the challenge of an unforgiving world where grouping is almost mandatory (and the sense of community that tends to bring with it), while other people dislike that approach in favor of going through the world solo (while still enjoying being surrounded with other players, or interacting with them in other ways). There's absolutely nothing wrong or selfish with any approach. There's room, and market, for every kind of MMO: be it solo-friendly, group-only, or a mix of the two in whatever manner you want to imagine. MMO is a game mode allowing multiple people to play it at the same time with the grade of interaction they choose; the rest of the meaning implied by that acronym we give it ourselves, and is different for everyone. This said, I can understand how the people partial to purely group-oriented gameplay feel frustrated in view of the current gaming panorama (which admittedly lacks any strong titles in that direction), and the players who prefer solo react to that discontent defensively because it seems as if the others were pressing for an undesired change in the existing games they enjoy. However, I think there's room for optimism here. The enormous success of World of Warcraft (very solo-friendly in many ways) in the last decade started a proportional wave of titles that tried to follow its success by adopting its gameplay style. The failure of this trend (and I use failure very loosely: those games still made huge money, just not as much as intended) only became apparent about 4-5 years ago (which conicidently is the typical development time of most MMORPGs). It is my belief that soon we will start to see a wider variety in the MMO selection, better suiting the different audiences willing to buy them.

    Well, this is pretty much what I've been saying.  We need to stop trying to be WoW with every subsequent MMO in the genre, and start focusing on niche gameplay.  Instead of having every game focused on catering to the solo players, we need to have MMOs that do that, but also have MMOs that cater primarily to group play.  The first games in the genre were group-only really (with the notable exception of UO but that's a different beast altogether), and they were obviously successful enough to spawn an entire genre worth of successors.

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect CardiffPosts: 1,243Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    I disagree.  Soloing has almost always been considered not grouping, not just not having any impact or no interaction.  People talk about grouping. Therefore if I play a MMO pvp and do not group I'm still playing solo.   Just like joining a free for all CoD.  I'm not grouped, therefore it's solo.  That is the same definition people apply to MMO's. They say not grouping, only when it's pointed out that there are other ways to interact do they change the definition to no interacton or at all which is just silly. 

    Soloing is doing everything yourself, hence the word solo. There are posts on here about how soloers want to be able to do raids or group content alone. It's about not involving the other players or them interfering with your actions. Where we come to MMO pvp and not grouping, you're thinking you're playing solo, but you're really not. You look at the other players, consider their locations and actions, work out the best plan of attack based on what they're doing, you are therefore directly influenced by the actions of the other players. Just because a technical invention called 'grouping' exists and you're not in said group doesn't mean you're not playing multiplayer. You attack another player, that's multiplayer. You can't play solo and still affect or be affected by other players.

    Basically, the solo player in an MMO wants to be able to play the equivalent of a single player campaign. Why they join an MMO is beyond me, why play a multiplayer game at all if you have no interest in involving the rest of the playerbase? The only argument I've seen for this is that MMO's are so very large and are constantly updated. So, much like the solo personality, it's all about self, Cephus' description of, "Me! Me! Me!".

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,698Member Uncommon

    Once again I disagree.  Soloing has primarily only referred to those who don't group and thats it.  Yes they want to do the raids/dungeons things on their own.  Thats soloing.

    It has never meant anything to do with pvp, it has never meant anything to do with buying/selling, auctioning, crafting, role playihng.... or any other hundred activities that people do in MMO's.  It has only referred to people who don't group.

    So you don't group in an MMO your considered soloing, thne not grouping in CoD is still soloing. 

    It is just as faulty for the one as it is for the other.

    There are many many more activites to do, than just grouping. 

  • phantomghostphantomghost Atlanta, GAPosts: 696Member Uncommon

    I think the best method is catering to group play first.

     

    I say this because it is an MMO.  If you want solo play go play a RPG.  Although I agree there are other aspects of an MMORPG that are beneficial for example you may not enjoy farming for tradeskill items but you do like to tradeskill so buying from other players is beneficial.  But in general, I don't think that is why we choose to play many games... maybe Sims Online I could understand that logic for?

