The problem with this discussion is that nobody (I think) can define what MMO means. I have never seen it written down by some authority as to what MMO encompasses. Because of this, there are different schools of thought and definition. Some swear that MMO = grouping. Others swear MMO just means "lots of people."
I think until some authority (maybe Webster's Dictionary?) defines what exactly MMO means, this debate will continue on forever.
When MMOs first appeared, grouping was the norm and I can see where the "grouping" people got their MMO definition. Not everybody felt this way, though. Some spoke up and gave the negatives about having to group with others to do anything in an online game. The game makers heard this and saw another group to help increase their profits, if catered to. So the games morphed a little to entice the "many players" camp into playing. Now, the more successful games have solo-able content.
Unfortunately, I think the "must group" camp is in the minority. Witness what happens when people are given the choice of grouping or soloing. Many people do choose grouping, but more (I think) choose soloing more often than grouping. I laugh at times, for I have been asked to group with someone else and when I politely declined, got yelled at
As things stand now, these are a "preference" of gameplay, not a definition. The biggest difference I see is that one way offers choices and the other denies them. I choose the choices option.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
The problem I have with the group crowd is that they want to insist on how others play. I'm quite content with having group content in the game as well as solo content. What I'm not content with is having group play be treated special, given extra rewards, or hailed as the 'correct' way to play.
Why can't an MMO, or at least some MMOs, have two equally viable paths? If you like to group, you take path A, if you like to solo, path B. Both are challenging and ultimately, equally rewarding.
I fully support grouping being a faster way to acquire experience points and gear. There is a timesink in grouping that' is frustrating (not difficult). Getting everyone together, coordinating schedules, etc. As such, I fully agree with grouping gearing up faster. I do not agree with it having exclusive rights to gear.
If a person prefers to group to get their loot and have their fun, they should be able to. The game should allow for that. But the same applies to soloers, and it is selfish of groupers to say that the soloers should not have the same opportunity through the playstyle they most enjoy.
Some groupers would argue that if people could get their gear solo, they would never group up. Well, why?
1. They were only grouping because it was the only way to get the best loot. This is bad design. It forces people into a playstyle they don't prefer, and it often causes happy groupers to be teamed up with unhappy ones.
2. It's easier and faster. Again, bad design. Solo encounters can be made just as challenging compared to what the individual has to do in group encounters, perhaps moreso. And soloing should NOT be faster, it should take longer. It should never be chosen merely because it is the path of least resistance, it should be chosen because it offers the player the chance to progress in the playstyle they most enjoy.
If the solo path to gearing up took longer; two or three or ten times longer or whatever, it would eventually get to a point where it would not seem like the shorter path. Once that balance point is found, the grouper will choose grouping and the soloer soloing.
TL:DR; Groupers: the soloers are happy to let you have your game, please let us have ours without limiting us to second class gear.
Why can't an MMO, or at least some MMOs, have two equally viable paths? If you like to group, you take path A, if you like to solo, path B. Both are challenging and ultimately, equally rewarding.
For the simple fact that it's a multiplayer game. If you don't like interacting with other people and would prefer to work alone, then buy a single player game. Why the hell would anyone who wanted to play a game on their own buy a multiplayer game? Do you buy games like Quake Wars or Team Fortress 2 so you can play with or against computer opponents?
That's the simple fact. MMO has Multiplayer in the title for a reason, and I'm sure many will argue that it means many players in the same game world, to which I would reply 'bulls**t'. That's a description given by soloers to justify their game play style in MMO's.
MMO's are multiplayer games, if you don't like gaming with other players then find another genre, find another single player RPG. The sooner the better, then maybe we can get MMO's back to their original design instead of catering to the casual loners.
Why can't an MMO, or at least some MMOs, have two equally viable paths? If you like to group, you take path A, if you like to solo, path B. Both are challenging and ultimately, equally rewarding.
For the simple fact that it's a multiplayer game. If you don't like interacting with other people and would prefer to work alone, then buy a single player game. Why the hell would anyone who wanted to play a game on their own buy a multiplayer game? Do you buy games like Quake Wars or Team Fortress 2 so you can play with or against computer opponents?
That's the simple fact. MMO has Multiplayer in the title for a reason, and I'm sure many will argue that it means many players in the same game world, to which I would reply 'bulls**t'. That's a description given by soloers to justify their game play style in MMO's.
MMO's are multiplayer games, if you don't like gaming with other players then find another genre, find another single player RPG. The sooner the better, then maybe we can get MMO's back to their original design instead of catering to the casual loners.
So, because a game is an MMO, it can never ever have a viable solo endgame? All MMOs for all time? All because of how you define the title?
I played Wow for 4 years off and on, City of Heroes for 6, DDO for 3, and many other MMOs as well. But because I prefer to solo, I should not have enjoyed or even tried any of them? Because they were MMOs? That's silly. I paid and played and had lots of fun in many of them. And I know for certain that many others play the same way. Do you really think the developers of those games don't want those players' money because of your definition of the genre? A recent study at Bioware showed that approximately 40% of players prefer to solo most or all the time they are in MMOs. Do you feel that none of them belong there either?
Did you know that the original MMOs had no raids whatsoever? Or that they had NO (none, zero, zilch, nada) forced group quests? People still grouped and people still raided though. Why? Not because the games forced them to, but because they wanted to. Those games were still MMOs.
