So why do people still play these games? Single Player rpgs have way more social interaction nowadays then these so called mmorpgs, better and more story, more dialog, no need to pay to play every month. Etc etc etc.
If you're talking about socializing with NPCs, then you are correct.
I have more socalized interaction with NPCs then social interaction with actual players in mmorpgs.
The idea of an MMORPG is very powerful and attractive. Teamwork, friendship, accomplishing a task that you could never do alone, a big world you can impact and so on. Most of us have probably bought into those ideas at some point in time.
But most games fail to meet expectations... whether it be from greed, tech limitations, bad luck or simply not finding the right game for the right gamer, there have been problems with this genre. But the idea of an MMORPG will remain attractive nonetheless.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
So why do people still play these games? Single Player rpgs have way more social interaction nowadays then these so called mmorpgs, better and more story, more dialog, no need to pay to play every month. Etc etc etc.
If you're talking about socializing with NPCs, then you are correct.
In all fairness single player games are not much better than our MMO selections, just different.
Single player games have great graphics and great experience for the 1 hour of content they have.
MMO have 6 hours of content but less so on the graphics and experience...:)
swear to god TV advertisers are behind all this, they are trying to get us to go back to TV
At least, unlike SWTOR, the things you do in singleplayer games impact the game world and change it.
for the 1 hour of game play.
I joke not when I say that the ONLY reason I play MMOs is because they typically have more long term content and larger world than a single player game. I dont play MMOs to socialize
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I enjoyed SWTORS single player aspect a lot more than its mmorpg aspect, and when playing dungeons and PVP "The group aspect" of the game it just felt dumbed down and not that interesting at all, combat was delayed and frustrating, laggy to all hell, buggy. It made me wonder do people enjoy this? If people wanted their Co-Op fill couldnt they just play a FPS or some free dungeon crawler?
I can see if the game was Everquest/ UO where almost all exploration is done in a party or group, strong social interaction with other players, overcoming 80% of the games challenges with other players. You know "Social Interaction", then I can understand playing and paying for a mmorpg every month.
But in Swtor and not just swtor but other current "Next gen" mmos as well I find myself soloing 75-80% of the game and the other 20% of group content is either raids, a few dungeons or PVP, All instanced give me the loot now types.
So why do people still play these games? Single Player rpgs have way more social interaction nowadays then these so called mmorpgs, better and more story, more dialog, no need to pay to play every month. Etc etc etc.
1) There are no alternative for good small group content. I can't play SKYRIM with my sons, or friends.
2) I don't know about you. But when I play WOW (also count as a current gen MMORPG), i group almost all the time, including leveling. With LFG tools, there is no reason to solo unless you reallyl want to.
3) People are not playing a game for social interactions. They are doing it for either co-op play or PvP.
4) Many LIKE instance based "balance" e-sport type pvp. See the other instanced pvp thread for why people like it.
But thats not what MMOs are about. What you described is the Diablo genre. There are tons of alternatives for people like you, that want balanced instanced content with a small group of real life friends. If all of you "MMO" fans just played Diablo clones instead of WoW clones maybe us original MMO gamers could have our genre back.
So why do people still play these games? Single Player rpgs have way more social interaction nowadays then these so called mmorpgs, better and more story, more dialog, no need to pay to play every month. Etc etc etc.
If you're talking about socializing with NPCs, then you are correct.
In all fairness single player games are not much better than our MMO selections, just different.
Single player games have great graphics and great experience for the 1 hour of content they have.
MMO have 6 hours of content but less so on the graphics and experience...:)
swear to god TV advertisers are behind all this, they are trying to get us to go back to TV
At least, unlike SWTOR, the things you do in singleplayer games impact the game world and change it.
for the 1 hour of game play.
I joke not when I say that the ONLY reason I play MMOs is because they typically have more long term content and larger world than a single player game. I dont play MMOs to socialize
That's because the gameplay is all padded. How many hundreds of "kill 10 rats" quests have you done? To me, that's not content, that's a chore.
The games are focusing on the psychological needs of the players in diferent ways than before..
Achieving, ---- this requires online gaming.
Explorer,
Social, ---- this requires online gaming.
Collector,
Pavlov/reward.
From the shown psychological factors, only 2 require online gaming.. thus a game can focus on beeing single player oriented ( with all the plus in terms of development costs and technology used to keep a game playable with xxx players in the same screen or zone area ) while giving limited online aspects that fulfill those 2 points.
