You're missing the biggest Key to MMO. Persistence. As much as I love games like Skyrim or Darksiders, the games inevitably come to a conclusion. Persistence is the only reason why I play MMO's, it's nice knowing something will never end and in the long run it means I get more bang for my buck.
You don't need a MMO for persistency. D3 has persistent characters and gear and it is not a MMO. Many online ARPG have that.
Not according to an obvious group on these forums. Sad what they've become. There is almost no difference between them and console games now...other than the other players assume the role of NPC's for the most part.
Oh of course there are differences ...
1) You can't show off your gear to other humans in console games.
2) Console games don't have AH.
3) Console games don't have some of the unique settings of some MMOs (like STO).
And other players are better NPCs than programmed ones. So there is a win there.
You're missing the biggest Key to MMO. Persistence. As much as I love games like Skyrim or Darksiders, the games inevitably come to a conclusion. Persistence is the only reason why I play MMO's, it's nice knowing something will never end and in the long run it means I get more bang for my buck.
You're just wrong. Skyrim never comes to a conclusion so long as they keep releasing new DLC, which is exactly the same as an MMO developer releasing an expansion. I didn't play Skyrim for close to a year, then recently I started it up and it's exactly the same as it was when I left it. If that's not persistence, I don't know what is.
Not according to an obvious group on these forums. Sad what they've become. There is almost no difference between them and console games now...other than the other players assume the role of NPC's for the most part.
Oh of course there are differences ...
1) You can't show off your gear to other humans in console games.
2) Console games don't have AH.
3) Console games don't have some of the unique settings of some MMOs (like STO).
And other players are better NPCs than programmed ones. So there is a win there.
You're missing the biggest Key to MMO. Persistence. As much as I love games like Skyrim or Darksiders, the games inevitably come to a conclusion. Persistence is the only reason why I play MMO's, it's nice knowing something will never end and in the long run it means I get more bang for my buck.
I also started out playing MMO's in 1999, with Asheron's Call. One of the original "big 3" that founded this genre and the only MMO that espoused that solo play was just as important as group play. Neither were mutually exclusive of one another. The whole notion that the world is massively doesn't mean I "have" to play with others, it just meant the world was alive and virtual. I think the key the OP is missing here is you can build a game that is solo friendly but still give incentives for group play as well.
For now solo games played online have very limited interactions between players, not just in consoles, PC Steam/Origin solo games are similar. But if anyone thinks that's not going to change you need to wake up. We are not going to have a situation where all solo games become multiplayer in the next couple of years, but even in the next couple of years we are going to see increasing interaction between players. Maybe you will be able to swap or sell things to your mates, maybe you will be able to get group/guild achievements. Or we may start to see the rise of "solo" games that let you duo with a friend. Whatever happens the direction of travel is clear, more interaction.
It is ironic that as this is happening we have less interaction in MMO's. But the difference will be you will interact in what are primarily solo games with friends. Where as in MMO's players are choosing not to interact with strangers. I say choosing, modern MMO's have of course severely limited the ways you can interact. What the outcome of this will be is hard to see. Richard Garrett was talking a few months back about having a system in a MMO which paired you with friends, so even if you went into an instance without grouping you would find friends in your instance. This would obviously encourage interaction between players in a MMO but it is the sort of thing we would need to see in play to gauge its value.
For now solo games played online have very limited interactions between players, not just in consoles, PC Steam/Origin solo games are similar. But if anyone thinks that's not going to change you need to wake up. We are not going to have a situation where all solo games become multiplayer in the next couple of years, but even in the next couple of years we are going to see increasing interaction between players. Maybe you will be able to swap or sell things to your mates, maybe you will be able to get group/guild achievements. Or we may start to see the rise of "solo" games that let you duo with a friend. Whatever happens the direction of travel is clear, more interaction.
It is ironic that as this is happening we have less interaction in MMO's. But the difference will be you will interact in what are primarily solo games with friends. Where as in MMO's players are choosing not to interact with strangers. I say choosing, modern MMO's have of course severely limited the ways you can interact. What the outcome of this will be is hard to see. Richard Garrett was talking a few months back about having a system in a MMO which paired you with friends, so even if you went into an instance without grouping you would find friends in your instance. This would obviously encourage interaction between players in a MMO but it is the sort of thing we would need to see in play to gauge its value.