     

    But at the same time there needs to be a means of solo content.  However, soloing should be much less efficient and rewarding.  IMO it should be what somebody would do when they are

    1. Well geared/skilled and can do content the less geared/skilled players need groups for.

    2. Are LFG.

    3. Do not have time to search for a group but need something to do in the mean time.

    4.  Need a break from grouping.

    photo SIG_zpszteuyd0ejpg
  • phantomghostphantomghost Atlanta, GAPosts: 696Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by CorvusCorax
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    But you can solo in Call of Duty and Battlefied. You can choose to solo and you can choose to play a a team.  Funny enough, just like an MMO. So I agree with the definition of muliplayer, it just means you can, you have the opportunity for group play. 

    No the difference is that you CAN play the singple player campaign but it will always be nothing more than single player. If you chose to play multiplayer in CoD it can never be anything else but multiplayer. It is the same as if I was to chose a private game on battle net in Diablo 2 while playing alone. Yes battle net enables multiplayer but if I am playing in my own game I am still playing single player even if it is online.

     

    Multiplayer has and always will mean that another player(s) is directly involved in your gameplay experience. In the same way you cant PvP solo you cant group or raid PvE solo and thats just the way it is. You cant have multiplayer without it dictating that other players are directly involved.

     

    You can play single player in CoD campaign but it will always be single player, it wont be multiplayer untill you go online and join matches. The same waya  MMORPG is and always wills be a multiplayer game with groups and raids, you can solo some quests and what not but soloing in a MMORPG will never be multiplayer gameplay.

    I agree with this post.

    photo SIG_zpszteuyd0ejpg
  • Lethargic_SynapseLethargic_Synapse Kissimmee, FLPosts: 67Member
    Originally posted by phantomghost
    I think the best method is catering to group play first.   I say this because it is an MMO.  If you want solo play go play a RPG.  Although I agree there are other aspects of an MMORPG that are beneficial for example you may not enjoy farming for tradeskill items but you do like to tradeskill so buying from other players is beneficial.  But in general, I don't think that is why we choose to play many games... maybe Sims Online I could understand that logic for?   But at the same time there needs to be a means of solo content.  However, soloing should be much less efficient and rewarding.  IMO it should be what somebody would do when they are 1. Well geared/skilled and can do content the less geared/skilled players need groups for. 2. Are LFG. 3. Do not have time to search for a group but need something to do in the mean time. 4.  Need a break from grouping.

    /agree

  • amusedmonkeyamusedmonkey zarqaPosts: 42Member

    I disagree with quite a few posts here. By difinition, an MMO is a massively multiplayer online game, so basically it only needs 2 things to fall under the definition: to be online, and to be massively multiplayer (massive numbers of players playing at the same time). The definition in itself does not entail group or solo play as long as you have a very large number of players playing a certain game while interacting with one another, be it through chat, through trading, through grouping, through guilds and social interactions, through activities, and the list goes on. If you go on a quest alone, that doesn't make the game any less "MMO"-ey than if you joined a raid, because you will still be playing the game with massive numbers of players online and you could still interact with them if you choose through chat.

    When you tell a person to "go play a single player game" you risk sounding silly. Some people enjoy the solo gameplay of certain games, which happen to be MMO. I don't think any of us has the right to dectate what other people should be enjoying.

    Personally, I find the best system to be one where you have CHOICE. Forced content in either direction limits people to one playstyle. 

    I find what Citadel of Sorcery is planning to do (who are by the way officially "coming out" on the 9th of this month) an excellent mix of both solo and group gaming where you don't get penalized for either. You can do your quests solo without being hindered, but if you bring a group with you, the quest gets more exciting and you are presented with more choices and strategies on how to solve a certain problem (for example, you could have a few create a diversion by spreading a rumer, while others free a prisoner and interrogate him while the rest stand guard). You have massive seiges, protecting whole towns, and raid-like stuff for massive numbers of players. This way, those who enjoy solo play can co-exist with those who like small groups and those who like massive group events. I don't see why a game should push the envelope in either direction for a game to  be called a good MMO.

