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!

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

1676870727386

Comments

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect CardiffPosts: 1,243Member
    Originally posted by Cephus404

    That was then, this is now.  Try to live in the present.  The fact is, even when it's suggested that game mechanics be introduced that make grouping, for those who choose to group, more challenging and more rewarding as a group, groupers don't want it because it still allows soloing.  The fact remains that groupers do not want to be able to group, they want to force all of those around them to group.  It's not about freedom, it's about control.

    Which of course is the complete opposite of soloers wanting to make all MMO's soloable through all content, including raids, making grouping pointless. The fact is that soloers want an easy ride and everything handed to them on a plate, they want all the best gear themselves, they want all content themselves, they don't want to be excluded from a single piece of the game because of their chosen playstyle. Soloers are inherently selfish, they don't like grouping because it doesn't make them the centre of attention.

    And yes, I did stoop to your level in that response.

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by UsualSuspect
    Originally posted by Cephus404

    That was then, this is now.  Try to live in the present.  The fact is, even when it's suggested that game mechanics be introduced that make grouping, for those who choose to group, more challenging and more rewarding as a group, groupers don't want it because it still allows soloing.  The fact remains that groupers do not want to be able to group, they want to force all of those around them to group.  It's not about freedom, it's about control.

    Which of course is the complete opposite of soloers wanting to make all MMO's soloable through all content, including raids, making grouping pointless. The fact is that soloers want an easy ride and everything handed to them on a plate, they want all the best gear themselves, they want all content themselves, they don't want to be excluded from a single piece of the game because of their chosen playstyle. Soloers are inherently selfish, they don't like grouping because it doesn't make them the centre of attention.

    And yes, I did stoop to your level in that response.

    Guess what?  These games are made to make money, therefore the majority wins.  If the majority wants to solo, as the majority absolutely does, then the majority of games will be about soloing.  That's how developers keep making money, investors keep making a profit and these games keep getting made.

    I'm not sure why we have to keep explaining these things, you'd think business basics would sink in eventually.

    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

  • steamtanksteamtank Rochester, NYPosts: 385Member

    the only real issue i see right now is every AAA mmo is trying to be all things to everyone... and fails to please anyone.

    choose a direction, really gear your game to hit that market

    solo friendly grinder... fine

    casual friendly raider... fine

    casual friendly PvP... fine

    hardcore FFA.... fine

     

    pick one path, make THE BEST GAME for that path you possibly can, and you will retain your subscription base. Instead what we see is "we cater to everyone come play!!!!!!!!!!!!" and 3 months later the game is in full salvation mode due to a mass exodus since its the same garbage everyone is doing and the same caliber.

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

    Nice snipe, but not very accurate...there are TONS of GAMES that revolve around grouping, some more popular than WoW (90% of FPS games are group oriented) just not many MMO's an odd quirk...but whatever, there are a few here and there and more on the way.

    [mod edit]

    Bottom line there are different people in the world, with different tastes and there is more then enough room in the world (in the MMO sphere or outside of it) to accomodate a variety of differently designed and focused games to meet those tastes. If I really, really want to play baseball, some sort of pseudo-golf isn't going to cut it. That's not rocket science and it really shouldn't need 175 pages worth of discussion to figure out that mystery.

    If there are games out there that revolve around grouping, then by all means go play them!  Go ahead!  Nobody is stopping you!  But this has been 175 pages of people complaining that more games ought to be about grouping, that everyone ought to force people to group and that games where you can solo are bad.  The fact is, the games reflect the market.  They are what the people most likely to play them want to play.  If they do not reflect your interests, then maybe MMOs are no longer made for you and you ought to go find something else to do.  Nobody owes you a game that you like.  You have to choose from among the games that actually exist.  Take it or leave it.

    Odd, I thought this was 175 pages of solo'ers complaining that people occasionaly wanted to play games that didn't cater to thier play styles.

    Mostly, I've seen groupers post here stating that  "I really wish there were more games like X availble for us to play." 

    Discussion board and all that...point of discussion boards is to...well discuss, eh?

