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

1293032343589

Comments

  • Eol-Eol- Member UncommonPosts: 274

    IMO people on these forums tend to overstate the social/antisocial resons for soloing, and understate the time/practicality issues. Many times I only have 30 or 45 minutes to play, and its nice to be able to log on and get something done... and the only way to realistically do that is to solo. Also, I go afk a lot (family/kids) which makes grouping very difficult. It is very nice for a game to have a reasonable option for soloing, in fact I wouldnt play a game that didnt. I understand that the rewards wont be as good as epic raids, or someone who plays 12 hours a day (actually I play a lot of hours sometimes, they just arent contiguous). But even if you have a guild, it can take 30 minutes or an hour just to get a group organized and decide what to do, and of course pickup groups can take longer, and that just isnt fun or practical for people like me.

    Now, some people confuse having the ability to solo with dumbing down the game, because WoW did both, made soloing very feasible and also dumbed down the game in many respects. I dont agree those things are the same. A game can still be very challenging and not on 'easy mode', and still allow a viable way to solo and get xp and reasonable loot.

    Elladan - ESO (AD)
    Camring - SWTOR (Ebon Hawk)
    Eol & Justinian - Rift (Faeblight)
    Ceol and Duri - LotRO (Landroval)
    Kili - WoW
    Eol - Lineage 2
    Camring - SWG
    Justinian (Nimue), Camring - DAoC

  • centkincentkin Member RarePosts: 1,527

    One big reason someone who might want to group would solo is being "on call."  I know when there was a decent chance I would have to leave but I did not know if or when I would solo.  It always annoyed me when such people did something like a pickup dungeon with a lock-out timer and then were like -- oops my pager is going off -- I have to leave -- and all of a sudden you are short-handed without a key class and are DONE for the week.

    Thing is you have a few types:

    People who want to solo but are forced to group or feel like they MUST group  -- this usually only happens at endgame or for must have items // or to unlock content.  This can also happen socially when one is in a guild and needed for a group when the player feels like soloing.

    People who want to solo and are soloing

    People who want to group and are soloing -- Either not enough people on to find a group, not enough time to find a group, or time not under control like above(on call).

    People who want to group and are in a group.

    Then in some games like AC you can have the "solo group" where people are in a dungeon completely split up from each other playing solo but are grouped for an exp bonus, or for chatting purposes only.

    And you have in some games like Warhammers PQs the "group solo" where people are solo but hunting together (albeit often competatively) as a group towards a goal.

     

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect Member UncommonPosts: 1,243

    Originally posted by Eol-

    IMO people on these forums tend to overstate the social/antisocial resons for soloing, and understate the time/practicality issues. Many times I only have 30 or 45 minutes to play, and its nice to be able to log on and get something done... and the only way to realistically do that is to solo.

    So why does it have to be an MMO you decide to play if you've only 30 minutes to kill? Why do MMO's have to be simplified to allow people to play for such a small amount of time? Why can't you just load up a single player game or an FPS and go multiplayer for a while? Why are MMO's your first choice when you have such limited time?

  • Eol-Eol- Member UncommonPosts: 274

    Originally posted by UsualSuspect

    Originally posted by Eol-

    IMO people on these forums tend to overstate the social/antisocial resons for soloing, and understate the time/practicality issues. Many times I only have 30 or 45 minutes to play, and its nice to be able to log on and get something done... and the only way to realistically do that is to solo.

    So why does it have to be an MMO you decide to play if you've only 30 minutes to kill? Why do MMO's have to be simplified to allow people to play for such a small amount of time? Why can't you just load up a single player game or an FPS and go multiplayer for a while? Why are MMO's your first choice when you have such limited time?

     Well first of all, many times I play longer than that, I was just giving that as an example. Or I may play for 30 minutes, go afk, play for 45 minutes, go afk again, etc.

