Just out of curiosity, why do you write "I'n" instead of "in" every single time?
My iPhone does it. It auto corrects words and for some reason everytime I type "in" it comes out that way. It also does it with hell. Makes it he'll. I don't know how to stop the auto corrector from doing it lol.
LOL that's what I figured. Anyway, sorry for going offtopic.
No worries, your inquiry made me get off my ass and google my issue. I reset my keyboard dictionary memory and have solved the issue lol.
Yes, the more types of content available the better. I would love a game that catered to the soloer, grouper, and raider. Probably the one area I differ in others that feel the same way is I do not think that means that it should be the exact same content nor do I feel that means the soloer should be able to obtain the same items as the grouper or the raider.
But I'm all for a game offering something for every type of gamer. All the better for those that enjoy playing all venue types at different times.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
The way the genre is going in ten years time we could be asking if groupers should have an endgame. Which the majority of the posts in that thread pointing all you guys to co-op and competitive fps & rts games.
The problem is that the more solo friendly a MMO is the less group friendly it become. So instead of making the game more solo they should be making it more group friendly so even the solo players will want to group from time to time (not forced grouping).
I think LotrO is a good example of having end game content and progression both for solo and group thanks to skrimishes and legendary items. (but lotro really need new end game content for groups/raids now)
If WoW = The Beatles and WAR = Led Zeppelin Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
The way the genre is going in ten years time we could be asking if groupers should have an endgame. Which the majority of the posts in that thread pointing all you guys to co-op and competitive fps & rts games.
kind of have to wonder, but why do people who only like to play by themselves, want to play MMO's anyway, it just seems so counter intuitive, very odd really, MMO's are by their very definition, social gaming, and i dont mean virtual chat rooms, some of it i do put down to peoples lack of social skills, so that is why i think games that encourage, if not force, people to work together, are good things, and probably enables the players who do find this hard, to obtain some very valuable, and quite possibly, much needed, real life social skills, how many 'shut ins' are also 'hardcore' gamers... so.... should MMO's have end game content thats solo orientated, definitely not, i think in general, for the players own good, even regular content, should be orientated more towards group activities..
kind of have to wonder, but why do people who only like to play by themselves, want to play MMO's anyway, it just seems so counter intuitive, very odd really, MMO's are by their very definition, social gaming, and i dont mean virtual chat rooms, some of it i do put down to peoples lack of social skills, so that is why i think games that encourage, if not force, people to work together, are good things, and probably enables the players who do find this hard, to obtain some very valuable, and quite possibly, much needed, real life social skills, how many 'shut ins' are also 'hardcore' gamers... so.... should MMO's have end game content thats solo orientated, definitely not, i think in general, for the players own good, even regular content, should be orientated more towards group activities..
Why is it every time this comes up that it is automatically assumed that is the only gameplay style the person enjoys? It is possible for a person to enjoy soloing and grouping.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
kind of have to wonder, but why do people who only like to play by themselves, want to play MMO's anyway, it just seems so counter intuitive, very odd really, MMO's are by their very definition, social gaming, and i dont mean virtual chat rooms, some of it i do put down to peoples lack of social skills, so that is why i think games that encourage, if not force, people to work together, are good things, and probably enables the players who do find this hard, to obtain some very valuable, and quite possibly, much needed, real life social skills, how many 'shut ins' are also 'hardcore' gamers... so.... should MMO's have end game content thats solo orientated, definitely not, i think in general, for the players own good, even regular content, should be orientated more towards group activities..
But you said it yourself, these games are "social gaming". And there are multiple ways to be social.
Where is the place in all of mmo land that I can sticky my next statemement? Becuase it keeps getting said time and time again and we keep getting posts saying "but I don't understand why people who are soloing are playing mmo's as they are social games".
There is more than one way to be social.
One can be the most social person in the world and still solo. One can group all the time and never once be social. Therefore grouping does not equal social.
there is a very different feeling to a game world that is populated by players over a game world that is populated by npc's, such as Oblivion. Therefore the players who solo in mmo's are very aware of the difference in social energy.
One can find their social niche without having to be a grouper for content. for instance:
Have you ever taken a brand new player, given him gold and equipment and taken him on a complete several hour tour of the game world? Dangerous areas as well?
Have you spent time helping players with quests even though you get nothing from them?
Have you spent hours answering questions from new players without actually hitting the game world to do anything?
Have you ever just sat among a group of players who were (perhaps) playing music and just sat through the concert?
Have you sat in the distance and enjoyed a siege or pvp event without taking part?
These are all social things. And not all of them require a groupng mind set. One can do these things without shouting LFG.
To that end, the world of an mmo is rich and alive and one can easily just enjoy the hub bub. There is a certain quality to being in a social area and just absorbing it and just lending your presence to the area.