Thats what swtor did.. and most games are doing now.. and will go on while its profitable, eventually adapting to our RLs needs.
What swtor did wrong, was hitting hard the Achieving factor to players playing the Republic faction of the game.. and even a bit of the Social factor aswel. And when a player looses those factors or part of them, he realizes he/she is not addicted anymore to an online paying environment and its only supporting the big cow.. Simple as that.
Once the devs started taking interdependency out of MMOs people started becoming rude assholes. Why? Simply because they could. There are no repercussions for being a total piece of trash. In the older MMOs you needed other people. Your toons name meant something. Now its all a joke.
I wonder how many people would want to solo if they never had some of the negative experiences grouping that everyone who has played an MMO has had.
So why do people still play these games? Single Player rpgs have way more social interaction nowadays then these so called mmorpgs, better and more story, more dialog, no need to pay to play every month. Etc etc etc.
Single player RPG + in game Steam chat owns many modern MMOs.
So why do people still play these games? Single Player rpgs have way more social interaction nowadays then these so called mmorpgs, better and more story, more dialog, no need to pay to play every month. Etc etc etc.
Because they're long term RPGs that you can share items between friends and characters and save your work and come back to it years later if you so desire.
Its something single player games can't do.
Diabloe 3 dude. Its not an MMO and you can do all those things.
And it is NOT out yet. BTW, when Diablo 3 is out, i think that will be my main game.
However, without that, there are NO good RPG that i can play co-op with my family & friend.
define "good" and "RPG"
Because of the top of my head:
Borderlands
Magicka
Dead Island
Guild Wars (not an mmo)
sacred 1&2
Two Worlds 2
------ old
Baldurs Gate
Icewind dale
NWN
Arcanuum
System Shock 2
Diablo 2
Like i said, from the top of my head...
PS: All Elder Scrolls Games since Morrowind have working multiplayer mods.
The games are focusing on the psychological needs of the players in diferent ways than before..
Achieving, ---- this requires online gaming.
Explorer,
Social, ---- this requires online gaming.
Collector,
Pavlov/reward.
From the shown psychological factors, only 2 require online gaming.. thus a game can focus on beeing single player oriented ( with all the plus in terms of development costs and technology used to keep a game playable with xxx players in the same screen or zone area ) while giving limited online aspects that fulfill those 2 points.
Thats what swtor did.. and most games are doing now.. and will go on while its profitable, eventually adapting to our RLs needs.
What swtor did wrong, was hitting hard the Achieving factor to players playing the Republic faction of the game.. and even a bit of the Social factor aswel. And when a player looses those factors or part of them, he realizes he/she is not addicted anymore to an online paying environment and its only supporting the big cow.. Simple as that.
What SWTOR did wrong wasn't specific mechanics being unbalanced. What SWTOR did wrong was call itself an MMO and charge a monthly fee, when its a glorified coop game at most.
SWTOR is widely known to have poorly implemented MMO-aspects and is not representative of every MMORPG in existence...question answered.
It's perfectly in line with how MMOs have been going since WoW came out. Each MMO has been easier, more streamlined, and solo focused than the last. Games like WoW with its dungeon finder and phasing, LotRO with its instancing, they're more like Diablo than real MMOs.
We tell ourselves we're solo-players, when in reality, we look to MMOs for a social aspect lacking in single-players games like Skyrim and KOTOR. That's the fundamental and major difference between MMOs and single-RPGs. We are, however, partly to blame for the degenerate attitude the MMO industry has towards us 'social gamers' since we still pay/play for these games regardless of any social input, i.e, raids or PvP what-nots. There are other reasons that prevent us from enjoying an either, which would be considered a passable single-player game, to its full potential because of our anti-social behavior in-game. The designers consider us happy enough with raiding and instances, while instead they should focus more on socialising as a whole. What I mean is creating opportunities for camaraderie, to make us feel like we're part of a bigger something. This can either be done by making mobs thougher, so we're forced to group up with others, while in the mean time creating viable reasons for us players to begin guilds and gather like-minded individuals, either for crafting or to destroy an opposite faction. There has to be a reason for us to part-take in a virtual world that is so large. It is our developers job to give us these reasons, and this is a determinated factor of what makes a good MMO or a bad MMO. In the end, it has little to do with actual gameplay or graphics, but how memorable experiences can be made and unions created.
SWTOR is widely known to have poorly implemented MMO-aspects and is not representative of every MMORPG in existence...question answered.