    I've then seen soloers coming in and saying to the effect "That's not fair X would exclude our prefered play-style"....which was kinda the whole point of why groupers would like it, eh? 

    "Why can't you simply play Y...that would make everyone happy?"

    The obvious answer is.... because Y is not remotely like X and therfore not something we're interested in.....just like hitting a few baseballs by yourself is not remotely like playing in a real baseball game......and therefore not the experience that people interested in actualy playing baseball (as opposed to getting a few hits in a batting cage) are interested in.

    It's kinda astounding to me that's such a difficult concept to comprehend.

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

    That was then, this is now.  Try to live in the present.  The fact is, even when it's suggested that game mechanics be introduced that make grouping, for those who choose to group, more challenging and more rewarding as a group, groupers don't want it because it still allows soloing.  The fact remains that groupers do not want to be able to group, they want to force all of those around them to group.  It's not about freedom, it's about control.

    Which of course is the complete opposite of soloers wanting to make all MMO's soloable through all content, including raids, making grouping pointless. The fact is that soloers want an easy ride and everything handed to them on a plate, they want all the best gear themselves, they want all content themselves, they don't want to be excluded from a single piece of the game because of their chosen playstyle. Soloers are inherently selfish, they don't like grouping because it doesn't make them the centre of attention.

    And yes, I did stoop to your level in that response.

    Guess what?  These games are made to make money, therefore the majority wins.  If the majority wants to solo, as the majority absolutely does, then the majority of games will be about soloing.  That's how developers keep making money, investors keep making a profit and these games keep getting made.

    I'm not sure why we have to keep explaining these things, you'd think business basics would sink in eventually.

    Um....hello -> discussion boards.....point of discussion boards is to discuss, yes?

    What are we supposed to discuss...the color of the sky?

    On a game discussion board, you'd think a valid discussion would be "I wish there were more games like X", yes?

    If this were an investment discussion board then the "X maximizes ROI" might make a more interesting discussion.....although I think the ROI on the last few "commonly accepted wisdom"  on what the majority wants in MMO's (including solo-centric) hasn't been exactly stellar from what I'm hearing from the investment world.

     

     

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

    Um....hello -> discussion boards.....point of discussion boards is to discuss, yes?

    What are we supposed to discuss...the color of the sky?

    On a game discussion board, you'd think a valid discussion would be "I wish there were more games like X", yes?

    Sure, if that's all that was done.  However, it often goes from "I wish X" to "Damn it, I deserve X!"  There is a reality that a lot of people either don't understand or don't care about, MMOs exist to make money for the companies that produce them, they exist to make a profit for investors.  Companies are only going to make games they are convinced have the best potential to make a significant return on investment.  People need to deal with that.  Instead, you have people who think there's some grand conspiracy, that grouping is magically the most popular form of gameplay out there and anyone who doesn't like it should be forced into it because clearly, once they are required to do it to play the game, they're sure to love it.

    That's not how it works and no game is going to do that because it'll chase all the soloers, the majority of their players, away.  You are not going to see these niche ideas implemented into mainstream games by AAA companies.  You're just not.

    That's one of the differences between adults and children.  Adults accept the reality, even if it isn't a reality they prefer, children just want the fantasy.

    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

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect CardiffPosts: 1,243Member
    "That's not how it works and no game is going to do that because it'll chase all the soloers, the majority of their players, away. You are not going to see these niche ideas implemented into mainstream games by AAA companies. You're just not."


    I wonder why multiplayer games such as Battlefield and Call of Duty are so popular then. And I'm talking of the multiplayer component, not the 3 hour solo campaign. You'd think it would chase the soloers away due to its niche design, yet they're the biggest franchises around. Huh.
  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by UsualSuspect


    I wonder why multiplayer games such as Battlefield and Call of Duty are so popular then. And I'm talking of the multiplayer component, not the 3 hour solo campaign. You'd think it would chase the soloers away due to its niche design, yet they're the biggest franchises around. Huh.