So we need to stop with this "why are soloers in mmo's because it's a social game" mentality strictly because that IS being part of the social scene.
And quite frankly I really wonder how "social" some gamers are in real life? I remember an informal poll done on the LOTRO forums where most of the people who replied indicated they were introverts out of game. I think I was one of two extroverts.
So walking up to any one of them in real life and saying "hey you need to start reaching out to more people in person as life is a richer experience" might just get me bad looks. If I'm lucky.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Al lthese new age terms really make me sick,TROLL/Fanbois/ENDGAME,if the game continues on then how the heck can you call it a end game?It is beyond ridiculous,a GOOD QUALITY game,should be able to continue on,the problem is that al lthese cheap designs label the entire game around a LEVEL.These are SUPPOSE to be ROLE PLAYING GAMES,you live the life as a certain type of character,then he should eventually die,but devs won't do that because they are more worried about maintaining a sub/money than creating a RPG.Players are also afraid to accept an actual END GAME,because they are more worried about playing something other than a true RPG.
So we have al lthese games coming otu now ,labeling themselves as MMO's,because it is the IN thing to play,but forget what genre they are actually creating ,IF they even know.
To answer the OP's question,YES everyone should have an end game,you die and it is over for that player.If you TRULY enjoyed the game for FUN as everyone seems to CLAIM,then you would have no problem at all replaying another character,since it is all about the FUN right?
A perfect example,i believe imo that FFXI is the best game in the RPG market,several flaws but still the best by a long shot.I could waltz into that game and have no problem what so ever replaying from level 1,i highly doubt that 99% of the Wow crowd would be willing to delete their players and start over at level 1,because they are not playing for FUN,as they claim they are doing.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
To answer the OP's question,YES everyone should have an end game,you die and it is over for that player.If you TRULY enjoyed the game for FUN as everyone seems to CLAIM,then you would have no problem at all replaying another character,since it is all about the FUN right?
That's one way to look at it. Another perspective would be that some simply wouldn't find it FUN to start over every time they died. I know I may be reaching here, but I feel confident in my opinion that would not be their definition of FUN.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Al lthese new age terms really make me sick,TROLL/Fanbois/ENDGAME,if the game continues on then how the heck can you call it a end game?It is beyond ridiculous,a GOOD QUALITY game,should be able to continue on,the problem is that al lthese cheap designs label the entire game around a LEVEL.These are SUPPOSE to be ROLE PLAYING GAMES,you live the life as a certain type of character,then he should eventually die,but devs won't do that because they are more worried about maintaining a sub/money than creating a RPG.Players are also afraid to accept an actual END GAME,because they are more worried about playing something other than a true RPG.
Actually, the term 'troll' comes from the early 90s and got popularized in Usenet groups. I've heard of 'Fanboi' in the early 2000, but I don't have found any information about its ethymology. ;-)
We could draw a line between games about the 'journey' or games about 'achievement'. Journey, in which one would try and relive the story again and again. Achievement, in which your own avatar is wearing trophy gear from your exploits.
WoW being the behemoth of all MMORPGs (at least in the West), it became a tradition of releasing expansion packs that focused on a short levelling experience, then a long End Game experience with Arenas, Battlegrounds and a setup to encourage their customers to grind their heroics and raid dungeons to death. I think this is why a lot of players are looking into all those games only to focus on the End Game...
Now back in the main topic, I still stand by my first post. End Game is a nice term to represent 'Area of the game with many excuses to do something in a group (PVP or PVE) where there is no level gap between members'. I don't think converting End Game areas to accomodate solo players sounds as fun as some may pretend; I wouldn't want to go kill the same set of bosses in a raid dungeon endlessly until the next content patch arrives.
Al lthese new age terms really make me sick,TROLL/Fanbois/ENDGAME,if the game continues on then how the heck can you call it a end game?It is beyond ridiculous,a GOOD QUALITY game,should be able to continue on,the problem is that al lthese cheap designs label the entire game around a LEVEL.These are SUPPOSE to be ROLE PLAYING GAMES,you live the life as a certain type of character,then he should eventually die,but devs won't do that because they are more worried about maintaining a sub/money than creating a RPG.Players are also afraid to accept an actual END GAME,because they are more worried about playing something other than a true RPG.
Actually, the term 'troll' comes from the early 90s and got popularized in Usenet groups. I've heard of 'Fanboi' in the early 2000, but I don't have found any information about its ethymology. ;-)
We could draw a line between games about the 'journey' or games about 'achievement'. Journey, in which one would try and relive the story again and again. Achievement, in which your own avatar is wearing trophy gear from your exploits.
