Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Are MMOs becoming massively singleplayer?

13

Comments

  • Rob_dc84Rob_dc84 Member Posts: 149

    i try to only group with friends or if i have to with someone to do something mainly due to my friends being offline. most u cant trust they will ninja your crap or just leave besides playing with your friends is better. if i had to run kara i rather wait for friends then pug it. and solo sometimes is fun (sometimes) when u need to level really quick or just want a break from groups or the people in your guild u need both for mmos

    image
    image

  • nomadiannomadian Member Posts: 3,490

    in a way I think there should be more merely multiplayer games, other than fps' that give players cooperative tasks. That would bring a few more ideas to the scene before taking them to a massively multiplayer game.

  • AethiosAethios Member Posts: 1,527


    Originally posted by UsualSuspect
    Just because MMO's offer these side things, don't be fooled into thinking thats what the game is there for. MMO's have been and should be focused primarily on multiplayer action, not soloing and tending to those who want to stay at level 1, chat to friends and make pretty objects while roleplaying marriage.


    Who are you to tell people what they can and cannot enjoy? People who want to roleplay marriage are free to do so, even if it's a bit odd. Personally I think all this fanaticism with dungeons and grouping is insane. People are assholes, and I don't want my progress to be dependent on the whim of some prick who has no interest in my well being. Even after finding a good guild, there will always be somebody who is willing to be a jerk if it's easier for him.

    Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think people should solo all the time (and I certainly wouldn't want to) but I think we should have our content split in such a way that you don't *HAVE* to do either. You can solo all the way to the end, or you can group all the way to the end, or you can mix it up and do both. This way people feel free to do whatever they want and aren't pigeon-holed into whatever the developers decide is the flavor of the month.

    That means people who like crafting should be rewarded for doing so, and people who like exploring should feel rewarded as well. Every time an MMO leaves out a group of players, the industry is again cheated out of a number of people who might have picked up an MMO and gotten hooked, but didn't see the point. There are still millions and millions of people out there who don't play, and might be willing to if they were only shown that they CAN do what they want to do and be successful at it.

    In summary, don't pretend you are the ultimate source of "what MMOs are for." MMOs are for people to play a game and have fun, and to do it in a place where they can communicate and interact with other people. By pretending that crafting or roleplaying are "lesser" forms of gameplay, you are just as bad as the person who suggests everything should be soloable, and the person who suggests the best gear in the game should only be made by crafters.

  • kaladekalade Member Posts: 69

    First off I have to agree that games are becoming in general much more solo friendly, which really began especailly with the success of WoW and than ran into other MMO's.  For example look at Everquest 2 at launch, not nearly as solo friendly as it is now after countless changes.  And for an MMO to come out that is much less solo friendly and focuses again on groups its going to take a brave developer and one that pushes out a polished game that will probably have to find a niche audience, as it appears people are partial to solo play.

    In my personal opinion I feel that having solo play is not that big of a deal, but as people have mentioned the major problem is linear (rushed) questing that puts peoples mind in a one track path and people not stopping to try new areas, take a look around - always going for the best gear and the fastest xp.

    Of all the games out there now I have played or play I feel like Vanguard is one of the better or best (imo) for grouping.  For some reason (maybe because of the size of the world... how it's laid out .. or the fact that there isnt a ton of end game content waiting for me) I have taken my time in leveling up in Vanguard.  I have been playing since launch and my highest lv character is a 38 warrior - It should be mentioned also that I have taken many long breaks from the game (well breaks from mmos in general - a month or more).

    But either way I have truly been enjoying Vanguard and especially once I got into the 20's and even more as I got further I used soloing as a means of xping when I had limited time or when it was difficult to find a group.  But I still spend a majority of my time grouping and have found the closest social experience to eq in quite some time.  The fighting is much more frantic than eq (alot more buttons to push) which sadly seems to take away from social intereact ion in groups - not to mention some camping but not as much.  But b oth of tehse things make the game funner in alot of ways as well.

    I guess what i'm saying is solo play is likely here to stay in atleast most mainstream mmo's, but they have the ability to make grouping an intregal part of the game as well and I feel Vanguard has done a rather solid job with that - Now I just hope updates get going a bit faster and maybe populations rise a bit, because I would absolutely love to see even fuller servers and experience an expansion sometime down the road.