It is not. Many miss the fact that more interactions is not more fun. Either is zero. There is a sweet spot.
Think about it. Unrestricted interaction is a horrible, bad thing. Trains, camping, kill stealing, ninja-looting. Hence, instances eliminate competition from other groups in pve. Training is eliminated. Ninja-looting is eliminated by individual loot roll. FFA open world pvp is practically gone from all mainstream games.
This is the industry maturing, figuring out what works and what does not, instead of holding onto some old ideas of what a virtual world should be. Gaming is better because of this.
I am not saying you need to interact all the time to make it a MMO or make it a good game. Indeed, too much reliance on interaction with the wrong sort of game structure can be bad. So long camping times was bad for a game but I would argue longer selling and buying times with no AH could be good for a game. But we have gone beyond these old arguments. We have arrived at a point where most players just see another players cape flashing by and that is meant to be multiplayer.
EQ 1 had the best solo/grouping game play ever, its like clubs are for people who like to socially interact yet a person goes there just to dance by themselves its stupid, you dont go to the nightclub and say this club is just for people to dance by themselves, the club doesnt revolve around a person that is by themselves its for a group of people to interact dance and have fun together
That is how a mmorpg should be, a mmorpg should be about bringing people together to socially interact if you do not like to socially interact their are certain classes with solo capabilities to help you solo, like EQs necro and druid the classes were for soloist but EQ did not revolve around the soloist mindset.
Not according to an obvious group on these forums. Sad what they've become. There is almost no difference between them and console games now...other than the other players assume the role of NPC's for the most part.
that has nothing, zero, nada, to do with consoles. 2 different platforms, both are made for single player games and for multiplayer games. Older consoles began the coop thing with local coop. PC began the bigger scale multiplayer thing, Now PC has coops too, and console have bigger scale multiplayer too. Please dont try to bring console vs pc discussion up cos its completely irrelevant to the actual discussion.
Comments
You don't need a MMO for persistency. D3 has persistent characters and gear and it is not a MMO. Many online ARPG have that.
You're just wrong. Skyrim never comes to a conclusion so long as they keep releasing new DLC, which is exactly the same as an MMO developer releasing an expansion. I didn't play Skyrim for close to a year, then recently I started it up and it's exactly the same as it was when I left it. If that's not persistence, I don't know what is.
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
" Creating a mmorpg for soloist is the stupidest thing ever"
Nothing more needs to be said here.
No, we can all just point and laugh at how absurd a statement it is.
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
For now solo games played online have very limited interactions between players, not just in consoles, PC Steam/Origin solo games are similar. But if anyone thinks that's not going to change you need to wake up. We are not going to have a situation where all solo games become multiplayer in the next couple of years, but even in the next couple of years we are going to see increasing interaction between players. Maybe you will be able to swap or sell things to your mates, maybe you will be able to get group/guild achievements. Or we may start to see the rise of "solo" games that let you duo with a friend. Whatever happens the direction of travel is clear, more interaction.
It is ironic that as this is happening we have less interaction in MMO's. But the difference will be you will interact in what are primarily solo games with friends. Where as in MMO's players are choosing not to interact with strangers. I say choosing, modern MMO's have of course severely limited the ways you can interact. What the outcome of this will be is hard to see. Richard Garrett was talking a few months back about having a system in a MMO which paired you with friends, so even if you went into an instance without grouping you would find friends in your instance. This would obviously encourage interaction between players in a MMO but it is the sort of thing we would need to see in play to gauge its value.
It is not. Many miss the fact that more interactions is not more fun. Either is zero. There is a sweet spot.
Think about it. Unrestricted interaction is a horrible, bad thing. Trains, camping, kill stealing, ninja-looting. Hence, instances eliminate competition from other groups in pve. Training is eliminated. Ninja-looting is eliminated by individual loot roll. FFA open world pvp is practically gone from all mainstream games.
This is the industry maturing, figuring out what works and what does not, instead of holding onto some old ideas of what a virtual world should be. Gaming is better because of this.
that has nothing, zero, nada, to do with consoles. 2 different platforms, both are made for single player games and for multiplayer games. Older consoles began the coop thing with local coop. PC began the bigger scale multiplayer thing, Now PC has coops too, and console have bigger scale multiplayer too. Please dont try to bring console vs pc discussion up cos its completely irrelevant to the actual discussion.