WoW being the behemoth of all MMORPGs (at least in the West), it became a tradition of releasing expansion packs that focused on a short levelling experience, then a long End Game experience with Arenas, Battlegrounds and a setup to encourage their customers to grind their heroics and raid dungeons to death. I think this is why a lot of players are looking into all those games only to focus on the End Game...
Now back in the main topic, I still stand by my first post. End Game is a nice term to represent 'Area of the game with many excuses to do something in a group (PVP or PVE) where there is no level gap between members'. I don't think converting End Game areas to accomodate solo players sounds as fun as some may pretend; I wouldn't want to go kill the same set of bosses in a raid dungeon endlessly until the next content patch arrives.
Well two things there.
I just don't understand how you can make qualitative judments based your your preferences. I run lotro skirmishes solo all the time and I enjoy them. I don't see why taking down a boss solo woudl be very different.
However...
the second thing is that I don't think bosses should be solo. At least those that are intended to be large group or raid type content.
I believe it's OK to have content that is meant solely for groups or large raids. If anything it would really cheapen that content to tick a "solo" button.
What I DO think is that there can be solo content, such as lotro skirmishes, or some such thing that solo players can do. Or areas were solo players can do their dungeon runs. however those dungeon runs might manifest themselves.
Choice is great, I'm always for choice. But I am also for not bastardizing the content that one might put into a game.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Al lthese new age terms really make me sick,TROLL/Fanbois/ENDGAME,if the game continues on then how the heck can you call it a end game?It is beyond ridiculous,a GOOD QUALITY game,should be able to continue on,the problem is that al lthese cheap designs label the entire game around a LEVEL.These are SUPPOSE to be ROLE PLAYING GAMES,you live the life as a certain type of character,then he should eventually die,but devs won't do that because they are more worried about maintaining a sub/money than creating a RPG.Players are also afraid to accept an actual END GAME,because they are more worried about playing something other than a true RPG.
Actually, the term 'troll' comes from the early 90s and got popularized in Usenet groups. I've heard of 'Fanboi' in the early 2000, but I don't have found any information about its ethymology. ;-)
We could draw a line between games about the 'journey' or games about 'achievement'. Journey, in which one would try and relive the story again and again. Achievement, in which your own avatar is wearing trophy gear from your exploits.
WoW being the behemoth of all MMORPGs (at least in the West), it became a tradition of releasing expansion packs that focused on a short levelling experience, then a long End Game experience with Arenas, Battlegrounds and a setup to encourage their customers to grind their heroics and raid dungeons to death. I think this is why a lot of players are looking into all those games only to focus on the End Game...
Now back in the main topic, I still stand by my first post. End Game is a nice term to represent 'Area of the game with many excuses to do something in a group (PVP or PVE) where there is no level gap between members'. I don't think converting End Game areas to accomodate solo players sounds as fun as some may pretend; I wouldn't want to go kill the same set of bosses in a raid dungeon endlessly until the next content patch arrives.
Well two things there.
I just don't understand how you can make qualitative judments based your your preferences. I run lotro skirmishes solo all the time and I enjoy them. I don't see why taking down a boss solo woudl be very different.
However...
the second thing is that I don't think bosses should be solo. At least those that are intended to be large group or raid type content.
I believe it's OK to have content that is meant solely for groups or large raids. If anything it would really cheapen that content to tick a "solo" button.
What I DO think is that there can be solo content, such as lotro skirmishes, or some such thing that solo players can do. Or areas were solo players can do their dungeon runs. however those dungeon runs might manifest themselves.
Choice is great, I'm always for choice. But I am also for not bastardizing the content that one might put into a game.
As usual Sovrath making a very valid point that as usual takes into consideration that his own personal needs aren't the only ones or the most important. what I find most telling is the last line choice is great but that doesn't mean that existing content should be bastardized to accomodate a player like myself (who prefers to play solo). I don't get into raiding really at all one of the biggest reason is I hate the "exclusivity" that tends to go with raiding but I'd be a fool to think when so many people spend the same amount of ingame time playing them that I do soloing that it is a waste of resource.
At the end of the day players shouldn't be punished for a preference solo players shouldn't "run out" of content because they are at the end and raiders shouldn't be out of the play style they enjoy either but as this post illustrates most games don't seem to have anything in consideration for those of us who spend most of our game time solo.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
At the end of the day players shouldn't be punished for a preference solo players shouldn't "run out" of content because they are at the end and raiders shouldn't be out of the play style they enjoy either but as this post illustrates most games don't seem to have anything in consideration for those of us who spend most of our game time solo.
I think the only problem you may run into especially with newer games that haven't had the time to create an exorbitant amount of content or accrue a sizable revenue is the question as to whether it is feasible for a player to expect a game to have a robust amount of content for the soloer, grouper, and raider?