It's perfectly in line with how MMOs have been going since WoW came out. Each MMO has been easier, more streamlined, and solo focused than the last. Games like WoW with its dungeon finder and phasing, LotRO with its instancing, they're more like Diablo than real MMOs.
Very true.
And this is why so many people are excited about GW2. It's one of the only AAA MMORPGs in a long time to actually move more in the direction of "MMO" and less in the direction of "SP."
I play and pay because I'm having fun, when that stops I'll quit playing. The game has me feeling like I'm a real hero and the Voice questings are a blast. I like the different classes (25lvl Gunslinger, 25lvl Counciller, 34 lvl Commando). With the crafting and space stuff there is enough content to keep me busy. When I reach max level with enough alts I'll probably quit the game if there isn't anything more to do than dungeon crawl or raid. I mostly play grouped with a friend and really like the game that way.
I play and pay because I'm having fun, when that stops I'll quit playing. The game has me feeling like I'm a real hero and the Voice questings are a blast. I like the different classes (25lvl Gunslinger, 25lvl Counciller, 34 lvl Commando). With the crafting and space stuff there is enough content to keep me busy. When I reach max level with enough alts I'll probably quit the game if there isn't anything more to do than dungeon crawl or raid. I mostly play grouped with a friend and really like the game that way.
Doesnt mass effect 1 and 2 offer this? And ME3 now offers grouping.
I still dont understand why there are still mmorpgs around, no one has given me a valid argument as of yet.
Well, contrary to popular belief, there are still some good MMORPGs around. Granted, there are few, and many of them are either old or underdeveloped because they're made by some indie developers in their living room.
I can't comment on SWTOR because I didn't buy it and probably never will.
Just forget all triple-A games for the time being, personally, I haven't bought and played a triple-A game since LotRO. I'll never understand why people that should know better buy these sorry excuses anyway.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
So why do people still play these games? Single Player rpgs have way more social interaction nowadays then these so called mmorpgs, better and more story, more dialog, no need to pay to play every month. Etc etc etc.
Because they're long term RPGs that you can share items between friends and characters and save your work and come back to it years later if you so desire.
Its something single player games can't do.
Diabloe 3 dude. Its not an MMO and you can do all those things.
And it is NOT out yet. BTW, when Diablo 3 is out, i think that will be my main game.
However, without that, there are NO good RPG that i can play co-op with my family & friend.
define "good" and "RPG"
Because of the top of my head:
Borderlands
Magicka
Dead Island
Guild Wars (not an mmo)
sacred 1&2
Two Worlds 2
------ old
Baldurs Gate
Icewind dale
NWN
Arcanuum
System Shock 2
Diablo 2
Like i said, from the top of my head...
PS: All Elder Scrolls Games since Morrowind have working multiplayer mods.
Old ones do not need to apply (except may be Diablo 2 .. but it is so dated that i can't play it for long).
Borderland (which I play and finished) is not a fantasy based RPG. In fact, it has FPS combat with RPG elements. So it does not fit what i am talking about here. (I played it and will play the sequal though)
Magicka has co-op dungeon? I do not know that.
Dead Island is not fantasy.
Guild War is OLD and i group it the same as WOW and the likes.
Sacred and Two Worlds are not "good" .. meaning i do not like them.
I have also tried titan quest.
Plus, the point is that MMOs are not necessarily very different fromt his games .. and there is no reason NOT to consider both these kind of games, and MMOs.
Doesnt mass effect 1 and 2 offer this? And ME3 now offers grouping.
I still dont understand why there are still mmorpgs around, no one has given me a valid argument as of yet.
Why? There are millions of people paying for them. That is why.
ME1 & 2 have no grouping. And while ME3 may have it, i cannot play ME3 now, can i?
Plus, people play multiple games too. If i like to group in WOW, that does not mean I also like to solo in SKYRIM. If i can afford it, i obviously can play ANY and ALL games I find fun. And obviously many find MMOs fun.
Playing ME3 and TOR are not mutually exclusive, you know.
I play and pay because I'm having fun, when that stops I'll quit playing. The game has me feeling like I'm a real hero and the Voice questings are a blast. I like the different classes (25lvl Gunslinger, 25lvl Counciller, 34 lvl Commando). With the crafting and space stuff there is enough content to keep me busy. When I reach max level with enough alts I'll probably quit the game if there isn't anything more to do than dungeon crawl or raid. I mostly play grouped with a friend and really like the game that way.
None of what you just described pretains to MMORPGs. What you described is a coop dungeon crawler, of which there are dozens. Most people pretty much agree that SWTOR should have been a singleplayer RPG with optional COOP. But EA wanted it to have a monthly fee so they could sucker people and drag out the content.
No doubt in my mind, and I ddon't see how anyone could say this game wouldn't have been much better as a singleplayer game.
None of what you just described pretains to MMORPGs. What you described is a coop dungeon crawler, of which there are dozens. Most people pretty much agree that SWTOR should have been a singleplayer RPG with optional COOP. But EA wanted it to have a monthly fee so they could sucker people and drag out the content.
No doubt in my mind, and I ddon't see how anyone could say this game wouldn't have been much better as a singleplayer game.
Just a correction on the underlined part of your post: Bioware wanted this as MMORPG with monthly subs years before they got acquired by EA. I know it's popular culture to blame EA but in this case the founders of Bioware (commonly known as the doctors) are the ones to blame.
BTW, the doctors are suits at EA now, and they started this whole interactive movie, voice-acting and cutscenes design of recent Bioware games, or rather EA games sold under the Bioware brand.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
Comments
I have more socalized interaction with NPCs then social interaction with actual players in mmorpgs.
The idea of an MMORPG is very powerful and attractive. Teamwork, friendship, accomplishing a task that you could never do alone, a big world you can impact and so on. Most of us have probably bought into those ideas at some point in time.
But most games fail to meet expectations... whether it be from greed, tech limitations, bad luck or simply not finding the right game for the right gamer, there have been problems with this genre. But the idea of an MMORPG will remain attractive nonetheless.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
Its funny how suckers like the ones who bought SWTOR are paying a monthly fee for something that is offered for free with same or better quality.
-I am here to perform logic
for the 1 hour of game play.
I joke not when I say that the ONLY reason I play MMOs is because they typically have more long term content and larger world than a single player game. I dont play MMOs to socialize
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
very true.
we got millions of people to buy a new game we dont care if they dont like it once they buy it.
take the money and run...
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
But thats not what MMOs are about. What you described is the Diablo genre. There are tons of alternatives for people like you, that want balanced instanced content with a small group of real life friends. If all of you "MMO" fans just played Diablo clones instead of WoW clones maybe us original MMO gamers could have our genre back.
Darkfall Travelogues!
That's because the gameplay is all padded. How many hundreds of "kill 10 rats" quests have you done? To me, that's not content, that's a chore.
Darkfall Travelogues!
The games are focusing on the psychological needs of the players in diferent ways than before..
Achieving, ---- this requires online gaming.
Explorer,
Social, ---- this requires online gaming.
Collector,
Pavlov/reward.
From the shown psychological factors, only 2 require online gaming.. thus a game can focus on beeing single player oriented ( with all the plus in terms of development costs and technology used to keep a game playable with xxx players in the same screen or zone area ) while giving limited online aspects that fulfill those 2 points.
Thats what swtor did.. and most games are doing now.. and will go on while its profitable, eventually adapting to our RLs needs.
What swtor did wrong, was hitting hard the Achieving factor to players playing the Republic faction of the game.. and even a bit of the Social factor aswel. And when a player looses those factors or part of them, he realizes he/she is not addicted anymore to an online paying environment and its only supporting the big cow.. Simple as that.
Once the devs started taking interdependency out of MMOs people started becoming rude assholes. Why? Simply because they could. There are no repercussions for being a total piece of trash. In the older MMOs you needed other people. Your toons name meant something. Now its all a joke.
I wonder how many people would want to solo if they never had some of the negative experiences grouping that everyone who has played an MMO has had.
Single player RPG + in game Steam chat owns many modern MMOs.
define "good" and "RPG"
Because of the top of my head:
Borderlands
Magicka
Dead Island
Guild Wars (not an mmo)
sacred 1&2
Two Worlds 2
------ old
Baldurs Gate
Icewind dale
NWN
Arcanuum
System Shock 2
Diablo 2
Like i said, from the top of my head...
PS: All Elder Scrolls Games since Morrowind have working multiplayer mods.
What SWTOR did wrong wasn't specific mechanics being unbalanced. What SWTOR did wrong was call itself an MMO and charge a monthly fee, when its a glorified coop game at most.
Darkfall Travelogues!
SWTOR is widely known to have poorly implemented MMO-aspects and is not representative of every MMORPG in existence...question answered.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
It's perfectly in line with how MMOs have been going since WoW came out. Each MMO has been easier, more streamlined, and solo focused than the last. Games like WoW with its dungeon finder and phasing, LotRO with its instancing, they're more like Diablo than real MMOs.
Darkfall Travelogues!
We tell ourselves we're solo-players, when in reality, we look to MMOs for a social aspect lacking in single-players games like Skyrim and KOTOR. That's the fundamental and major difference between MMOs and single-RPGs. We are, however, partly to blame for the degenerate attitude the MMO industry has towards us 'social gamers' since we still pay/play for these games regardless of any social input, i.e, raids or PvP what-nots. There are other reasons that prevent us from enjoying an either, which would be considered a passable single-player game, to its full potential because of our anti-social behavior in-game. The designers consider us happy enough with raiding and instances, while instead they should focus more on socialising as a whole. What I mean is creating opportunities for camaraderie, to make us feel like we're part of a bigger something. This can either be done by making mobs thougher, so we're forced to group up with others, while in the mean time creating viable reasons for us players to begin guilds and gather like-minded individuals, either for crafting or to destroy an opposite faction. There has to be a reason for us to part-take in a virtual world that is so large. It is our developers job to give us these reasons, and this is a determinated factor of what makes a good MMO or a bad MMO. In the end, it has little to do with actual gameplay or graphics, but how memorable experiences can be made and unions created.
Very true.
And this is why so many people are excited about GW2. It's one of the only AAA MMORPGs in a long time to actually move more in the direction of "MMO" and less in the direction of "SP."
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I play and pay because I'm having fun, when that stops I'll quit playing. The game has me feeling like I'm a real hero and the Voice questings are a blast. I like the different classes (25lvl Gunslinger, 25lvl Counciller, 34 lvl Commando). With the crafting and space stuff there is enough content to keep me busy. When I reach max level with enough alts I'll probably quit the game if there isn't anything more to do than dungeon crawl or raid. I mostly play grouped with a friend and really like the game that way.
Doesnt mass effect 1 and 2 offer this? And ME3 now offers grouping.
I still dont understand why there are still mmorpgs around, no one has given me a valid argument as of yet.
Well, contrary to popular belief, there are still some good MMORPGs around. Granted, there are few, and many of them are either old or underdeveloped because they're made by some indie developers in their living room.
I can't comment on SWTOR because I didn't buy it and probably never will.
Just forget all triple-A games for the time being, personally, I haven't bought and played a triple-A game since LotRO. I'll never understand why people that should know better buy these sorry excuses anyway.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
What exactly are you trying to achieve here?
Is this some kind of weird attempt to have people help contribute to the failure of STWOR?
I mean, if SWTOR is released, why tell them to go play Diablo? Are you going to play it if they leave?
Old ones do not need to apply (except may be Diablo 2 .. but it is so dated that i can't play it for long).
Borderland (which I play and finished) is not a fantasy based RPG. In fact, it has FPS combat with RPG elements. So it does not fit what i am talking about here. (I played it and will play the sequal though)
Magicka has co-op dungeon? I do not know that.
Dead Island is not fantasy.
Guild War is OLD and i group it the same as WOW and the likes.
Sacred and Two Worlds are not "good" .. meaning i do not like them.
I have also tried titan quest.
Plus, the point is that MMOs are not necessarily very different fromt his games .. and there is no reason NOT to consider both these kind of games, and MMOs.
Why? There are millions of people paying for them. That is why.
ME1 & 2 have no grouping. And while ME3 may have it, i cannot play ME3 now, can i?
Plus, people play multiple games too. If i like to group in WOW, that does not mean I also like to solo in SKYRIM. If i can afford it, i obviously can play ANY and ALL games I find fun. And obviously many find MMOs fun.
Playing ME3 and TOR are not mutually exclusive, you know.
None of what you just described pretains to MMORPGs. What you described is a coop dungeon crawler, of which there are dozens. Most people pretty much agree that SWTOR should have been a singleplayer RPG with optional COOP. But EA wanted it to have a monthly fee so they could sucker people and drag out the content.
No doubt in my mind, and I ddon't see how anyone could say this game wouldn't have been much better as a singleplayer game.
Darkfall Travelogues!
Thankfully, you are not everyone.
Just a correction on the underlined part of your post: Bioware wanted this as MMORPG with monthly subs years before they got acquired by EA. I know it's popular culture to blame EA but in this case the founders of Bioware (commonly known as the doctors) are the ones to blame.
BTW, the doctors are suits at EA now, and they started this whole interactive movie, voice-acting and cutscenes design of recent Bioware games, or rather EA games sold under the Bioware brand.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.