Many times during my playtime, I would be happily chatting with my fellow guild members. Sometimes I would offer or receive advice. I would trade or give items to others, craft and sell my goods on the auction house, or buy items that others had made. But, according to you, none of that socializing is relevent and I'm not playing the game 'properly' unless and until I join other people in group combat? Really?
At the very least, you have a very narrow opinion of what an MMO can be. Modern MMOs have proven to us they can be so much more. The acronym means MASSIVE (very large) MULTIPLAYER (lots of people) ONLINE ROLE-PLAYING Game. Do you always roleplay when you are in an MMO? No? Then aren't you also playing incorrectly? Of course not.
Of course 40% of players prefer to solo, because that's what most MMO's are now, they've become single player games with chat rooms for the simple fact that you gave - the developers want the money so make it accessible to the single player gamers. That doesn't make it a good MMO, it just makes it a single player game with multiplayer elements.
Modern MMO's are not 'so much more', they're so much less than what they could have been. Instead of incredible worlds they've become little more than fantasy versions of FPS games without the fun gameplay of FPS games. They're linear games with preset stories that everyone travels along despite being told they're 'The One', everyone running around doing their own thing, a total lack of community, a rush to get from point A to point B, solo play everywhere, poor quests, poor gameplay. They barely resemble what they started out to be.
MMO's are dying fast purely because of solo gameplay. They're not MMO's anymore, they rarely include multiplayer team based play, they're just single player games with a chat room that you have to pay monthly for. If you're happy with that, more power to you.
For the simple fact that it's a multiplayer game. If you don't like interacting with other people and would prefer to work alone, then buy a single player game. Why the hell would anyone who wanted to play a game on their own buy a multiplayer game? Do you buy games like Quake Wars or Team Fortress 2 so you can play with or against computer opponents?
That's the simple fact. MMO has Multiplayer in the title for a reason, and I'm sure many will argue that it means many players in the same game world, to which I would reply 'bulls**t'. That's a description given by soloers to justify their game play style in MMO's.
MMO's are multiplayer games, if you don't like gaming with other players then find another genre, find another single player RPG. The sooner the better, then maybe we can get MMO's back to their original design instead of catering to the casual loners.
Who says it's a multiplayer game? Yes, I do buy games like COD to play the single-player games. I don't play them online with others. I have no interest in doing so. Just because they are played primarily by those who want to play multiplayer doesn't mean that they *ONLY* are played by those who play multiplayer, otherwise the manufacturers wouldn't include single-player content.
The same is true of MMOs. MMOs, like it or not, have single-player content. This is because there are lots of people, people who are paying to play these games, want that content. If there wasn't, such content wouldn't exist.
Your argument is truly idiotic, however. It's like saying we ought to put cranks on the front of modern cars because "we can get cars back to their original design". Things change and evolve. Dedicated grouping games have largely gone extinct. Deal with it. Whining about it isn't going to change anything. Developers go where the money is and the money, like it or not, is in the hands of soloers.
Who says it's a multiplayer game? Yes, I do buy games like COD to play the single-player games. I don't play them online with others. I have no interest in doing so. Just because they are played primarily by those who want to play multiplayer doesn't mean that they *ONLY* are played by those who play multiplayer, otherwise the manufacturers wouldn't include single-player content.
The same is true of MMOs. MMOs, like it or not, have single-player content. This is because there are lots of people, people who are paying to play these games, want that content. If there wasn't, such content wouldn't exist.
Your argument is truly idiotic, however. It's like saying we ought to put cranks on the front of modern cars because "we can get cars back to their original design". Things change and evolve. Dedicated grouping games have largely gone extinct. Deal with it. Whining about it isn't going to change anything. Developers go where the money is and the money, like it or not, is in the hands of soloers.
Firstly, note I mentioned multiplayer only games Quake Wars and Team Fortress 2. We all know COD has single player, that's all I play it for too, so your comment is a bit out of place there. Secondly - whining about it? I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion board and we were making our thoughts known. I didn't realise we were trying to win an argument. If I'd realised we were talking about which one is winning then I would have 'dealt with it' long ago, of course solo play is winning because the developers are catering to that crowd. It doesn't mean it's the right path to go down though.
MMO's can be so much more than just a lame single player game with other people running around. If the developers keep expanding on the single player idea then the MMO genre will become a dead one, no more than a single player RPG with a chat room.
Firstly, note I mentioned multiplayer only games Quake Wars and Team Fortress 2. We all know COD has single player, that's all I play it for too, so your comment is a bit out of place there. Secondly - whining about it? I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion board and we were making our thoughts known. I didn't realise we were trying to win an argument. If I'd realised we were talking about which one is winning then I would have 'dealt with it' long ago, of course solo play is winning because the developers are catering to that crowd. It doesn't mean it's the right path to go down though.
MMO's can be so much more than just a lame single player game with other people running around. If the developers keep expanding on the single player idea then the MMO genre will become a dead one, no more than a single player RPG with a chat room.
You can't compare Quake Wars and TF2 to MMOs for exactly the reason you mention, they don't have solo content. MMOs do. That's why I tossed in COD, it's a much more apt analogy. What you're doing is more along the lines of complaining that people play the single-player campaign in COD when "it's a multiplayer game". Clearly, it's not. It can be played both ways, just like an MMO can.
MMOs can be so much more than just a lame multi-player game. The MMO genre has never been more popular since it went mainstream, there are more people playing MMOs, there are more MMOs in existence, than there ever were in the days when MMOs were primarily grouping games. All the evidence proves you completely wrong.