Maybe in a game such as WoW or LotR. But can it be expected in newer games or one that hasn't even launched yet? As much as I support the concept in general I think some have to be a bit realistic at least with a newly laucnhed game or one that hasn't been out for a significant length of time.
Not that I'm implying this is your expectation.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
I just don't understand how you can make qualitative judments based your your preferences. I run lotro skirmishes solo all the time and I enjoy them. I don't see why taking down a boss solo woudl be very different.
Well, what I tried to do here is to transpose what 'End Game' is in most game into what would be as a soloer. I find it very grindy in my point of view, but maybe you are right that it comes down to my personal preference.
I agree about the solo dungeons. As long as those are not raid dungeons that can be run solo. There should be more choice. Those I tried in Aion or Age of Conan are great (though they were not 'End Game' per say.
A great way to improve End Game for soloers would also be to have tradeskills being a meaninful part of the game.
'Endgame' is not high level raids, 'endgame' is not raising a stat or gear score. 'Endgame' is how you develop your character outside of the general game content and it's mechanics.
High level content is not 'endgame'.
Endgame is how you interact outside and above the general game mechanics.
An endgame trader/crafter is someone who after completing all the generic crafting content and who has maxed all his stats, then goes on to make a name for himself in the community of players he shares the server with.
An endgame pvper is someone who has got all the best gear/skills, who has maxed out his 'renown' and who now leads pvp guilds, groups to help dominate the map on his server and becomes known as a top dog.
An endgame 'X'' is someone who after completing all the tasks the games throws at him goes on to interact and make a name/interact with the community of players on his server.
Given that 'endgame' has sweet FA to do with quests and gear score, then asking whether or not a solo player should have an 'endgame' is a totally pointless question. Everyone has access to 'endgame', those that do not wish to ever include themselves in a games online community will rightly never have as large an impact upon it as those who actually grasp the nettle and interact with other players.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Maybe we arent thinking global enough in a way....
What could work is major events in the game that have raid sections, group sections, AND solo sections.
Take your pick on what you do.
Everyone on the server can be one place in the scheme of it and either the server succeeds or fails depending upon what is done -- IE if nobody decides to do the solo sections, that spy who had to be stopped wasnt. If nobody stops the dragon... well...
Maybe we arent thinking global enough in a way....
What could work is major events in the game that have raid sections, group sections, AND solo sections.
Take your pick on what you do.
Everyone on the server can be one place in the scheme of it and either the server succeeds or fails depending upon what is done -- IE if nobody decides to do the solo sections, that spy who had to be stopped wasnt. If nobody stops the dragon... well...
That seems great in theory and I salute your creativity but that would be a severe pain in the ass to pull off. It's a thought though. You may be onto something there.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
See I have always felt that if mmo's are based on fantasy it needs endgame for both solo players and group players. Look at your sources and it makes sense. On the one hand you have your epic stories about groups of hero's, ala lord of the rings, seven samuri, the ank-morpork city watch, and the Knights of the round table. All were groups of heroes, or crazy people, sometimes they fought alone, others they fought together, the last example being more of a group of soloers but I ran out of good examples where any of the group live. On the other hand you have Beowulf, Conan, Sigfried, Cuculane, Guts, etc. All of them Solo heroes, they fought alone and at times in groups.
The big question is why shouldn't a world have both, Solo end game dungeons with armor that is just for soloing, gains no bonues from being in a group, while also having raid sets. Those giving the player equal level stats while also having group bonuses like +30% healing effects and so on. The armor a raid tank needs so he is easier to heal, the solo tank dosen't need such things.
It also adds in the possiblity of another level of gear, a player gets his full raid set, and his full solo set. Takes it to some quest guy, is then sent of a mix of solo only and group only quests that end with them receving a new suit of armor that is great for both. But that is just my thoughts on it.
The way the genre is going in ten years time we could be asking if groupers should have an endgame. Which the majority of the posts in that thread pointing all you guys to co-op and competitive fps & rts games.
kind of have to wonder, but why do people who only like to play by themselves, want to play MMO's anyway, it just seems so counter intuitive, very odd really, MMO's are by their very definition, social gaming, and i dont mean virtual chat rooms, some of it i do put down to peoples lack of social skills, so that is why i think games that encourage, if not force, people to work together, are good things, and probably enables the players who do find this hard, to obtain some very valuable, and quite possibly, much needed, real life social skills, how many 'shut ins' are also 'hardcore' gamers... so.... should MMO's have end game content thats solo orientated, definitely not, i think in general, for the players own good, even regular content, should be orientated more towards group activities..
Thanks for the advice, Dr. Spock. I'll worry about my own good myself though. Thanks.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
I just don't understand how you can make qualitative judments based your your preferences. I run lotro skirmishes solo all the time and I enjoy them. I don't see why taking down a boss solo woudl be very different.