  • NinethousandNinethousand ThisiscityPosts: 4Member

    The problem here is probably that we are arguing what's the best approach to an issue that hasn't got one. As it's been said, MMO doesn't imply anything apart from the presence of other people around, and that allows for a virtually infinite set of posibilities in what refers to interaction between them.

    However, it's not necessary to find one middleground that suits all, as no matter what you do with your game you are going to sacrifice something that some players will miss. The correct question to ask is not "How should all MMOs balance solo and grouping?", but "What is the balance we individually enjoy the most and why?".

    Personally, I like difficulty in games to a point where both developing my skill and grouping with other players becomes almost mandatory to progress. I find that really fun as well as community-building, and keeps me interested in a game for more time (the multiplayer game I've played for a longer period might have been Neverwinter Nights, in a couple of roleplayng persistent worlds, and I guess I have some longing for that kind of experience). Still, I wouldn't dare to state that this is the way every MMO should be; in today's society where videogames are so mainstream there's room for everything.

  • pkpkpkpkpkpk amherst, MAPosts: 92Member Uncommon

    The best way to design an MMORPG? Ignore 98% of the idiots in this thread, make a game with forced grouping, be sure that it's top quality and release it. This is what Vanguard should have been. Your audience will find you.

     

    Sure, there'll be 'room for soloing'--for a few classes. But you will have 10 minutes of downtime after every kill, and level 10x slower than a group.

     

    Most important thing is not to waste money on shit like voice acting and unnecessary graphics. Graphics like EQ2 and FF XI are more than enough.

     

    The majority are seldom right about anything. The majority do what the majority do, and that is what they do that is right. If they didn't then the world would be in chaos. It's just up to a small few to do the right thing, in cases where it can and needs to be done, like MMORPGs.

  • SuraknarSuraknar Montreal, QCPosts: 824Member

    I find it funny that we are even having such a thread.

    Imo a good MMO will simply have both...and the players will choose how they want to play Grouped or Solo every time they log on.

     

    - Duke Suraknar -
    Order of the Silver Star, OSS

    image
    ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard

  • TamanousTamanous Edmonton, ABPosts: 2,383Member Uncommon

    The core issue is that their should not be a need to define solo or group play.

     

    A true mmo should have content so dynamic that you enter a region one day and it is easy to traverse and another day where enemies have taking it over for their own ends and suddently you cannot hope to be there alone. 

     

    The world should be alive and never easily measured. Nearly every player today bases entire gameplay on the knowledge they know exactly what they are getting into. Even so called hardcore gamers be it pvp or pve base everything off this knowledge. If something is too many levels above them they don't even consider attacking. In pvp even the most epeen ganker won't attack someone they know they have no chance to kill. They base their entire gameplay on the knowledge they have the upper hand or a reasonable chance to succeed. 

     

    True hardcore gaming should be about not knowing what you can face until you try it. True virtual world gaming should not provide so many easy tools. Solo and group play should not be defined into calculated leveling paths. Solo play should require a great deal of exploration and timing/luck within a dynamic virual world. It shouldn't be a right.

    You stay sassy!

  • evolver1972evolver1972 Port Orchard, WAPosts: 1,118Member

    Maybe I'm just asking for too much but I want a game where I can do both.  And I don't mean my soloing relegated to crafting, or standing around in cities trying to sync my /dance.  I want to be able to go out into the world and fly solo for a bit if I want to.  Obviously, this would (and should) keep me from doing certain things while I'm soloing.  For instance, taking on hard bosses, or running dungeons.

     

    But I also want the ability to do those things I can solo in a group setting as well, if I want to do that.  That means scaling monsters so they are harder to kill when a group of people is fighting them.

     

    So, yes, I want my cake and want to eat it too.  Considering the amount of money we pay for this form of entertainment, I don't think it's too much to ask.

    image

    You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???

    Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!

  • AeonbladesAeonblades Home, GAPosts: 2,083Member

    You should be able to get everything solo you can get with a group, whether it takes more time, effort, whatever. I have no problem spending 6 months getting an item it took a raid 45 minutes to get. Just give me the option. Especially if developers keep releasing shitty single player RPG's as MMOs. (SWTOR, I'm looking at you).