    Because that's a completely different genre, maybe?  That's like criticizing an MMO that doesn't let you jump by pointing to platformers.

    Seriously, you're not actually making this argument, are you?

    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

  • OrtwigOrtwig Cambridge, MAPosts: 1,159Member Uncommon

    Seems like a lot of back and forth on the forced grouping thing still.  If you really want to see people flock to group content, just make that group content incredibly attractive.  Sure keep the solo content for when you only have an hour or two to play, or you simply can't schedule a groups going (you'll need to keep it anyway to be profitable).  

    But always keep that amazing zone, that surreal adventure out there as the one everyone talks about and wants to play.  Sure, it's the one that has the difficult challenges, but build in little incentives and lures people to try just a little bit  as a group, then a little more....  That's the way to get people to group and stay grouped. Simply put, make the grouped content the best and most interesting in the game.

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

    Seems like a lot of back and forth on the forced grouping thing still.  If you really want to see people flock to group content, just make that group content incredibly attractive.  Sure keep the solo content for when you only have an hour or two to play, or you simply can't schedule a groups going (you'll need to keep it anyway to be profitable).  

    But always keep that amazing zone, that surreal adventure out there as the one everyone talks about and wants to play.  Sure, it's the one that has the difficult challenges, but build in little incentives and lures people to try just a little bit  as a group, then a little more....  That's the way to get people to group and stay grouped. Simply put, make the grouped content the best and most interesting in the game.

    All you're describing is bribing people to play your way.  If you have to do that, then clearly, your playstyle is a failure.

    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

  • OrtwigOrtwig Cambridge, MAPosts: 1,159Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by Ortwig

    Seems like a lot of back and forth on the forced grouping thing still.  If you really want to see people flock to group content, just make that group content incredibly attractive.  Sure keep the solo content for when you only have an hour or two to play, or you simply can't schedule a groups going (you'll need to keep it anyway to be profitable).  

    But always keep that amazing zone, that surreal adventure out there as the one everyone talks about and wants to play.  Sure, it's the one that has the difficult challenges, but build in little incentives and lures people to try just a little bit  as a group, then a little more....  That's the way to get people to group and stay grouped. Simply put, make the grouped content the best and most interesting in the game.

    All you're describing is bribing people to play your way.  If you have to do that, then clearly, your playstyle is a failure.

    I dunno -- I think that's how most of these games work anyway -- there has to be something interesting to explore or you wouldn't go there.  I am not recommending grouping as the only way or even the best way, but if you want to promote groups, you need to havea maguffin or hook that draws people to group.  Strongarming isn't very interesting.  The hook could be a visual, and interesting quest/storyline, a tough foe, rare crafting items, pure exploration, lots of things.  I'm not talking about a hard loot bribe here, and those things could be part of a solo path as well.

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by Ortwig
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by Ortwig

    Seems like a lot of back and forth on the forced grouping thing still.  If you really want to see people flock to group content, just make that group content incredibly attractive.  Sure keep the solo content for when you only have an hour or two to play, or you simply can't schedule a groups going (you'll need to keep it anyway to be profitable).  

    But always keep that amazing zone, that surreal adventure out there as the one everyone talks about and wants to play.  Sure, it's the one that has the difficult challenges, but build in little incentives and lures people to try just a little bit  as a group, then a little more....  That's the way to get people to group and stay grouped. Simply put, make the grouped content the best and most interesting in the game.

    All you're describing is bribing people to play your way.  If you have to do that, then clearly, your playstyle is a failure.

    I dunno -- I think that's how most of these games work anyway -- there has to be something interesting to explore or you wouldn't go there.  I am not recommending grouping as the only way or even the best way, but if you want to promote groups, you need to havea maguffin or hook that draws people to group.  Strongarming isn't very interesting.  The hook could be a visual, and interesting quest/storyline, a tough foe, rare crafting items, pure exploration, lots of things.  I'm not talking about a hard loot bribe here, and those things could be part of a solo path as well.