Well, what I tried to do here is to transpose what 'End Game' is in most game into what would be as a soloer. I find it very grindy in my point of view, but maybe you are right that it comes down to my personal preference.
I agree about the solo dungeons. As long as those are not raid dungeons that can be run solo. There should be more choice. Those I tried in Aion or Age of Conan are great (though they were not 'End Game' per say.
A great way to improve End Game for soloers would also be to have tradeskills being a meaninful part of the game.
I can appreciate that but I think by their very nature mmo's have some sort of "grindy" aspect.
I would agree with you that there are a lot of players who just don't like "grind" in any manifistation. But part of that comes from their own experience. Such as, more old school players might not find the newer games grindy at all. Players who are new to mmo's, wow or city of heroes on up might be a bit more sensitive to any type of grind.
Having said that, one doesn't have to repeat end game content ad nauseum if one doesn't want to. Or they could make it so that having some sort of end game skirmish system or randomly generated dungeon, etc, is high on the fun factor based on the demographic of their players.
I completely agree with you that trade skills should always be important though one should be able to play these games without having to craft. Still, the trade skills should not be easily bypassed by "dropped items".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Maybe we arent thinking global enough in a way....
What could work is major events in the game that have raid sections, group sections, AND solo sections.
Take your pick on what you do.
Everyone on the server can be one place in the scheme of it and either the server succeeds or fails depending upon what is done -- IE if nobody decides to do the solo sections, that spy who had to be stopped wasnt. If nobody stops the dragon... well...
But what would be the difference? Currently: Looking for player for X raid. This: Looking for player to do solo section of X raid.
The more I read from solo players, the more I think they just want to be the big badass hero who doesn't need others. Surely you should be playing God of War if that's what you're looking for?
Shoud there be an end game? Why can't we have a player driven "end game"? My biggest beef with mmos is the dramatic shift in playstyle as soon as most of them reach the maximum level.
I totally agree. With that said I'm speaking specifically about games designed with an endgame. Ala wow. Basically with some type of pve or pvp progression that usually excludes the soloist and forces them to reroll.
With WoW-type games, it would seem to me that a good idea would be to make dungeons dynamically scalable to suit group size. For people who play almost exclusively by themselves or with a partner, it would answer the "What do we do NOW?" question after doing all the stuff that can be done alone or with a partner.
It boggles my mind that people insist on soloing through a genre that by its very nature is muliplayer cooperative. Honestly, if you're just going to solo, why not play something like Oblivion? It'll give you a far better solo experience than a MMORPG can ever hope to achieve.
You know, I would be the first to agree with you--if it were not for my experiences in these many games I have played. My first experience (pre-CU Star Wars Galaxies) was probably the best introduction to MMO community that I could have had. People truly DID group naturally, congregate naturally, and help each other out. That is the way I thought these games worked.
Unfortunately, my later gaming experiences (and they have been rather far-reaching) have proven quite the opposite. Not only did the SWG community undergo a drastic change as a result of the NGE, but virtually all subsequent games I have played have focused on competition rather than cooperation. It is hard to make friends, not easy. I find myself going into defensive mode when I see another player, afraid he/she will steal my kill or get to my crafting node before I can get there.
Do I want to group with someone? No! He will leech off me until I help him do his quest and head for tall timber! I don't know how many times it has happened to me. Or, if he is lower level than I am, he will drag me all over creation to do HIS quests while I get none of mine done, wasting my entire playtime.
This is one reason I am so looking forward to GW2. If it lives up to its promise, it will put community and cooperation back into the game.
Should there be any descrimination between group and solo players. I mean after all they both did pay the same for the content.
They paid for access to the content, no the ability to change the game mechanics of every dungeon/instance/whatever in game so that they can complete it alone.
They paid for the same world you paid for,massively just means big,multiplayer just means more than 1 player,online just means you will see other people in your rpg nothing in that combination together or alone implies that you are in a group with said people.Age of Conan is an IP based of a character that slew epic monsters for the most part alone and changed the scope of his world so...
Nnnnno. Massively Multiplayer means "a large amount of other players". As in, a massive amount of other players. Massively describes Multiplayer, they're not discreet terms in that context.
From Wikipedia:
"Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of computer role-playing games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.
It's always meant that. It will always mean that. It does not mean "more than 1 player".
Let's not start to conveniently redefine well established terms to suit our arguments, okay folks?
Further about it not meaning you're in a group of other players. The heritage of MMORPGs and what they evolved from indicates otherwise. MMORPGs, traditionally, have been very focused on grouping and cooperation with other players. Let's not start revising or ignoring history to suit our arguments, okay folks?
Age of Conan is a MMORPG *set in the world* of a single character. Everyone is not running around as Conan The Barbarian. Let's not start misrepresenting a game as something it isn't to suit our arguments, okay folks?