You can't compare Quake Wars and TF2 to MMOs for exactly the reason you mention, they don't have solo content. MMOs do. That's why I tossed in COD, it's a much more apt analogy. What you're doing is more along the lines of complaining that people play the single-player campaign in COD when "it's a multiplayer game". Clearly, it's not. It can be played both ways, just like an MMO can.
MMOs can be so much more than just a lame multi-player game. The MMO genre has never been more popular since it went mainstream, there are more people playing MMOs, there are more MMOs in existence, than there ever were in the days when MMOs were primarily grouping games. All the evidence proves you completely wrong.
No, I can compare them, because they are sold as Multiplayer Games. That's my point. COD is sold as a single player game with multiplayer gameplay added. MMO's are Multiplayer Games, it's right there in the title, so why is every MMO I play allowing the game to be soloed from Start to End Game? Surely that type of thing should be sold as a single player RPG? If I have no need for other people then why are they even there? I don't need other people to complete the quests, don't need them to gather materials, don't need them to craft, don't need them to do anything but interact with on a very shallow basis. And yet it's called a Multiplayer game because there are 'Multiple Players'.
The description of multiplayer has been rewritten to incorporate the gigantic cash in that the companies are making by selling single player games as MMO's, ensuring that you have to pay monthly and pay for extra cash shop items and pay pay pay.. It's insulting. Both to the genre and to the people who are so stupid that they think this is acceptable. They're the same people that applaud the addition of DLC in single player games on launch day. They bought the game but they didn't get everything, they have to pay for this gun, that suit, that level, this map and think nothing of it. They'll keep handing over their dollars.
MMO''s are more popular now because they're no longer MMO's in the traditional sense, they're expanded single player games, they stopped being MMO's and catered to the people that never originally liked them. The developers are laughing all the way to the bank, while the people who grew up with this genre shake their head and marvel at the way things have gone. When I first saw EverQuest I imagined how it could be 10-20 years on with the ever increasing computer capabilities, but now I'm there I think the games have gone backwards. The only things that got better were the graphics and sound.
MMO''s are more popular now because they're no longer MMO's in the traditional sense, they're expanded single player games, they stopped being MMO's and catered to the people that never originally liked them. The developers are laughing all the way to the bank, while the people who grew up with this genre shake their head and marvel at the way things have gone. When I first saw EverQuest I imagined how it could be 10-20 years on with the ever increasing computer capabilities, but now I'm there I think the games have gone backwards. The only things that got better were the graphics and sound.
If you don't like what they've become, stop playing them. Problem solved.
If you don't like what they've become, stop playing them. Problem solved.
I have. No problems here.
I'll keep watching and waiting though.
Same here, I don't play any MMOs, I don't like the games that are out there or, honestly, the people who play them. But I don't sit around telling people what MMOs really are, or demanding that they change. They are what they are. I decide whether or not I'll participate. If a game I like comes out, I'll play. Until then, I won't.
This discussion is getting old. In most recently released MMO's you can group all the time. Provided you create your own groups. It only gets a problem if you roll the most popular dps class nr 23789878234 that wants to tag along while others do the work. I never have problems when creating my own group, unless the MMO/server doesnt have enough population in all lvl ranges.
What also helps is trying to find some friends that join you when you are going to try a new MMO.
This discussion is getting old. In most recently released MMO's you can group all the time. Provided you create your own groups. It only gets a problem if you roll the most popular dps class nr 23789878234 that wants to tag along while others do the work. I never have problems when creating my own group, unless the MMO/server doesnt have enough population in all lvl ranges.
What also helps is trying to find some friends that join you when you are going to try a new MMO.
The problem is, the pro-groupers aren't happy that you *CAN* group, they want to force everyone to group all the time. If anyone can solo, they scream that it's a horrible, awful game.
The problem is, the pro-groupers aren't happy that you *CAN* group, they want to force everyone to group all the time. If anyone can solo, they scream that it's a horrible, awful game.
It's really about control.
Really? That was a serious post? I thought you were more rational than that.
The real problem is that grouping is never offered as a viable alternative in modern MMO's, the main focus of design is solo play. All the mobs are simple to fight alone, the quests come quickly and are usually in a continuous chain, so if you're not doing the same quest then it's even harder to find people to team with. Not that you'd need to group as in the first reason - all the mobs are simple to fight alone so why even bother getting a group?
People take the path of least resistance. It's human nature, we're inherently lazy. So if it takes 10-15 minutes to find a few people to do a quest you can do on your own anyway, and be 4 quests further down the chain in those 15 minutes, then why gather the people at all? It's pretty much common sense. The games scream at you, "DO THIS ALONE!", so people do it alone.
Saying you 'CAN' group is like saying you 'CAN' walk up 20 flights of stairs to get to the top floor rather than take the elevator. The thing is, do you want to walk up those stairs when the easy option is a button press away?
You're complaining that people are lazy, apparently grouping just isn't that much fun or more people would be doing it. It's even easier not to log on to the game at all, why are people not just doing that instead?
The problem is, the pro-groupers aren't happy that you *CAN* group, they want to force everyone to group all the time. If anyone can solo, they scream that it's a horrible, awful game.
It's really about control.
Really? That was a serious post? I thought you were more rational than that.
The real problem is that grouping is never offered as a viable alternative in modern MMO's, the main focus of design is solo play. All the mobs are simple to fight alone, the quests come quickly and are usually in a continuous chain, so if you're not doing the same quest then it's even harder to find people to team with. Not that you'd need to group as in the first reason - all the mobs are simple to fight alone so why even bother getting a group?
