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!

Did solo players destroy MMOPRG

ikcinikcin AmberPosts: 620Member Common
Look at games like GW2, ESO, WildStar, and so many others, they are not MMORPGs, but single player, with few multiplayer features. All they have or will have terrible community and guild system compare to Lineage 2 for example. Every one of these games finish with max level and with the end of the personal story. PvP, trading, crafting, all are meaningless. The competition is limited to some stupid pret-a-porter - see my armor is more fancy than yours! There is no AAA MMORPGs anymore, cause devs make games for solo players. Or I'm wrong?

image

«13456711

Comments

  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKPosts: 8,499Member Uncommon

    Yes but not in the way you think.

    Back in 1999 - I soloed group content in EQ1 just by figuring out some skill combos in game (that later became staples of playing different classes such as swarming, root-rotting, etc...). I wasn't the only one obviously but there was a small % of players that were playing their classes in unforseen ways by the devs and advancing far faster than the rest of the playerbase.

    The devs of EQ1 never intended bards to be able to pull 30 even or yellow cons and kill them all without getting hit once - just one example. (just recently I did a 100+ mob pull in P1999 on my bard in Overthere - yeah talk about dinging a level in one pull)

    Players finding unintended loopholes in gameplay is what killed group oriented gameplay early on, and then later it was simply mass player preference - the devs simply made games the masses wanted - aka SOLO MMORPGs.

     

  • rochristrochrist Harvard, MAPosts: 106Member Common

    Oh joy. Let's revisit the question for the 300,000th time. This year.

     

     

  • hallucigenocidehallucigenocide GislavedPosts: 583Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DMKano

    Yes but not in the way you think.

    Back in 1999 - I soloed group content in EQ1 just by figuring out some skill combos in game (that later became staples of playing different classes such as swarming, root-rotting, etc...).

    The devs of EQ1 never intended bards to be able to pull 30 even or yellow cons and kill them all without getting hit once - just one example.

    Players finding unintended loopholes in gameplay is what killed group oriented gameplay early on, and then later it was simply mass player preference - the devs simply made games the masses wanted - aka SOLO MMORPGs.

     

    sounds more like bad design to me.. like certain classes being able to solo current raid bosses in that game wich we do not speak of :P 

    kek

  • ArielyAriely gentPosts: 68Member
    Originally posted by ikcin
    Look at games like GW2, ESO, WildStar, and so many others, they are not MMORPGs, but single player, with few multiplayer features. All they have or will have terrible community and guild system compare to Lineage 2 for example. Every one of these games finish with max level and with the end of the personal story. PvP, trading, crafting, all are meaningless. The competition is limited to some stupid pret-a-porter - see my armor is more fancy than yours! There is no AAA MMORPGs anymore, cause devs make games for solo players. Or I'm wrong?

    what? and " group " based players aren't like that?

    as a solo player myself, my opinion, the titel of this thread is fk' retarded.

    No we did not destroy it, u know what did? lazy people, greedy people, and those people could be solo or group play based.

    so pointing the finger at solo players is wrong, i enjoy my journey  in games,( quest, exploring, crafting, etc) to the fullest solo-ing or most of  it anyway and i enjoy group content to.

     

  • MrNoMrNo Phx, AZPosts: 92Member

    I would have to say no only because Devs make games that appeal to the masses. So if todays gamers want solo play by the masses and if it a model that works and they make a boat load of cash. Ya, you better believe it they will make solo accessible in your favorite MMO. We have SWTOR to thank because they took solo play to the next level and guess what it is still going strong.

     

    Mr. No knows. ;p

    image

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread PshPosts: 5,498Member Uncommon
    MMORPGs aren't destroyed and there is actually a huge variety of different types of MMORPGs right now.
  • zzaxzzax YESPosts: 291Member Uncommon

    Fully agree with you on this one OP!

    Think if you were fan of Justin Bieber and I convinced him to play Death Metal - how would you feel? ;)

  • VorthanionVorthanion Laguna Vista, TXPosts: 2,117Member Uncommon
    The industry's desire to appeal to console gamers and everyone's push for arcade gameplay is what is most likely diminishing grouping, system complexity, world building, community and MMO(RPG)s in particular.

    image
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,310Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ikcin
    Look at games like GW2, ESO, WildStar, and so many others, they are not MMORPGs, but single player, with few multiplayer features. All they have or will have terrible community and guild system compare to Lineage 2 for example. Every one of these games finish with max level and with the end of the personal story. PvP, trading, crafting, all are meaningless. The competition is limited to some stupid pret-a-porter - see my armor is more fancy than yours! There is no AAA MMORPGs anymore, cause devs make games for solo players. Or I'm wrong?