    I used to think grouping was key in an MMO, but now I feel like companies should pay ME for dealing with half the people in their games. Thus I spend my time solo in most games I play these days.

    The exception to this is guildies. Will always group up with some guildies :D

    Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
    Have played: You name it
    If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.

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

    I used to think grouping was key in an MMO, but now I feel like companies should pay ME for dealing with half the people in their games. Thus I spend my time solo in most games I play these days.

    Same here, most of the reason I solo is because I don't want to deal with 99.99999% of the idiots that play these games.  Maybe because I'm older than the average age of players, but I only want to play with mature adults who don't spend their time talking about big tits and making fart jokes.  I don't want to be around people who can't spell and are racing to end-game.

    That pretty much means I solo because there are very, very few people in a game that fit my criteria.

    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

  • AdamaiAdamai derbyPosts: 476Member Uncommon
    Its an mmo. Absolutely no solo play because you solo guys are a game breaking feature.
  • kaiser3282kaiser3282 Phoenix, AZPosts: 2,747Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Adamai
    Its an mmo. Absolutely no solo play because you solo guys are a game breaking feature.

    Ive said this before, but Ill say it again. Not everyone plays MMOs for the same reason. You might play for required grouping, but there are several reasons out there to play that have absolutely nothing to do with grouping or lack of it:

    - Personally, I mainly play for PvP. Testing myself vs other human players rather than NPCs. Only MMOs and other types of online games offer this.

    Other reasons people might play that require no grouping whatsoever:

    - The ability to chat and socialize with people from all over the world while playing a game they enjoy.

    - Economics and markets. Some people enjoy these aspects of games and playing the markets to maximize their profits.

    - Playing in a persistant and ever changing world with new content and experiences added regularly. Something single player games generally dont offer

    - The ability to have an impact on other people, or be impacted by them in various forms

    - Attempting to become well known for something such as a great PvPer, great crafter, very knowledgable person, etc

    - In the case of sandboxes especially, being able to show off your work to the world. Thinkof games like Xsyon, Wurm, etc where you can build all kinds of cool stuff, do terraforming, etc and other players can come and admire the things you have built

  • burkhardt5burkhardt5 Poughkeepsie, NYPosts: 3Member

    Both styles of play are useful, it all depends on what class you are playing and how you like to play. I find that when you start a new char. or if you are a newbie, playing in a group is easier and lets you get used to how to play. The class you are playing makes a big difference too. If your playing a mage,priest or shaman you will find it difficult to solo untill you have reached a high enough level.

    Oh well, to each their own.

    Paul the WOW nut.

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member Common
    Originally posted by kaiser3282
    Originally posted by Adamai
    Its an mmo. Absolutely no solo play because you solo guys are a game breaking feature.

    Ive said this before, but Ill say it again. Not everyone plays MMOs for the same reason. You might play for required grouping, but there are several reasons out there to play that have absolutely nothing to do with grouping or lack of it:

    - Personally, I mainly play for PvP. Testing myself vs other human players rather than NPCs. Only MMOs and other types of online games offer this.

    Other reasons people might play that require no grouping whatsoever:

    - The ability to chat and socialize with people from all over the world while playing a game they enjoy.

    - Economics and markets. Some people enjoy these aspects of games and playing the markets to maximize their profits.

    - Playing in a persistant and ever changing world with new content and experiences added regularly. Something single player games generally dont offer

    - The ability to have an impact on other people, or be impacted by them in various forms

    - Attempting to become well known for something such as a great PvPer, great crafter, very knowledgable person, etc

    - In the case of sandboxes especially, being able to show off your work to the world. Thinkof games like Xsyon, Wurm, etc where you can build all kinds of cool stuff, do terraforming, etc and other players can come and admire the things you have built

    Or, for most casual players, just to have fun while engaged in an activity that exists to waste free time.  That's all a game is, after all, it's a time-waster.

    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

Sign In or Register to comment.