    Why would you want to promote anything at all?  Here are your options.  Go do what you want.  Play the way you want to play.  If you have to promote a means of gameplay, clearly there aren't a lot of people who are choosing it on their own.

    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

  • OrtwigOrtwig Cambridge, MAPosts: 1,159Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by Ortwig
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by Ortwig

    Seems like a lot of back and forth on the forced grouping thing still.  If you really want to see people flock to group content, just make that group content incredibly attractive.  Sure keep the solo content for when you only have an hour or two to play, or you simply can't schedule a groups going (you'll need to keep it anyway to be profitable).  

    But always keep that amazing zone, that surreal adventure out there as the one everyone talks about and wants to play.  Sure, it's the one that has the difficult challenges, but build in little incentives and lures people to try just a little bit  as a group, then a little more....  That's the way to get people to group and stay grouped. Simply put, make the grouped content the best and most interesting in the game.

    All you're describing is bribing people to play your way.  If you have to do that, then clearly, your playstyle is a failure.

    I dunno -- I think that's how most of these games work anyway -- there has to be something interesting to explore or you wouldn't go there.  I am not recommending grouping as the only way or even the best way, but if you want to promote groups, you need to havea maguffin or hook that draws people to group.  Strongarming isn't very interesting.  The hook could be a visual, and interesting quest/storyline, a tough foe, rare crafting items, pure exploration, lots of things.  I'm not talking about a hard loot bribe here, and those things could be part of a solo path as well.

    Why would you want to promote anything at all?  Here are your options.  Go do what you want.  Play the way you want to play.  If you have to promote a means of gameplay, clearly there aren't a lot of people who are choosing it on their own.

    So grouping is an option.  So is doing stuff solo.  Why do you have a problem with that?  And why would you have a problem with making both of those choices interesting?

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect CardiffPosts: 1,243Member
    Originally posted by Cephus404

    Because that's a completely different genre, maybe?  That's like criticizing an MMO that doesn't let you jump by pointing to platformers.

    Seriously, you're not actually making this argument, are you?

    They're both multiplayer games, MMO's, online shooters, they both incorporate bringing multiple players together. In the case of the Battlefields of the world, they're what you would describe as 'forced grouping', you have to be a part of a team. Play lonewolf on that team and the team as a whole suffers. So it might be a different style of gaming, but the theory is still the same, people are 'forced' to work together, and yet they're incredibly popular.

    So why do you think that the same idea in an MMO would be a failure? Because WoW allowed you to solo most of its content, soloers have taken it upon themselves to believe that MMO's are single player games with multiplayer components. Sadly, recent developers have followed the same path. What they're missing is the core principle of a multiplayer game - the other players.

    Why do you think WoW is still so popular? It's not the solo levelling process, I can guarantee you that, it's all the multiplayer dungeons and raids at the end game. As has been said before, people sit in cities and queue up for the dungeons, they don't even bother with the solo content.

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect CardiffPosts: 1,243Member
    Originally posted by Ortwig

    So grouping is an option.  So is doing stuff solo.  Why do you have a problem with that?  And why would you have a problem with making both of those choices interesting?

    It's pointless trying to discuss grouping with Cephus, he has this strange idea that people will naturally group for the fun of grouping. He obviously doesn't understand human nature. Cephus, go to a park and sit down for a while, watch the people - you'll see that they stay in their own little worlds, some might have friends or partners with them, but there is little to no interaction between different groups. Now, go push a four year old into the lake (I don't really want you to do this) and watch how those people gather to try and help, they interact with each other, make suggestions, work out who the best swimmer is and who will likely drag the four year old down with them...

    See, if you allow people to just continue on their own, they will continue doing things on their own. Give people a reason to group, a reason to reach out to other people, and they'll do exactly that. And that is the idea behind 'forced grouping', because without it, people will just continue walking the dog through the park.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon

    Except he's right. That is currenty exactly what happens.

    Solo and Group play are both rewarded, albeit group slightly more.

    In today's games those that want to group are, those that want to solo are.  They are doing them simply because they like them.  Both are rewarded.