    Everything you stated was pretty much the same in most old games.

    Few multiplayer features - nope.  about the same as most old games.

    Terrible communities - about the same as most old games.

    Max level - same as most old games

    PVP, Trading, crafting meaningless - about the same as most old games

    Competition limited to look at my armor - about the same as most old games.

     

    So based on your criteria I'd have to say No, Soloers did not destroy mmorpgs, based on your criteria there is no difference. 

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

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by ikcin
    Look at games like GW2, ESO, WildStar, and so many others, they are not MMORPGs, but single player, with few multiplayer features. All they have or will have terrible community and guild system compare to Lineage 2 for example. Every one of these games finish with max level and with the end of the personal story. PvP, trading, crafting, all are meaningless. The competition is limited to some stupid pret-a-porter - see my armor is more fancy than yours! There is no AAA MMORPGs anymore, cause devs make games for solo players. Or I'm wrong?

    It is just semantics. I don't particularly care if those games are called MMORPGs or not. It is just a convenient label.

    However, if you have to think of them as MMORPGs that are changed ... well ...

    think of them as new and improved (for some but not all players) MMORPGs. Solo players destroyed the old, and enable the new MMORPGs.

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    The industry's desire to appeal to console gamers and everyone's push for arcade gameplay is what is most likely diminishing grouping, system complexity, world building, community and MMO(RPG)s in particular.

    diminishing grouping .. yes

    diminishing world build ... yes

    diminishing community ... yes

    diminishing system complexity .... doubtful .... combat systems are more complex and more fun (at least to me) today than UO/EQ times.

    And i think it is great .. because i don't play games to group, or for the community.

     

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,310Member Uncommon

    Your going to have to stop with the semantics argument.

    Sementics is using a different word that means the same thing to describe the same situation.  E.G. this isn't my child it's my kid - different words same thing.  (not referring to a goat). 

    If the word means something different, or is referring to different things then it isn't semantics. 

    Edit - Semantics is about meaning.  If the words you are using have no meaning then you are just spouting random noises.  Meaning is the single most important point in any communication.

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

  • LissylLissyl Peru, INPosts: 271Member Common

    You live in a society that idolizes the individual and the nurtures competition to the point that it can split an atom, set before them a game where the absolute highest mark of skill is to be able to solo something that requires a group...then wonder why people started soloing instead of relying on groups?  And when the devs saw people soloing, they made more solo content, which brought in more people with a lower skill bar who would also play solo content, and that brought in more...

     

    No, solo content didn't destroy MMO's.  Trying to make a social organization that is 100% counter to the culture did, because it was only a matter of time until people sought to break forced social bonds.  People do -not- like being told they -must- do something, especially when it involves other people.

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

    Fully agree with you on this one OP!

    Think if you were fan of Justin Bieber and I convinced him to play Death Metal - how would you feel? ;)

    It would be a vast improvement?

    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

  • GormogonGormogon Waukegan, ILPosts: 188Member Uncommon

    They may have helped ruin MMORPGs for players who prefer social interaction being a requirement to achieve the more meaningful things in a game, but people who choose to play around people rather than with them make up the vast majority of the consumer side of the market.  Blizzard saw the solo gamer as the ticket to continued growth and systematically removed all reliance on other players in WoW.  It worked.  Today, developers are just making the games that the majority of the market wants.   The old codgers lament these games that can't hold one's attention past 200 hours, but that is how single-player RPGs are played: you play through the story, get all the achievements/uber stuff you want, and then move on to the next game.   It sucks if you're looking for a different type of game, and I think it's unfortunate that there is a demand there that isn't being met by today's major commercial MMORPGs, but there's no monumental shift back coming.

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

    Your going to have to stop with the semantics argument.

    Sementics is using a different word that means the same thing to describe the same situation.  E.G. this isn't my child it's my kid - different words same thing.  (not referring to a goat). 

    If the word means something different, or is referring to different things then it isn't semantics. 

    Edit - Semantics is about meaning.  If the words you are using have no meaning then you are just spouting random noises.  Meaning is the single most important point in any communication.

    exactly ... MMORPG .. the label ... does not mean much now. It is all diluted.

    And why would i stop using a perfectly good argument? Just because you don't like it?

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

    No, solo content didn't destroy MMO's.  Trying to make a social organization that is 100% counter to the culture did, because it was only a matter of time until people sought to break forced social bonds.  People do -not- like being told they -must- do something, especially when it involves other people.