People take the path of least resistance. It's human nature, we're inherently lazy. So if it takes 10-15 minutes to find a few people to do a quest you can do on your own anyway, and be 4 quests further down the chain in those 15 minutes, then why gather the people at all? It's pretty much common sense. The games scream at you, "DO THIS ALONE!", so people do it alone.
Saying you 'CAN' group is like saying you 'CAN' walk up 20 flights of stairs to get to the top floor rather than take the elevator. The thing is, do you want to walk up those stairs when the easy option is a button press away?
If people really didn't want to play with someone then why force them to?
Giving them the choice of 'Group OR Solo' is superior then forcing a certain playstyle. Some people like solo and some like to play with friends. Don't see a reason why a game offering the choice and letting the players decide is a bad thing.
Sides, makes good business sense since the game now appeals to both camps.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
If people really didn't want to play with someone then why force them to?
And as I asked before, if they don't want to play with someone else, why the hell are they buying a Multiplayer Game? If you don't want to play with someone else then there are thousands of single player games to play, why does the MMO genre have to be changed to suit a playstyle that shouldn't even be there?
If people really didn't want to play with someone then why force them to?
And as I asked before, if they don't want to play with someone else, why the hell are they buying a Multiplayer Game? If you don't want to play with someone else then there are thousands of single player games to play, why does the MMO genre have to be changed to suit a playstyle that shouldn't even be there?
Does it matter why anyone is buying a product XYZ or willing to pay for a product that might not be what its intended purpose was?
You can shout 'but it isn't what a multiplayer game is!' all you want, at the end of the day a demand for a particular playstyle with choices are there and companies are just meeting that demand.
I see no reason why I should be concerned on what other people are paying for though. Hey if someone wants to pay 15 bux to play Hello Kitty Online or an MMO on their own, more power to ya.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Jpnz, you are not answering the question. Instead you seem quite happy to be oblivious. "I dont know why, and I dont care".
Most of the contemporary mmorpgs nowadays are mostly single player. Yes, you CAN group up, but hardly anybody does before endgame or the random dungeon at certain level intervals. You mostly solo your way to endgame. I wouldnt mind of SOME games where like this, but new mmos are almost always like this. You win, I loose, and you're obviously quite happy about that. You accuse us for being selfish, but why dont you have a look in the mirror, buddy.
Jpnz, you are not answering the question. Instead you seem quite happy to be oblivious. "I dont know why, and I dont care".
Most of the contemporary mmorpgs nowadays are mostly single player. Yes, you CAN group up, but hardly anybody does before endgame or the random dungeon at certain level intervals. You mostly solo your way to endgame. I wouldnt mind of SOME games where like this, but new mmos are almost always like this. You win, I loose, and you're obviously quite happy about that. You accuse us for being selfish, but why dont you have a look in the mirror, buddy.
I fail to notice why saying 'a game with CHOICES (solo or group) is popular'' is not answering the question.
Can you group in most MMOs? Yes.
Can you solo in most MMOs? Yes
There are choices and you are not penalized but rewarded if you group up. Heck even WoW gives you loot/gold/exp for group content that are superior than solo questing.
Defining what an 'MMO' is to one's opinion and forcing a certain playstyle is what I would call selfish. Why not offer both and let the player choose?
If one playstyle is popular and the other isn't, that's not the game's fault as long as the game doesn't penalize you for grouping. Which no contemporary MMORPG does.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Grouping is all well and good, but very limited before endgame. Players are at different stages of quest arcs for given areas, why would they want to group up and have to redo quests they have already done.
Grouping is far more common in sandbox games, especially in open PVP where theres strength in numbers, but in themeparks, theres just no point to it before endgame.
Forced grouping is also annoying to many casual players, who may not have online friends available whenever they play.
I wouldn't want to play a MMO where I'm limited to only running content by depending on other people.
I fail to notice why saying 'a game with CHOICES (solo or group) is popular'' is not answering the question.
Can you group in most MMOs? Yes.
Can you solo in most MMOs? Yes
There are choices and you are not penalized but rewarded if you group up. Heck even WoW gives you loot/gold/exp for group content that are superior than solo questing.
Defining what an 'MMO' is to one's opinion and forcing a certain playstyle is what I would call selfish. Why not offer both and let the player choose?
If one playstyle is popular and the other isn't, that's not the game's fault as long as the game doesn't penalize you for grouping. Which no contemporary MMORPG does.
No, but most MMOs penalize you for soloing at the endgame.
Many MMOs today put a heavy emphasis on gear. Effectively, this means that once you reach maximum level, the only appeciable way to continue to progress your character is by getting better gear. And since the majority of MMOs lock that gear away in group-only instances, the soloer's progress comes to a halt. This is what really bugs me about MMOs. They're happy to let you solo until the endgame, and then it's group up or give up any meaningful progression.
Let's say the level cap in a game is 50. Since better gear=progression at endgame, the current design says 'if you group up, you can get to level 60 (effectively)". But if you solo, reroll or seeya later.
Why can't their be meaningful soloable content at endgame?
I don't want easy, I don't want handouts, and I don't want a fasttrack. I'm content with having a solo alternative take much longer than the group path. Just make it possible. It's not that difficult. If you are a raider, you go to your instance, kill some trash mobs, fight some bosses, and maybe to get some loot (as an individual). Then, you are locked out of that instance for awhile. Why not offer the exact same thing for soloers? Only make it a non-guarantee that a sweet item will drop, only have it be a percentage chance.