    Kalade

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect Member UncommonPosts: 1,243

    Originally posted by Aethios


    You can solo all the way to the end, or you can group all the way to the end, or you can mix it up and do both. This way people feel free to do whatever they want and aren't pigeon-holed into whatever the developers decide is the flavor of the month.
    A good idea in principle, but we all know that people will go the solo route every time. Take a look at EQ2, people are soloing all the way to maximum level since Kunark. I've been playing there for the last month and even though I ask for groups, I've never got into one.

    I think people prefer the idea of being 'uber' and not needing the help, that their toon is so strong that they can defeat everything in their path. But how does that fit into the idea of a multiplayer game? Like I've said before, if something is advertised as a multiplayer game, I fully expect to be joining up with other players to tackle the content. That isn't happening anymore.

  • AethiosAethios Member Posts: 1,527


    Originally posted by UsualSuspect
    Originally posted by Aethios You can solo all the way to the end, or you can group all the way to the end, or you can mix it up and do both. This way people feel free to do whatever they want and aren't pigeon-holed into whatever the developers decide is the flavor of the month.
    A good idea in principle, but we all know that people will go the solo route every time. Take a look at EQ2, people are soloing all the way to maximum level since Kunark. I've been playing there for the last month and even though I ask for groups, I've never got into one.
    I think people prefer the idea of being 'uber' and not needing the help, that their toon is so strong that they can defeat everything in their path. But how does that fit into the idea of a multiplayer game? Like I've said before, if something is advertised as a multiplayer game, I fully expect to be joining up with other players to tackle the content. That isn't happening anymore.


    Perhaps, then, the problem lies with the multiplayer content rather than the single-player content. You are quick to jump all over soloing, but isn't it true that more people would group if the grouping rewards are better? What if they are the same rewards, but the grouping players get them much faster? Of course, the preferred system would be that both soloing and grouping can contribute collectively, so that neither ends up being time wasted, but that's a discussion for another day.

    My point is, people are choosing to solo not because they don't like to group, but because it's much more difficult to group than to solo. It's hard to get a half dozen people together in one place, at the right level, and of the right classes. If they were given more tools and options to group, perhaps the grouping environment would be more conducive and people more willing to actually participate in the content.

  • OrthedosOrthedos Member Posts: 1,771

    There is nothing wrong if I can solo in the game, there is nothing wrong if I can group in the game.  There is nothing wrong if there are quests, there is nothing wrong if mobs are around for me to grind.  There is nothing wrong if there is crafting, if there is ... 

    There is something wrong if I must solo, or if I must group to get anything done.  There is something wrong if there are must do quests, or that I must grind to get to certain effects (say a skill or a level).  There is something wrong if I must this or that ...

    Having options are good, especially if there are equally viable and desirable alternative.

  • Beatnik59Beatnik59 Member UncommonPosts: 2,413

    I see the trend as the exact opposite of the OP.  These days, the gameplay of MMOs are basically centered around one's role within the "group," and further in terms of "guild."  In other words, players play parts of collectives that are specialized for maximum efficacy when working in tandem with others.  It's what I like to call "geek football," where we all just "play positions" on a team.

    Given that the games stress coordination so much these days, it's no wonder why so many devs are creating low level quests that can be played solo.  Because otherwise, there would be simply nothing else to do in these games today if you aren't button mashing and twinking out in tandem with other twinks.

    Gone are the days of playing MMOs as they originally were: a personal journey, played collectively.  We didn't need "artificial" designations like groups back in UO.  Characters weren't designed to be "tanks" or "DOTs" or "DPS."  Characters were designed to be unique as the people who played them, because grouping wasn't emphasized as much as rich personal expression in character development was.  If you fought together, you simply fought together, and didn't need the whole /join thing we do today.  And if you think about it, the way "grouping" has become a staple in design is actually taking us a step back from massive online, and resembles peer-to-peer gaming.

    We have shards with thousands of players.  Why do we need to limit our "groups" to the eight or ten from some arbitrary group limit just because the developers say so?

    __________________________
    "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
    --Arcken

    "...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
    --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.

    "It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
    --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE

  • OrthedosOrthedos Member Posts: 1,771

    Originally posted by UsualSuspect


     
    Originally posted by Aethios


    You can solo all the way to the end, or you can group all the way to the end, or you can mix it up and do both. This way people feel free to do whatever they want and aren't pigeon-holed into whatever the developers decide is the flavor of the month.
    A good idea in principle, but we all know that people will go the solo route every time. Take a look at EQ2, people are soloing all the way to maximum level since Kunark. I've been playing there for the last month and even though I ask for groups, I've never got into one.