    This is a good argument. I always say i don't depend on other for my fun. I guess this is a good way to explain way.

     

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

    They may have helped ruin MMORPGs for players who prefer social interaction being a requirement to achieve the more meaningful things in a game, but people who choose to play around people rather than with them make up the vast majority of the consumer side of the market.  Blizzard saw the solo gamer as the ticket to continued growth and systematically removed all reliance on other players in WoW.  It worked.  Today, developers are just making the games that the majority of the market wants.   The old codgers lament these games that can't hold one's attention past 200 hours, but that is how single-player RPGs are played: you play through the story, get all the achievements/uber stuff you want, and then move on to the next game.   It sucks if you're looking for a different type of game, and I think it's unfortunate that there is a demand there that isn't being met by today's major commercial MMORPGs, but there's no monumental shift back coming.

    I hope not. If all games require social interactions, i will quit gaming and go back to anime/movies/novels ... and other entertainment.

     

  • Pig-EyePig-Eye Lickbone, KYPosts: 115Member

    Umm, no!

     

    The watered-down, asshat player base is what destroyed mmo's.

    I got your Deliverance!

    Where's my banjo?!!

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 19,979Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    Your going to have to stop with the semantics argument.

    Sementics is using a different word that means the same thing to describe the same situation.  E.G. this isn't my child it's my kid - different words same thing.  (not referring to a goat). 

    If the word means something different, or is referring to different things then it isn't semantics. 

    Edit - Semantics is about meaning.  If the words you are using have no meaning then you are just spouting random noises.  Meaning is the single most important point in any communication.

    exactly ... MMORPG .. the label ... does not mean much now. It is all diluted.

    And why would i stop using a perfectly good argument? Just because you don't like it?

    Actually it's meaning is crystal clear to me and those who understand what it represents.

    Not our problem if some segment of the community chooses to misuse the term incorrectly.

    Doesn't change its meaning in the slightest actually, no matter how many people fail to comprehend it.

    That's OK, people these days still misuse the term "album", as if any of them actually owned one. 

     

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,310Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    Your going to have to stop with the semantics argument.

    Sementics is using a different word that means the same thing to describe the same situation.  E.G. this isn't my child it's my kid - different words same thing.  (not referring to a goat). 

    If the word means something different, or is referring to different things then it isn't semantics. 

    Edit - Semantics is about meaning.  If the words you are using have no meaning then you are just spouting random noises.  Meaning is the single most important point in any communication.

    exactly ... MMORPG .. the label ... does not mean much now. It is all diluted.

    And why would i stop using a perfectly good argument? Just because you don't like it?

    Because it isn't a perfectly good argument.

    Are games like D3 and Wow the same?  They may have some things in common but they are not the same.

    What you choose to call them is not the same as "A semantics argument".

    once again, words have meanings.  You can call them both MMO or MMORPG if you want.  But saying it is a semantics argument is just dismissive and wrong, because once again semantics is about meaning, meaning is the most important point of communication.

    Calling one thing the same as another is one argument, saying they in fact are the same thing is a totally different argument - this is what semantics are about - meaning.

    You are using the term "semantics" the same way people here use the term WoW Clone, carebear, ganker... just dismissive.

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

  • KarteliKarteli Providence, PAPosts: 2,646Member

    MMORPG space was introduced to dollar space, and that is part of the problem.

     

    It was no longer about a company doing whey loved and doing it well .. it became about doing enough to make money so investors would be happy.  (Killed many ideas, it did.)

     

    People supported the notion of big companies running games.  This works well for folks who want high production value for what they buy .. but at the same time, they get all the bells and whistles .. without the game.

     

    Solo MMORPG's only infuriates people when they realize their monthly subscription only pads corporate income, not gameplay quality.  Solo MMO's make the player the hero, so that's the attraction.

     

    Solo MMORPG's are never about longevity, or about a game spoken about in 5+ years.  It's all about now.  Become king, you win!  stay on and keep paying and you can become super duper king+.

     

    Meh.  I'd rather have a truly open world that I can live in for many years.   Especially if I'm paying a subscription.  Paying a sub to a game I know I won't care about in a couple years seems fruitless (why bother).  [hence possibly why so many people wait for F2P in P2P games .. they know how it ends]

    Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NNHmV3QPw&feature=plcp
    Recognize the voice? Yep sounds like Penny Arcade's Extra Credits.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,310Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Karteli

    MMORPG space was introduced to dollar space, and that is part of the problem.