This way, the grouper has a path, and the soloer has a path. Those who want to group can do so, and those who want to solo can do so. There's nothing wrong with having both methods in a game. The problem lies with groupers who say "Our way or NO way!", and then point to the MMORPG acronym as if that somehow supports their demand. I wonder if these groupers also roleplay, after all, it's in the title.
I fail to notice why saying 'a game with CHOICES (solo or group) is popular'' is not answering the question.
Can you group in most MMOs? Yes.
Can you solo in most MMOs? Yes
There are choices and you are not penalized but rewarded if you group up. Heck even WoW gives you loot/gold/exp for group content that are superior than solo questing.
Defining what an 'MMO' is to one's opinion and forcing a certain playstyle is what I would call selfish. Why not offer both and let the player choose?
If one playstyle is popular and the other isn't, that's not the game's fault as long as the game doesn't penalize you for grouping. Which no contemporary MMORPG does.
No, but most MMOs penalize you for soloing at the endgame.
The game doesnt penalise you at end game, other players do, look at the "Gearscore" debacle that WOW has become.
Many MMOs today put a heavy emphasis on gear. Effectively, this means that once you reach maximum level, the only appeciable way to continue to progress your character is by getting better gear. And since the majority of MMOs lock that gear away in group-only instances, the soloer's progress comes to a halt. This is what really bugs me about MMOs. They're happy to let you solo until the endgame, and then it's group up or give up any meaningful progression.
At end game, there is no meaningful progression anyway, you have hit level cap, maxed your skills, no its just about gear, again.
Let's say the level cap in a game is 50. Since better gear=progression at endgame, the current design says 'if you group up, you can get to level 60 (effectively)". But if you solo, reroll or seeya later.
Define "effectively", you mean more quickly?
Why can't their be meaningful soloable content at endgame?
Because you would just grind it out solo, then run out of endgame again.
I don't want easy, I don't want handouts, and I don't want a fasttrack. I'm content with having a solo alternative take much longer than the group path. Just make it possible. It's not that difficult. If you are a raider, you go to your instance, kill some trash mobs, fight some bosses, and maybe to get some loot (as an individual). Then, you are locked out of that instance for awhile. Why not offer the exact same thing for soloers? Only make it a non-guarantee that a sweet item will drop, only have it be a percentage chance.
Because then there would be no reason to group, I ran lower level dungeons Solo in WOW at max lvl to get rare mounts, there would be nothing to stop soloers just running raids over and over again to get the best gear.
This way, the grouper has a path, and the soloer has a path. Those who want to group can do so, and those who want to solo can do so. There's nothing wrong with having both methods in a game. The problem lies with groupers who say "Our way or NO way!", and then point to the MMORPG acronym as if that somehow supports their demand. I wonder if these groupers also roleplay, after all, it's in the title.
The major problem for all MMORPG's is lack of content, there are always going to be people who want it all.. now, these people gravitate toward each other to race to endgame and raid. Its an elitist club a slow levelling soloist cant get into cause there gear isnt good enough, which means they cant get into groups to get the gear..
I never raided in WOW, never wanted the best gear, because as soon as the next expansion comes out that gear I would have worked so hard to get, would be worse than a quest reward from one of the first quests in the expansion.
So I solo game mostly, or group up with a few RL friends for a chuckle.
I fail to notice why saying 'a game with CHOICES (solo or group) is popular'' is not answering the question.
Can you group in most MMOs? Yes.
Can you solo in most MMOs? Yes
There are choices and you are not penalized but rewarded if you group up. Heck even WoW gives you loot/gold/exp for group content that are superior than solo questing.
Defining what an 'MMO' is to one's opinion and forcing a certain playstyle is what I would call selfish. Why not offer both and let the player choose?
If one playstyle is popular and the other isn't, that's not the game's fault as long as the game doesn't penalize you for grouping. Which no contemporary MMORPG does.
No, but most MMOs penalize you for soloing at the endgame.
Many MMOs today put a heavy emphasis on gear. Effectively, this means that once you reach maximum level, the only appeciable way to continue to progress your character is by getting better gear. And since the majority of MMOs lock that gear away in group-only instances, the soloer's progress comes to a halt. This is what really bugs me about MMOs. They're happy to let you solo until the endgame, and then it's group up or give up any meaningful progression.
Let's say the level cap in a game is 50. Since better gear=progression at endgame, the current design says 'if you group up, you can get to level 60 (effectively)". But if you solo, reroll or seeya later.
Why can't their be meaningful soloable content at endgame?
I don't want easy, I don't want handouts, and I don't want a fasttrack. I'm content with having a solo alternative take much longer than the group path. Just make it possible. It's not that difficult. If you are a raider, you go to your instance, kill some trash mobs, fight some bosses, and maybe to get some loot (as an individual). Then, you are locked out of that instance for awhile. Why not offer the exact same thing for soloers? Only make it a non-guarantee that a sweet item will drop, only have it be a percentage chance.
This way, the grouper has a path, and the soloer has a path. Those who want to group can do so, and those who want to solo can do so. There's nothing wrong with having both methods in a game. The problem lies with groupers who say "Our way or NO way!", and then point to the MMORPG acronym as if that somehow supports their demand. I wonder if these groupers also roleplay, after all, it's in the title.
I 2nd this. Very nice post..