    Why MMO's? Because I like playing MMO's. I also play strategy games and RPGs from time to time, but I like playing MMO's, and in almost every MMO I have played it has had a viable soloing option, and today's games (LotRO, WoW) are better in that respect than the older MMO's. Basically I do it because I like to. Its fun.

    And why is it such a problem for you? Why cant a game have group options and soloing options? I totally disagree that having a solo option is the same as making the game 'simpler' as you suggest. Soloing and dumbing down the game are two different things.

    I guess I am not sure why group players want to make MMOs their personal domain anyway. Isnt there room for both? Although to be fair, thats a moot point, because the market has spoken and that is what many players want. Most games would be stupid to not provide a reasonable option for solo play, they lose too many players and too much revenue doing that.

    Elladan - ESO (AD)
    Camring - SWTOR (Ebon Hawk)
    Eol & Justinian - Rift (Faeblight)
    Ceol and Duri - LotRO (Landroval)
    Kili - WoW
    Eol - Lineage 2
    Camring - SWG
    Justinian (Nimue), Camring - DAoC

  • coolblackguycoolblackguy Member Posts: 1

    lotr is the best gamne ever!!!

    asdasdasda

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Member CommonPosts: 3,675

    Originally posted by Eol-

    I guess I am not sure why group players want to make MMOs their personal domain anyway. Isnt there room for both? Although to be fair, thats a moot point, because the market has spoken and that is what many players want. Most games would be stupid to not provide a reasonable option for solo play, they lose too many players and too much revenue doing that.

    I think a lot of them feel bad that there are people out there who prefer a different play style, so they want to force everyone to play their way so they feel better about it.  That's why they define MMOs as "something you have to group in" and anyone who doesn't want to should "go play something else".

    It's absurd.

    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

  • whilanwhilan Member UncommonPosts: 3,472

    Originally posted by Cephus404

    Originally posted by Eol-



    I guess I am not sure why group players want to make MMOs their personal domain anyway. Isnt there room for both? Although to be fair, thats a moot point, because the market has spoken and that is what many players want. Most games would be stupid to not provide a reasonable option for solo play, they lose too many players and too much revenue doing that.

    I think a lot of them feel bad that there are people out there who prefer a different play style, so they want to force everyone to play their way so they feel better about it.  That's why they define MMOs as "something you have to group in" and anyone who doesn't want to should "go play something else".

    It's absurd.

    Well as someone who is on the grouper end allow me to state why in my views why we want it stay somewhat a grouped based game.

    First off, (normally i hate this term) but it is traditional for RPG games to have groups for adventures. Most MMOs got their roots from Dungeons and dragons, and in that case you had a DM (GM in our days) and a group of people who went on an adventure.

    By nature (as in general nature of MMOs) they want you to keep playing for as long as possible. This generally makes everything slowish and thus take a while.  Thereby if everything is slowish so is the gameplay, thus you can't log on for 30 mins and play because that wasn't in the nature of how the game worked.

    But this is all history lessons and such. The main reason we don't want to see tons of solo content everywhere is because if there is tons of solo content that will directly affect the group based content.  Sure you can have group content but the majority of the people will not group for something if they can just simply solo it in less time or bypass the group portion by doing solo content.

    Whatever gets to the reward the quickest with the least effort.

    Originally you couldn't start any kind of adventure, let alone complete it by yourself. Solo content is great but in an MMO i feel it should be something you do when you don't have time or can't (due to restrictions) and not a normal play style.

    I don't generally go to platformers for my RPG fix, i dont read books to look at the pictures. I don't play MMOs to play by myself.

    For me it should be a added thing into the game not something that should be viable throughout as that tends to change the genre a bit too much away from what it is suppose to be.

    In the end i don't believe groups want soloers to go away, because then it would be a unpopulated world. What we do want is the soloers to pop into the group every now and then and play with the community. The only way that is going to happen is if there is a reason to do that. Such as needing to group to progress through the quest.

    You see it all the time. Unless theres a requirement for the group, they won't. People will just fight over the same 5 mobs to do the quest by themselves instead of hitting the group button and doing it together.