     

    I think people prefer the idea of being 'uber' and not needing the help, that their toon is so strong that they can defeat everything in their path. But how does that fit into the idea of a multiplayer game? Like I've said before, if something is advertised as a multiplayer game, I fully expect to be joining up with other players to tackle the content. That isn't happening anymore.


    Take a look at LOTRo, people solo, people also group.  It depends on what they are doing.  When people zone into the PVMP they usually group up, unless they are the stealthers who wander around looking for the unwary soloist.  When they do epic chapters they always group.

    Take a look at CoX.  People almost automatically recruit people LFG, as the game is scaled in such a way that large group means more fun and badder bad asses.

    So it depends on games, and it might also depend on the reputation of the player in question.  Sometimes during late nights, most of the players still online are the night owls, who are more used to soloing, or who are less able to group due to fatigue, RL issues, and thus more incline to solo and AFK a lot.

  • AethiosAethios Member Posts: 1,527


    Originally posted by Beatnik59
    I see the trend as the exact opposite of the OP. These days, the gameplay of MMOs are basically centered around one's role within the "group," and further in terms of "guild." In other words, players play parts of collectives that are specialized for maximum efficacy when working in tandem with others. It's what I like to call "geek football," where we all just "play positions" on a team.
    Given that the games stress coordination so much these days, it's no wonder why so many devs are creating low level quests that can be played solo. Because otherwise, there would be simply nothing else to do in these games today if you aren't button mashing and twinking out in tandem with other twinks.
    Gone are the days of playing MMOs as they originally were: a personal journey, played collectively. We didn't need "artificial" designations like groups back in UO. Characters weren't designed to be "tanks" or "DOTs" or "DPS." Characters were designed to be unique as the people who played them, because grouping wasn't emphasized as much as rich personal expression in character development was. If you fought together, you simply fought together, and didn't need the whole /join thing we do today. And if you think about it, the way "grouping" has become a staple in design is actually taking us a step back from massive online, and resembles peer-to-peer gaming.
    We have shards with thousands of players. Why do we need to limit our "groups" to the eight or ten from some arbitrary group limit just because the developers say so?


    I agree completely. Grouping has become this abomination of ultra-specialized tools who are incapable of doing anything but grouping. Heck, seems like anymore if you're standing one step out of line, you're already dead and the group is guaranteed to wipe. It's ludicrous.

    BTW, I laughed at the "geek football" comment, because it's so true. I never really thought of it that way, but that's what it is. MMOs have become less a game and more a sport.

  • Beatnik59Beatnik59 Member UncommonPosts: 2,413

     

    Originally posted by Aethios


     

    Originally posted by Beatnik59

    I see the trend as the exact opposite of the OP. These days, the gameplay of MMOs are basically centered around one's role within the "group," and further in terms of "guild." In other words, players play parts of collectives that are specialized for maximum efficacy when working in tandem with others. It's what I like to call "geek football," where we all just "play positions" on a team.

    Given that the games stress coordination so much these days, it's no wonder why so many devs are creating low level quests that can be played solo. Because otherwise, there would be simply nothing else to do in these games today if you aren't button mashing and twinking out in tandem with other twinks.

    Gone are the days of playing MMOs as they originally were: a personal journey, played collectively. We didn't need "artificial" designations like groups back in UO. Characters weren't designed to be "tanks" or "DOTs" or "DPS." Characters were designed to be unique as the people who played them, because grouping wasn't emphasized as much as rich personal expression in character development was. If you fought together, you simply fought together, and didn't need the whole /join thing we do today. And if you think about it, the way "grouping" has become a staple in design is actually taking us a step back from massive online, and resembles peer-to-peer gaming.

    We have shards with thousands of players. Why do we need to limit our "groups" to the eight or ten from some arbitrary group limit just because the developers say so?

     



    I agree completely. Grouping has become this abomination of ultra-specialized tools who are incapable of doing anything but grouping. Heck, seems like anymore if you're standing one step out of line, you're already dead and the group is guaranteed to wipe. It's ludicrous.

    BTW, I laughed at the "geek football" comment, because it's so true. I never really thought of it that way, but that's what it is. MMOs have become less a game and more a sport.

    I can't take credit for the "geek football" reference, Aethios.  I got it from a blog some time back (I'm thinking Scott Jennings's, but probably not).

