They are less social, and it's the players fault by and large. That fact is, I can't stand most of you, and prefer to solo so I don't have to deal with you lot and your smoke breaks every ten minutes, or your kids that you have to attend to, or your inexperience, or the lack of your gear, or your complaining about the lack of my gear, or stupid politics, or.....
I mean think about it...from playgrounds to lunchrooms to workplaces we've been breaking into smaller groups and socializing well before mmorpgs came along...only thing different now is that mmorpgs finally have big enough player bases that we can break into groups once again. So if we are not socializing, it's only because we ourselves have not found suitable playmates we can clique with.
You lost me at some point here. I understand that people travel in clicks, you have your friends and while you know a lot of other people, you have a certain group who you generally spend more time with. I get that.
However, in a WoW clone what you generally have is very different from that. You have a bunch of individuals, doing individual things. And that's where the problem is. It's not a problem that people can solo. It's a problem that the best way to level is to solo much of the time and that as a result of that many players never group. I'd guess the average WoW player probably solos to max level, and then suddenly realizes they are out of quests and either discovers other stuff (battlegrounds, raids, dungeon finder) or quits playing/rolls an alt.
So the problem here, is that there really isn't much reason for players to meet people until they max level. It's faster for them to quest at their own pace. And if they burn out before maxing level, they probably missed out on much of the MMO experience. If you look at a game like SWTOR, why would people group? Even if they group with someone else of the same class doing the same instance, they aren't going to get credit. So what's the point of doing it?
Players shouldn't be forced into groups. But content should be designed in a way that makes it easy for players to socialize and interact with other players, under common goals. And from there the ball is in their court. RIght now a lot of MMO content does the exact opposite. It encourages players not to group.
This is a tough question. My inclination is to say its the players fault because I have little doubt the online behavior of gamers has deteriorated over the years.
However, I also believe games were far more social back when global chats were less prevalent because it created regional social groups. Now that almost all games gave global chat, the ability to play by yourself while being in a chat room creates distance. Thats on the devs. Get rid of global chats.
I said both but slightly more responsibility falls on the shoulders of players. My reasoning is as follows:
EQ2, when it came out, differed from EQ1 in that it actually did support soloing. I am talking about waaay back when. However, most of EQ2 was about grouping up. There were only just so many soloable mobs and soloable quests. Most of the interesting content was in the dungeons or in the group quests. Crafting required reagents or materials from other crafting classes. You had to talk to other people.
Well, no more. SOE is trying to keep up with how the MMO community has been developing. Crafting was completely changed. No class requires anything from other crafters anymore and much of the newer content is soloable. Fortunately, there is still group content and dungeons, etc. And people still seem to like to group up even if it seems most people play solo.
People nowadays bash SOE for how it changed EQ2, but what they forget is that people really complained about how EQ2 originally was so there was a definite driving force for EQ2 to change.
Someone already mentioned WoW and how it has developed. DAoC too became less social.
I chalk it down to our society as a whole becoming less social, more isolated, alienated, and depressed too. I think the way MMOs are going these days is just yet another sign of the times. There are 7 billion people and we don't know how to interact with each other anymore.
These games have always attracted a fairly diverse demographic of players, and they have only gotten more diverse as the genre has expanded and become more popular. In short, there are plenty of people who are social in real life, and have no trouble meeting new people and forming relationships when they have things in common and are provided with opportunities / incentives / encouragement to do so.
So why don't we see the same kind of communities forming in modern MMORPGs that we used to see? Why don't we see people making new friends (not just playing with old friends), and why do most people solo from 1-max?
Sure, if you go out of your way, deal with some extra hassle and probably some outright roadblocks to your play, you can group in these games. But the truth is that the path of least resistance in the modern-formula MMORPG is to be as anti-social as possible...completely self-sufficient from 1-max, where meeting other people is a fundamentally subtractive experience (players pretty much HAVE to take things away from other players when they are in proximity to each other). This fundamental competition leads to players wanting to stay as far away from others as possible, and getting annoyed when others show up.
Players are encouraged by modern-formula MMORPGs to stick with their group of friends that they brought with them, staying within their guild or their group and being locked away as much as possible from the wider community with instancing. Meeting new people is almost never beneficial, and because there's really no incentive for players to be social...to be a mature and contributing member of a wider community... and really no way to penalize a player for being the opposite, players only become more anti-social the more they play. Hiding in their cliques and avoiding interaction with anyone else as much as possible.
As soon as a game comes along which actively encourages social interaction and being a part of a wider server community...a game that makes interactions with strangers a fundamentally additive experience (the game gets more fun and interesting when other people show up)...a game that provides real incentives and opportunities for interaction between players outside of their little clique (it doesn't have to REQUIRE those interactions...just make them more interesting, rewarding, and more fun than soloing)... we'll see players playing socially again. We'll see a server community that's worth being a part of, and we'll see players working to contribute and wanting to be helpful again.
People are fundamentally social. We like meeting new people and forming relationships, and that's a big part of what originally made these games meaningful and memorable. It takes a lot of specific fundamental design elements to turn people into anti-social jerks who avoid interaction at all costs...and that's what we've been conditioned to do for the last half-decade of MMORPGs, all in the name of making things "easier" and more convenient. In short, you really have to work at it to make communities as bad as the ones we typically see surrounding a modern-formula MMORPG.
Just sticking some group instances into your game, or making it easier for players to play in proximity to each other without ever interacting, does not a social game make. Bait and switching people from solo task grind to raids at max level doesn't make a game social either. It only encourages players to hide in their cliques and interact with the wider community even less. It's a "let them eat cake" sort of cop-out in design.
"We created a game where all the fundamental mechanics incentivize solo play, but hey, if you want to group up despite how painful it is, go for it...here's some nice boxed content for you."
When grouping in the path of least resistance through a game is slower, more difficult, and less rewarding than soloing...it's no surprise what people are going to do. In a game like WoW, my wife and I almost never get to play together...we're never the same level, we're never at the exact same spot on the various quest lines, and we HAVE to compete for resources of all kinds when we play together. In short, no wonder people solo.
I mean think about it...from playgrounds to lunchrooms to workplaces we've been breaking into smaller groups and socializing well before mmorpgs came along...only thing different now is that mmorpgs finally have big enough player bases that we can break into groups once again. So if we are not socializing, it's only because we ourselves have not found suitable playmates we can clique with.
You lost me at some point here. I understand that people travel in clicks, you have your friends and while you know a lot of other people, you have a certain group who you generally spend more time with. I get that.
However, in a WoW clone what you generally have is very different from that. You have a bunch of individuals, doing individual things. And that's where the problem is. It's not a problem that people can solo. It's a problem that the best way to level is to solo much of the time and that as a result of that many players never group. I'd guess the average WoW player probably solos to max level, and then suddenly realizes they are out of quests and either discovers other stuff (battlegrounds, raids, dungeon finder) or quits playing/rolls an alt.
So the problem here, is that there really isn't much reason for players to meet people until they max level. It's faster for them to quest at their own pace. And if they burn out before maxing level, they probably missed out on much of the MMO experience. If you look at a game like SWTOR, why would people group? Even if they group with someone else of the same class doing the same instance, they aren't going to get credit. So what's the point of doing it?
Players shouldn't be forced into groups. But content should be designed in a way that makes it easy for players to socialize and interact with other players, under common goals. And from there the ball is in their court. RIght now a lot of MMO content does the exact opposite. It encourages players not to group.
Yeah I think you did lose me there. My goal was not to support forced grouping but to show that people are socializing and interacting with each other, but in smaller sub groups. You and I just happen to not be a part of their sub group. I think this quote from the Matrix movies sums up well how I feel about the mindset of developers when trying to create their mmo:
The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect. It was a work of art. Flawless. Sublime. A triumph only equaled by its monumental failure. ~The Architect
And it was a huge failure because humans would never readily accept a perfect utopian world to live in. Our brains are just not wired to work in an enormous group like that. Similarly, thinking that a mmo world would not eventually reflect things in the real world when the player base has expanded from a few million players to 10s of millions of players is equally flawed in it's thinking. Players like you and me often like to project our personal experiences in these mmos as if they are common among millions when in reality it's only shared by a select few.
And when we all share a common stomping ground, like MMORPG.com, that conclusion tends to gather like-minded individuals that support that experience whether it's shared by everyone at MMORPG.com or not. But now it has the legs needed for people to run with up until the point that some realize that their country's revolt has little bearing on the world itself. Just like most of us believe the U.N. has no real power to govern the masses of the entire planet, developers have no real power over influencing something as slippery as a player's social experiences among millions of players.
The only thing they can hope happens is that they can provide even more tools that allow us to create our own social communities within their mmo world that we can flourish in whether that includes grouping, crafting, raiding, PvPing or questing. I'm not talking about housing or taverns or things like that (though it would be very nice). I'm talking about removing even more barriers from the mmo genre so even more of my social circle can maybe join me in my hobby. Whether it be offline modes that I can use to help level my friends (think glorified pets or companions), a AFK system that allows players to set their characters to a limited auto mode while they have to step away or a creation screen that allows users to input a friend's name which automatically shuttles them to the server their friend resides on.
I know the idea of these things may not sit well with a lot of you here, but I'm looking at things getting bigger before they get smaller, so to speak, in terms of social circles and improving that experience. I also like the idea of choosing a sub community upon character creation, whether that be divided by playtime, age or both. This can place players in situations they'd like to be in. Think neighborhoods to cities. And within that sub community you will always find like minded individuals to group, quest and interact with. Whether developers want to bring that idea to their games in the form of a gloified chat systems or ingame housing area. I'll leave that up to the resources available to them.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
This whole "social" arguement is a fallacious one brought forward by raiders who want a steady supply of players who are forced into grouping with them by game mechanics.
The reality is those raiders are predominantly extraverts and the soloers they are trying to force into groups are predominantly introverts. Introverts by their very nature prefer to avoid social situations, since they draw more energy from solitary pursuits. One of those pursuits they enjoy disproportionately to the general populace is the use of computers, which is why their personality trait is the predominant one in MMORPG's.
The problems begin when extraverts (raiders) try to get introverts (soloers) to group with them, and are rejected. Since they're extraverts, they have a problem understanding why someone wouldn't want to group with them, so they resort to asking questions like "why are people antisocial?", instead of just accepting that theirs isn't the only personality trait that is valid, and moving on from there.
Rift is just sample of game-design where it makes "socializing" in means of no socializing at all.
You move close to boss mob ya cant solo - if there are close some other players pop-up jumps, ya click join, you kill mob, everyone get quest update, ya click leave and tht it.
Same is with battlegrounds PvP instances - ya go to queue, join event, finish it, get ya points and leave even not told one word with ya group. This is trend.
To be honest...most people in MMOs these days, I want nothing to do with.
AoC-worst community I've ever seen...PvE servers are a bit better, though
Fallen Earth-used to be a good community, but I pretty much turn every chat off now
EVE - Not that great of a community, too many trolls and 4channers...however, I've found a couple good corps in-game. Again I turn every chat off, except corp chat
WoW - PvE servers and RP servers have a great community, PvP servers I turn chat off
Darkfall -Community made me quit the game
Ryzom, WoW PvE/RP, UO (UO used to have a horrible community at release, but its good now), SWG and LOTRO have great communities.
Typically, I've found MMOs with a heavy focus on PvP...have the most horrid communities I've seen. League of Legends is the worst of them all, but it isn't really a MMO.
Honestly, I notice MMOs and games (well FPS games aren't too bad and actually rather good community wise) that have a heavy focus on PvP...have an equally horrible community.
These days, I just turn chat off and talk in /say /trade or /guild...
I would NOT want to be forced to play with most MMO players.
(edit)
DAOC was PvP focused and had a great...no...an amazing community. Thanks to person below me for mentioning it. Not sure what or why the game made the community good, compared to other PvP based MMOs I've played.
sologame is too important in the newer games. i started mmo's with daoc release. it was totally different from the modern games. community was everything to achieve something.
ur people ur realm was important. im really sry for young players. they will probably never imagine how it feels to attack the other realm, and be able to gain a bonus for ur realm. meeting secretly with 400 other players to steal the relics. i miss that so much...
Console gamers being introduced to something that was once mostly a haven for roleplayers. No, that's not a knock on console players--just an observation early game experiences lead to two groups of players that seek their game experience from opposite ends of the spectrum.
The conscious push of game designers (beginning some time around ~2002, as far as I can remember--when the "forced grouping" complaints from EQ were at the loudest volume) to make the games much more solo-able. More me-centric than my-group centric.
I can agree with this but then I would've wanted to another option on the poll: game publishers.
Whether the game supports a free to play or subscription or whatever business model, the aim is for someone to make money. To that end one of the reasons players become me-centric is because in an mmo you're usually playing with people from all over the world in different time zones. Let's say you can't make friends or would prefer to game with someone that can't game at the same time as you? Well you're gonna have to advance in the game without them then.
Let's say that isn't the biggest reasons a player develops the me mindset. What does any game (few exceptions) have to offer any consumer that they'd want? The chance to be the "very best there ever was". It's an all out competition. You either do it by yourself, reach the finish line, get the gear, wipe out everyone in PvP, or you party/raid/group and get the chance to say "yeah I did it" but not a lot of time to wallow in the splendor of being the only one. Publishers are forced to either pester developers to add more content that is solo-able to appeal to the masses or force group/party content on them. Most publishers would choose to side with what the consumers want since their happiness tends to bring in money.
I'm not sure how to describe the impact of a crapton of sical netowrking sites/services. But as popular as MMOs are how many publishers are willing to go that extra mile and incorporate some of that technology into their forums, web pages? Not a lot. It doesn't do much to inspire "close knit" community vibes when the publisher doesn't ever real give members the chances to expeirence it all the time where ever they are.
This whole "social" arguement is a fallacious one brought forward by raiders who want a steady supply of players who are forced into grouping with them by game mechanics.
The reality is those raiders are predominantly extraverts and the soloers they are trying to force into groups are predominantly introverts. Introverts by their very nature prefer to avoid social situations, since they draw more energy from solitary pursuits. One of those pursuits they enjoy disproportionately to the general populace is the use of computers, which is why their personality trait is the predominant one in MMORPG's.
The problems begin when extraverts (raiders) try to get introverts (soloers) to group with them, and are rejected. Since they're extraverts, they have a problem understanding why someone wouldn't want to group with them, so they resort to asking questions like "why are people antisocial?", instead of just accepting that theirs isn't the only personality trait that is valid, and moving on from there.
I'm not sure if you were trying to be sarcastic with this or not.
Raiders are not extroverts. They are cliquish. They socialize amongst themselves. They shun the average player.
Raiders are like a bad caricature in an ABC After School Special...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Originally posted by Beartosser This whole "social" arguement is a fallacious one brought forward by raiders who want a steady supply of players who are forced into grouping with them by game mechanics. The reality is those raiders are predominantly extraverts and the soloers they are trying to force into groups are predominantly introverts. Introverts by their very nature prefer to avoid social situations, since they draw more energy from solitary pursuits. One of those pursuits they enjoy disproportionately to the general populace is the use of computers, which is why their personality trait is the predominant one in MMORPG's. The problems begin when extraverts (raiders) try to get introverts (soloers) to group with them, and are rejected. Since they're extraverts, they have a problem understanding why someone wouldn't want to group with them, so they resort to asking questions like "why are people antisocial?", instead of just accepting that theirs isn't the only personality trait that is valid, and moving on from there.
I'm not sure if you were trying to be sarcastic with this or not. Raiders are not extroverts. They are cliquish. They socialize amongst themselves. They shun the average player. Raiders are like a bad caricature in an ABC After School Special...
Yeah, I don't think raiders fit into the equation much.
As far as forced grouping or forced interaction, it depends on how you define 'socialization'. For people who define socialization as communication (talking), then forced grouping or forced interaction is extraneous, and has nothing to do with socialization. If you look at the broader view of 'building a society', then socialization includes forced interactions (buying and selling things on an auction house for instance).
** edit ** Also, if your definition of 'social' includes forced interaction, then it's the developers' fault. If your definition of 'social' is strictly communication or talking, then it's the players' fault.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Yeah, I don't think raiders fit into the equation much.
As far as forced grouping or forced interaction, it depends on how you define 'socialization'. For people who define socialization as communication (talking), then forced grouping or forced interaction is extraneous, and has nothing to do with socialization. If you look at the broader view of 'building a society', then socialization includes forced interactions (buying and selling things on an auction house for instance).
** edit **
Also, if your definition of 'social' includes forced interaction, then it's the developers' fault. If your definition of 'social' is strictly communication or talking, then it's the players' fault.
If the best gear available was crafted gear - a person that specialized in crafting could not gather materials as well as somebody that specialized in gathering - if there were limited areas to craft . . . etc, etc, etc . . .
...would that be called forced social interaction?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Originally posted by VirusDancer Originally posted by lizardbones
Yeah, I don't think raiders fit into the equation much.
As far as forced grouping or forced interaction, it depends on how you define 'socialization'. For people who define socialization as communication (talking), then forced grouping or forced interaction is extraneous, and has nothing to do with socialization. If you look at the broader view of 'building a society', then socialization includes forced interactions (buying and selling things on an auction house for instance).
** edit ** Also, if your definition of 'social' includes forced interaction, then it's the developers' fault. If your definition of 'social' is strictly communication or talking, then it's the players' fault.
If the best gear available was crafted gear - a person that specialized in crafting could not gather materials as well as somebody that specialized in gathering - if there were limited areas to craft . . . etc, etc, etc . . . ...would that be called forced social interaction?
If you create limits on what can be done, where the player has no choice but to interact with other players whether they want to or not, then it's a forced interaction. Raiding does indeed fit into that category as well, but I don't see raiders as driving any of the social features of games. This could be because I see 'being social' as talking and hanging out with people, not just interacting with them.
If I viewed any interaction as 'social', then raiding would be a very social activity. It doesn't seem conducive to conversations though, so I don't see it as being a very social activity.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It used to be that when I logged on to play an mmo, I had no idea what I would be doing that night. There were very few things I could do alone, and anything worth doing took quite a long time to do. So I would log on and see where friends and guildmates were going.
But nowadays there are thousands of things you can do all by yourself, or quickly with a group of random people. Goals can be set and met in one evening. Or even in an hour.
People simply don't need each other as much. Only for the biggest tasks, like raids.
It's game design, pure and simple.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
It used to be that when I logged on to play an mmo, I had no idea what I would be doing that night. There were very few things I could do alone, and anything worth doing took quite a long time to do. So I would log on and see where friends and guildmates were going.
But nowadays there are thousands of things you can do all by yourself, or quickly with a group of random people. Goals can be set and met in one evening. Or even in an hour.
People simply don't need each other as much. Only for the biggest tasks, like raids.
It's game design, pure and simple.
But it's that chicken and the egg thing for a lot of folks in the discussion here.
Did Game Design change and the Players Changed with it?
Did the Players Change and the Game Design changed with it?
Personally, I think it was a case that developers changed it a little at first to attract additional players. As those players came over, it changed more for them. Those players grew in numbers, so it changed even more. Etc, etc, etc.
Some say it was a case of the developers giving the players what they wanted...if that were the case though, they would have created new games - a new genre - and would have catered to both.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
But it's that chicken and the egg thing for a lot of folks in the discussion here.
Did Game Design change and the Players Changed with it?
Did the Players Change and the Game Design changed with it?
Personally, I think it was a case that developers changed it a little at first to attract additional players. As those players came over, it changed more for them. Those players grew in numbers, so it changed even more. Etc, etc, etc.
Some say it was a case of the developers giving the players what they wanted...if that were the case though, they would have created new games - a new genre - and would have catered to both.
I think it's entirely a case of the players changing, or more likely, a more mainstream audience came to MMOs and the MMOs had to change to appeal to that demographic. MMOs, like all businesses, exist to make money. The biggest, most lucrative market is the mainstream market. It's hardly any surprise that MMOs adapted to that market because that's where all the money is.
Comments
They are less social, and it's the players fault by and large. That fact is, I can't stand most of you, and prefer to solo so I don't have to deal with you lot and your smoke breaks every ten minutes, or your kids that you have to attend to, or your inexperience, or the lack of your gear, or your complaining about the lack of my gear, or stupid politics, or.....
You choose whether to be social, or not.
You lost me at some point here. I understand that people travel in clicks, you have your friends and while you know a lot of other people, you have a certain group who you generally spend more time with. I get that.
However, in a WoW clone what you generally have is very different from that. You have a bunch of individuals, doing individual things. And that's where the problem is. It's not a problem that people can solo. It's a problem that the best way to level is to solo much of the time and that as a result of that many players never group. I'd guess the average WoW player probably solos to max level, and then suddenly realizes they are out of quests and either discovers other stuff (battlegrounds, raids, dungeon finder) or quits playing/rolls an alt.
So the problem here, is that there really isn't much reason for players to meet people until they max level. It's faster for them to quest at their own pace. And if they burn out before maxing level, they probably missed out on much of the MMO experience. If you look at a game like SWTOR, why would people group? Even if they group with someone else of the same class doing the same instance, they aren't going to get credit. So what's the point of doing it?
Players shouldn't be forced into groups. But content should be designed in a way that makes it easy for players to socialize and interact with other players, under common goals. And from there the ball is in their court. RIght now a lot of MMO content does the exact opposite. It encourages players not to group.
https://www.therepopulation.com - Sci Fi Sandbox.
Obivously both have fed on each other to create where we are today.
This is a tough question. My inclination is to say its the players fault because I have little doubt the online behavior of gamers has deteriorated over the years.
However, I also believe games were far more social back when global chats were less prevalent because it created regional social groups. Now that almost all games gave global chat, the ability to play by yourself while being in a chat room creates distance. Thats on the devs. Get rid of global chats.
I said both but slightly more responsibility falls on the shoulders of players. My reasoning is as follows:
EQ2, when it came out, differed from EQ1 in that it actually did support soloing. I am talking about waaay back when. However, most of EQ2 was about grouping up. There were only just so many soloable mobs and soloable quests. Most of the interesting content was in the dungeons or in the group quests. Crafting required reagents or materials from other crafting classes. You had to talk to other people.
Well, no more. SOE is trying to keep up with how the MMO community has been developing. Crafting was completely changed. No class requires anything from other crafters anymore and much of the newer content is soloable. Fortunately, there is still group content and dungeons, etc. And people still seem to like to group up even if it seems most people play solo.
People nowadays bash SOE for how it changed EQ2, but what they forget is that people really complained about how EQ2 originally was so there was a definite driving force for EQ2 to change.
Someone already mentioned WoW and how it has developed. DAoC too became less social.
I chalk it down to our society as a whole becoming less social, more isolated, alienated, and depressed too. I think the way MMOs are going these days is just yet another sign of the times. There are 7 billion people and we don't know how to interact with each other anymore.
Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.
It's the game design without a doubt.
These games have always attracted a fairly diverse demographic of players, and they have only gotten more diverse as the genre has expanded and become more popular. In short, there are plenty of people who are social in real life, and have no trouble meeting new people and forming relationships when they have things in common and are provided with opportunities / incentives / encouragement to do so.
So why don't we see the same kind of communities forming in modern MMORPGs that we used to see? Why don't we see people making new friends (not just playing with old friends), and why do most people solo from 1-max?
Sure, if you go out of your way, deal with some extra hassle and probably some outright roadblocks to your play, you can group in these games. But the truth is that the path of least resistance in the modern-formula MMORPG is to be as anti-social as possible...completely self-sufficient from 1-max, where meeting other people is a fundamentally subtractive experience (players pretty much HAVE to take things away from other players when they are in proximity to each other). This fundamental competition leads to players wanting to stay as far away from others as possible, and getting annoyed when others show up.
Players are encouraged by modern-formula MMORPGs to stick with their group of friends that they brought with them, staying within their guild or their group and being locked away as much as possible from the wider community with instancing. Meeting new people is almost never beneficial, and because there's really no incentive for players to be social...to be a mature and contributing member of a wider community... and really no way to penalize a player for being the opposite, players only become more anti-social the more they play. Hiding in their cliques and avoiding interaction with anyone else as much as possible.
As soon as a game comes along which actively encourages social interaction and being a part of a wider server community...a game that makes interactions with strangers a fundamentally additive experience (the game gets more fun and interesting when other people show up)...a game that provides real incentives and opportunities for interaction between players outside of their little clique (it doesn't have to REQUIRE those interactions...just make them more interesting, rewarding, and more fun than soloing)... we'll see players playing socially again. We'll see a server community that's worth being a part of, and we'll see players working to contribute and wanting to be helpful again.
People are fundamentally social. We like meeting new people and forming relationships, and that's a big part of what originally made these games meaningful and memorable. It takes a lot of specific fundamental design elements to turn people into anti-social jerks who avoid interaction at all costs...and that's what we've been conditioned to do for the last half-decade of MMORPGs, all in the name of making things "easier" and more convenient. In short, you really have to work at it to make communities as bad as the ones we typically see surrounding a modern-formula MMORPG.
Just sticking some group instances into your game, or making it easier for players to play in proximity to each other without ever interacting, does not a social game make. Bait and switching people from solo task grind to raids at max level doesn't make a game social either. It only encourages players to hide in their cliques and interact with the wider community even less. It's a "let them eat cake" sort of cop-out in design.
"We created a game where all the fundamental mechanics incentivize solo play, but hey, if you want to group up despite how painful it is, go for it...here's some nice boxed content for you."
When grouping in the path of least resistance through a game is slower, more difficult, and less rewarding than soloing...it's no surprise what people are going to do. In a game like WoW, my wife and I almost never get to play together...we're never the same level, we're never at the exact same spot on the various quest lines, and we HAVE to compete for resources of all kinds when we play together. In short, no wonder people solo.
It is new trend,sell SP+MP(as fake MMO) game for monthly subs
seems players like that...
This.
Yeah I think you did lose me there. My goal was not to support forced grouping but to show that people are socializing and interacting with each other, but in smaller sub groups. You and I just happen to not be a part of their sub group. I think this quote from the Matrix movies sums up well how I feel about the mindset of developers when trying to create their mmo:
The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect. It was a work of art. Flawless. Sublime. A triumph only equaled by its monumental failure. ~The Architect
And it was a huge failure because humans would never readily accept a perfect utopian world to live in. Our brains are just not wired to work in an enormous group like that. Similarly, thinking that a mmo world would not eventually reflect things in the real world when the player base has expanded from a few million players to 10s of millions of players is equally flawed in it's thinking. Players like you and me often like to project our personal experiences in these mmos as if they are common among millions when in reality it's only shared by a select few.
And when we all share a common stomping ground, like MMORPG.com, that conclusion tends to gather like-minded individuals that support that experience whether it's shared by everyone at MMORPG.com or not. But now it has the legs needed for people to run with up until the point that some realize that their country's revolt has little bearing on the world itself. Just like most of us believe the U.N. has no real power to govern the masses of the entire planet, developers have no real power over influencing something as slippery as a player's social experiences among millions of players.
The only thing they can hope happens is that they can provide even more tools that allow us to create our own social communities within their mmo world that we can flourish in whether that includes grouping, crafting, raiding, PvPing or questing. I'm not talking about housing or taverns or things like that (though it would be very nice). I'm talking about removing even more barriers from the mmo genre so even more of my social circle can maybe join me in my hobby. Whether it be offline modes that I can use to help level my friends (think glorified pets or companions), a AFK system that allows players to set their characters to a limited auto mode while they have to step away or a creation screen that allows users to input a friend's name which automatically shuttles them to the server their friend resides on.
I know the idea of these things may not sit well with a lot of you here, but I'm looking at things getting bigger before they get smaller, so to speak, in terms of social circles and improving that experience. I also like the idea of choosing a sub community upon character creation, whether that be divided by playtime, age or both. This can place players in situations they'd like to be in. Think neighborhoods to cities. And within that sub community you will always find like minded individuals to group, quest and interact with. Whether developers want to bring that idea to their games in the form of a gloified chat systems or ingame housing area. I'll leave that up to the resources available to them.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
This whole "social" arguement is a fallacious one brought forward by raiders who want a steady supply of players who are forced into grouping with them by game mechanics.
The reality is those raiders are predominantly extraverts and the soloers they are trying to force into groups are predominantly introverts. Introverts by their very nature prefer to avoid social situations, since they draw more energy from solitary pursuits. One of those pursuits they enjoy disproportionately to the general populace is the use of computers, which is why their personality trait is the predominant one in MMORPG's.
The problems begin when extraverts (raiders) try to get introverts (soloers) to group with them, and are rejected. Since they're extraverts, they have a problem understanding why someone wouldn't want to group with them, so they resort to asking questions like "why are people antisocial?", instead of just accepting that theirs isn't the only personality trait that is valid, and moving on from there.
Rift is just sample of game-design where it makes "socializing" in means of no socializing at all.
You move close to boss mob ya cant solo - if there are close some other players pop-up jumps, ya click join, you kill mob, everyone get quest update, ya click leave and tht it.
Same is with battlegrounds PvP instances - ya go to queue, join event, finish it, get ya points and leave even not told one word with ya group. This is trend.
To be honest...most people in MMOs these days, I want nothing to do with.
AoC-worst community I've ever seen...PvE servers are a bit better, though
Fallen Earth-used to be a good community, but I pretty much turn every chat off now
EVE - Not that great of a community, too many trolls and 4channers...however, I've found a couple good corps in-game. Again I turn every chat off, except corp chat
WoW - PvE servers and RP servers have a great community, PvP servers I turn chat off
Darkfall -Community made me quit the game
Ryzom, WoW PvE/RP, UO (UO used to have a horrible community at release, but its good now), SWG and LOTRO have great communities.
Typically, I've found MMOs with a heavy focus on PvP...have the most horrid communities I've seen. League of Legends is the worst of them all, but it isn't really a MMO.
Honestly, I notice MMOs and games (well FPS games aren't too bad and actually rather good community wise) that have a heavy focus on PvP...have an equally horrible community.
These days, I just turn chat off and talk in /say /trade or /guild...
I would NOT want to be forced to play with most MMO players.
(edit)
DAOC was PvP focused and had a great...no...an amazing community. Thanks to person below me for mentioning it. Not sure what or why the game made the community good, compared to other PvP based MMOs I've played.
sologame is too important in the newer games. i started mmo's with daoc release. it was totally different from the modern games. community was everything to achieve something.
ur people ur realm was important. im really sry for young players. they will probably never imagine how it feels to attack the other realm, and be able to gain a bonus for ur realm. meeting secretly with 400 other players to steal the relics. i miss that so much...
I just looked at the length of my /ignore list, I really would be better suited if the game had an /allow list. Its the players.
When I said i had "time", i meant virtual time, i got no RL "time" for you.
Games simply get easier and easier and easier. To succeedm you needed communication and cooperation.
Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)
Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)
I can agree with this but then I would've wanted to another option on the poll: game publishers.
Whether the game supports a free to play or subscription or whatever business model, the aim is for someone to make money. To that end one of the reasons players become me-centric is because in an mmo you're usually playing with people from all over the world in different time zones. Let's say you can't make friends or would prefer to game with someone that can't game at the same time as you? Well you're gonna have to advance in the game without them then.
Let's say that isn't the biggest reasons a player develops the me mindset. What does any game (few exceptions) have to offer any consumer that they'd want? The chance to be the "very best there ever was". It's an all out competition. You either do it by yourself, reach the finish line, get the gear, wipe out everyone in PvP, or you party/raid/group and get the chance to say "yeah I did it" but not a lot of time to wallow in the splendor of being the only one. Publishers are forced to either pester developers to add more content that is solo-able to appeal to the masses or force group/party content on them. Most publishers would choose to side with what the consumers want since their happiness tends to bring in money.
I'm not sure how to describe the impact of a crapton of sical netowrking sites/services. But as popular as MMOs are how many publishers are willing to go that extra mile and incorporate some of that technology into their forums, web pages? Not a lot. It doesn't do much to inspire "close knit" community vibes when the publisher doesn't ever real give members the chances to expeirence it all the time where ever they are.
I'm not sure if you were trying to be sarcastic with this or not.
Raiders are not extroverts. They are cliquish. They socialize amongst themselves. They shun the average player.
Raiders are like a bad caricature in an ABC After School Special...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Yeah, I don't think raiders fit into the equation much.
As far as forced grouping or forced interaction, it depends on how you define 'socialization'. For people who define socialization as communication (talking), then forced grouping or forced interaction is extraneous, and has nothing to do with socialization. If you look at the broader view of 'building a society', then socialization includes forced interactions (buying and selling things on an auction house for instance).
** edit **
Also, if your definition of 'social' includes forced interaction, then it's the developers' fault. If your definition of 'social' is strictly communication or talking, then it's the players' fault.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If you played pre-CU SWG, you would know what game design built for a social virtual world is.
Play as your fav retro characters: cnd-online.net. My site: www.lysle.net. Blog: creatingaworld.blogspot.com.
If the best gear available was crafted gear - a person that specialized in crafting could not gather materials as well as somebody that specialized in gathering - if there were limited areas to craft . . . etc, etc, etc . . .
...would that be called forced social interaction?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
...would that be called forced social interaction?
If you create limits on what can be done, where the player has no choice but to interact with other players whether they want to or not, then it's a forced interaction. Raiding does indeed fit into that category as well, but I don't see raiders as driving any of the social features of games. This could be because I see 'being social' as talking and hanging out with people, not just interacting with them.
If I viewed any interaction as 'social', then raiding would be a very social activity. It doesn't seem conducive to conversations though, so I don't see it as being a very social activity.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It used to be that when I logged on to play an mmo, I had no idea what I would be doing that night. There were very few things I could do alone, and anything worth doing took quite a long time to do. So I would log on and see where friends and guildmates were going.
But nowadays there are thousands of things you can do all by yourself, or quickly with a group of random people. Goals can be set and met in one evening. Or even in an hour.
People simply don't need each other as much. Only for the biggest tasks, like raids.
It's game design, pure and simple.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
But it's that chicken and the egg thing for a lot of folks in the discussion here.
Did Game Design change and the Players Changed with it?
Did the Players Change and the Game Design changed with it?
Personally, I think it was a case that developers changed it a little at first to attract additional players. As those players came over, it changed more for them. Those players grew in numbers, so it changed even more. Etc, etc, etc.
Some say it was a case of the developers giving the players what they wanted...if that were the case though, they would have created new games - a new genre - and would have catered to both.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I think it's entirely a case of the players changing, or more likely, a more mainstream audience came to MMOs and the MMOs had to change to appeal to that demographic. MMOs, like all businesses, exist to make money. The biggest, most lucrative market is the mainstream market. It's hardly any surprise that MMOs adapted to that market because that's where all the money is.
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