     

    Just my thoughts on the subject.

    Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.

    Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.

    image

  • dreamscaperdreamscaper Member UncommonPosts: 1,592

    Originally posted by whilan

    In the end i don't believe groups want soloers to go away, because then it would be a unpopulated world. What we do want is the soloers to pop into the group every now and then and play with the community. The only way that is going to happen is if there is a reason to do that. Such as needing to group to progress through the quest.

    You see it all the time. Unless theres a requirement for the group, they won't. People will just fight over the same 5 mobs to do the quest by themselves instead of hitting the group button and doing it together.

     

    Quoted for extra emphasis.

    <3

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect Member UncommonPosts: 1,243

    Originally posted by Cephus404

    I think a lot of them feel bad that there are people out there who prefer a different play style, so they want to force everyone to play their way so they feel better about it.  That's why they define MMOs as "something you have to group in" and anyone who doesn't want to should "go play something else".

    It's absurd.

    In a way you're right, it is about the people who prefer a different play style. Put more simply, it's about changing a genre. I have X-Thousand single player games to play if I want a solo experience, whereas there are far fewer MMO's being made, a tiny amount in comparison. Why do the MMO's also have to be changed into solo games? Aren't there enough choices without having to alter a multiplayer game into a single player game?

    Why can't multiplayer games be about players working together and single player games be about playing alone?

  • ElderRatElderRat Member CommonPosts: 899

    Originally posted by whilan

    Originally posted by Cephus404

    Originally posted by Eol-

    I guess I am not sure why group players want to make MMOs their personal domain anyway. Isnt there room for both? Although to be fair, thats a moot point, because the market has spoken and that is what many players want. Most games would be stupid to not provide a reasonable option for solo play, they lose too many players and too much revenue doing that.

    I think a lot of them feel bad that there are people out there who prefer a different play style, so they want to force everyone to play their way so they feel better about it.  That's why they define MMOs as "something you have to group in" and anyone who doesn't want to should "go play something else".

    It's absurd.

    Well as someone who is on the grouper end allow me to state why in my views why we want it stay somewhat a grouped based game.

    First off, (normally i hate this term) but it is traditional for RPG games to have groups for adventures. Most MMOs got their roots from Dungeons and dragons, and in that case you had a DM (GM in our days) and a group of people who went on an adventure.

    By nature (as in general nature of MMOs) they want you to keep playing for as long as possible. This generally makes everything slowish and thus take a while.  Thereby if everything is slowish so is the gameplay, thus you can't log on for 30 mins and play because that wasn't in the nature of how the game worked.

    But this is all history lessons and such. The main reason we don't want to see tons of solo content everywhere is because if there is tons of solo content that will directly affect the group based content.  Sure you can have group content but the majority of the people will not group for something if they can just simply solo it in less time or bypass the group portion by doing solo content.

    Whatever gets to the reward the quickest with the least effort.

    Originally you couldn't start any kind of adventure, let alone complete it by yourself. Solo content is great but in an MMO i feel it should be something you do when you don't have time or can't (due to restrictions) and not a normal play style.

    I don't generally go to platformers for my RPG fix, i dont read books to look at the pictures. I don't play MMOs to play by myself.

    For me it should be a added thing into the game not something that should be viable throughout as that tends to change the genre a bit too much away from what it is suppose to be.

    In the end i don't believe groups want soloers to go away, because then it would be a unpopulated world. What we do want is the soloers to pop into the group every now and then and play with the community. The only way that is going to happen is if there is a reason to do that. Such as needing to group to progress through the quest.

    You see it all the time. Unless theres a requirement for the group, they won't. People will just fight over the same 5 mobs to do the quest by themselves instead of hitting the group button and doing it together.

     

    Just my thoughts on the subject.

