I played soccer solo as youth as well (rigged up a horizontal trampoline and practiced shooting at it and handling the rebounds in creative ways - it was much more fun than playing with a bunch of grumpy, moody kids I couldn't relate to).
But to me, the fundemental difference is that MMOs are worlds, not sports. They have lots of people in them for us to choose whether or not to socialize with and a rich enough environment for us to invent our own goals. Ironically, the people who are most insistant that everyone needs to group up and the same people I find least interesting to be around.
I wish some people read this writer's points instead of coming to the debate ready to troll. there are various approaches I can take to commenting but I decided on these points
1) This writer is not ranting, he makes valid points and said very early on that his point is not to start some kinda flame war- but a going out on a limb and provoke some discussion.
why are people trying to control other people with aggressive trolling? In my experience people shouting loudly and being aggressive rarely convince or pursuade others
2) Fact-casual/ single players probably outnumber the niche hardcore raider types and they pay more subscription monies than hardcore it's simply the fact of preference and time poor.
this money goes to pay for more content and you have to wonder who is subsidising whom.
3) Casual/solo players are people too, they are a reflection of our society, we're not all perfect but we would like to think we don't push our views down other people's throats, in the real world, we'd like to think we have a choice as to want to be alone or be sociable. The MMORPG is a microcosm of the macrocosm.
4) I am not against hardcore endgame raiders- I am not for "dumbing down" endgame challenges, if I wanted shinies and powergaming I would play a single player game.
The decisions are made by the MMORPG company , they know that a pure endgame raiding game would not be commercial but nevertheless there is a reasonable pool of people who
A) maybe like to raid when they have free time and like the option kept open
have friends who are hardcore but would like to hang with them in game but not at the raiding level.
C) Treat the persistent world as a massive chatroom for likeminded people
I used to be a gamer that loved groups. Then, the limited time I can dedicate to gaming (1-2 hours each session and some rare occasion I cab play 4-5 hours) changed my habits.
And it's not because The 1-2 hours are not enough, but because I can't "compete" with people with endless time for games. I mean I don't have time to memorize perfectly every singe boss of every single dungeon of the game. And After 1 week the game is out I din't run all the dungeons so yes, it could be the first time I face that boss, and yes I could use some tips, if the other players have some.
The only fact tthet they kick out of groups players that admits to be in a dungeon for the first time, make me a happy soloer.
And No, I'm not a bad player just because I don't know the place.
The idea that because people are adults with real responsibilties and have more limited play time NECCESSITASTES solo-based play is a FALSE Dichotomy. Nothing about group vs solo based play dicates the time commitment required to play. What dictates time commitment is solely a property of game design AND WHAT THE PLAYER EXPECTS to DERIVE from the time they can devote to the game.
For example, I'm a father with a full time job and many responsibilties. My kid plays Miracle League Baseball... that requires about 2-3 hours time investment from me on Saturdays in the Spring & Fall. Guess, what.... Miracle League Baseball is a Group Focused activity if ever there was one. So why is Miracle League Baseball able to create a Group Based Activity that can fit into the 2-3 hours Responsible Adults have on the Weekends and MMO Designers are incapable of doing the same thing? Do I not have 2-3 hours to devote to such an activity during times when baseball is NOT being played?
Second Example .... World of Tanks is generaly played in "games" that maybe last 10-15 minutes (well withing the authors 60-90 minute self imposed gaming chunks). Guess what... World of Tanks is designed as a "Group Focused" game. Sure you can play it completely ignoring and not communicating with any of the other players on your Team (same as for any FPS based shooter, e.g. Battlefield Series)...If you do that, however, neither you nor your Team will perform very effectively against ANY opposition that does attempt to work as a Team. Just because a game doesn't have a GUI element that is labeled "Form Group"...does not mean that it is not "Group Focused". If the designers of World of Tanks can make a Group Focused game that can be played in 10-15 minute chunks...there is nothing about time limitation that neccesitates a game must be solo-focused/freindly. Q.E.D.
Third Example.... Regardless of Game Design... what is it that makes leveling/questing for an Hour solo....a qualitatevly superior use of game time then simply chatting/RP-ing/Socializing with people that happen to be about when the player logs in for that same hour. What even makes it superior then going out to an area, seeing who might be about...and joining up with them for that...with the understanding up front that you have a hard time limit that you must adhere to?
It seems to me that the author is making a value judgement that any time not devoted exclusively to leveling/questing while logged in is time waisted and not well spent.... which is perfectly fine if that's her preference .... but clearly not the same value judgement that every gamer will make for thier entertainment time. If that is truely what the author is looking to derive out of her gaming time...I wonder why a Multi-User Environment is even a neccesity... can not pretty much the same thing be derived from Single Player Environments?
Note I'm not trying to dicate anyones personal preferences or play style here. Speaking personaly.... there are times when I only have limited time commitments for gaming... but I STILL could derive more enjoyment/entertainment...from "Forced Grouping" games even within those constraints...then many "Solo Freindly" games. It's all about the time commitment that the game itself is DESIGNED around to expect from players (regardless of whether they are playing Solo or Grouped) and what exactly the player expects/enjoys about the time they can commit to a game.
One thing that I do believe is incotrovertable though....is the degree to which a game (or portions thereof) is designed for solo or group based play.... DOES effect many of the ways in which the games systems, mechanisms and content are designed.... because it is a SHARED play-space, a SHARED system...and a Shared set of resources....so trying to say that 1 persons prefered play-style does not effect anothers experience of the game just does not stand upto scrutiny.
If a game is designed to heavly support "solo-freindly" play it's going to dictate certain design decisions, emergent community behavior and resource allocation that DEFINATELY will have an effect on those who prefer to group.....trying to pretend otherwise, IMO, is just ignoring the 800 lb Guerilla sitting in the corner of the room.
The idea that because people are adults with real responsibilties and have more limited play time NECCESSITASTES solo-based play is a FALSE Dichotomy. Nothing about group vs solo based play dicates the time commitment required to play. What dictates time commitment is solely a property of game design AND WHAT THE PLAYER EXPECTS to DERIVE from the time they can devote to the game.
Your entire post was a FALSE Dichotomy...
If two people are building homes (playing a game), using the same blueprint (same game), both people end up with the SAME house built in the end.
Just because 1 person can put in 70 hours a week and the second guy can only put in 10 hours a week the home will take the same amount of hours to build in the end. 1 guy will finish sooner than the other but BOTH of them will end up with the same house.
What non-casuals are demanding is that there should be no way for a casual to be able to play the content they play...thus giving THEM a mansion and casuals a bungalow.
No company in the right mind is going to make a game that only a small portion of the playerbase can actually play...its moronic to think that somehow hardcore players should be catered to over everyone else.
What you fools should be demanding is that companies create scaled content...it really is NOT that hard to create a dungeon that scales those entering it. You LOCK the gear that people are wearing when either entering, or entering queue and label each item in the game with an item level and total up all gear being worn per character/class...level content based on gear worn.
The higher the level of the mobs, the more health, damage and the harder the skills of the bosses.
This allows EVERYONE to enjoy the content.
I will sit back and wait for the OMGBUTGEARS rant from someone that plays for loot and not for fun as an excuse to try to keep other people from enjoying the games...
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
What non-casuals are demanding is that there should be no way for a casual to be able to play the content they play...thus giving THEM a mansion and casuals a bungalow.
Really? No non-casuals are wanting their play experience not to be devauled. Put simply if a casual demands the same mansion in 10 hours that a "hardcore" put 70 hours of work into. Where is the justice in that.
Regardless of playtime it should take a casual the same amount of ingame playtime to progress as a "hardcore" but the casuals don't want that. Just because it would take them a longer period in real life due to more spread out play periods. But many developers have given in and caved into giving the casuals everything they want in a short period. This leads to a burnt out population of "hardcore" gamers. But more than that it leads to a revolving door playerbase where players quit for long periods of time between content updates, solely coming back to consume said content then to quit again. You cannot build a community in a game where noone stays long enough to have it feel like home.
Also its now to the point that the casuals are complaining yet again that things are too easy to obtain (like being unwilling to walk 5 minutes from a portal that took them halfway across the game world to a spot). Its a spiral that will turn all games a mirror of "Progress Quest". ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_Quest )
I have to agree that no matter what the case of time frame a player can place into a game weither it be hardcore (40+ hours a week, normally 8 hours a night.) or a casual player (15-20 hours a week, at 1-2 hours a night.) they both should have acccess to the same content, but that should be around the same time or progression mark. Yet neither f them should have more or less access to content over the other merely hardcore players should have the ability to gain access to the content first, while the casual players will gain access to the content once they have placed the same effort/time requirements into the game as the hardcore players. Both parties should be able to gain gear that is needed to allow them passage into the content of the game regardless of playstyle, and allowing casuals/soloers to gain access to items or content that hardcore/grouper have access/gained is not going to devalue the item. I mean as a hardcore player that got one of the frst drops or vanity items out of a raid or content for finishing it you will have ample time to be lord over other players you attained it, before casual gamers would have the chance to gain it themselves, and yet you still have the fact you gained it prior to them getting the item themselves. Your playstyle should only determine how quickly you can get into content, not what you can gain access to weither it be items or instances.
Where mmos are group content i would disagree they are not group content or even gaming, but merely entertainment with many possible ways of enjoying your free time in them, weither that be 8 hours a night or 3 hours a night. MMOs are multiplayer entertainment that has many ways of conveying a multiplayer experince, such as grouping, or just feeling like you are fighting amongst other living non-ai players as you play the game, or even playing the game while talking to those around you. All of these can be seen as multiplayer experinces as well as social too, since you are having to interact with other player either activily or passively while playing. Also alot of team or group spots/activities you do alot of actvities on a personal level to improve your contribution to the group/team. Even when you train in sports as a team you break up into a much more singular standing so that you can improve on your given area of the team/group. The best playerrs in sports in all levels of sports spend time improving how well they work with their teammates, as well as improving their personal abilities for their appointed duty in the team such as batters or pitchers spending hours personally tweaking thier methods as well as techniques. Now does it take away from the fact you are part of a team/group sport or activity, but also have the option to train or improve your personal abilities solo?
The idea that because people are adults with real responsibilties and have more limited play time NECCESSITASTES solo-based play is a FALSE Dichotomy. Nothing about group vs solo based play dicates the time commitment required to play. What dictates time commitment is solely a property of game design AND WHAT THE PLAYER EXPECTS to DERIVE from the time they can devote to the game.
Your entire post was a FALSE Dichotomy...
If two people are building homes (playing a game), using the same blueprint (same game), both people end up with the SAME house built in the end.
Just because 1 person can put in 70 hours a week and the second guy can only put in 10 hours a week the home will take the same amount of hours to build in the end. 1 guy will finish sooner than the other but BOTH of them will end up with the same house.
What non-casuals are demanding is that there should be no way for a casual to be able to play the content they play...thus giving THEM a mansion and casuals a bungalow.
No company in the right mind is going to make a game that only a small portion of the playerbase can actually play...its moronic to think that somehow hardcore players should be catered to over everyone else.
What you fools should be demanding is that companies create scaled content...it really is NOT that hard to create a dungeon that scales those entering it. You LOCK the gear that people are wearing when either entering, or entering queue and label each item in the game with an item level and total up all gear being worn per character/class...level content based on gear worn.
The higher the level of the mobs, the more health, damage and the harder the skills of the bosses.
This allows EVERYONE to enjoy the content.
I will sit back and wait for the OMGBUTGEARS rant from someone that plays for loot and not for fun as an excuse to try to keep other people from enjoying the games...
Very bad analogy.... why are you assuming the people are trying the build the SAME house?
If I only have enough resources to devote 100 man-hours to build a house....and you have 1000 man-hours worth of resources to build a house.... I'm going to look for plans for a House that I can ACTUALY COMPLETE with the resources I have availble.... they MOST DEFINATELY WILL NOT be the same set of plans for the house it's going to take you 1000 man-hours to complete.
I'm setting myself up for completely false expectations if I think I can get the same house built as you when you are spending 10 times the resources that I am.
Furtheremore..... we are NOT talking about building Houses here.... we are talking about FUN. That's what games (including MMO's are all about). People have VASTLY different tastes in what they find fun.... some-people love SCI Fi, others hate it...some people love Social Networking Games others hate them..... no product is going to be able to effectively satisfy all tastes at the same time.
The FALSE DICHOTOMY is that simply because I am an adult with some limitations on my game time, I MUST choice a "solo freindly" MMO in order to satisfy my gaming tastes. The fact is that if I don't enjoy solo-ing then it doesn't matter if I have 1 HOUR or 500 HOURS to devote to a game or whether I will be able to solo my way to level 1 ZILLION in that one hour.... I still won't have any FUN in the game. However, that's not really a problem because there is NOTHING about a "GROUP Focused" design that DICTATES the game require ANY MORE time commitment from a Player then a "SOLO Focused".....and there is nothing about Group Oriented activites within a Game that REQUIRE that much more time investment from a player then Solo based activities.
The thing is that the Game that is designed for you to have FUN as a "Solo freindly" game isn't likely going to be the same design that is going to be FUN for me as a "Group Focused" game (same thing for casual/hardcore BTW.... which is completely divorced from group/solo orientation)....because that design requires a very different core feature set.
The only REAL problem I have with solo-ers is when they think that EVERY single game released MUST be designed with thier core feature (i.e. solo freindly) set in mind. The gaming audience is absolutely large and diverse enough to support a WIDE variety of games....each one catering to gamers of different TASTES.
I also HATE it when people try to claim that just because you have limited gaming time you MUST limit yourself to solo focused games/gaming activities. Again World of Tanks is a GROUP FOCUSED game that can be played in 10-15 minute time chunks. QED.
mmos are suppose to be coop but every new games has more solo content. There are some really good single player games out there. I don't understand why soloers feel like they have to play mmorpgs. If you dont want to group just go play Skyrim. Just look at what EQ became if you think soloers are good for mmos. This author stinks and I will never read anything she writes again.
Personally I think the loot /reward design of modern games is why I rarely group anymore.
Back in Asheron's Call I used to group all the time. But there the groups were usually about fun and having a good time playing together. But rarely was any quest or boss drops worth anything beyond bragging rights or decoration. All the good gear came from random loot drops.
Since WoW came out all the good gear comes from specific bosses, which require grouping in most cases. With that came a paradigm shift from "let's group and have fun" to "you can only group with us if you have this much health, this high of equipment level and use this rotation, and God save your soul if you pull the wrong mob." Groups have ceased being fun and as such I find my own company more enjoyable.
Just my opinion, but if you want to bring back grouping, make it fun again by removing the loot connection.
Its not the solo players breaking the market its the players who sit on the forums QQing the game is to hard we should be able to solo everything and get everything we want without making an effort, and then the dev listening to them and changing the game. To those people all i can say is if the game isnt what you want it to be dont try and change it by complaining to the dev go find a new one or stay with your exsisting game there thousands of mmos out there to pick from and almost all of them have been change to the similar game due to people doing this.
Actually I feel the constant BS attacks on MMOs here, on this very site, goes counter to a good industry.
A person who has never played MMOs, and wants to investigate them by coming to this site is going to be in for a rude awakening. This site's forums isnt about what is good, or can legitimately be tuned. Instead it revolves around forum PVP, and true discussion doesnt exist. I know when TOR launched I tried to get a few threads going about gameplay.....instead they were bumped off page for the latest rant. That is simply one example.
So instead of seeing things that might interest a person, they are instead subjected to a plethora of drama. The way I see it is things are just like they were in the early days of MMOs....forced PVP in game drove of subs then, and forum PVP can drive off potential subs in the present. It is a detriment to the MMO industry.
Ask yourself this.....would you really wanna be forced to group with someone that spends their time daily ranting about a particular game....or type of game? I know I wouldnt.
Then again I suppose that is my opinion.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
mmos are suppose to be coop but every new games has more solo content. There are some really good single player games out there. I don't understand why soloers feel like they have to play mmorpgs. If you dont want to group just go play Skyrim. Just look at what EQ became if you think soloers are good for mmos. This author stinks and I will never read anything she writes again.
Let me correct you there MMOs are not about co-op play as much as they are about living, adventuring, and playing within a world that has a massive supply of players playing the game. MM are about experince the game worrld thru interacting with those other players, as well as thru the content created by the devs (or by players in some cases.), but this does not mean that you must work solely with or against the other players. Just as much as playing with a player or against another player both in pve or pvp content, you can also inteact thru rping in the world, or thru merely chating with the other players that are online in your zone or server. I have had many sessions of play in mmos where i have had long convos both privately or publicly with other players discussing thigns that happened in the game, or in the future such as patches or storylines. To me mmos should focus on making the group content worthwhile to do both reward-wise as well as difficulty-wise, but never should the group content be more populated than the solo content, but there should be either slightly less or equal amountts of grou to solo content. Just as much that it is unrealistic that you would be able to do everything in a game alone, it is equally unrealistic that everythign in the game needs a group too.
I wll say this also though if you are looking to group up or co-op so much in a game, or to make a game only co-op those already exist in vary striking quality. This is the same thign you say abotu soloers that since we like solo play so much go play a single player game, but yet group players have the same thing at their disposal in the gaming market. No thinks that a soloer might actually like being able to make friends while they play solo, then when they want to group up have a list of good players they like to form their group from, and have a enjoyable group experince. Many of those that i grouped with actually say they shy away from grouping outside fo guilds or friends to avoid hellish groups that ruin group experinces, and use soloing while chating to both gain friends that they find to chat with in the game or offline as well.
The other thing is that only for some of the players in mmos can you say have felt that the genre is being destroyed, while others very well might feel the opposite of that fact, and i could say that too much fforced grouping might ruin the genre. THe reason being that it can bring a feeling that unless you are in my group helping me and progressing with me, that all those outside of the guild or group are not worth helping or interacting with. So there is only a need to deal with or interact with those you will be groupng with or that will have an effect on your expeirnce in groups, but yet then you will see people lock their grouping to only friiends or guildmates (already happens in games.) to ensure that no onee imparts a negative experince to their grouping. Right now the incentive to group is far oout weighted by the negatives that can come of grouping with those that you do not know, and so most people only group up with friends, but we do need to have more incentives for people to feel a need to group up more. This should range from better rewards that come from grouping (but not jsut drops, or loot, but also thigns that those who do not group can not expernce.), a easier way to grom groups (to me a lfg system is not great as it takes away from socializing, but making classes need other classes to excell, as well as having multiple ways of doing content with several classes would be nnice as well.). and also difficulty that will challange players without out completely barring any players (myself i would like to viariable difficulty system for instances.).
Alright, perhaps i shouldnt have said soloers are ruining mmos. I should have said soloers ruined the fun mmos used to be. MMOs used to be challenging and every night I played there was always plenty of decent people to group with and take on those challenges. Every new mmo i try these days is 90% soloable. THERE IS NO GROUP-CENTRIC GAME ANYMORE. Don't tell me to go play a group-centric game if i don't like solo mmos if you cant name one. The closest thing is EVE and I've been playing that off and on for years. It's not like Velious era EQ or Pre-AOS UO. MMOs use to be exciting because everyone had a role to play in a group in order to succeed. Now grouping is catered to idiots who slam their heads against a keyboard and demand phat lewts. And god forbid there is a challenge in an mmo anymore because players spend so much time soloing they dont know how to play as a group. So congrats to all you soloers. You have many games to choose from, many reality television programs, and many comic book and/or robot movies to keep you all entertained. But I still have my bukake porn. Grouping at its best.
Alright, perhaps i shouldnt have said soloers are ruining mmos. I should have said soloers ruined the fun mmos used to be. MMOs used to be challenging and every night I played there was always plenty of decent people to group with and take on those challenges. Every new mmo i try these days is 90% soloable. THERE IS NO GROUP-CENTRIC GAME ANYMORE. Don't tell me to go play a group-centric game if i don't like solo mmos if you cant name one. The closest thing is EVE and I've been playing that off and on for years. It's not like Velious era EQ or Pre-AOS UO. MMOs use to be exciting because everyone had a role to play in a group in order to succeed. Now grouping is catered to idiots who slam their heads against a keyboard and demand phat lewts. And god forbid there is a challenge in an mmo anymore because players spend so much time soloing they dont know how to play as a group. So congrats to all you soloers. You have many games to choose from, many reality television programs, and many comic book and/or robot movies to keep you all entertained. But I still have my bukake porn. Grouping at its best.
A Tale in the desert is group centric last I checked.
Wurm online can be as well.
Trying to 'incentivize group play' and 'forcing group play' are two very different things.
Vast majority of people buy the 'incentivize' option. Whether that is good to you or not is your personal preference.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Enjoyed the article for the most part and tend to agree with much of what was put forward.
The bulk of the issues i see in games today harken back to the same arguments made over a decade ago when EQ and AC ruled the landscape:
The argument that self sufficience and community welfare don't mix.
My outlook is that the two can exist quite well if you offer a balanced mix of opportunities.
While WoW might get raked over the coals constantly, but the thing that made the game so popular was that it did offer both experiences in abundance in Vanilla. Sadly, they have changed the mix to the point that both are trivialized so this is no longer the case.
It's the mix of the two that make the game worth playing long term, imo.
Alright, perhaps i shouldnt have said soloers are ruining mmos. I should have said soloers ruined the fun mmos used to be. MMOs used to be challenging and every night I played there was always plenty of decent people to group with and take on those challenges. Every new mmo i try these days is 90% soloable. THERE IS NO GROUP-CENTRIC GAME ANYMORE. Don't tell me to go play a group-centric game if i don't like solo mmos if you cant name one. The closest thing is EVE and I've been playing that off and on for years. It's not like Velious era EQ or Pre-AOS UO. MMOs use to be exciting because everyone had a role to play in a group in order to succeed. Now grouping is catered to idiots who slam their heads against a keyboard and demand phat lewts. And god forbid there is a challenge in an mmo anymore because players spend so much time soloing they dont know how to play as a group. So congrats to all you soloers. You have many games to choose from, many reality television programs, and many comic book and/or robot movies to keep you all entertained. But I still have my bukake porn. Grouping at its best.
So no group centrict games? Let me see final fantasy was/is quite group centrict (it also have quite good use of classes being needed based on what tthey do and hwo well you play.). coming soon is the secret world that will have both alot of effort on group play (as well as on story progress), you also have vanguard, and i bet so many could place up many more they know or have played as well. The thing is that group centric games are not popular or saught after by the majority of the gamers. Also your attitude towards other players is most likely why you cann't get a group in mmos you play. I have no issues getting a group in mmos i play weither that be when i played back in UO and EQ days to WoW, or even in rifts or L2 even, but most peole don't pug group in mmos as it leads many time to a worse experince then if you stayed solo. I have always thought tat the difficulty in mmos has gotten quite abit worse, btu that is not becuase of soloers at all but players in general. I mean hwo much of a challenge do you think a Dev group will place into the leveling part of the game, when a good chuck of the players insist that the game does not start till end-game? This view of the mmos game spectrum as well as hwo we need to speed level to get into the actual fun part of the game (ie end game) makes it less of a desire to place anythign trully difficult in the starting r mid of the game itself. Than you add in that you are making t that players have less of a reason to practice their roles in groups till end-game, and you have players that are ill equip to do those roles, but it is not the fact that we have soloers or not in game at all. As i said it is the flow as well as speed at which we progress thru the games that trully dictates the diffiiculty/challenge of games, as you can have more time per level devoted to learning your class if it takes you months or a year to hit end-game.
Also yes the more even the mixture of soloing as well as group content the better since that will allow the soloers to be exposed to group content increasing the pool of players. The issues is the incentive you place for grouping or soloing so that one is viable, but yet not making the other side completely worthless in the process.
Alright, perhaps i shouldnt have said soloers are ruining mmos. I should have said soloers ruined the fun mmos used to be. MMOs used to be challenging and every night I played there was always plenty of decent people to group with and take on those challenges. Every new mmo i try these days is 90% soloable. THERE IS NO GROUP-CENTRIC GAME ANYMORE. Don't tell me to go play a group-centric game if i don't like solo mmos if you cant name one. The closest thing is EVE and I've been playing that off and on for years. It's not like Velious era EQ or Pre-AOS UO. MMOs use to be exciting because everyone had a role to play in a group in order to succeed. Now grouping is catered to idiots who slam their heads against a keyboard and demand phat lewts. And god forbid there is a challenge in an mmo anymore because players spend so much time soloing they dont know how to play as a group. So congrats to all you soloers. You have many games to choose from, many reality television programs, and many comic book and/or robot movies to keep you all entertained. But I still have my bukake porn. Grouping at its best.
angry much?
for me, it's not solo players who "ruined" your gaming experience. or even the fun. because what raids are made for solo players? what dungeons can be done solo? none. the whole lfg thing wasn't made for solo players, but for those power-levelling who complain they can't get any groups together for quick runs. as someone who doesn't mind playing alone in the odd game, i have to say, i always sought hard combat. always sought a good challenge. yet, i'd get sick of doing group content because, as say a level 30, i'd join a group of level 30s who'd then almost wet their pants in joy because they've found a level 80 to "run" us through. and then they'd get mad because i quit. they don't understand i WANT fun. i WANT to crawl a dungeon for five hours. i WANT to wipe now and then. i WANT that experience of FUN. but raiders in their endless search for "endgame" demand everything prior to "endgame" be so easy that they can level in an afternoon just so they can hang about in the city with their buds and show off their mounts.
grouping is overrated because the majority of groups are only interested in levelling. only interested in their piece of loot and if that doesn't drop - boom - they're out of there. and all those fellows who do that? they're in guilds. usually big guilds. solo players aren't generally in a hurry. generally not extremely well geared. they're the ones who get kicked out of groups when you find the level 80 guy to run you through.
i rubbish your claim that it's solo players who want the phat lewts, because solo players more often than not don't even bother to do dungeons or raids because they're not interested in hanging out with you.
and, if you bother to read your own elitist arrogant post, perhaps you might see why.
these days i prefer playing the game with my wife. we kill things together in a group of our own. we do a lot of pvp, because it's a great group sport that doesn't require me to join a guild and endure snobs like you. instead, i can own you on the battlefield where all your snobby elitist gear means squat.
Agree almost completely with the article but think these is more that could be added. For some people (and I know I am not the only one because I have talked to a few others) there are times when we really NEED to solo because we are in the middle of a low mood/depressive episode (and again I know there quite a few - understatement - gamers with depression) : when that happens its not just we don't WANT to group/chat, we CAN'T. But solo gaming is great therapy and I need it. Other times, when I am well, I love to group/chat : I don't really care what this makes me, it is just how I approach my gaming.
Now having experimented a bit I realise some games are much socially-based than others : Runescape is an example, sure you can solo, but you are going to get a hell of a lot more out of the game if you not only group but chat and makes friends as well. When I went through a bad patch I had to quit because I just couldn't do this any more.
It may be that it is impossible to design a game which is equally good for solo/group people but does that really matter with the plethora of choice available?
Finally the presumption that runs through a great deal of the comment is that MMO's have indeed been 'ruined'. If you really believe that then I wonder that you are still on an MMO forum or playing any games. But I suppose all communities will always have their share of 'it wasn't like that when I was young' (hell at 55 I find myself saying it sometimes about other things ).
Alright, perhaps i shouldnt have said soloers are ruining mmos. I should have said soloers ruined the fun mmos used to be. MMOs used to be challenging and every night I played there was always plenty of decent people to group with and take on those challenges. Every new mmo i try these days is 90% soloable. THERE IS NO GROUP-CENTRIC GAME ANYMORE. Don't tell me to go play a group-centric game if i don't like solo mmos if you cant name one. The closest thing is EVE and I've been playing that off and on for years. It's not like Velious era EQ or Pre-AOS UO. MMOs use to be exciting because everyone had a role to play in a group in order to succeed. Now grouping is catered to idiots who slam their heads against a keyboard and demand phat lewts. And god forbid there is a challenge in an mmo anymore because players spend so much time soloing they dont know how to play as a group. So congrats to all you soloers. You have many games to choose from, many reality television programs, and many comic book and/or robot movies to keep you all entertained. But I still have my bukake porn. Grouping at its best.
angry much?
for me, it's not solo players who "ruined" your gaming experience. or even the fun. because what raids are made for solo players? what dungeons can be done solo? none. the whole lfg thing wasn't made for solo players, but for those power-levelling who complain they can't get any groups together for quick runs. as someone who doesn't mind playing alone in the odd game, i have to say, i always sought hard combat. always sought a good challenge. yet, i'd get sick of doing group content because, as say a level 30, i'd join a group of level 30s who'd then almost wet their pants in joy because they've found a level 80 to "run" us through. and then they'd get mad because i quit. they don't understand i WANT fun. i WANT to crawl a dungeon for five hours. i WANT to wipe now and then. i WANT that experience of FUN. but raiders in their endless search for "endgame" demand everything prior to "endgame" be so easy that they can level in an afternoon just so they can hang about in the city with their buds and show off their mounts.
grouping is overrated because the majority of groups are only interested in levelling. only interested in their piece of loot and if that doesn't drop - boom - they're out of there. and all those fellows who do that? they're in guilds. usually big guilds. solo players aren't generally in a hurry. generally not extremely well geared. they're the ones who get kicked out of groups when you find the level 80 guy to run you through.
i rubbish your claim that it's solo players who want the phat lewts, because solo players more often than not don't even bother to do dungeons or raids because they're not interested in hanging out with you.
and, if you bother to read your own elitist arrogant post, perhaps you might see why.
these days i prefer playing the game with my wife. we kill things together in a group of our own. we do a lot of pvp, because it's a great group sport that doesn't require me to join a guild and endure snobs like you. instead, i can own you on the battlefield where all your snobby elitist gear means squat.
and THAT, my boy, is fun.
Since you left that group when a level 80 entered, I cheer you..and here is how I see this..
In your own post you are actually naming the "reason" or one of them why the solo and loot mentality of todays games destroys the MMO's and challanges within..Wanting a lvl 80 for a group so that the group can run trough it with ease is for me equal "You are still soloing" and you are not playing the game, you try to get your hands on stuff that is off limits unless you get a proper group..
Grouping such as this..Is never grouping, It's cheating or the very least exploiting a poor system.
But I also claim that phat loot and solo mentality walk hand in hand..Sure there are soloplayers that are "real lone wolfs" and "really" wants to be alone, but these guys woudn't enter this group above either. Many players wants the easiest path to the LOOT and the EASIEST path to highest level, playing the game as it was ment to be played takes to much of their time, yet they still want the lewt..So they cheat
When my kids (11 years) type in the code "motherlode" in The Sims for unlimited money, they stopped playing the game as it was ment to be played, just like the kids who wants to have a level 80 to run their dungeon for them..
I would think the Phat loot and raider mentality is where the problem is. They want their raid to be the easiest to the abuse and elitest snobbery of others. If you do not know the raid because it is your first time you are out. Why, because you will make the run hard and that takes more time. Raiders want it fast and easy. If they can cheat to get it done they will. Raiders are what destroyed games not solo'ers.
I would think the Phat loot and raider mentality is where the problem is. They want their raid to be the easiest to the abuse and elitest snobbery of others. If you do not know the raid because it is your first time you are out. Why, because you will make the run hard and that takes more time. Raiders want it fast and easy. If they can cheat to get it done they will. Raiders are what destroyed games not solo'ers.
Look..A raid is only a group..But a bigger group..It's the same for both groups and raids..Some players ..many ..Wants the easisest way to obtain the phat loowt..Since raiding is usually a little more difficult, then its also more common..thats all..
It's cheating..If you use a guide, a map, or use players of higher level , it's still cheating..In a raid it's diffrent thou , you have one guy that has read all the guides and loopholes and tells everyone how they are suppose to do it the easiest way , so he can play the almighty hero after...:)
Not saying that last part doesnt require some sort of skill thou, but it's still cheating , for the most part..
Heh , I was probably playing MMO's while you were still in diapers , and from where we come from , MMO's was all about teamwork , no Soloing BS. If your able to solo to max level with elite gear , then the MMO is a complete failure. It might of been a blast as a standalone console / PC game.
The point is what exactly does it mean to play in a MMO nowadays? Honestly , besides for a few MMO's still running that encourage team work , the rest of the genre is complete trash. It's funny how people always cry because there aren't enough mobs in certain areas , of course because you got lame soloers hogging the whole area like selfish pricks instead of grouping up.
Seriously , if I wanted to solo I'd go play a game like Skyrim where I can do what the hell I want without anyone screwing my fun. If I want some fun teamwork "pew pew" I'd log on EVE-Online and roam for hours.
MMO's are meant for teamwork , not soloing , if your able to solo the whole content of the game , chances are the game is heavy on RMT's / BOT's so your accomplishments means nada. So you maxed SWTOR in under a week? Cool story bro , 95% of the server is maxed.
Anyways , I enjoy seeing soloers in a MMO , more fun for me and my buds to screw around with until they log off.
I would think the Phat loot and raider mentality is where the problem is. They want their raid to be the easiest to the abuse and elitest snobbery of others. If you do not know the raid because it is your first time you are out. Why, because you will make the run hard and that takes more time. Raiders want it fast and easy. If they can cheat to get it done they will. Raiders are what destroyed games not solo'ers.
Look..A raid is only a group..But a bigger group..It's the same for both groups and raids..Some players ..many ..Wants the easisest way to obtain the phat loowt..Since raiding is usually a little more difficult, then its also more common..thats all..
It's cheating..If you use a guide, a map, or use players of higher level , it's still cheating..In a raid it's diffrent thou , you have one guy that has read all the guides and loopholes and tells everyone how they are suppose to do it the easiest way , so he can play the almighty hero after...:)
Not saying that last part doesnt require some sort of skill thou, but it's still cheating , for the most part..
Raiding was dumbed down and these elitist loot whores you speak of only started appearing in quantities AFTER mmos began catering to soloers. I had many fun and challenging groups in low and mid levels in the older games. People solo to the level cap, join a raid guild, and start acting like dicks. In EQ you couldnt do that or you would never be invited to an end game raid.
Raiding was dumbed down and these elitist loot whores you speak of only started appearing in quantities AFTER mmos began catering to soloers. I had many fun and challenging groups in low and mid levels in the older games. People solo to the level cap, join a raid guild, and start acting like dicks. In EQ you couldnt do that or you would never be invited to an end game raid.
If they were catering to soloers then there would be no raids just solo-able end game stuff. I think you are looking for a crutch for the fact that groupers like in EQ are about 1 in 100 of current players. The other 99 are where the money is and they do not want the crap that was EQ raiding. Solo'ers ingeneral do not want easy they want stuff with reasonable time expectancies. Games companies understand this and now are trying to find a balance for time vs difficulty. Group advocaters assume that if something does not take hours it is easy. People want to log in and feel like if they do something for an hour there is some result. Groupers seem to want a social chat room with occassional gaming. Solo'ers want gaming with occassional social chat room.
Comments
I played soccer solo as youth as well (rigged up a horizontal trampoline and practiced shooting at it and handling the rebounds in creative ways - it was much more fun than playing with a bunch of grumpy, moody kids I couldn't relate to).
But to me, the fundemental difference is that MMOs are worlds, not sports. They have lots of people in them for us to choose whether or not to socialize with and a rich enough environment for us to invent our own goals. Ironically, the people who are most insistant that everyone needs to group up and the same people I find least interesting to be around.
I wish some people read this writer's points instead of coming to the debate ready to troll. there are various approaches I can take to commenting but I decided on these points
1) This writer is not ranting, he makes valid points and said very early on that his point is not to start some kinda flame war- but a going out on a limb and provoke some discussion.
why are people trying to control other people with aggressive trolling? In my experience people shouting loudly and being aggressive rarely convince or pursuade others
2) Fact-casual/ single players probably outnumber the niche hardcore raider types and they pay more subscription monies than hardcore it's simply the fact of preference and time poor.
this money goes to pay for more content and you have to wonder who is subsidising whom.
3) Casual/solo players are people too, they are a reflection of our society, we're not all perfect but we would like to think we don't push our views down other people's throats, in the real world, we'd like to think we have a choice as to want to be alone or be sociable. The MMORPG is a microcosm of the macrocosm.
4) I am not against hardcore endgame raiders- I am not for "dumbing down" endgame challenges, if I wanted shinies and powergaming I would play a single player game.
The decisions are made by the MMORPG company , they know that a pure endgame raiding game would not be commercial but nevertheless there is a reasonable pool of people who
A) maybe like to raid when they have free time and like the option kept open
C) Treat the persistent world as a massive chatroom for likeminded people
I used to be a gamer that loved groups. Then, the limited time I can dedicate to gaming (1-2 hours each session and some rare occasion I cab play 4-5 hours) changed my habits.
And it's not because The 1-2 hours are not enough, but because I can't "compete" with people with endless time for games. I mean I don't have time to memorize perfectly every singe boss of every single dungeon of the game. And After 1 week the game is out I din't run all the dungeons so yes, it could be the first time I face that boss, and yes I could use some tips, if the other players have some.
The only fact tthet they kick out of groups players that admits to be in a dungeon for the first time, make me a happy soloer.
And No, I'm not a bad player just because I don't know the place.
Soloers never destoryed MMOs, they built them.
Soloers were the ones that embraced MMOs and made them into the giant Billion dollar industry that we have today.
Nothing wrong with that.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Some more responses.....
The idea that because people are adults with real responsibilties and have more limited play time NECCESSITASTES solo-based play is a FALSE Dichotomy. Nothing about group vs solo based play dicates the time commitment required to play. What dictates time commitment is solely a property of game design AND WHAT THE PLAYER EXPECTS to DERIVE from the time they can devote to the game.
For example, I'm a father with a full time job and many responsibilties. My kid plays Miracle League Baseball... that requires about 2-3 hours time investment from me on Saturdays in the Spring & Fall. Guess, what.... Miracle League Baseball is a Group Focused activity if ever there was one. So why is Miracle League Baseball able to create a Group Based Activity that can fit into the 2-3 hours Responsible Adults have on the Weekends and MMO Designers are incapable of doing the same thing? Do I not have 2-3 hours to devote to such an activity during times when baseball is NOT being played?
Second Example .... World of Tanks is generaly played in "games" that maybe last 10-15 minutes (well withing the authors 60-90 minute self imposed gaming chunks). Guess what... World of Tanks is designed as a "Group Focused" game. Sure you can play it completely ignoring and not communicating with any of the other players on your Team (same as for any FPS based shooter, e.g. Battlefield Series)...If you do that, however, neither you nor your Team will perform very effectively against ANY opposition that does attempt to work as a Team. Just because a game doesn't have a GUI element that is labeled "Form Group"...does not mean that it is not "Group Focused". If the designers of World of Tanks can make a Group Focused game that can be played in 10-15 minute chunks...there is nothing about time limitation that neccesitates a game must be solo-focused/freindly. Q.E.D.
Third Example.... Regardless of Game Design... what is it that makes leveling/questing for an Hour solo....a qualitatevly superior use of game time then simply chatting/RP-ing/Socializing with people that happen to be about when the player logs in for that same hour. What even makes it superior then going out to an area, seeing who might be about...and joining up with them for that...with the understanding up front that you have a hard time limit that you must adhere to?
It seems to me that the author is making a value judgement that any time not devoted exclusively to leveling/questing while logged in is time waisted and not well spent.... which is perfectly fine if that's her preference .... but clearly not the same value judgement that every gamer will make for thier entertainment time. If that is truely what the author is looking to derive out of her gaming time...I wonder why a Multi-User Environment is even a neccesity... can not pretty much the same thing be derived from Single Player Environments?
Note I'm not trying to dicate anyones personal preferences or play style here. Speaking personaly.... there are times when I only have limited time commitments for gaming... but I STILL could derive more enjoyment/entertainment...from "Forced Grouping" games even within those constraints...then many "Solo Freindly" games. It's all about the time commitment that the game itself is DESIGNED around to expect from players (regardless of whether they are playing Solo or Grouped) and what exactly the player expects/enjoys about the time they can commit to a game.
One thing that I do believe is incotrovertable though....is the degree to which a game (or portions thereof) is designed for solo or group based play.... DOES effect many of the ways in which the games systems, mechanisms and content are designed.... because it is a SHARED play-space, a SHARED system...and a Shared set of resources....so trying to say that 1 persons prefered play-style does not effect anothers experience of the game just does not stand upto scrutiny.
If a game is designed to heavly support "solo-freindly" play it's going to dictate certain design decisions, emergent community behavior and resource allocation that DEFINATELY will have an effect on those who prefer to group.....trying to pretend otherwise, IMO, is just ignoring the 800 lb Guerilla sitting in the corner of the room.
Your entire post was a FALSE Dichotomy...
If two people are building homes (playing a game), using the same blueprint (same game), both people end up with the SAME house built in the end.
Just because 1 person can put in 70 hours a week and the second guy can only put in 10 hours a week the home will take the same amount of hours to build in the end. 1 guy will finish sooner than the other but BOTH of them will end up with the same house.
What non-casuals are demanding is that there should be no way for a casual to be able to play the content they play...thus giving THEM a mansion and casuals a bungalow.
No company in the right mind is going to make a game that only a small portion of the playerbase can actually play...its moronic to think that somehow hardcore players should be catered to over everyone else.
What you fools should be demanding is that companies create scaled content...it really is NOT that hard to create a dungeon that scales those entering it. You LOCK the gear that people are wearing when either entering, or entering queue and label each item in the game with an item level and total up all gear being worn per character/class...level content based on gear worn.
The higher the level of the mobs, the more health, damage and the harder the skills of the bosses.
This allows EVERYONE to enjoy the content.
I will sit back and wait for the OMGBUTGEARS rant from someone that plays for loot and not for fun as an excuse to try to keep other people from enjoying the games...
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Really? No non-casuals are wanting their play experience not to be devauled. Put simply if a casual demands the same mansion in 10 hours that a "hardcore" put 70 hours of work into. Where is the justice in that.
Regardless of playtime it should take a casual the same amount of ingame playtime to progress as a "hardcore" but the casuals don't want that. Just because it would take them a longer period in real life due to more spread out play periods. But many developers have given in and caved into giving the casuals everything they want in a short period. This leads to a burnt out population of "hardcore" gamers. But more than that it leads to a revolving door playerbase where players quit for long periods of time between content updates, solely coming back to consume said content then to quit again. You cannot build a community in a game where noone stays long enough to have it feel like home.
Also its now to the point that the casuals are complaining yet again that things are too easy to obtain (like being unwilling to walk 5 minutes from a portal that took them halfway across the game world to a spot). Its a spiral that will turn all games a mirror of "Progress Quest". ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_Quest )
I have to agree that no matter what the case of time frame a player can place into a game weither it be hardcore (40+ hours a week, normally 8 hours a night.) or a casual player (15-20 hours a week, at 1-2 hours a night.) they both should have acccess to the same content, but that should be around the same time or progression mark. Yet neither f them should have more or less access to content over the other merely hardcore players should have the ability to gain access to the content first, while the casual players will gain access to the content once they have placed the same effort/time requirements into the game as the hardcore players. Both parties should be able to gain gear that is needed to allow them passage into the content of the game regardless of playstyle, and allowing casuals/soloers to gain access to items or content that hardcore/grouper have access/gained is not going to devalue the item. I mean as a hardcore player that got one of the frst drops or vanity items out of a raid or content for finishing it you will have ample time to be lord over other players you attained it, before casual gamers would have the chance to gain it themselves, and yet you still have the fact you gained it prior to them getting the item themselves. Your playstyle should only determine how quickly you can get into content, not what you can gain access to weither it be items or instances.
Where mmos are group content i would disagree they are not group content or even gaming, but merely entertainment with many possible ways of enjoying your free time in them, weither that be 8 hours a night or 3 hours a night. MMOs are multiplayer entertainment that has many ways of conveying a multiplayer experince, such as grouping, or just feeling like you are fighting amongst other living non-ai players as you play the game, or even playing the game while talking to those around you. All of these can be seen as multiplayer experinces as well as social too, since you are having to interact with other player either activily or passively while playing. Also alot of team or group spots/activities you do alot of actvities on a personal level to improve your contribution to the group/team. Even when you train in sports as a team you break up into a much more singular standing so that you can improve on your given area of the team/group. The best playerrs in sports in all levels of sports spend time improving how well they work with their teammates, as well as improving their personal abilities for their appointed duty in the team such as batters or pitchers spending hours personally tweaking thier methods as well as techniques. Now does it take away from the fact you are part of a team/group sport or activity, but also have the option to train or improve your personal abilities solo?
Very bad analogy.... why are you assuming the people are trying the build the SAME house?
If I only have enough resources to devote 100 man-hours to build a house....and you have 1000 man-hours worth of resources to build a house.... I'm going to look for plans for a House that I can ACTUALY COMPLETE with the resources I have availble.... they MOST DEFINATELY WILL NOT be the same set of plans for the house it's going to take you 1000 man-hours to complete.
I'm setting myself up for completely false expectations if I think I can get the same house built as you when you are spending 10 times the resources that I am.
Furtheremore..... we are NOT talking about building Houses here.... we are talking about FUN. That's what games (including MMO's are all about). People have VASTLY different tastes in what they find fun.... some-people love SCI Fi, others hate it...some people love Social Networking Games others hate them..... no product is going to be able to effectively satisfy all tastes at the same time.
The FALSE DICHOTOMY is that simply because I am an adult with some limitations on my game time, I MUST choice a "solo freindly" MMO in order to satisfy my gaming tastes. The fact is that if I don't enjoy solo-ing then it doesn't matter if I have 1 HOUR or 500 HOURS to devote to a game or whether I will be able to solo my way to level 1 ZILLION in that one hour.... I still won't have any FUN in the game. However, that's not really a problem because there is NOTHING about a "GROUP Focused" design that DICTATES the game require ANY MORE time commitment from a Player then a "SOLO Focused".....and there is nothing about Group Oriented activites within a Game that REQUIRE that much more time investment from a player then Solo based activities.
The thing is that the Game that is designed for you to have FUN as a "Solo freindly" game isn't likely going to be the same design that is going to be FUN for me as a "Group Focused" game (same thing for casual/hardcore BTW.... which is completely divorced from group/solo orientation)....because that design requires a very different core feature set.
The only REAL problem I have with solo-ers is when they think that EVERY single game released MUST be designed with thier core feature (i.e. solo freindly) set in mind. The gaming audience is absolutely large and diverse enough to support a WIDE variety of games....each one catering to gamers of different TASTES.
I also HATE it when people try to claim that just because you have limited gaming time you MUST limit yourself to solo focused games/gaming activities. Again World of Tanks is a GROUP FOCUSED game that can be played in 10-15 minute time chunks. QED.
mmos are suppose to be coop but every new games has more solo content. There are some really good single player games out there. I don't understand why soloers feel like they have to play mmorpgs. If you dont want to group just go play Skyrim. Just look at what EQ became if you think soloers are good for mmos. This author stinks and I will never read anything she writes again.
This.
Actually I feel the constant BS attacks on MMOs here, on this very site, goes counter to a good industry.
A person who has never played MMOs, and wants to investigate them by coming to this site is going to be in for a rude awakening. This site's forums isnt about what is good, or can legitimately be tuned. Instead it revolves around forum PVP, and true discussion doesnt exist. I know when TOR launched I tried to get a few threads going about gameplay.....instead they were bumped off page for the latest rant. That is simply one example.
So instead of seeing things that might interest a person, they are instead subjected to a plethora of drama. The way I see it is things are just like they were in the early days of MMOs....forced PVP in game drove of subs then, and forum PVP can drive off potential subs in the present. It is a detriment to the MMO industry.
Ask yourself this.....would you really wanna be forced to group with someone that spends their time daily ranting about a particular game....or type of game? I know I wouldnt.
Then again I suppose that is my opinion.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Let me correct you there MMOs are not about co-op play as much as they are about living, adventuring, and playing within a world that has a massive supply of players playing the game. MM are about experince the game worrld thru interacting with those other players, as well as thru the content created by the devs (or by players in some cases.), but this does not mean that you must work solely with or against the other players. Just as much as playing with a player or against another player both in pve or pvp content, you can also inteact thru rping in the world, or thru merely chating with the other players that are online in your zone or server. I have had many sessions of play in mmos where i have had long convos both privately or publicly with other players discussing thigns that happened in the game, or in the future such as patches or storylines. To me mmos should focus on making the group content worthwhile to do both reward-wise as well as difficulty-wise, but never should the group content be more populated than the solo content, but there should be either slightly less or equal amountts of grou to solo content. Just as much that it is unrealistic that you would be able to do everything in a game alone, it is equally unrealistic that everythign in the game needs a group too.
I wll say this also though if you are looking to group up or co-op so much in a game, or to make a game only co-op those already exist in vary striking quality. This is the same thign you say abotu soloers that since we like solo play so much go play a single player game, but yet group players have the same thing at their disposal in the gaming market. No thinks that a soloer might actually like being able to make friends while they play solo, then when they want to group up have a list of good players they like to form their group from, and have a enjoyable group experince. Many of those that i grouped with actually say they shy away from grouping outside fo guilds or friends to avoid hellish groups that ruin group experinces, and use soloing while chating to both gain friends that they find to chat with in the game or offline as well.
The other thing is that only for some of the players in mmos can you say have felt that the genre is being destroyed, while others very well might feel the opposite of that fact, and i could say that too much fforced grouping might ruin the genre. THe reason being that it can bring a feeling that unless you are in my group helping me and progressing with me, that all those outside of the guild or group are not worth helping or interacting with. So there is only a need to deal with or interact with those you will be groupng with or that will have an effect on your expeirnce in groups, but yet then you will see people lock their grouping to only friiends or guildmates (already happens in games.) to ensure that no onee imparts a negative experince to their grouping. Right now the incentive to group is far oout weighted by the negatives that can come of grouping with those that you do not know, and so most people only group up with friends, but we do need to have more incentives for people to feel a need to group up more. This should range from better rewards that come from grouping (but not jsut drops, or loot, but also thigns that those who do not group can not expernce.), a easier way to grom groups (to me a lfg system is not great as it takes away from socializing, but making classes need other classes to excell, as well as having multiple ways of doing content with several classes would be nnice as well.). and also difficulty that will challange players without out completely barring any players (myself i would like to viariable difficulty system for instances.).
Alright, perhaps i shouldnt have said soloers are ruining mmos. I should have said soloers ruined the fun mmos used to be. MMOs used to be challenging and every night I played there was always plenty of decent people to group with and take on those challenges. Every new mmo i try these days is 90% soloable. THERE IS NO GROUP-CENTRIC GAME ANYMORE. Don't tell me to go play a group-centric game if i don't like solo mmos if you cant name one. The closest thing is EVE and I've been playing that off and on for years. It's not like Velious era EQ or Pre-AOS UO. MMOs use to be exciting because everyone had a role to play in a group in order to succeed. Now grouping is catered to idiots who slam their heads against a keyboard and demand phat lewts. And god forbid there is a challenge in an mmo anymore because players spend so much time soloing they dont know how to play as a group. So congrats to all you soloers. You have many games to choose from, many reality television programs, and many comic book and/or robot movies to keep you all entertained. But I still have my bukake porn. Grouping at its best.
A Tale in the desert is group centric last I checked.
Wurm online can be as well.
Trying to 'incentivize group play' and 'forcing group play' are two very different things.
Vast majority of people buy the 'incentivize' option. Whether that is good to you or not is your personal preference.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Enjoyed the article for the most part and tend to agree with much of what was put forward.
The bulk of the issues i see in games today harken back to the same arguments made over a decade ago when EQ and AC ruled the landscape:
The argument that self sufficience and community welfare don't mix.
My outlook is that the two can exist quite well if you offer a balanced mix of opportunities.
While WoW might get raked over the coals constantly, but the thing that made the game so popular was that it did offer both experiences in abundance in Vanilla. Sadly, they have changed the mix to the point that both are trivialized so this is no longer the case.
It's the mix of the two that make the game worth playing long term, imo.
So no group centrict games? Let me see final fantasy was/is quite group centrict (it also have quite good use of classes being needed based on what tthey do and hwo well you play.). coming soon is the secret world that will have both alot of effort on group play (as well as on story progress), you also have vanguard, and i bet so many could place up many more they know or have played as well. The thing is that group centric games are not popular or saught after by the majority of the gamers. Also your attitude towards other players is most likely why you cann't get a group in mmos you play. I have no issues getting a group in mmos i play weither that be when i played back in UO and EQ days to WoW, or even in rifts or L2 even, but most peole don't pug group in mmos as it leads many time to a worse experince then if you stayed solo. I have always thought tat the difficulty in mmos has gotten quite abit worse, btu that is not becuase of soloers at all but players in general. I mean hwo much of a challenge do you think a Dev group will place into the leveling part of the game, when a good chuck of the players insist that the game does not start till end-game? This view of the mmos game spectrum as well as hwo we need to speed level to get into the actual fun part of the game (ie end game) makes it less of a desire to place anythign trully difficult in the starting r mid of the game itself. Than you add in that you are making t that players have less of a reason to practice their roles in groups till end-game, and you have players that are ill equip to do those roles, but it is not the fact that we have soloers or not in game at all. As i said it is the flow as well as speed at which we progress thru the games that trully dictates the diffiiculty/challenge of games, as you can have more time per level devoted to learning your class if it takes you months or a year to hit end-game.
Also yes the more even the mixture of soloing as well as group content the better since that will allow the soloers to be exposed to group content increasing the pool of players. The issues is the incentive you place for grouping or soloing so that one is viable, but yet not making the other side completely worthless in the process.
angry much?
for me, it's not solo players who "ruined" your gaming experience. or even the fun. because what raids are made for solo players? what dungeons can be done solo? none. the whole lfg thing wasn't made for solo players, but for those power-levelling who complain they can't get any groups together for quick runs. as someone who doesn't mind playing alone in the odd game, i have to say, i always sought hard combat. always sought a good challenge. yet, i'd get sick of doing group content because, as say a level 30, i'd join a group of level 30s who'd then almost wet their pants in joy because they've found a level 80 to "run" us through. and then they'd get mad because i quit. they don't understand i WANT fun. i WANT to crawl a dungeon for five hours. i WANT to wipe now and then. i WANT that experience of FUN. but raiders in their endless search for "endgame" demand everything prior to "endgame" be so easy that they can level in an afternoon just so they can hang about in the city with their buds and show off their mounts.
grouping is overrated because the majority of groups are only interested in levelling. only interested in their piece of loot and if that doesn't drop - boom - they're out of there. and all those fellows who do that? they're in guilds. usually big guilds. solo players aren't generally in a hurry. generally not extremely well geared. they're the ones who get kicked out of groups when you find the level 80 guy to run you through.
i rubbish your claim that it's solo players who want the phat lewts, because solo players more often than not don't even bother to do dungeons or raids because they're not interested in hanging out with you.
and, if you bother to read your own elitist arrogant post, perhaps you might see why.
these days i prefer playing the game with my wife. we kill things together in a group of our own. we do a lot of pvp, because it's a great group sport that doesn't require me to join a guild and endure snobs like you. instead, i can own you on the battlefield where all your snobby elitist gear means squat.
and THAT, my boy, is fun.
Agree almost completely with the article but think these is more that could be added. For some people (and I know I am not the only one because I have talked to a few others) there are times when we really NEED to solo because we are in the middle of a low mood/depressive episode (and again I know there quite a few - understatement - gamers with depression) : when that happens its not just we don't WANT to group/chat, we CAN'T. But solo gaming is great therapy and I need it. Other times, when I am well, I love to group/chat : I don't really care what this makes me, it is just how I approach my gaming.
Now having experimented a bit I realise some games are much socially-based than others : Runescape is an example, sure you can solo, but you are going to get a hell of a lot more out of the game if you not only group but chat and makes friends as well. When I went through a bad patch I had to quit because I just couldn't do this any more.
It may be that it is impossible to design a game which is equally good for solo/group people but does that really matter with the plethora of choice available?
Finally the presumption that runs through a great deal of the comment is that MMO's have indeed been 'ruined'. If you really believe that then I wonder that you are still on an MMO forum or playing any games. But I suppose all communities will always have their share of 'it wasn't like that when I was young' (hell at 55 I find myself saying it sometimes about other things
).
Since you left that group when a level 80 entered, I cheer you..and here is how I see this..
In your own post you are actually naming the "reason" or one of them why the solo and loot mentality of todays games destroys the MMO's and challanges within..Wanting a lvl 80 for a group so that the group can run trough it with ease is for me equal "You are still soloing" and you are not playing the game, you try to get your hands on stuff that is off limits unless you get a proper group..
Grouping such as this..Is never grouping, It's cheating or the very least exploiting a poor system.
But I also claim that phat loot and solo mentality walk hand in hand..Sure there are soloplayers that are "real lone wolfs" and "really" wants to be alone, but these guys woudn't enter this group above either. Many players wants the easiest path to the LOOT and the EASIEST path to highest level, playing the game as it was ment to be played takes to much of their time, yet they still want the lewt..So they cheat
When my kids (11 years) type in the code "motherlode" in The Sims for unlimited money, they stopped playing the game as it was ment to be played, just like the kids who wants to have a level 80 to run their dungeon for them..
I would think the Phat loot and raider mentality is where the problem is. They want their raid to be the easiest to the abuse and elitest snobbery of others. If you do not know the raid because it is your first time you are out. Why, because you will make the run hard and that takes more time. Raiders want it fast and easy. If they can cheat to get it done they will. Raiders are what destroyed games not solo'ers.
Look..A raid is only a group..But a bigger group..It's the same for both groups and raids..Some players ..many ..Wants the easisest way to obtain the phat loowt..Since raiding is usually a little more difficult, then its also more common..thats all..
It's cheating..If you use a guide, a map, or use players of higher level , it's still cheating..In a raid it's diffrent thou , you have one guy that has read all the guides and loopholes and tells everyone how they are suppose to do it the easiest way , so he can play the almighty hero after...:)
Not saying that last part doesnt require some sort of skill thou, but it's still cheating , for the most part..
Heh , I was probably playing MMO's while you were still in diapers , and from where we come from , MMO's was all about teamwork , no Soloing BS. If your able to solo to max level with elite gear , then the MMO is a complete failure. It might of been a blast as a standalone console / PC game.
The point is what exactly does it mean to play in a MMO nowadays? Honestly , besides for a few MMO's still running that encourage team work , the rest of the genre is complete trash. It's funny how people always cry because there aren't enough mobs in certain areas , of course because you got lame soloers hogging the whole area like selfish pricks instead of grouping up.
Seriously , if I wanted to solo I'd go play a game like Skyrim where I can do what the hell I want without anyone screwing my fun. If I want some fun teamwork "pew pew" I'd log on EVE-Online and roam for hours.
MMO's are meant for teamwork , not soloing , if your able to solo the whole content of the game , chances are the game is heavy on RMT's / BOT's so your accomplishments means nada. So you maxed SWTOR in under a week? Cool story bro , 95% of the server is maxed.
Anyways , I enjoy seeing soloers in a MMO , more fun for me and my buds to screw around with until they log off.
Raiding was dumbed down and these elitist loot whores you speak of only started appearing in quantities AFTER mmos began catering to soloers. I had many fun and challenging groups in low and mid levels in the older games. People solo to the level cap, join a raid guild, and start acting like dicks. In EQ you couldnt do that or you would never be invited to an end game raid.
If they were catering to soloers then there would be no raids just solo-able end game stuff. I think you are looking for a crutch for the fact that groupers like in EQ are about 1 in 100 of current players. The other 99 are where the money is and they do not want the crap that was EQ raiding. Solo'ers ingeneral do not want easy they want stuff with reasonable time expectancies. Games companies understand this and now are trying to find a balance for time vs difficulty. Group advocaters assume that if something does not take hours it is easy. People want to log in and feel like if they do something for an hour there is some result. Groupers seem to want a social chat room with occassional gaming. Solo'ers want gaming with occassional social chat room.