Hopefully one day I'll win the lottery then I can implement my idea of how an mmorpg should be designed.
I like the idea of basing an mmorpg on real life rather than creating an artificial incentive system.
Humans will do what they enjoy most. Grouping or soloing should be something one does out of enjoyment not necessity or worse coercion.
Rather than designing around the game and the perception of superior or inferior play styles designing around the player for maximum enjoyment makes much more sense.
Every reward in a game should be achievable by every player. If it takes 5 players 1 year to get one player the best sword in game then it should be achievable for 1 player to obtain that same sword in 5 years. That's better than never but harsh enough for even the most antisocial player to consider a group now and then.
Just as in real life multiple paths for the same reward should be available.
MMORPGs should be about grouping with little to no solo capacity and what capacity there is to solo should be so grossly inefficient that it's just time filler while looking for/waiting for a group.
That's how the genre started. That's what made it great. That's what built great communities of players. That's what kept players wanting to play and kept them invested in the game.
MMORPGs were fine being a niche type of game that only appealed to people who wanted real MMORPG gameplay - group-centric, challenging, dangerous..
Solo - wider appeal - casual - all of that (and then later F2P) are what has killed MMORPGs and turned the genre into a lame joke. Corporate america chasing dollars and profits instead of devs making great games.
If you want to solo that's fine - play single player games. If you just want the low quality banter of global chat while you solo then fire up the social media avenue of your choice while you play single player games and knock yourself out.
The number one thing that is special about MMORPGs and that they do better than any other type of game is group gameplay.
MMORPGs don't need PvP, they don't need instanced/fake PvP minigames, they don't need solo content, they don't need housing, they don't need all the garbage that's been piled on over the years to try to be everything to everybody. All they need is grouping and content for grouping.
There's no lack of great PvP games. There's no lack of games where you can build and/or play house like SIMs. And there's no lack of single player game for those who want to solo. What there IS a lack of is real MMORPGs with an emphasis on group gameplay.
Just imagine if all of the energy poured into MMORPGs had always been focused on making great content and mechanics for grouping....where the genre would be now? Instead, the genre is in the toilet. Crap game after crap game comes out trying to be everything for everybody, going for money vs quality of game, piling on the solo content. And what happens, over and over, is all those soloists blast thru the solo content in days/weeks (rarely longer) and they're gone - they play MMORPGs like single player games - do the solo content and bailout and wait for the next big thing. Complete waste of dev time and energy.
I read elsewhere here (at this forum) that sites like this don't help - and I tend to agree. Hyping games that advertise on your site, never being critical or investigative about anything, repeating marketing spew, disregarding the history and origins of the genre, etc - doesn't help. Time and time again hyping up the next big thing...that turns out to be another 1-3 month "we love it, we love it, ok, this is boring, we're done, when is it F2P?"
I disagree that it's been the fault of those who like to play mostly solo in a MMORPG, instead try laying the blame at those who typically want to reach endgame first.... yes it's usually those who want to hit endgame first so they can be the "first"/"best" and that is usually done by those who live to pvp and even by some leaders of guilds who insist on top level players with top level gear so they can lord it over(control) the faction.
It's certainly not the mostly solo player who wants to enjoy the journey of the game and wants to fill a viable role in the world by being the guy/girl who always stocks food and drinks on their vendors and will often have a "sale" bin with odds and ends of items they've looted in their travels for that secret herb the recipe called for, or perhaps the fisher that stocks all those waterlogged bottles/pillows and fish, or maybe even just that beggar that seems to be by the bank door every day rain or shine where he/she performs tricks for silver.
Sure you can accuse some solo players for rushing endgame and some likely do, at risk of being left behind by both their friends, guildies and content patches, but most persevere against harder odds while adventuring and exploring the world, hoping that they have skilled up their run speed enough to escape the next ganking(but often haven't, it's hard to outrun a couple of determined and strategic gankers, or even a couple of irritated ettins whose camp you're trying to filch stuff from...) or at the least hope the wandering healer or nui statue is not too far from where you died and that you don't lose too much exp or whatever the penalty is for dying.
Point is, it's great that mmorpgs have lots of group content, but even a baby has to learn to walk before they can run and some just never run well. That doesn't make them "useless" or "noobs" or "carebears", in fact it presents a perfect opportunity for the developer to make a full fledged world with the participation of those who prefer to stay behind the scenes and provide support for those who don't seem to know how to walk....