     I prefer to be able to solo or group as I choose.  However, the last time I played LOTRO(pre F2P model) I noticed that they had changed a lot of the quests that had originally been designed  for group play(Chapter 11(I believe - the tomb) of book 1 was an example) to being soloable.  I remember a time when people would dominate chat with their demands for a group for that quest, now those voices are silent.  It should have satisfied me, since I do like the ability to solo things.  The sad truth is that now that it is soloable you cannot find a group for it, ask for you and you are told in insulting terms it is soloable.

    So you are right making things soloable can change the dynamics of the game, and not always for the better.  I still prefer a mix of soloable and group quests. (Note - have not played LOTRO since the f2p so i have no idea what it is like now).

    Currently bored with MMO's.

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 30,925

    Originally posted by UsualSuspect

    Originally posted by Cephus404



    I think a lot of them feel bad that there are people out there who prefer a different play style, so they want to force everyone to play their way so they feel better about it.  That's why they define MMOs as "something you have to group in" and anyone who doesn't want to should "go play something else".

    It's absurd.

    In a way you're right, it is about the people who prefer a different play style. Put more simply, it's about changing a genre. I have X-Thousand single player games to play if I want a solo experience, whereas there are far fewer MMO's being made, a tiny amount in comparison. Why do the MMO's also have to be changed into solo games? Aren't there enough choices without having to alter a multiplayer game into a single player game?

    Why can't multiplayer games be about players working together and single player games be about playing alone?

    But no one has proven to me that these games are supposed to be "grouping" games as opposed to "play in a world with other people and do what it takes to get the job done" type games.

    I realize that a poster indicated that rpg's stemmed from pen and paper days when you'd get friends together and play but that had it's own issues.

    For me, most of my friends just weren't/aren't geeky enough to seriously entertain p&p role play games. that left me to either wait long periods in between  or on the off chance I could find a group it would end up being this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmgLOKRl5J0&feature=related

    Not quite my scene.

    So naturally people looked toward computer games to fill out the party.

    I understand that many of the original players of muds/mmo's were looking for a social outlet to share thier interests but again, in no way does that mean that you have to party except if there is content that is made to be solely group content. Nothing wrong with that and it adds to the flavor of the game play.

    If I were to play an early game and never party but I would solely be a crafter and just socialize and make deals and perhaps trade with other players for mats but never grouped does that invalidate my role in these early games? My guess is no. So why should I also be forced to group if I would prefer combat. Provided that I wasn't trying to do or demanding that all content be solo. I think that would be very boring.

    My guess it that these games are supposed to be emulating some sort of world where players can pick and choose their social interaction.

    and with that here's Stephen Lynch.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgOB7VWjlSQ&feature=related

    Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb." 

    Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w


    Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547

    Try the "Special Edition." 'Cause it's "Special." https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/64878/?tab=description

    Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo 
  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect Member UncommonPosts: 1,243

    Originally posted by Sovrath

    But no one has proven to me that these games are supposed to be "grouping" games as opposed to "play in a world with other people and do what it takes to get the job done" type games.

    I'm not going into the argument of why people play MMO's, I'm simply saying that a multiplayer game should involve team play as that's basically the idea behind 99% of multiplayer games. There are plenty of single player games if you want a solo experience. I'm not saying that soloing should be completely removed, but the focus should be on teaming/grouping with soloing as a side option.

    The thing with most soloers that are posting on here is that they want the whole game to resemble a single player game, they want access to all the end game content, all the loot, to defeat the big bad boss alone. Pick one of the million single player games if you want to do that, why change a genre which has so little to choose from as it is?

  • z80paranoiaz80paranoia Member Posts: 410


    Originally posted by UsualSuspect


    Originally posted by Sovrath

    But no one has proven to me that these games are supposed to be "grouping" games as opposed to "play in a world with other people and do what it takes to get the job done" type games.