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Comments
My iPhone does it. It auto corrects words and for some reason everytime I type "in" it comes out that way. It also does it with hell. Makes it he'll. I don't know how to stop the auto corrector from doing it lol.LOL that's what I figured. Anyway, sorry for going offtopic.
No worries, your inquiry made me get off my ass and google my issue. I reset my keyboard dictionary memory and have solved the issue lol.Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Yes, the more types of content available the better. I would love a game that catered to the soloer, grouper, and raider. Probably the one area I differ in others that feel the same way is I do not think that means that it should be the exact same content nor do I feel that means the soloer should be able to obtain the same items as the grouper or the raider.
But I'm all for a game offering something for every type of gamer. All the better for those that enjoy playing all venue types at different times.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Yes, they should. In a single player game.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
The way the genre is going in ten years time we could be asking if groupers should have an endgame. Which the majority of the posts in that thread pointing all you guys to co-op and competitive fps & rts games.Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
The problem is that the more solo friendly a MMO is the less group friendly it become. So instead of making the game more solo they should be making it more group friendly so even the solo players will want to group from time to time (not forced grouping).
I think LotrO is a good example of having end game content and progression both for solo and group thanks to skrimishes and legendary items. (but lotro really need new end game content for groups/raids now)
If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
kind of have to wonder, but why do people who only like to play by themselves, want to play MMO's anyway, it just seems so counter intuitive, very odd really, MMO's are by their very definition, social gaming, and i dont mean virtual chat rooms, some of it i do put down to peoples lack of social skills, so that is why i think games that encourage, if not force, people to work together, are good things, and probably enables the players who do find this hard, to obtain some very valuable, and quite possibly, much needed, real life social skills, how many 'shut ins' are also 'hardcore' gamers... so.... should MMO's have end game content thats solo orientated, definitely not, i think in general, for the players own good, even regular content, should be orientated more towards group activities..
Why is it every time this comes up that it is automatically assumed that is the only gameplay style the person enjoys? It is possible for a person to enjoy soloing and grouping.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
But you said it yourself, these games are "social gaming". And there are multiple ways to be social.
Where is the place in all of mmo land that I can sticky my next statemement? Becuase it keeps getting said time and time again and we keep getting posts saying "but I don't understand why people who are soloing are playing mmo's as they are social games".
There is more than one way to be social.
One can be the most social person in the world and still solo. One can group all the time and never once be social. Therefore grouping does not equal social.
there is a very different feeling to a game world that is populated by players over a game world that is populated by npc's, such as Oblivion. Therefore the players who solo in mmo's are very aware of the difference in social energy.
One can find their social niche without having to be a grouper for content. for instance:
Have you ever taken a brand new player, given him gold and equipment and taken him on a complete several hour tour of the game world? Dangerous areas as well?
Have you spent time helping players with quests even though you get nothing from them?
Have you spent hours answering questions from new players without actually hitting the game world to do anything?
Have you ever just sat among a group of players who were (perhaps) playing music and just sat through the concert?
Have you sat in the distance and enjoyed a siege or pvp event without taking part?
These are all social things. And not all of them require a groupng mind set. One can do these things without shouting LFG.
To that end, the world of an mmo is rich and alive and one can easily just enjoy the hub bub. There is a certain quality to being in a social area and just absorbing it and just lending your presence to the area.
So we need to stop with this "why are soloers in mmo's because it's a social game" mentality strictly because that IS being part of the social scene.
And quite frankly I really wonder how "social" some gamers are in real life? I remember an informal poll done on the LOTRO forums where most of the people who replied indicated they were introverts out of game. I think I was one of two extroverts.
So walking up to any one of them in real life and saying "hey you need to start reaching out to more people in person as life is a richer experience" might just get me bad looks. If I'm lucky.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Al lthese new age terms really make me sick,TROLL/Fanbois/ENDGAME,if the game continues on then how the heck can you call it a end game?It is beyond ridiculous,a GOOD QUALITY game,should be able to continue on,the problem is that al lthese cheap designs label the entire game around a LEVEL.These are SUPPOSE to be ROLE PLAYING GAMES,you live the life as a certain type of character,then he should eventually die,but devs won't do that because they are more worried about maintaining a sub/money than creating a RPG.Players are also afraid to accept an actual END GAME,because they are more worried about playing something other than a true RPG.
So we have al lthese games coming otu now ,labeling themselves as MMO's,because it is the IN thing to play,but forget what genre they are actually creating ,IF they even know.
To answer the OP's question,YES everyone should have an end game,you die and it is over for that player.If you TRULY enjoyed the game for FUN as everyone seems to CLAIM,then you would have no problem at all replaying another character,since it is all about the FUN right?