Please, there is NO middle-ground between solo and grouping, stop deluding yourself.
The core pillar of grouping is that you need to join and combine your abilities with other players in order to beat content that is either too difficult or too long/overwhelming to solo effectively.
The satisfaction of grouping comes in no small amount from the fact that once you group, your power multiplies severalfold and your ability to progress skyrockets.
In order to make a solo-friendly game, you can no longer litter the game with those difficult and overwhelming/time consuming tasks that would make grouping the superior option.
Hence, while grouping is not "removed from the game" and no-one forces you to solo, the very reason why grouping was desiderable to begin with disappears thus making it pointless.
In the end, everyone wants to progress as effectively and as fast as possible, so of course that the great majority of players will choose solo over grouping if solo is just as rewarding.
And it becomes obvious that if the majority of players are soloing, then grouping becomes both poinless and extremely difficult to produce naturally.
In short, grouping passes from being a boon to being a chore.
If grouping is a chore then the mechanics of grouping are flawed. There certainly is a middle ground to solo and group play. A group gets things done quicker while soloing is slower.
If I wanted to dig a 10 by 10 by 10 metre hole I could do so however with a group of friends aid do it faster.
If I wanted a sword that did x damage I could spend a month questing for it while with a group I could maybe get an equivalent in a day.
The primary reason you want both soloers in game is to fund the game for groups since solo players far outnumber groupers. Doing it the other way around is pretty stupid.
If grouping is a chore then the mechanics of grouping are flawed. There certainly is a middle ground to solo and group play. A group gets things done quicker while soloing is slower.
If I wanted to dig a 10 by 10 by 10 metre hole I could do so however with a group of friends aid do it faster.
If I wanted a sword that did x damage I could spend a month questing for it while with a group I could maybe get an equivalent in a day.
The primary reason you want both soloers in game is to fund the game for groups since solo players far outnumber groupers. Doing it the other way around is pretty stupid.
Yes, but the problem is that such balance is usually impossible to achieve.
Solo players do not enjoy the game if their progress is much slower than groupers, and grouping becomes pointless if soloing is effective enough to be a viable option for progress, due to the inherent challenges of grouping and the time it takes to organize properly v.s the simplicity of soloing in an acceptable rate.
Yes, on paper, a game that mixes both would be ideal, but in reality that cannot really be done.
Yes, but the problem is that such balance is usually impossible to achieve.
Solo players do not enjoy the game if their progress is much slower than groupers, and grouping becomes pointless if soloing is effective enough to be a viable option for progress, due to the inherent challenges of grouping and the time it takes to organize properly v.s the simplicity of soloing in an acceptable rate.
Yes, on paper, a game that mixes both would be ideal, but in reality that cannot really be done.
Warning: Language, LIVING OPINION AHEAD, turn back if you are still only into reading DEAD ONES
The fact that we cannot talk about this in this manner is proof of what I am unveiling.
In 2000, soloing was STILL the most best experience in the MMO even WHEN it was HARDLY effective enough to be viable for progress though it still was, unless you physically make it impossible or it makes you feel physically ill to do so, otherwise what you say makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I played MMORPGs for YEARS before this bullshit whining started by the quote unquote PROS who whined that they deserved the best items since they were the PROS with the guilds. They now blame it on the ones who whined that didn't have the items because they are bullshitting whiner crybabies every day in the forums and in voice chat land. Just the other day I had to listen to a guy whine about how WoW was ruined by babies for like an hour in PlanetSide 2.
Grouping will ALWAYS be a task unless you STOP BEING STUCK UP TRASH and just GROUP WITH PEOPLE. You are ANTI SOCIAL GARBAGE if you require people to join your clans, your reddit, 4chan, "family" website, whatever, sign a CONTACT that they will not do something you don't like to you, before you can be "fwiends", WHO DOES THIS IN REAL LIFE?, you are COWARDS, FREAKS, SCAREDIES of the outside world, jaded by trolls, who will never trust a troll again to be nice, so they never will. Everquest 2 is currently wondering if they should just banish hackers to a hacker only server. I would rather be with those people than the stuck up DEAD players on the quote unquote official 'live' server. These people at least don't want to be dead, stuck ups, are completely open to grouping up with random people, even though they are filth. I only see it happen in MMOs. OTHER GAMES DO NOT HAVE THIS: 90% of players have turned into NEGATIVES that will not seat any other players in their vehicles for instance in PlanetSide 2, unless they know them or are in an outfit with them. And to make matters worse, it's about the worship of money, businesses are literally doing this to milk you dry: free to play is about the expensive cash shops, did you know that you can spend $300 in PlanetSide 2 on daybreak cash, and still not own everything that you can buy? not that I care, but it's important to the point I'm making, organizing you all into clans is a tactic which controls what games you will buy and spend money on, you are selling your souls to corporate nazies by arguing over what OTHER people enjoy more. Stick to what you enjoy and stop gang raping the genre for other people.