     

    It was no longer about a company doing whey loved and doing it well .. it became about doing enough to make money so investors would be happy.  (Killed many ideas, it did.)

     

    People supported the notion of big companies running games.  This works well for folks who want high production value for what they buy .. but at the same time, they get all the bells and whistles .. without the game.

     

    Solo MMORPG's only infuriates people when they realize their monthly subscription only pads corporate income, not gameplay quality.  Solo MMO's make the player the hero, so that's the attraction.

     

    Solo MMORPG's are never about longevity, or about a game spoken about in 5+ years.  It's all about now.  Become king, you win!  stay on and keep paying and you can become super duper king+.

     

    Meh.  I'd rather have a truly open world that I can live in for many years.   Especially if I'm paying a subscription.  Paying a sub to a game I know I won't care about in a couple years seems fruitless (why bother).  [hence possibly why so many people wait for F2P]

    Odd.  I thought big companies started this genre.  You know SOE and EA.

    The solo mmorpg have just as much longevity as all the other ones, some have been around a long time, and others will be around a long time. 

    The quality of games is IMO higher than it has ever been.  They are also more solo than ever.  The two have nothing to do with each other.

    Open world and Solo have nothing to do with each other.

     

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

  • KarteliKarteli Providence, PAPosts: 2,646Member
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Karteli

    MMORPG space was introduced to dollar space, and that is part of the problem.

     

    It was no longer about a company doing whey loved and doing it well .. it became about doing enough to make money so investors would be happy.  (Killed many ideas, it did.)

     

    People supported the notion of big companies running games.  This works well for folks who want high production value for what they buy .. but at the same time, they get all the bells and whistles .. without the game.

     

    Solo MMORPG's only infuriates people when they realize their monthly subscription only pads corporate income, not gameplay quality.  Solo MMO's make the player the hero, so that's the attraction.

     

    Solo MMORPG's are never about longevity, or about a game spoken about in 5+ years.  It's all about now.  Become king, you win!  stay on and keep paying and you can become super duper king+.

     

    Meh.  I'd rather have a truly open world that I can live in for many years.   Especially if I'm paying a subscription.  Paying a sub to a game I know I won't care about in a couple years seems fruitless (why bother).  [hence possibly why so many people wait for F2P]

    Odd.  I thought big companies started this genre.  You know SOE and EA.

    SOE Online was incredibly small when they started.

     

    EA had good games in the 80's.  Not sure how you pulled EA into ANY company involved with early MMORPGS. 

     

    [unless you think that EA buying and rampaging Origin Systems Inc in 1992 qualifies them as a founding company for MMORPG's .. keep in mind Lord British worked for them for a few more years, and UO was really good then]

     

    EA as a starter for MMORPG's is sort of blasphemy.

    Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NNHmV3QPw&feature=plcp
    Recognize the voice? Yep sounds like Penny Arcade's Extra Credits.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,310Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Karteli
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Karteli

    MMORPG space was introduced to dollar space, and that is part of the problem.

     

    It was no longer about a company doing whey loved and doing it well .. it became about doing enough to make money so investors would be happy.  (Killed many ideas, it did.)

     

    People supported the notion of big companies running games.  This works well for folks who want high production value for what they buy .. but at the same time, they get all the bells and whistles .. without the game.

     

    Solo MMORPG's only infuriates people when they realize their monthly subscription only pads corporate income, not gameplay quality.  Solo MMO's make the player the hero, so that's the attraction.

     

    Solo MMORPG's are never about longevity, or about a game spoken about in 5+ years.  It's all about now.  Become king, you win!  stay on and keep paying and you can become super duper king+.

     

    Meh.  I'd rather have a truly open world that I can live in for many years.   Especially if I'm paying a subscription.  Paying a sub to a game I know I won't care about in a couple years seems fruitless (why bother).  [hence possibly why so many people wait for F2P]

    Odd.  I thought big companies started this genre.  You know SOE and EA.

    SOE Online was incredibly small when they started.

     

    EA had good games in the 80's.  Not sure how you pulled EA into ANY company involved with early MMORPGS. 

     

    [unless you think that EA buying and rampaging Origin Systems Inc in 1992 qualifies them as a founding company for MMORPG's]

    SOE was part of Sony, a huge multinational Conglomerate. 

    EA bought origin as you said in 1992.  UO was released in 1997, 5 years after EA bought them. 

    So yes EA was the founding company for MMORPG.

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

«13456711
Sign In or Register to comment.