"I don't want easy, I don't want handouts, and I don't want a fasttrack. I'm content with having a solo alternative take much longer than the group path. Just make it possible. It's not that difficult. If you are a raider, you go to your instance, kill some trash mobs, fight some bosses, and maybe to get some loot (as an individual). Then, you are locked out of that instance for awhile. Why not offer the exact same thing for soloers? Only make it a non-guarantee that a sweet item will drop, only have it be a percentage chance. "
Love this quote too! Its how the real world works if you throw in its more expensive to the individual to solo.
Comments
The problem with this discussion is that nobody (I think) can define what MMO means. I have never seen it written down by some authority as to what MMO encompasses. Because of this, there are different schools of thought and definition. Some swear that MMO = grouping. Others swear MMO just means "lots of people."
I think until some authority (maybe Webster's Dictionary?) defines what exactly MMO means, this debate will continue on forever.
When MMOs first appeared, grouping was the norm and I can see where the "grouping" people got their MMO definition. Not everybody felt this way, though. Some spoke up and gave the negatives about having to group with others to do anything in an online game. The game makers heard this and saw another group to help increase their profits, if catered to. So the games morphed a little to entice the "many players" camp into playing. Now, the more successful games have solo-able content.
Unfortunately, I think the "must group" camp is in the minority. Witness what happens when people are given the choice of grouping or soloing. Many people do choose grouping, but more (I think) choose soloing more often than grouping. I laugh at times, for I have been asked to group with someone else and when I politely declined, got yelled at
As things stand now, these are a "preference" of gameplay, not a definition. The biggest difference I see is that one way offers choices and the other denies them. I choose the choices option.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
The problem I have with the group crowd is that they want to insist on how others play. I'm quite content with having group content in the game as well as solo content. What I'm not content with is having group play be treated special, given extra rewards, or hailed as the 'correct' way to play.
Why can't an MMO, or at least some MMOs, have two equally viable paths? If you like to group, you take path A, if you like to solo, path B. Both are challenging and ultimately, equally rewarding.
I fully support grouping being a faster way to acquire experience points and gear. There is a timesink in grouping that' is frustrating (not difficult). Getting everyone together, coordinating schedules, etc. As such, I fully agree with grouping gearing up faster. I do not agree with it having exclusive rights to gear.
If a person prefers to group to get their loot and have their fun, they should be able to. The game should allow for that. But the same applies to soloers, and it is selfish of groupers to say that the soloers should not have the same opportunity through the playstyle they most enjoy.
Some groupers would argue that if people could get their gear solo, they would never group up. Well, why?
1. They were only grouping because it was the only way to get the best loot. This is bad design. It forces people into a playstyle they don't prefer, and it often causes happy groupers to be teamed up with unhappy ones.
2. It's easier and faster. Again, bad design. Solo encounters can be made just as challenging compared to what the individual has to do in group encounters, perhaps moreso. And soloing should NOT be faster, it should take longer. It should never be chosen merely because it is the path of least resistance, it should be chosen because it offers the player the chance to progress in the playstyle they most enjoy.
If the solo path to gearing up took longer; two or three or ten times longer or whatever, it would eventually get to a point where it would not seem like the shorter path. Once that balance point is found, the grouper will choose grouping and the soloer soloing.
TL:DR; Groupers: the soloers are happy to let you have your game, please let us have ours without limiting us to second class gear.
For the simple fact that it's a multiplayer game. If you don't like interacting with other people and would prefer to work alone, then buy a single player game. Why the hell would anyone who wanted to play a game on their own buy a multiplayer game? Do you buy games like Quake Wars or Team Fortress 2 so you can play with or against computer opponents?
That's the simple fact. MMO has Multiplayer in the title for a reason, and I'm sure many will argue that it means many players in the same game world, to which I would reply 'bulls**t'. That's a description given by soloers to justify their game play style in MMO's.
MMO's are multiplayer games, if you don't like gaming with other players then find another genre, find another single player RPG. The sooner the better, then maybe we can get MMO's back to their original design instead of catering to the casual loners.
So, because a game is an MMO, it can never ever have a viable solo endgame? All MMOs for all time? All because of how you define the title?
I played Wow for 4 years off and on, City of Heroes for 6, DDO for 3, and many other MMOs as well. But because I prefer to solo, I should not have enjoyed or even tried any of them? Because they were MMOs? That's silly. I paid and played and had lots of fun in many of them. And I know for certain that many others play the same way. Do you really think the developers of those games don't want those players' money because of your definition of the genre? A recent study at Bioware showed that approximately 40% of players prefer to solo most or all the time they are in MMOs. Do you feel that none of them belong there either?
Did you know that the original MMOs had no raids whatsoever? Or that they had NO (none, zero, zilch, nada) forced group quests? People still grouped and people still raided though. Why? Not because the games forced them to, but because they wanted to. Those games were still MMOs.
Many times during my playtime, I would be happily chatting with my fellow guild members. Sometimes I would offer or receive advice. I would trade or give items to others, craft and sell my goods on the auction house, or buy items that others had made. But, according to you, none of that socializing is relevent and I'm not playing the game 'properly' unless and until I join other people in group combat? Really?
At the very least, you have a very narrow opinion of what an MMO can be. Modern MMOs have proven to us they can be so much more. The acronym means MASSIVE (very large) MULTIPLAYER (lots of people) ONLINE ROLE-PLAYING Game. Do you always roleplay when you are in an MMO? No? Then aren't you also playing incorrectly? Of course not.
Of course 40% of players prefer to solo, because that's what most MMO's are now, they've become single player games with chat rooms for the simple fact that you gave - the developers want the money so make it accessible to the single player gamers. That doesn't make it a good MMO, it just makes it a single player game with multiplayer elements.
Modern MMO's are not 'so much more', they're so much less than what they could have been. Instead of incredible worlds they've become little more than fantasy versions of FPS games without the fun gameplay of FPS games. They're linear games with preset stories that everyone travels along despite being told they're 'The One', everyone running around doing their own thing, a total lack of community, a rush to get from point A to point B, solo play everywhere, poor quests, poor gameplay. They barely resemble what they started out to be.
MMO's are dying fast purely because of solo gameplay. They're not MMO's anymore, they rarely include multiplayer team based play, they're just single player games with a chat room that you have to pay monthly for. If you're happy with that, more power to you.
Who says it's a multiplayer game? Yes, I do buy games like COD to play the single-player games. I don't play them online with others. I have no interest in doing so. Just because they are played primarily by those who want to play multiplayer doesn't mean that they *ONLY* are played by those who play multiplayer, otherwise the manufacturers wouldn't include single-player content.
The same is true of MMOs. MMOs, like it or not, have single-player content. This is because there are lots of people, people who are paying to play these games, want that content. If there wasn't, such content wouldn't exist.
Your argument is truly idiotic, however. It's like saying we ought to put cranks on the front of modern cars because "we can get cars back to their original design". Things change and evolve. Dedicated grouping games have largely gone extinct. Deal with it. Whining about it isn't going to change anything. Developers go where the money is and the money, like it or not, is in the hands of soloers.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Firstly, note I mentioned multiplayer only games Quake Wars and Team Fortress 2. We all know COD has single player, that's all I play it for too, so your comment is a bit out of place there. Secondly - whining about it? I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion board and we were making our thoughts known. I didn't realise we were trying to win an argument. If I'd realised we were talking about which one is winning then I would have 'dealt with it' long ago, of course solo play is winning because the developers are catering to that crowd. It doesn't mean it's the right path to go down though.
MMO's can be so much more than just a lame single player game with other people running around. If the developers keep expanding on the single player idea then the MMO genre will become a dead one, no more than a single player RPG with a chat room.
You can't compare Quake Wars and TF2 to MMOs for exactly the reason you mention, they don't have solo content. MMOs do. That's why I tossed in COD, it's a much more apt analogy. What you're doing is more along the lines of complaining that people play the single-player campaign in COD when "it's a multiplayer game". Clearly, it's not. It can be played both ways, just like an MMO can.
MMOs can be so much more than just a lame multi-player game. The MMO genre has never been more popular since it went mainstream, there are more people playing MMOs, there are more MMOs in existence, than there ever were in the days when MMOs were primarily grouping games. All the evidence proves you completely wrong.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
No, I can compare them, because they are sold as Multiplayer Games. That's my point. COD is sold as a single player game with multiplayer gameplay added. MMO's are Multiplayer Games, it's right there in the title, so why is every MMO I play allowing the game to be soloed from Start to End Game? Surely that type of thing should be sold as a single player RPG? If I have no need for other people then why are they even there? I don't need other people to complete the quests, don't need them to gather materials, don't need them to craft, don't need them to do anything but interact with on a very shallow basis. And yet it's called a Multiplayer game because there are 'Multiple Players'.
The description of multiplayer has been rewritten to incorporate the gigantic cash in that the companies are making by selling single player games as MMO's, ensuring that you have to pay monthly and pay for extra cash shop items and pay pay pay.. It's insulting. Both to the genre and to the people who are so stupid that they think this is acceptable. They're the same people that applaud the addition of DLC in single player games on launch day. They bought the game but they didn't get everything, they have to pay for this gun, that suit, that level, this map and think nothing of it. They'll keep handing over their dollars.
MMO''s are more popular now because they're no longer MMO's in the traditional sense, they're expanded single player games, they stopped being MMO's and catered to the people that never originally liked them. The developers are laughing all the way to the bank, while the people who grew up with this genre shake their head and marvel at the way things have gone. When I first saw EverQuest I imagined how it could be 10-20 years on with the ever increasing computer capabilities, but now I'm there I think the games have gone backwards. The only things that got better were the graphics and sound.
If you don't like what they've become, stop playing them. Problem solved.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I have. No problems here.
I'll keep watching and waiting though.
Same here, I don't play any MMOs, I don't like the games that are out there or, honestly, the people who play them. But I don't sit around telling people what MMOs really are, or demanding that they change. They are what they are. I decide whether or not I'll participate. If a game I like comes out, I'll play. Until then, I won't.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
This discussion is getting old. In most recently released MMO's you can group all the time. Provided you create your own groups. It only gets a problem if you roll the most popular dps class nr 23789878234 that wants to tag along while others do the work. I never have problems when creating my own group, unless the MMO/server doesnt have enough population in all lvl ranges.
What also helps is trying to find some friends that join you when you are going to try a new MMO.
The problem is, the pro-groupers aren't happy that you *CAN* group, they want to force everyone to group all the time. If anyone can solo, they scream that it's a horrible, awful game.
It's really about control.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Really? That was a serious post? I thought you were more rational than that.
The real problem is that grouping is never offered as a viable alternative in modern MMO's, the main focus of design is solo play. All the mobs are simple to fight alone, the quests come quickly and are usually in a continuous chain, so if you're not doing the same quest then it's even harder to find people to team with. Not that you'd need to group as in the first reason - all the mobs are simple to fight alone so why even bother getting a group?
People take the path of least resistance. It's human nature, we're inherently lazy. So if it takes 10-15 minutes to find a few people to do a quest you can do on your own anyway, and be 4 quests further down the chain in those 15 minutes, then why gather the people at all? It's pretty much common sense. The games scream at you, "DO THIS ALONE!", so people do it alone.
Saying you 'CAN' group is like saying you 'CAN' walk up 20 flights of stairs to get to the top floor rather than take the elevator. The thing is, do you want to walk up those stairs when the easy option is a button press away?
You're complaining that people are lazy, apparently grouping just isn't that much fun or more people would be doing it. It's even easier not to log on to the game at all, why are people not just doing that instead?
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
If people really didn't want to play with someone then why force them to?
Giving them the choice of 'Group OR Solo' is superior then forcing a certain playstyle. Some people like solo and some like to play with friends. Don't see a reason why a game offering the choice and letting the players decide is a bad thing.
Sides, makes good business sense since the game now appeals to both camps.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
And as I asked before, if they don't want to play with someone else, why the hell are they buying a Multiplayer Game? If you don't want to play with someone else then there are thousands of single player games to play, why does the MMO genre have to be changed to suit a playstyle that shouldn't even be there?
Does it matter why anyone is buying a product XYZ or willing to pay for a product that might not be what its intended purpose was?
You can shout 'but it isn't what a multiplayer game is!' all you want, at the end of the day a demand for a particular playstyle with choices are there and companies are just meeting that demand.
I see no reason why I should be concerned on what other people are paying for though. Hey if someone wants to pay 15 bux to play Hello Kitty Online or an MMO on their own, more power to ya.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Jpnz, you are not answering the question. Instead you seem quite happy to be oblivious. "I dont know why, and I dont care".
Most of the contemporary mmorpgs nowadays are mostly single player. Yes, you CAN group up, but hardly anybody does before endgame or the random dungeon at certain level intervals. You mostly solo your way to endgame. I wouldnt mind of SOME games where like this, but new mmos are almost always like this. You win, I loose, and you're obviously quite happy about that. You accuse us for being selfish, but why dont you have a look in the mirror, buddy.
I fail to notice why saying 'a game with CHOICES (solo or group) is popular'' is not answering the question.
Can you group in most MMOs? Yes.
Can you solo in most MMOs? Yes
There are choices and you are not penalized but rewarded if you group up. Heck even WoW gives you loot/gold/exp for group content that are superior than solo questing.
Defining what an 'MMO' is to one's opinion and forcing a certain playstyle is what I would call selfish. Why not offer both and let the player choose?
If one playstyle is popular and the other isn't, that's not the game's fault as long as the game doesn't penalize you for grouping. Which no contemporary MMORPG does.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Grouping is all well and good, but very limited before endgame. Players are at different stages of quest arcs for given areas, why would they want to group up and have to redo quests they have already done.
Grouping is far more common in sandbox games, especially in open PVP where theres strength in numbers, but in themeparks, theres just no point to it before endgame.
Forced grouping is also annoying to many casual players, who may not have online friends available whenever they play.
I wouldn't want to play a MMO where I'm limited to only running content by depending on other people.
No, but most MMOs penalize you for soloing at the endgame.
Many MMOs today put a heavy emphasis on gear. Effectively, this means that once you reach maximum level, the only appeciable way to continue to progress your character is by getting better gear. And since the majority of MMOs lock that gear away in group-only instances, the soloer's progress comes to a halt. This is what really bugs me about MMOs. They're happy to let you solo until the endgame, and then it's group up or give up any meaningful progression.
Let's say the level cap in a game is 50. Since better gear=progression at endgame, the current design says 'if you group up, you can get to level 60 (effectively)". But if you solo, reroll or seeya later.
Why can't their be meaningful soloable content at endgame?
I don't want easy, I don't want handouts, and I don't want a fasttrack. I'm content with having a solo alternative take much longer than the group path. Just make it possible. It's not that difficult. If you are a raider, you go to your instance, kill some trash mobs, fight some bosses, and maybe to get some loot (as an individual). Then, you are locked out of that instance for awhile. Why not offer the exact same thing for soloers? Only make it a non-guarantee that a sweet item will drop, only have it be a percentage chance.
This way, the grouper has a path, and the soloer has a path. Those who want to group can do so, and those who want to solo can do so. There's nothing wrong with having both methods in a game. The problem lies with groupers who say "Our way or NO way!", and then point to the MMORPG acronym as if that somehow supports their demand. I wonder if these groupers also roleplay, after all, it's in the title.
The major problem for all MMORPG's is lack of content, there are always going to be people who want it all.. now, these people gravitate toward each other to race to endgame and raid. Its an elitist club a slow levelling soloist cant get into cause there gear isnt good enough, which means they cant get into groups to get the gear..
I never raided in WOW, never wanted the best gear, because as soon as the next expansion comes out that gear I would have worked so hard to get, would be worse than a quest reward from one of the first quests in the expansion.
So I solo game mostly, or group up with a few RL friends for a chuckle.
I 2nd this. Very nice post..
"I don't want easy, I don't want handouts, and I don't want a fasttrack. I'm content with having a solo alternative take much longer than the group path. Just make it possible. It's not that difficult. If you are a raider, you go to your instance, kill some trash mobs, fight some bosses, and maybe to get some loot (as an individual). Then, you are locked out of that instance for awhile. Why not offer the exact same thing for soloers? Only make it a non-guarantee that a sweet item will drop, only have it be a percentage chance. "
Love this quote too! Its how the real world works if you throw in its more expensive to the individual to solo.