A perfect example,i believe imo that FFXI is the best game in the RPG market,several flaws but still the best by a long shot.I could waltz into that game and have no problem what so ever replaying from level 1,i highly doubt that 99% of the Wow crowd would be willing to delete their players and start over at level 1,because they are not playing for FUN,as they claim they are doing.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
That's one way to look at it. Another perspective would be that some simply wouldn't find it FUN to start over every time they died. I know I may be reaching here, but I feel confident in my opinion that would not be their definition of FUN.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Actually, the term 'troll' comes from the early 90s and got popularized in Usenet groups. I've heard of 'Fanboi' in the early 2000, but I don't have found any information about its ethymology. ;-)
We could draw a line between games about the 'journey' or games about 'achievement'. Journey, in which one would try and relive the story again and again. Achievement, in which your own avatar is wearing trophy gear from your exploits.
WoW being the behemoth of all MMORPGs (at least in the West), it became a tradition of releasing expansion packs that focused on a short levelling experience, then a long End Game experience with Arenas, Battlegrounds and a setup to encourage their customers to grind their heroics and raid dungeons to death. I think this is why a lot of players are looking into all those games only to focus on the End Game...
Now back in the main topic, I still stand by my first post. End Game is a nice term to represent 'Area of the game with many excuses to do something in a group (PVP or PVE) where there is no level gap between members'. I don't think converting End Game areas to accomodate solo players sounds as fun as some may pretend; I wouldn't want to go kill the same set of bosses in a raid dungeon endlessly until the next content patch arrives.
Well two things there.
I just don't understand how you can make qualitative judments based your your preferences. I run lotro skirmishes solo all the time and I enjoy them. I don't see why taking down a boss solo woudl be very different.
However...
the second thing is that I don't think bosses should be solo. At least those that are intended to be large group or raid type content.
I believe it's OK to have content that is meant solely for groups or large raids. If anything it would really cheapen that content to tick a "solo" button.
What I DO think is that there can be solo content, such as lotro skirmishes, or some such thing that solo players can do. Or areas were solo players can do their dungeon runs. however those dungeon runs might manifest themselves.
Choice is great, I'm always for choice. But I am also for not bastardizing the content that one might put into a game.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
As usual Sovrath making a very valid point that as usual takes into consideration that his own personal needs aren't the only ones or the most important. what I find most telling is the last line choice is great but that doesn't mean that existing content should be bastardized to accomodate a player like myself (who prefers to play solo). I don't get into raiding really at all one of the biggest reason is I hate the "exclusivity" that tends to go with raiding but I'd be a fool to think when so many people spend the same amount of ingame time playing them that I do soloing that it is a waste of resource.
At the end of the day players shouldn't be punished for a preference solo players shouldn't "run out" of content because they are at the end and raiders shouldn't be out of the play style they enjoy either but as this post illustrates most games don't seem to have anything in consideration for those of us who spend most of our game time solo.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
I think the only problem you may run into especially with newer games that haven't had the time to create an exorbitant amount of content or accrue a sizable revenue is the question as to whether it is feasible for a player to expect a game to have a robust amount of content for the soloer, grouper, and raider?
Maybe in a game such as WoW or LotR. But can it be expected in newer games or one that hasn't even launched yet? As much as I support the concept in general I think some have to be a bit realistic at least with a newly laucnhed game or one that hasn't been out for a significant length of time.
Not that I'm implying this is your expectation.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Well, what I tried to do here is to transpose what 'End Game' is in most game into what would be as a soloer. I find it very grindy in my point of view, but maybe you are right that it comes down to my personal preference.
I agree about the solo dungeons. As long as those are not raid dungeons that can be run solo. There should be more choice. Those I tried in Aion or Age of Conan are great (though they were not 'End Game' per say.
A great way to improve End Game for soloers would also be to have tradeskills being a meaninful part of the game.
'Endgame' is not high level raids, 'endgame' is not raising a stat or gear score. 'Endgame' is how you develop your character outside of the general game content and it's mechanics.
High level content is not 'endgame'.
Endgame is how you interact outside and above the general game mechanics.
An endgame trader/crafter is someone who after completing all the generic crafting content and who has maxed all his stats, then goes on to make a name for himself in the community of players he shares the server with.
An endgame pvper is someone who has got all the best gear/skills, who has maxed out his 'renown' and who now leads pvp guilds, groups to help dominate the map on his server and becomes known as a top dog.
An endgame 'X'' is someone who after completing all the tasks the games throws at him goes on to interact and make a name/interact with the community of players on his server.
Given that 'endgame' has sweet FA to do with quests and gear score, then asking whether or not a solo player should have an 'endgame' is a totally pointless question. Everyone has access to 'endgame', those that do not wish to ever include themselves in a games online community will rightly never have as large an impact upon it as those who actually grasp the nettle and interact with other players.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Maybe we arent thinking global enough in a way....