The good and the bad belongs on BOTH sides. There is not one good or bad side in this. And our communities should not be divided. The division comes about by corporate money worship. The people on the banished servers will remain paying their 15$ just to not annoy and ruin the game experience for the stuck ups. How wonderful is that for everybody? It's a tragedy. Not a wonderful thing. The MMO is about all of us playing together.
If your post is any indication of how you play, you are the problem I personally have with multiplayer-games (not only MMO). Not solo players, not "scaredies" or "PROS". This toxicity many players display is totally unappealing to me in a game. "Jaded by trolls", you say. Trolls (although I wouldn't use this term, exactly) suck the pleasure out of many gamers' experience (me included). I'm not jaded yet, personally, and I will happily seek strangers in games, but I sure as hell prefer grouping with people I know for a fact are not toxic, as opposed to potentially annoying randoms.
"Who does this in real life?" Fortunately, real life is generally, on average, a safer environment in regards to the kind of behavior you briefly mentioned which anonimity (and limited consequences) fuel.
Anyway, maybe you were just venting here, and you're not actually one of those guys. Your final paragraph is something I mostly agree with.
real life is generally, on average, a safer environment in regards to the kind of behavior you briefly mentioned which anonimity (and limited consequences) fuel.
I kinda, sorta, sometimes, might agree with you sorta. But only once in a hwhile.
Solo before was killing things solo, but in an environment where you still have to encounter others along the way. There is no way to avoid them entirely and they can have an impact on your game experience.
Most people want a solo experience where they can't be interfered with. They just want to follow the path of the game with no resistance.
I don't know about the toxic issue. Sometimes toxicity makes things more fun. Why were bands like Nirvana popular at one point? Because people liked wild anarchy and being wild in general. They didn't want to follow the normal path (same one as everyone else). That path can be very toxic and self destructive, but different.
I used to like to solo mostly in UO and EQ due to not wanting to have to keep playing if I decided I wanted to stop. Often I still played a long time, but I think that pressure to keep playing when grouping with others can be very taxing mentally.
I'm starting to think reinforced grouping from the start might be a good idea. The situation as I see it now is that grouping in games now has a less natural feeling and more stress to it. Like you suddenly have to be at 110%, which probably discourages many people from grouping up in the first place, especially when roles are strictly defined and parsers are at the ready.
And then you have these old boys clubs that swarm from game to game getting first dibs on everything and in some games pushing out everyone else. Something that was complained about above. As a solo player there are times when you just can't get ahead and are just stuck there spinning your wheels and if you try to get into these clubs you run a good risk of getting grilled with elitist scrutiny or you get ignored completely.
There is a division in mmo communities that can be mended if grouping was more of a natural thing. If grouping is commonplace, there is a chance the mindset around what goes on in a group and how the group tackles content changes.
There is a division in mmo communities that can be mended if grouping was more of a natural thing. If grouping is commonplace, there is a chance the mindset around what goes on in a group and how the group tackles content changes.
I don't play games for "the community". The issue is why players should not be allowed to solo, if that is what they want to do?
If some want to play MMOs like single player games .. i don't see why not. You probably don't want to play with them anyway.
Okay...I feel MMOs should not be "Group Only", and definitely not "Solo Only" games...
There should be SOME Solo quests, but definitely MORE Group quests...
The reason I say this is because MMOs are meant to be played socially. Player interaction includes grouping...Thats why they are MMOs and not single player RPGs...
Now, I'm not bashing the soloist, but some recent MMOs are trying too much to cater to the solo player...I do not agree with this...
Like I said, have some solo quests, actually, a healthy supply of solo quests, but not so much as to pull people away from grouping...
Grouping should be the main focus of MMOs, and soloing should be next...