     

    And MMOs today a sport?  I'm afraid it's even worse than that, Aethios.  Sport is fun, as has a discrete beginning, ending, and winner decided at the end of day's play.  What we have now is more management science and statistical leveraging, which is probably why things are so boring.

    You see, the reason solo content is so heavily emphasized these days is because grouping has become so much more central to the gameplay of modern MMOs to the point that grouping is now "serious business."

    That's the thing that makes solo content really necessary today, ladyattis.  Because while I might agree with you that the "entire point of MMOs is the MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER aspect of the 'genre' ... where you're stuck with strangers and suppose to cooperate in some function to win out over extraordinary odds," the reason that it  "doesn't pan out like it anymore" is the fact that when games stress grouping, we don't group with "strangers."   We can't afford to group with strangers.  And as a result, people who can't group because they aren't on the voice software a group wants, or isn't of a particular build the group wants, or isn't of the right level, or isn't someone the others "trust" will have nothing else to do in these games today if provisions are not made for him or her.

    But the reason we have this big emphasis on solo content these days isn't because grouping is stressed too little.  I would argue that the reason we have more and more solo quests is because grouping is becoming "serious business," and nobody is in a position to risk or take chances when grouping with strangers.

    __________________________
    "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
    --Arcken

    "...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
    --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.

    "It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
    --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect Member UncommonPosts: 1,243

    Originally posted by Orthedos


     
    Take a look at LOTRo, people solo, people also group.  It depends on what they are doing.  When people zone into the PVMP they usually group up, unless they are the stealthers who wander around looking for the unwary soloist.  When they do epic chapters they always group.
     
    Take a look at CoX.  People almost automatically recruit people LFG, as the game is scaled in such a way that large group means more fun and badder bad asses.
    So it depends on games, and it might also depend on the reputation of the player in question.  Sometimes during late nights, most of the players still online are the night owls, who are more used to soloing, or who are less able to group due to fatigue, RL issues, and thus more incline to solo and AFK a lot.
    I agree, LOTRO did strike a good balance, which is probably why its the only MMO since original EverQuest that I've got a character to the maximum level and through multiple raids. It did have a little too much solo content, in my perspective, but the Books were good for grouping as were some of the tougher instances. Tomb of Elendil being a memorable one.

    From what I've seen though, they've started dumbing it down again. The raids we did with 4 groups were very good, but with the new books they've lowered raids down to 2 groups which is very weak. Only 12 players against a Balrog? Please..

    The quest system was a bit 'carrot on a stick' too, leading you from one place to the next with no real option to go elsewhere. It was nice when I reached a higher level, because I could choose to follow quests in either the North Downs or the Lone Lands, which meant I could get a feel for the size of the world by running back and fore.

  • JirelJirel Member Posts: 90

    UsualSuspect

    "Just because MMO's offer these side things, don't be fooled into thinking thats what the game is there for. MMO's have been and should be focused primarily on multiplayer action, not soloing and tending to those who want to stay at level 1, chat to friends and make pretty objects while roleplaying marriage."

    As others have said - Why do you feel YOU can dictate what an MMO should or shouldn't be?  That's the only question I have for you.  When I talk abotu MMOs I talk about what I do or how I feel, not what other people SHOULD do,  I don't try to tell people what to do (although I think ganking is imature - but notice, even there I said I THINK)

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect Member UncommonPosts: 1,243

     

    Originally posted by Jirel


    UsualSuspect
    "MMO's have been and should be focused primarily on multiplayer action."
    As others have said - Why do you feel YOU can dictate what an MMO should or shouldn't be?



    I'm not dictating, the name 'MMO' is dictating what the game should be. Massively Multiplayer. Like, lets say you went out and bought Crysis because its a single player game, then you got home and found out that to progress in it you had to have 5 other people playing too. How would you feel about that? You paid for a single player game focused on multiplayer.

     

    Same thing with MMO's. I buy an MMO because its a multiplayer game, yet when I get them home I find out that most of the game is spent in single player mode. Why have I not got the right to be annoyed about that?

    I just bought EQ2 with all its expansions expecting a great multiplayer experience, but I've seen very few other players and after 30 levels I still haven't been offered a group or had anyone accept to be in mine. I've been told most people now just solo play right up to Level 80. Why is it sold as a multiplayer game? I want my money back!