    @ortwig I don't think cephus was saying not to make both interesting.  He is saying if you reward one but not the other you are just bribing people to do something they don't want to do in the first place. 

     

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • OrtwigOrtwig Cambridge, MAPosts: 1,159Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by UsualSuspect
    Originally posted by Ortwig

    So grouping is an option.  So is doing stuff solo.  Why do you have a problem with that?  And why would you have a problem with making both of those choices interesting?

    It's pointless trying to discuss grouping with Cephus, he has this strange idea that people will naturally group for the fun of grouping. He obviously doesn't understand human nature. Cephus, go to a park and sit down for a while, watch the people - you'll see that they stay in their own little worlds, some might have friends or partners with them, but there is little to no interaction between different groups. Now, go push a four year old into the lake (I don't really want you to do this) and watch how those people gather to try and help, they interact with each other, make suggestions, work out who the best swimmer is and who will likely drag the four year old down with them...

    See, if you allow people to just continue on their own, they will continue doing things on their own. Give people a reason to group, a reason to reach out to other people, and they'll do exactly that. And that is the idea behind 'forced grouping', because without it, people will just continue walking the dog through the park.

    Makes sense -- I guess my definition of "forced grouping" is a borg analogy (you can't do ANYTHING unless you group), while I think of good grouping as more of an incentive activity.  Sure, saving the baby would be "forced" due to the situation, but I don't think that would work in all situations, and would get boring after awhile.   I also think of an unexplored hostile territory (Mt. Everest) as a challenge that some would be attracted to trying to do and some not -- and that's okay.

  • RealPvPisFPSRealPvPisFPS St.Louis, MOPosts: 42Member

    UO is by all means the perfect mmorpg to use as an example for a game that gets everything right. If UO was in 3D like many current games I believe more people would be playing this title.

     

    UO catered to every type of player whether it be group, solo, crafting etc. etc. the game is still running since 1996 how many other games can say the same?

     

    Games that force players to have to group usually are never successful. Vice versa with games that force players to go solo with very limited options of grouping.

     

     

  • SwampRobSwampRob Halifax, NSPosts: 1,008Member

    For me, the question all comes down to character progression.    How far can your player progress without being forced into a playstyle they don't enjoy.

    If a player can only get so far through solo play, and then is required to group up to continue character progression, then that's design fail to me.

    I think it's fine to have some content limited to groups only, but if the best-in-slot gear can only be obtained through group play (see almost every MMO in existence), then I consider that game design failure as well.

    Alternate paths to the same goal.

    It's simple:  RPGs need progressively more challenging content that offers progressively better rewards.   And it needs to do this for both Solo and Group play.   One form of play might be faster, but neither should have exclusively better rewards.
  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by UsualSuspect


    I wonder why multiplayer games such as Battlefield and Call of Duty are so popular then. And I'm talking of the multiplayer component, not the 3 hour solo campaign. You'd think it would chase the soloers away due to its niche design, yet they're the biggest franchises around. Huh.

    Because that's a completely different genre, maybe?  That's like criticizing an MMO that doesn't let you jump by pointing to platformers.

    Seriously, you're not actually making this argument, are you?

    Yeah, golly gee....Planetside2 is such an incredibly different experience from Battlefield....after-all ones an MMO and ones a FPS...completely different thing going on there. You really got him.

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

    For me, the question all comes down to character progression.    How far can your player progress without being forced into a playstyle they don't enjoy.

    If a player can only get so far through solo play, and then is required to group up to continue character progression, then that's design fail to me.

    I think it's fine to have some content limited to groups only, but if the best-in-slot gear can only be obtained through group play (see almost every MMO in existence), then I consider that game design failure as well.

    Alternate paths to the same goal.

    It's simple:  RPGs need progressively more challenging content that offers progressively better rewards.   And it needs to do this for both Solo and Group play.   One form of play might be faster, but neither should have exclusively better rewards.

    I think games simply need to be clear about what thier design goals are and who thier intended audiences are...

    It's the old... try to please everyone, end up pleasing no one syndrome.

    That might have been very doable 10 years ago with only a few options on the market....but there is no point in being that game when there are 300 other games already on the market doing the exact same thing.

    There is actualy nothing wrong with a game saying "Yeah we allow you to solo some very basic content when you've got no one else around to play with...but we're really a group focused game so to do anything significant you'll need a group....but it has to set that expectation up in the player from the start...or really even before purchase....so they know they are getting a game that matches up with thier play preferences."

    Same thing in reverse for group oriented players....it's not cool to set the player up with the expectation that grouping is an important feature of play when it's a tacked on optional feature which less then 1 percent of the content is geared toward.

  • botrytisbotrytis In Flux, MIPosts: 2,567Member
    Originally posted by RealPvPisFPS

    UO is by all means the perfect mmorpg to use as an example for a game that gets everything right. If UO was in 3D like many current games I believe more people would be playing this title.

     

    UO catered to every type of player whether it be group, solo, crafting etc. etc. the game is still running since 1996 how many other games can say the same?

     

    Games that force players to have to group usually are never successful. Vice versa with games that force players to go solo with very limited options of grouping.

     

     

    There is no such thing as a perfect MMO. If you cater to everyone, you end up making no one happy.

     

    UO was not perfect by any stretch of the imagination - it was mediocre with it all. I haven't found an MMO yet that had it all - I don't think there will ever be such a thing.

    image

    "In 50 years, when I talk to my grandchildren about these days, I'll make sure to mention what an accomplished MMO player I was. They are going to be so proud ..."
    by Naqaj - 7/17/2013 MMORPG.com forum

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect CardiffPosts: 1,243Member
    Originally posted by SwampRob

    If a player can only get so far through solo play, and then is required to group up to continue character progression, then that's design fail to me.

    What I don't understand is why people expect to be able to solo their way through the entirety of a multiplayer game. Really, it just blows my mind to think that people are playing multiplayer games as single player games and then whining when people playing the multiplayer game with multiple players are getting more content. It's like.. Wow. Just how dumb are you? Didn't you read the label?

    You don't buy Skyrim expecting to battle alongside other players, why are you buying an MMO and expecting to be able to single player your way through the entire game? Is it just me who finds that ridiculous?

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

    So grouping is an option.  So is doing stuff solo.  Why do you have a problem with that?  And why would you have a problem with making both of those choices interesting?

    I don't have a problem with it.  Grouping is an option.  Soloing is an option.  Both have their strengths and weaknesses.  Just stop trying to build one up to be better than the other and let the people playing the game decide what they want to do.

    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

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

    They're both multiplayer games, MMO's, online shooters, they both incorporate bringing multiple players together. In the case of the Battlefields of the world, they're what you would describe as 'forced grouping', you have to be a part of a team. Play lonewolf on that team and the team as a whole suffers. So it might be a different style of gaming, but the theory is still the same, people are 'forced' to work together, and yet they're incredibly popular.

    So why do you think that the same idea in an MMO would be a failure? Because WoW allowed you to solo most of its content, soloers have taken it upon themselves to believe that MMO's are single player games with multiplayer components. Sadly, recent developers have followed the same path. What they're missing is the core principle of a multiplayer game - the other players.

    Why do you think WoW is still so popular? It's not the solo levelling process, I can guarantee you that, it's all the multiplayer dungeons and raids at the end game. As has been said before, people sit in cities and queue up for the dungeons, they don't even bother with the solo content.

    They're both games that have multiple players in them.  What you don't seem to understand is that MMOs only put lots of people together in the same world, they do not require, nor should they require, that you play with all of them.  In fact, you will never play with the overwhelming majority of people in an MMO.  That is unlike most FPS, where the game matches only a small number of  people together to play, then shoves them onto a map to play together.  They are incredibly popular with a different crowd of people than those who play MMOs.

    I don't know where you get the idea that just because one genre of game is popular, that what they are doing will be equally popular in another genre of game.  Hey, Angry Birds is really popular too, let's get out the slingshots and throw things around in MMOs!  It must be a hit!

    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.