Perhaps the "Multiplayer" in MMOs shouldn't revolve around quests. I often feel that when you're in an MMO that you're pretty much playing a solo game and only group up with completely random people you don't care about to do a multiplayer quest and get your reward easier. Perhaps you have some RL friends you play with. Either way the "Massively Multiplayer" aspect of the game doesn't feel like it's there.
I wish MMOs would allow the world to be shaped by what the players are doing. Like allow the players to influence world events or vote of troublesome players in a court or attack the Orc camp of XYZ enough to where its destroyed and relocates elsewhere BUT actually payoff the pirates of 123 enough to where they become a different aspect of the game. Allow the creation of simple player villages or parts of the city that can be populated with different structures that 100s of players need to help put together.
Every server would be a little different, not just in terms of quests but some of the layout influenced by what the mass of players pushed for on that particular server in that particular place. Playing an MMO like that would not be just an investment in your character, but an investment in the world you helped shape (queue good feeling music)
If your post is any indication of how you play, you are the problem I personally have with multiplayer-games (not only MMO). Not solo players, not "scaredies" or "PROS". This toxicity many players display is totally unappealing to me in a game. "Jaded by trolls", you say. Trolls (although I wouldn't use this term, exactly) suck the pleasure out of many gamers' experience (me included). I'm not jaded yet, personally, and I will happily seek strangers in games, but I sure as hell prefer grouping with people I know for a fact are not toxic, as opposed to potentially annoying randoms.
"Who does this in real life?" Fortunately, real life is generally, on average, a safer environment in regards to the kind of behavior you briefly mentioned which anonimity (and limited consequences) fuel.
Anyway, maybe you were just venting here, and you're not actually one of those guys. Your final paragraph is something I mostly agree with.
I believe go overboard with the "toxic" key word. Generally these games are fairly boring if you just have to deal with the challenges the developer made for you. It's also a lot more stale as there are no real emotions. Part of the key to an adventure is having a lot of different types of people. Some of those people might be considered toxic as they show greed, jealousy, anger, etc. Said people are what bring any real excitement to a game. Without excitement there is no point to playing through an adventure IMO. Some of the best parts of past games I had with friends was competing with them for the loot, stealing items from them, having them steal items from me, and overall competing with them in the game. One might consider this toxic because you are running wild with emotions, but that is the whole point IMO. That's not to say I don't enjoy a good developer story, but I haven't seen many of those around since some of the older games I've played. There are a few single player games where I enjoyed the story a bit.
My opinion: If you want to play solo, play a SINGLE player game. If you want to play with other people play a MULTIPLAYER game. Playing solo in a multiplayer game is an oxymoron.
When toddze goes to a club, he dances with everybody, and he only goes to clubs where you can't enter if you don't have 5 or more people with you.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Solo combat is a good thing. I rather be tied to need other players in things that aren't combat related. Interdependcy doesn't mean you have to group up 100% of the time.
My opinion: If you want to play solo, play a SINGLE player game. If you want to play with other people play a MULTIPLAYER game. Playing solo in a multiplayer game is an oxymoron.
What if there is no single player game with the same gameplay & IP?
Case in point, i love marvel heroes because i can play as marvel characters, and that i like the way their powers are set up. Tell me what single player game i can play if i want to play Ant-Man in an ARPG setting. I will switch right away.
I'll be 70 next month, so I don't group with anyone cos frankly I can't think quick enough to look after anyone else but myself, so I love games you can mostly solo. But if I was a 20-something like most of you, I think I would be seeking groups that I wanted to be in with people who actually conversed as we went along in or out of RP. That's what should make an RPG fun. It might be interesting to force players into small (3-5) groups at the start of a game, repeat that 3 or 4 times with different groups, and then turn the players out into the main game. They might then seek out people they liked in the initial groups and pal up.
My opinion: If you want to play solo, play a SINGLE player game. If you want to play with other people play a MULTIPLAYER game. Playing solo in a multiplayer game is an oxymoron.
What if there is no single player game with the same gameplay & IP?
Case in point, i love marvel heroes because i can play as marvel characters, and that i like the way their powers are set up. Tell me what single player game i can play if i want to play Ant-Man in an ARPG setting. I will switch right away.
It's part reason I refrain from taking the stance that "people who want to play solo shouldn't play in my games" and vice versa. I think a lot of people would be happier in a game more suited to their demographic, but if they want to play in a multiplayer game as a solo player, or solo game as a multiplayer-seeker, it's pretty much on them.
Fact of the matter is, sometimes there just isn't enough options for people who want to play a particular IP or setting, and the only option is an MMO, even though the person has no interest in playing with others.
Adversely, someone may want an MMO experience and plays a game with very limited multiplayer or lack of completely, just so they play the game anyway to get their IP fill.
The problem isn't that these players are enjoying games that are meant to or not to be single/multiplayer -- It is not that simple.
One problem is when these players are NOT enjoying the game based on multiplayer mechanics, but keep playing them anyway and become vocal and jaded about that aspect of the game. This makes the waters murky as now there's a customer who's complaining about a product. Developers/Publishers can and do listen to some of the vocal customers and tool around with the game in hopes to make them happy and get some hype spread to attract more customers. This is not fair to the nonvocal and satisfied customers that the game was originally designed and marketed for, as the changes will effect their experience as well.
Another problem is when these players are rude to the other players that don't agree with their playstyle. All too often have we seen people troll general chat channels in games where they disrespect and insult the players that enjoy the game simply because they enjoy it. These kinds of people prove that it's not about whether someone should be forced to play multiplayer or not. It's not about wanting a community and not getting it in whatever game is in question. What it's about is the players themselves; ourselves . We need to take responsibility for our in-game experiences, including how we affect others.
Person A doesn't want to play with other people in "The land of Community Online" Person B doesn't agree with playing solo in the same game. Person A&B should simply agree to disagree and not interact with eachother. Person A&B should play the game the way they see fit, and not vocalize to the public how right they are or how wrong the other person is, as they should take in to consideration that the other players on their server(s) may not see it the same way at all, thus, not be forced to deal with changes as a result of Person A or B's distaste of one-another.
I enjoy being able to solo alot of the stuff in a MMORPG, it's less stressful having to depend on others and dealing with their shit. Been an officer and raid leader in many games and i tend to cherish the moments i can do my stuff alone without the need of others. Then again i play MMORPGs for these group stuff so imo a MMORPG needs to have both.
Comments
it shows group play vs 1v1
I like the idea of basing an mmorpg on real life rather than creating an artificial incentive system.
Humans will do what they enjoy most. Grouping or soloing should be something one does out of enjoyment not necessity or worse coercion.
Rather than designing around the game and the perception of superior or inferior play styles designing around the player for maximum enjoyment makes much more sense.
Every reward in a game should be achievable by every player. If it takes 5 players 1 year to get one player the best sword in game then it should be achievable for 1 player to obtain that same sword in 5 years. That's better than never but harsh enough for even the most antisocial player to consider a group now and then.
Just as in real life multiple paths for the same reward should be available.
It's certainly not the mostly solo player who wants to enjoy the journey of the game and wants to fill a viable role in the world by being the guy/girl who always stocks food and drinks on their vendors and will often have a "sale" bin with odds and ends of items they've looted in their travels for that secret herb the recipe called for, or perhaps the fisher that stocks all those waterlogged bottles/pillows and fish, or maybe even just that beggar that seems to be by the bank door every day rain or shine where he/she performs tricks for silver.
Sure you can accuse some solo players for rushing endgame and some likely do, at risk of being left behind by both their friends, guildies and content patches, but most persevere against harder odds while adventuring and exploring the world, hoping that they have skilled up their run speed enough to escape the next ganking(but often haven't, it's hard to outrun a couple of determined and strategic gankers, or even a couple of irritated ettins whose camp you're trying to filch stuff from...) or at the least hope the wandering healer or nui statue is not too far from where you died and that you don't lose too much exp or whatever the penalty is for dying.
Point is, it's great that mmorpgs have lots of group content, but even a baby has to learn to walk before they can run and some just never run well. That doesn't make them "useless" or "noobs" or "carebears", in fact it presents a perfect opportunity for the developer to make a full fledged world with the participation of those who prefer to stay behind the scenes and provide support for those who don't seem to know how to walk....
The core pillar of grouping is that you need to join and combine your abilities with other players in order to beat content that is either too difficult or too long/overwhelming to solo effectively.
The satisfaction of grouping comes in no small amount from the fact that once you group, your power multiplies severalfold and your ability to progress skyrockets.
In order to make a solo-friendly game, you can no longer litter the game with those difficult and overwhelming/time consuming tasks that would make grouping the superior option.
Hence, while grouping is not "removed from the game" and no-one forces you to solo, the very reason why grouping was desiderable to begin with disappears thus making it pointless.
In the end, everyone wants to progress as effectively and as fast as possible, so of course that the great majority of players will choose solo over grouping if solo is just as rewarding.
And it becomes obvious that if the majority of players are soloing, then grouping becomes both poinless and extremely difficult to produce naturally.
In short, grouping passes from being a boon to being a chore.
If I wanted to dig a 10 by 10 by 10 metre hole I could do so however with a group of friends aid do it faster.
If I wanted a sword that did x damage I could spend a month questing for it while with a group I could maybe get an equivalent in a day.
The primary reason you want both soloers in game is to fund the game for groups since solo players far outnumber groupers. Doing it the other way around is pretty stupid.
Solo players do not enjoy the game if their progress is much slower than groupers, and grouping becomes pointless if soloing is effective enough to be a viable option for progress, due to the inherent challenges of grouping and the time it takes to organize properly v.s the simplicity of soloing in an acceptable rate.
Yes, on paper, a game that mixes both would be ideal, but in reality that cannot really be done.
The fact that we cannot talk about this in this manner is proof of what I am unveiling.
In 2000, soloing was STILL the most best experience in the MMO even WHEN it was HARDLY effective enough to be viable for progress though it still was, unless you physically make it impossible or it makes you feel physically ill to do so, otherwise what you say makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I played MMORPGs for YEARS before this bullshit whining started by the quote unquote PROS who whined that they deserved the best items since they were the PROS with the guilds. They now blame it on the ones who whined that didn't have the items because they are bullshitting whiner crybabies every day in the forums and in voice chat land. Just the other day I had to listen to a guy whine about how WoW was ruined by babies for like an hour in PlanetSide 2.
Grouping will ALWAYS be a task unless you STOP BEING STUCK UP TRASH and just GROUP WITH PEOPLE. You are ANTI SOCIAL GARBAGE if you require people to join your clans, your reddit, 4chan, "family" website, whatever, sign a CONTACT that they will not do something you don't like to you, before you can be "fwiends", WHO DOES THIS IN REAL LIFE?, you are COWARDS, FREAKS, SCAREDIES of the outside world, jaded by trolls, who will never trust a troll again to be nice, so they never will. Everquest 2 is currently wondering if they should just banish hackers to a hacker only server. I would rather be with those people than the stuck up DEAD players on the quote unquote official 'live' server. These people at least don't want to be dead, stuck ups, are completely open to grouping up with random people, even though they are filth. I only see it happen in MMOs. OTHER GAMES DO NOT HAVE THIS: 90% of players have turned into NEGATIVES that will not seat any other players in their vehicles for instance in PlanetSide 2, unless they know them or are in an outfit with them. And to make matters worse, it's about the worship of money, businesses are literally doing this to milk you dry: free to play is about the expensive cash shops, did you know that you can spend $300 in PlanetSide 2 on daybreak cash, and still not own everything that you can buy? not that I care, but it's important to the point I'm making, organizing you all into clans is a tactic which controls what games you will buy and spend money on, you are selling your souls to corporate nazies by arguing over what OTHER people enjoy more. Stick to what you enjoy and stop gang raping the genre for other people.
The good and the bad belongs on BOTH sides. There is not one good or bad side in this. And our communities should not be divided. The division comes about by corporate money worship. The people on the banished servers will remain paying their 15$ just to not annoy and ruin the game experience for the stuck ups. How wonderful is that for everybody? It's a tragedy. Not a wonderful thing. The MMO is about all of us playing together.
Congratulations to Scabrous Scrotus on the victory.
http://oyster.ignimgs.com/mediawiki/apis.ign.com/mad-max/thumb/d/d2/Warboss04jpg-b0aa95.jpg/468px-Warboss04jpg-b0aa95.jpg
"Who does this in real life?" Fortunately, real life is generally, on average, a safer environment in regards to the kind of behavior you briefly mentioned which anonimity (and limited consequences) fuel.
Anyway, maybe you were just venting here, and you're not actually one of those guys. Your final paragraph is something I mostly agree with.
Solo now is mostly instanced content.
Solo before was killing things solo, but in an environment where you still have to encounter others along the way. There is no way to avoid them entirely and they can have an impact on your game experience.
Most people want a solo experience where they can't be interfered with. They just want to follow the path of the game with no resistance.
I don't know about the toxic issue. Sometimes toxicity makes things more fun. Why were bands like Nirvana popular at one point? Because people liked wild anarchy and being wild in general. They didn't want to follow the normal path (same one as everyone else). That path can be very toxic and self destructive, but different.
I used to like to solo mostly in UO and EQ due to not wanting to have to keep playing if I decided I wanted to stop. Often I still played a long time, but I think that pressure to keep playing when grouping with others can be very taxing mentally.
And then you have these old boys clubs that swarm from game to game getting first dibs on everything and in some games pushing out everyone else. Something that was complained about above. As a solo player there are times when you just can't get ahead and are just stuck there spinning your wheels and if you try to get into these clubs you run a good risk of getting grilled with elitist scrutiny or you get ignored completely.
There is a division in mmo communities that can be mended if grouping was more of a natural thing. If grouping is commonplace, there is a chance the mindset around what goes on in a group and how the group tackles content changes.
If some want to play MMOs like single player games .. i don't see why not. You probably don't want to play with them anyway.
If the game is designed to be a group focused community game, then that is what it is.
If it is meant to cater to solo play, then that is what it is.
Neither is right or wrong.
Who is wrong is the player who expects a group game to attend to solo or a solo game to attend to group. Those are the wrong people.
End of story, we can move on now.
Perhaps the "Multiplayer" in MMOs shouldn't revolve around quests. I often feel that when you're in an MMO that you're pretty much playing a solo game and only group up with completely random people you don't care about to do a multiplayer quest and get your reward easier. Perhaps you have some RL friends you play with. Either way the "Massively Multiplayer" aspect of the game doesn't feel like it's there.
I wish MMOs would allow the world to be shaped by what the players are doing. Like allow the players to influence world events or vote of troublesome players in a court or attack the Orc camp of XYZ enough to where its destroyed and relocates elsewhere BUT actually payoff the pirates of 123 enough to where they become a different aspect of the game. Allow the creation of simple player villages or parts of the city that can be populated with different structures that 100s of players need to help put together.
Every server would be a little different, not just in terms of quests but some of the layout influenced by what the mass of players pushed for on that particular server in that particular place. Playing an MMO like that would not be just an investment in your character, but an investment in the world you helped shape (queue good feeling music)
http://baronsofthegalaxy.com/ An MMO game I created, solo. It's live now and absolutely free to play!
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Case in point, i love marvel heroes because i can play as marvel characters, and that i like the way their powers are set up. Tell me what single player game i can play if i want to play Ant-Man in an ARPG setting. I will switch right away.
It's part reason I refrain from taking the stance that "people who want to play solo shouldn't play in my games" and vice versa. I think a lot of people would be happier in a game more suited to their demographic, but if they want to play in a multiplayer game as a solo player, or solo game as a multiplayer-seeker, it's pretty much on them.
Fact of the matter is, sometimes there just isn't enough options for people who want to play a particular IP or setting, and the only option is an MMO, even though the person has no interest in playing with others.
Adversely, someone may want an MMO experience and plays a game with very limited multiplayer or lack of completely, just so they play the game anyway to get their IP fill.
The problem isn't that these players are enjoying games that are meant to or not to be single/multiplayer -- It is not that simple.
One problem is when these players are NOT enjoying the game based on multiplayer mechanics, but keep playing them anyway and become vocal and jaded about that aspect of the game. This makes the waters murky as now there's a customer who's complaining about a product. Developers/Publishers can and do listen to some of the vocal customers and tool around with the game in hopes to make them happy and get some hype spread to attract more customers. This is not fair to the nonvocal and satisfied customers that the game was originally designed and marketed for, as the changes will effect their experience as well.
Another problem is when these players are rude to the other players that don't agree with their playstyle. All too often have we seen people troll general chat channels in games where they disrespect and insult the players that enjoy the game simply because they enjoy it. These kinds of people prove that it's not about whether someone should be forced to play multiplayer or not. It's not about wanting a community and not getting it in whatever game is in question. What it's about is the players themselves; ourselves . We need to take responsibility for our in-game experiences, including how we affect others.
Person A doesn't want to play with other people in "The land of Community Online"
Person B doesn't agree with playing solo in the same game.
Person A&B should simply agree to disagree and not interact with eachother.
Person A&B should play the game the way they see fit, and not vocalize to the public how right they are or how wrong the other person is, as they should take in to consideration that the other players on their server(s) may not see it the same way at all, thus, not be forced to deal with changes as a result of Person A or B's distaste of one-another.
A big cake is difference.