  • Beatnik59Beatnik59 Member UncommonPosts: 2,413

    Diablo II on Battle.net is multiplayer, but it's not massive multiplayer.  Yes, you can interact with thousands of players trading SoJs in the common server, but the actual gameplay doesn't involve the vast majority of people there.  You break off into groups and go into instances.  Sound familiar?

    Similarly, when MMOs rely on grouping into discrete quantities with other players to move the gameplay along, they turn a msssive multiplayer experience into a peer-to-peer experience.  But you don't need massive multiplayer to play peer-to-peer.  A peer matching game like Unreal Tournament is multiplayer as well, and allows for better interaction and coordination between players than the massive format ever can.

    __________________________
    "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
    --Arcken

    "...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
    --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.

    "It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
    --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE

  • silkakcsilkakc Member UncommonPosts: 381

    I'm thankful how the games have evolved into more solo-friendly games! I think they HAD to evolve- if they wanted to retain their older Gamers that had busy real lives.

    Many of us adult gamers can't devote chunks of hours because we work and have children and responsibilities in the home. They had to make games that were still fun and compelling for the people that can only play an hour or two a day. Hence, the huge increase in solo activities and quests in the newer games.

    But a successful game would balance the solo and group play and would also provide the 4-8 hour raids and quests for the people that have that much free time on their hands. Sidenote: WHO are those ppl that have that have 8 hours to play at a time?

     

    That's one of the best things about LOTRO. I can solo from 1-50 without the stress of Fellowship quests and PUGS.  They did a good job making an overabundance of both solo and group quests in that game. You are never forced to take a certain path in that game- it's all up to you how you wish to get from 1-50.

  • OrthedosOrthedos Member Posts: 1,771

    Originally posted by UsualSuspect


     
    Originally posted by Orthedos


     
    Take a look at LOTRo, people solo, people also group.  It depends on what they are doing.  When people zone into the PVMP they usually group up, unless they are the stealthers who wander around looking for the unwary soloist.  When they do epic chapters they always group.
     
    Take a look at CoX.  People almost automatically recruit people LFG, as the game is scaled in such a way that large group means more fun and badder bad asses.
    So it depends on games, and it might also depend on the reputation of the player in question.  Sometimes during late nights, most of the players still online are the night owls, who are more used to soloing, or who are less able to group due to fatigue, RL issues, and thus more incline to solo and AFK a lot.
    I agree, LOTRO did strike a good balance, which is probably why its the only MMO since original EverQuest that I've got a character to the maximum level and through multiple raids. It did have a little too much solo content, in my perspective, but the Books were good for grouping as were some of the tougher instances. Tomb of Elendil being a memorable one.

     

    From what I've seen though, they've started dumbing it down again. The raids we did with 4 groups were very good, but with the new books they've lowered raids down to 2 groups which is very weak. Only 12 players against a Balrog? Please..

    The quest system was a bit 'carrot on a stick' too, leading you from one place to the next with no real option to go elsewhere. It was nice when I reached a higher level, because I could choose to follow quests in either the North Downs or the Lone Lands, which meant I could get a feel for the size of the world by running back and fore.

    12 player smaller raids are not a dumb down.  We already have helegrod for 24 man, why not built a 12 man version, or an 18man version.  Variety I call.

    And 24 man version is not really automatically better.  Its the content, the tricks the novelty, or the story, the gameplay.  If you want it to be harder, try do helegrod with 19 as we once did.  That makes it hard enough.  If you think 12 vs a balrog is too easy do it with 7.

    The point is 12man raid provides an alternate when its late at night, when you cannot find 24 trusted players on hand, and do not want to try helegrod with PUG members.  I do not.

  • ReicherReicher Member Posts: 8

    I haven't ever really felt like im in an open social game since everquest 1, when i would wait next to camps waiting for a group chatting with passer by's and generally socializing at the bank or other places of regular congregation. Since then the closed style of dungeons and some zones for only your group makes the world feel smaller and less populated.

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect Member UncommonPosts: 1,243
    Originally posted by Orthedos


     
    12 player smaller raids are not a dumb down.  We already have helegrod for 24 man, why not built a 12 man version, or an 18man version.  Variety I call.
     
    And 24 man version is not really automatically better.  Its the content, the tricks the novelty, or the story, the gameplay.  If you want it to be harder, try do helegrod with 19 as we once did.  That makes it hard enough.  If you think 12 vs a balrog is too easy do it with 7.
    The point is 12man raid provides an alternate when its late at night, when you cannot find 24 trusted players on hand, and do not want to try helegrod with PUG members.  I do not.



    In terms of a 'massively multiplayer' game, 12 players is a dumb down. The challenge might still be there, but having 6-12 players tackling a challenge isn't 'massive'. You get more players on a Quake Wars server! You have this massive pool of players to choose from, the game gives increasingly higher amounts of players that can join a guild, but they create content which requires less and less players. They need to work out what they're trying to do with the game.

  • OrthedosOrthedos Member Posts: 1,771
    Originally posted by UsualSuspect

    Originally posted by Orthedos


     
    12 player smaller raids are not a dumb down.  We already have helegrod for 24 man, why not built a 12 man version, or an 18man version.  Variety I call.
     
    And 24 man version is not really automatically better.  Its the content, the tricks the novelty, or the story, the gameplay.  If you want it to be harder, try do helegrod with 19 as we once did.  That makes it hard enough.  If you think 12 vs a balrog is too easy do it with 7.
    The point is 12man raid provides an alternate when its late at night, when you cannot find 24 trusted players on hand, and do not want to try helegrod with PUG members.  I do not.



    In terms of a 'massively multiplayer' game, 12 players is a dumb down. The challenge might still be there, but having 6-12 players tackling a challenge isn't 'massive'. You get more players on a Quake Wars server! You have this massive pool of players to choose from, the game gives increasingly higher amounts of players that can join a guild, but they create content which requires less and less players. They need to work out what they're trying to do with the game.



    OK I see your point, you want a lot of people around for whatever activities you are involved in.  That is tough.  Game lags and the like are issues to be considered, so are issues like availability of 100s willing to group up for that event.  In a MMO there are many people to interact with, and on the AH, in towns in open zone PVPs there are tons of people around.  I, personally, do not need to be with everyone in the same team in every instance I go in.  But that is me.  Your preference will hold for you.

  • WickershamWickersham Member UncommonPosts: 2,379

    I thought of this a few days ago.  One of the key ingredients to RPGs is giving the player thier own personal story; so it stands to reason that a MMORPG should allow players to tell their story to other players.  Many of the games out there do this by having unique looking gear or titles earned by doing special activities.  A few of them have the option to make your own bio which can be read by other players.  Most of these things are passive, meaning that your story is seen by anyone who is interested - sort of like reading a billboard.

    So now a few things come to my mind.

    The first would be to allow players to aggressively tell their story - Pking and anti-PKing, controlling areas with PvP, granting players special active abilites, the system announcing when a great feat has been achieved, factions, guilds, towns, professions, chat channels, etc.  Things that allow a player to show their story to other players by participating in a specific activity.

    Second, having multiple options and a great amount of flexibility and diversity so that my story is not the same as everyone elses.  If my story is the same as theirs they'll be all too familiar with my story because they themselves have lived it.  If my story is unique I may get people to become interested in it.  For example - someone sees my unique "something" and asks me about it.

    Third - our story - the story of you and I.  The collective story of our shared experience ingame.  Looking back on our adventures together - this one can not be handed off by the devs it is ours alone to build.

    As long as players get a unique adventure specific to them and they can generate public interest to tell their story or express their individual selves then MMORPGs are not single player.   The real question is: is that the case today?

     

    "The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775

    Originally posted by Wickersham


    I thought of this a few days ago.  One of the key ingredients to RPGs is giving the player thier own personal story; so it stands to reason that a MMORPG should allow players to tell their story to other players.  Many of the games out there do this by having unique looking gear or titles earned by doing special activities.  A few of them have the option to make your own bio which can be read by other players.  Most of these things are passive, meaning that your story is seen by anyone who is interested - sort of like reading a billboard.
    So now a few things come to my mind.
    The first would be to allow players to aggressively tell their story - Pking and anti-PKing, controlling areas with PvP, granting players special active abilites, the system announcing when a great feat has been achieved, factions, guilds, towns, professions, chat channels, etc.  Things that allow a player to show their story to other players by participating in a specific activity.
    Second, having multiple options and a great amount of flexibility and diversity so that my story is not the same as everyone elses.  If my story is the same as theirs they'll be all too familiar with my story because they themselves have lived it.  If my story is unique I may get people to become interested in it.  For example - someone sees my unique "something" and asks me about it.
    Third - our story - the story of you and I.  The collective story of our shared experience ingame.  Looking back on our adventures together - this one can not be handed off by the devs it is ours alone to build.
    As long as players get a unique adventure specific to them and they can generate public interest to tell their story or express their individual selves then MMORPGs are not single player.   The real question is: is that the case today?
     

    Nope. I have yet to meet any MMORPG player that would tell any story. Usually story is IGNORED. How many actually read the quest text? The answer is ..... not many.

    People want to hack-n-slash, get good loot, show off good loot and do some trading. The key is to make hack-n-slash fun. Some people want to solo hack-n-slash, some want to group. Satisfy both groups. People want to show off their gear ... create a webpage to let them. People want to trade & buy stuff (AH), let them.

    I see MMORPG a venue to achieve all that.

     

     

  • TatumTatum Member Posts: 1,153
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
     
     
    Nope. I have yet to meet any MMORPG player that would tell any story. Usually story is IGNORED. How many actually read the quest text? The answer is ..... not many.
    People want to hack-n-slash, get good loot, show off good loot and do some trading. The key is to make hack-n-slash fun. Some people want to solo hack-n-slash, some want to group. Satisfy both groups. People want to show off their gear ... create a webpage to let them. People want to trade & buy stuff (AH), let them.
    I see MMORPG a venue to achieve all that.
     
     



    I gotta say, once you've been there before, that recipe becomes a snooze fest.  Hack n slash is more entertaining in other genres and MMO gear is largely generic, whether people realize it or not.  It's just such a narrow focus for a genre that really has MUCH more potential.  The sooner MMO's move beyond this paint by numbers formula, the better, IMO.

  • SophistSophist Member Posts: 171

    I have read some of this post not all will admit and wont point out flaws in logic and there seems to be plenty.

    The Simple Matter of the fact is that the QWESTS themselves are ruining the "community" not to mention a narrow path structure like devs are creating these day's.

    I look at this from the view of being an OLD school UO player and things where not forced on anyone you did as you pleased. New toon trying to kill dragons So be it.(though you'd get smoked) there was no guide to the next quest area or some NPC telling you to go talk to jo shmo out in fairy land. You got in the game and there you where. A few skills in your spell book and nothing more. A brief tutorial to show how to move open bags and books and stuff but that was it. (Dont even think they had that when I started)

    And even with no quests per say in the game people would still venture out and look around and be amazed at the way the game was set up.IT WAS FUN because you didn't have anyone telling you where to go or that you HAVE to go to this guy to get skills next so on and so on. You ran into someone and didnt know something you would ask and usually end up grouping.<--community

    Now day's you run out and start doing your quest run across someone and ask a question get your answer if they had it and go on your way cause either .

    A.) The lvl difference is extreem. (note no lvl in UO)

    B.) He's on some quest nowhere near your's so you both go on your way.

    C.) They are farmers.

    D.) They are either kids or ass#@$%$ and woulden't talk in the first place.

     

    Now on top of all that they added yes I'm gonna say it "THE CHAT CHANNELS" no longer do you have any need to be near anyone to actually buy/sell/trade. It can be done in  a lot of games via mail and the such.

    So what that does is when someone wants to buy your UBER TOOL PAWNING FACE BREAKER you don't have to go anywhere you can sit in your little corner hiding behind a tree and still get it. The point is that as an example before chat windows where so wide spread people gathered to Buy/Sell/Trade. Making a marketplace for people to gather make groups and the like.(any Vet of UO will remember Brit Bank on a Saturday. :D)

    Now yes I know UO always had chat windows but nothing like cross country chats of today if you where not within ear shot of someone you did not hear it.(they even had a whisper emote that worked totaly different then todays If you whispered to someone only people one tile away would hear you.)Now thats a whisper.

    Me whispering you from the other side of the planet is not going to make me feel like we are "close" in any form of the word.

    I could prolly go on with more but I'll cut it there seeing as its smoke break time. :D

    "The most important thing is to have the design support the players in setting their own goals in both cooperative and competitive interaction with one another." - Ironore -

  • MylonMylon Member Posts: 975

    Tired old argument. Some notes from past discussions:

    *MMORPGs split players up far too much. You have severs/shards, factions, levels, classes, and other factors that prevent you from grouping with other players. I can't group with my buddy that works at the computer store because he's on a different server. I can't group with my buddy that dabbles in art because he's higher level than me. I can't group with my PnP friend because he's on the other faction.
    *Time. Games are best played for about 2 hours, from action to action. Grouping can eat up 30 minutes more of that time.

    image

Sign In or Register to comment.