    I'm not going into the argument of why people play MMO's, I'm simply saying that a multiplayer game should involve team play as that's basically the idea behind 99% of multiplayer games. There are plenty of single player games if you want a solo experience. I'm not saying that soloing should be completely removed, but the focus should be on teaming/grouping with soloing as a side option.
    The thing with most soloers that are posting on here is that they want the whole game to resemble a single player game, they want access to all the end game content, all the loot, to defeat the big bad boss alone. Pick one of the million single player games if you want to do that, why change a genre which has so little to choose from as it is?

    You are still not understanding that both kinds of games can coexist. The solo-centric mmorpg will not destroy the group-centric mmorpg. I personally don't want an mmorpg where every mob is soloable, that would be boring. I do want an mmorpg where every mob is reachable by soloers, without having to group, but not always killable by a single solitary player (like the shatterer from the gw2 demo, every player can reach it, but it doesn't appear beatable by one player alone).

    If you analyze your arguments they all come from the belief that the solo-centric mmorpg can actually destroy the group-centric mmorpg, and that's false. There will still be people such as yourself that prefer and support group oriented mmorpgs to keep those kinds of games going. Why do you think your belief has any weight?

    Guild Wars 2 is my religion

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Member CommonPosts: 3,675

    Originally posted by UsualSuspect

    Originally posted by Cephus404



    I think a lot of them feel bad that there are people out there who prefer a different play style, so they want to force everyone to play their way so they feel better about it.  That's why they define MMOs as "something you have to group in" and anyone who doesn't want to should "go play something else".

    It's absurd.

    In a way you're right, it is about the people who prefer a different play style. Put more simply, it's about changing a genre. I have X-Thousand single player games to play if I want a solo experience, whereas there are far fewer MMO's being made, a tiny amount in comparison. Why do the MMO's also have to be changed into solo games? Aren't there enough choices without having to alter a multiplayer game into a single player game?

    Why can't multiplayer games be about players working together and single player games be about playing alone?

    Genres change all the time, that's life.  An industry has to go where it's paying customers are and in the modern MMO industry, that's toward more casual, soloable content.  The soloers are the ones primarily paying the bills.  Whether you like that fact or not is entirely irrelevant, it is the reality of the situation.  Therefore, considering that most games would go out of business and shut down without soloers and soloable content, the idea of trying to force soloers to do group content is absurd.  The idea that "this is what I  think the genre ought to be" and "this is what brings in the money that keeps the genre going" are going to be one and the same, while it may be a nice fantasy, simply isn't the case here.  The genre is what it is, the reality concerning the genre is what it is.  You have to deal with it and leave your dreams and wishes along the side of the road or try to find the few, small games that cater to your particular views and play those.  The industry has largely moved beyond what you want in a game, like it or not.

    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 Member UncommonPosts: 1,243

    Originally posted by z80paranoia

    If you analyze your arguments they all come from the belief that the solo-centric mmorpg can actually destroy the group-centric mmorpg, and that's false. There will still be people such as yourself that prefer and support group oriented mmorpgs to keep those kinds of games going. Why do you think your belief has any weight?

    I disagree, I think they can destroy group-centric MMO's, look at the current state of MMO's and how they've gone from mostly group content such as EverQuest to completely soloable from start to end such as Champions Online, with the middle being World of Warcraft/Lord of the Rings where you can solo everything until end game. It only takes a little more of a push for developers to realise that they can create single player games that allow people to inhabit the same game world, then be able to not only charge for the box but a monthly subscription on top of that.

    Money is the name of the game these days, and there are a lot more single player gamers than there are old school MMO players. The only chance a decent group-centric MMO has for getting off the ground is from a small company, and lets face it, they just won't have the resources to make the game worth playing.

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect Member UncommonPosts: 1,243

    Originally posted by Cephus404

    Why can't multiplayer games be about players working together and single player games be about playing alone?

    Genres change all the time, that's life.  An industry has to go where it's paying customers are and in the modern MMO industry, that's toward more casual, soloable content.  The soloers are the ones primarily paying the bills.  Whether you like that fact or not is entirely irrelevant, it is the reality of the situation.  Therefore, considering that most games would go out of business and shut down without soloers and soloable content, the idea of trying to force soloers to do group content is absurd.  The idea that "this is what I  think the genre ought to be" and "this is what brings in the money that keeps the genre going" are going to be one and the same, while it may be a nice fantasy, simply isn't the case here.  The genre is what it is, the reality concerning the genre is what it is.  You have to deal with it and leave your dreams and wishes along the side of the road or try to find the few, small games that cater to your particular views and play those.  The industry has largely moved beyond what you want in a game, like it or not.

    Absolutely agree with you. Games have become another mass market product, I really can't think of a company that develops games now because they want to play them. The last would probably be ID Software, who made games because they were gamers. Now it's all about hiring a team of programmers, gamer or not, giving them a project to get on with, and hope for the cash to roll in at the end.

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Member CommonPosts: 3,675

    Originally posted by UsualSuspect

    Originally posted by Cephus404

    Why can't multiplayer games be about players working together and single player games be about playing alone?

    Genres change all the time, that's life.  An industry has to go where it's paying customers are and in the modern MMO industry, that's toward more casual, soloable content.  The soloers are the ones primarily paying the bills.  Whether you like that fact or not is entirely irrelevant, it is the reality of the situation.  Therefore, considering that most games would go out of business and shut down without soloers and soloable content, the idea of trying to force soloers to do group content is absurd.  The idea that "this is what I  think the genre ought to be" and "this is what brings in the money that keeps the genre going" are going to be one and the same, while it may be a nice fantasy, simply isn't the case here.  The genre is what it is, the reality concerning the genre is what it is.  You have to deal with it and leave your dreams and wishes along the side of the road or try to find the few, small games that cater to your particular views and play those.  The industry has largely moved beyond what you want in a game, like it or not.

    Absolutely agree with you. Games have become another mass market product, I really can't think of a company that develops games now because they want to play them. The last would probably be ID Software, who made games because they were gamers. Now it's all about hiring a team of programmers, gamer or not, giving them a project to get on with, and hope for the cash to roll in at the end.

    Games haven't really changed, they've just become more popular.  Back in the 'good old days', they still appealed to their primary market.  The market used to be geeks, that's why games were the way they were.  Now that the market is much, much larger, they're catering to their new market.  Nothing has changed.  Even ID is in business to make money.  Gaming has never been a charity, it's a business and a business exists to make a profit.

    Why do so many people fail to understand this?

    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 Member UncommonPosts: 1,243

    Originally posted by Cephus404

    Games haven't really changed, they've just become more popular.  Back in the 'good old days', they still appealed to their primary market.  The market used to be geeks, that's why games were the way they were.  Now that the market is much, much larger, they're catering to their new market.  Nothing has changed.  Even ID is in business to make money.  Gaming has never been a charity, it's a business and a business exists to make a profit.

    Why do so many people fail to understand this?

    It's not a lack of understanding, it's just with the way games are now produced it feels as if the 'love' has gone out of them. They're being developed for the sole purpose of making money and that's never a good thing. Take movies for an example, you get really good movies that people have put a lot of thought, time and effort into, then you have the copycats which are made to cash in on its success. This is what you see happening now in gaming, World of Warcraft was successful so everyone is trying to copy it and they're all awful, but are still bringing in the money.

    Games have also become smaller so that they can charge you extra. In the past you'd have a full product that took weeks to complete, now you have games which can be finished in 5-6 hours and have adverts mid-game offering Downloadable Content.

    The goal of making money has risen above the idea of making a great game, and in the end that's just going to harm gaming in general.

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Member CommonPosts: 3,675

    Originally posted by UsualSuspect

    It's not a lack of understanding, it's just with the way games are now produced it feels as if the 'love' has gone out of them. They're being developed for the sole purpose of making money and that's never a good thing. Take movies for an example, you get really good movies that people have put a lot of thought, time and effort into, then you have the copycats which are made to cash in on its success. This is what you see happening now in gaming, World of Warcraft was successful so everyone is trying to copy it and they're all awful, but are still bringing in the money.

    Games have also become smaller so that they can charge you extra. In the past you'd have a full product that took weeks to complete, now you have games which can be finished in 5-6 hours and have adverts mid-game offering Downloadable Content.

    The goal of making money has risen above the idea of making a great game, and in the end that's just going to harm gaming in general.

    But you're missing the fact that they've *ALWAYS* been made for the sole purpose of making money!  There was just at time when making that money entailed making games aimed at *YOU*.  Now they don't because you're no longer the primary financial  supporter of these games.  Games, like movies, will always cater to their primary market, like it or not.  James Cameron's Avatar was a really crappy movie, it had no plot, it was nothing but eye candy, but it made BILLIONS!  Why?  Because the majority of moviegoers are shallow, mindless idiots who don't want to think, they want to look at pretty pictures.

    Welcome to reality.

    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 Member UncommonPosts: 1,243

    Originally posted by Cephus404

    But you're missing the fact that they've *ALWAYS* been made for the sole purpose of making money!

    I have to disagree on this point. I was there poking at a flat ZX81 Keyboard, bouncing things off the rubber of a ZX Spectrum Keyboard, and click-clacking my way across a Commodore 64 Keyboard. I've seen the way games have developed since day 1 and, not to sound like an oldie, but at the start people made these things for the pure enjoyment of doing so or to show that they could. It started like a hobby, where people would make games in their bedrooms and send them out into the world - if they had money in return then all the better.

    This is where ID Software started, they started with games like Doom & Doom 2, which they made because they were gamers and programmers and they had ideas they wanted to see developed. Money was never their sole purpose for making these games. The same can be said for a lot of other companies back then, games were created by gamers and money was a reward for the time and effort put into it.

    As technology has become more complex, however, it's no longer possible for a person to program a game in their room, they needed to have graphic designers, musicians, a programming team and money to pay for it all. This is where things started to drift away from the 'old school' approach. For a while gamers were still in charge - EverQuest, for example, was designed by a gamer and programmer and he had a lot of say in how things went.

    Now, the programmers are just that.. programmers.. they're told what buttons to press by guys in their big black suits waving money around. I've noticed games now tend to lack a lot of 'soul', for lack of a better word. They're all quite empty or lacking something, and that something always came from the heart of a gamer.

  • SpasticolonSpasticolon Member Posts: 178

    Originally posted by Cephus404

    But you're missing the fact that they've *ALWAYS* been made for the sole purpose of making money!  There was just at time when making that money entailed making games aimed at *YOU*.  Now they don't because you're no longer the primary financial  supporter of these games.  Games, like movies, will always cater to their primary market, like it or not.  James Cameron's Avatar was a really crappy movie, it had no plot, it was nothing but eye candy, but it made BILLIONS!  Why?  Because the majority of moviegoers are shallow, mindless idiots who don't want to think, they want to look at pretty pictures.

    Welcome to reality.

    I find it humorous that the las sentence could easily be ascribed to the current crop of videogame target demographic.

    "Because the majority of <strike>moviegoers</strike> casuals are shallow, mindless idiots who don't want to think, they want to look at pretty pictures."

    Pretty pictures being games current trend to be more like an interactive movie to watch than play. That and HD Bloom SPLOSHUNS are purty.

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Member CommonPosts: 3,675

    Originally posted by Spasticolon

    Originally posted by Cephus404



    But you're missing the fact that they've *ALWAYS* been made for the sole purpose of making money!  There was just at time when making that money entailed making games aimed at *YOU*.  Now they don't because you're no longer the primary financial  supporter of these games.  Games, like movies, will always cater to their primary market, like it or not.  James Cameron's Avatar was a really crappy movie, it had no plot, it was nothing but eye candy, but it made BILLIONS!  Why?  Because the majority of moviegoers are shallow, mindless idiots who don't want to think, they want to look at pretty pictures.

    Welcome to reality.

    I find it humorous that the las sentence could easily be ascribed to the current crop of videogame target demographic.

    "Because the majority of moviegoers casuals are shallow, mindless idiots who don't want to think, they want to look at pretty pictures."

    Pretty pictures being games current trend to be more like an interactive movie to watch than play. That and HD Bloom SPLOSHUNS are purty.

    That is exactly the case.  I can't stand the majority of theatrical movies, they are shallow, mindless eye-candy.  However, I understand why they are made and that my entertainment dollar isn't valuable enough to make them change their marketing strategy.  I understand and accept that.  I don't have to like it, I just take my entertainment dollars elsewhere.

    That's life.

    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

  • GoronianGoronian Member Posts: 724

    What was the most memorable moment in any given single-player game to you? The end boss, or everything, that came before him? My money is on the latter.

    It's not about groupers wanting better rewards, or anything like that, no. It's about groupers not being able to experience the game at it's fullest, until the very end of it. Unless you have some IRL friends to play MMOs with (and believe me, when I say it, most people are not that interested in them), you're going to spend those first months completely alone, because, uh-oh, everyone has soloed to max level already. But they can power-level me, so I miss out most of the content, but get to experience "awesome raid gear". Thanks, but no.

    You know the sad part? Those few times, that TPA grouped up to explore dungeons in Vanguard, without ever wanting loot, were among the most memorable MMO experiences for me. I'm sorry mates, but if I really want to play solo, I'll just pop in Wizardry VIII one more time, thankyouverymuch.

    I hate WoW because it made my plush hamster kill himself, created twin clones of Hitler, punched Superboy Prime in reality, stared my dog down, spoiled my grandmother, assimilated me into the Borg, then made me into a real boy, just to make me a woman again.
    image

  • BeartosserBeartosser Member UncommonPosts: 94

    Many of the posters on this thread are blending solo with casual when in reality there is no correlation between the two. A player who prefers to solo is in reality no more likely to be a casual player than a grouper is.

    Casual soloers, hardcore soloers, and casual groupers have all campaigned for greater inclusivity in MMO's, but that is more a result of battling a common enemy than it is the formation of a single cohesive category.

    In games like WoW, casual groupers have made strides towards gear and content accessibility on a par with hardcore groupers (aka raiders), but soloers of both stripes are still held back by the same glass ceiling.

    Now, it appears GW2 may be the MMO that finally breaks the disparity and allows all players who seek to acheive to do so. If that happens, groupers will just have to grin and bear it, just like men did when women got the vote. Equality comes at a price, but in the end, it's one well worth paying.

  • GoronianGoronian Member Posts: 724

    Guys, look, no offence here, but... I don't think it's really possible to combine the two in a single game, unless it's WoW-like - with a long solo crawl to the bloody raiding.


    Look, here's the gist. Lots o these games offer grouping options, while levelling. There are tons of dungeons in WoW, but does anyone ever run them these days, aside from a random cross-server PUG? Of course not, because the only convenience they bring is gear and you will quickly outgrow it. Cross-server PUGs can't build the server community, which is one of our main gripes. You're nobody to them and they're nobody to you. Aside from an occasional "gratz" or "gg" you do not interact with them on even the most basic of levels. They might as well be bots. 


    All we ask, is for grouping to be a viable option, whle levelling, instead of a chore. There is little to no point in joining a group in most modern games. "Do it for fun!" you say. And I would, if anyone bloody wanted to!


    AAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH!


    /rant


     


    P.S. Equality, my bottocks. What about our rights, huh? No one is intersted in them anymore.

    I hate WoW because it made my plush hamster kill himself, created twin clones of Hitler, punched Superboy Prime in reality, stared my dog down, spoiled my grandmother, assimilated me into the Borg, then made me into a real boy, just to make me a woman again.
    image

Sign In or Register to comment.