What could work is major events in the game that have raid sections, group sections, AND solo sections.
Take your pick on what you do.
Everyone on the server can be one place in the scheme of it and either the server succeeds or fails depending upon what is done -- IE if nobody decides to do the solo sections, that spy who had to be stopped wasnt. If nobody stops the dragon... well...
That seems great in theory and I salute your creativity but that would be a severe pain in the ass to pull off. It's a thought though. You may be onto something there.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
See I have always felt that if mmo's are based on fantasy it needs endgame for both solo players and group players. Look at your sources and it makes sense. On the one hand you have your epic stories about groups of hero's, ala lord of the rings, seven samuri, the ank-morpork city watch, and the Knights of the round table. All were groups of heroes, or crazy people, sometimes they fought alone, others they fought together, the last example being more of a group of soloers but I ran out of good examples where any of the group live. On the other hand you have Beowulf, Conan, Sigfried, Cuculane, Guts, etc. All of them Solo heroes, they fought alone and at times in groups.
The big question is why shouldn't a world have both, Solo end game dungeons with armor that is just for soloing, gains no bonues from being in a group, while also having raid sets. Those giving the player equal level stats while also having group bonuses like +30% healing effects and so on. The armor a raid tank needs so he is easier to heal, the solo tank dosen't need such things.
It also adds in the possiblity of another level of gear, a player gets his full raid set, and his full solo set. Takes it to some quest guy, is then sent of a mix of solo only and group only quests that end with them receving a new suit of armor that is great for both. But that is just my thoughts on it.
Thanks for the advice, Dr. Spock. I'll worry about my own good myself though. Thanks.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
I can appreciate that but I think by their very nature mmo's have some sort of "grindy" aspect.
I would agree with you that there are a lot of players who just don't like "grind" in any manifistation. But part of that comes from their own experience. Such as, more old school players might not find the newer games grindy at all. Players who are new to mmo's, wow or city of heroes on up might be a bit more sensitive to any type of grind.
Having said that, one doesn't have to repeat end game content ad nauseum if one doesn't want to. Or they could make it so that having some sort of end game skirmish system or randomly generated dungeon, etc, is high on the fun factor based on the demographic of their players.
I completely agree with you that trade skills should always be important though one should be able to play these games without having to craft. Still, the trade skills should not be easily bypassed by "dropped items".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
But what would be the difference? Currently: Looking for player for X raid. This: Looking for player to do solo section of X raid.
The more I read from solo players, the more I think they just want to be the big badass hero who doesn't need others. Surely you should be playing God of War if that's what you're looking for?
With WoW-type games, it would seem to me that a good idea would be to make dungeons dynamically scalable to suit group size. For people who play almost exclusively by themselves or with a partner, it would answer the "What do we do NOW?" question after doing all the stuff that can be done alone or with a partner.
Now come the naysayers, lol.
You know, I would be the first to agree with you--if it were not for my experiences in these many games I have played. My first experience (pre-CU Star Wars Galaxies) was probably the best introduction to MMO community that I could have had. People truly DID group naturally, congregate naturally, and help each other out. That is the way I thought these games worked.
Unfortunately, my later gaming experiences (and they have been rather far-reaching) have proven quite the opposite. Not only did the SWG community undergo a drastic change as a result of the NGE, but virtually all subsequent games I have played have focused on competition rather than cooperation. It is hard to make friends, not easy. I find myself going into defensive mode when I see another player, afraid he/she will steal my kill or get to my crafting node before I can get there.
Do I want to group with someone? No! He will leech off me until I help him do his quest and head for tall timber! I don't know how many times it has happened to me. Or, if he is lower level than I am, he will drag me all over creation to do HIS quests while I get none of mine done, wasting my entire playtime.
This is one reason I am so looking forward to GW2. If it lives up to its promise, it will put community and cooperation back into the game.
Nnnnno. Massively Multiplayer means "a large amount of other players". As in, a massive amount of other players. Massively describes Multiplayer, they're not discreet terms in that context.
From Wikipedia:
"Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of computer role-playing games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.
It's always meant that. It will always mean that. It does not mean "more than 1 player".
Let's not start to conveniently redefine well established terms to suit our arguments, okay folks?
Further about it not meaning you're in a group of other players. The heritage of MMORPGs and what they evolved from indicates otherwise. MMORPGs, traditionally, have been very focused on grouping and cooperation with other players. Let's not start revising or ignoring history to suit our arguments, okay folks?
Age of Conan is a MMORPG *set in the world* of a single character. Everyone is not running around as Conan The Barbarian. Let's not start misrepresenting a game as something it isn't to suit our arguments, okay folks?
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops