In a cross server DF you probably never will see them again which really takes away the social point of it.
A few code tweaks, a little database and minute or two of extra wait time in queues and a game can bias the random groups towards previously-encountered players without needing formal friending/guilding to slowly draw people together, especially as they learned to align their schedules.
Socializing and grouping are two different things. I can be in a random group while socializing through Mumble with another group. You can make grouping awkward and force people to communicate, but that is not a desirable way to make them talk.
I love team sports but I don't socialize in the pitch. I play the game.
at one time, MMO's were as much about the social aspects, as for team sports, lack of communication on the field makes for an extremely bad team, fact.
Not really. It's our own personal choice to socialize, and no amount of gameplay mechanics can force us to do otherwise...
Unless you decided to make a system that rewards you for every word you type ingame, but then the chat would have more gibberish than the unintelligible Thwomp (see Bowser's Kingdom for reference).
No. Being social builds bonds. Grouping typically entails getting together to do a stated goal and departing after its complete. Themepark games have moved away from the social aspects of MMOs (town hubs for trades, real taverns, forced grouping i.e. no group finder or queing for raids/dungons etc)
Not really. It's our own personal choice to socialize, and no amount of gameplay mechanics can force us to do otherwise...
Unless you decided to make a system that rewards you for every word you type ingame, but then the chat would have more gibberish than the unintelligible Thwomp (see Bowser's Kingdom for reference).
Not sure if I agree with the way you use the word "force", so I'll ask following question: is it possible to force a confession? I am asking because it is a personal choice to give a confession.
Not really. It's our own personal choice to socialize, and no amount of gameplay mechanics can force us to do otherwise...
Unless you decided to make a system that rewards you for every word you type ingame, but then the chat would have more gibberish than the unintelligible Thwomp (see Bowser's Kingdom for reference).
Not sure if I agree with the way you use the word "force", so I'll ask following question: is it possible to force a confession? I am asking because it is a personal choice to give a confession.
Uh...Hm...
I guess not. I think the only reason why you would give a confession willingly is if you were really guilt ridden, or to avoid more pain from things like torture or anger being directed at you.
I only used the word "force" because I couldn't think of a better word for that.
I was out having a smoke and thinking about this. Thinking some more. Thinking some more.
Goals. Short Term vs. Long Term.
Long Term goals - would they not lead to folks being more social?
Short Term goals - wham, bam, thank you ma'am.
I would say that games today are full of STGs rather than LTGs. Outside of those perhaps working on some LTG, there's going to be little socialization. There was a period where even with the STGs, there would have still be the socialization - but in many cases, because of that focus on the STGs...socializing can actually be seen as a hindrance to them. You need to do X now - you need to acquire Y now - you've done X and got Y, so now it's time to do Z!
Everything's faster - shorter....there's no room for socialization.
Kind of gets into the complaints about the death of community and the rise of cliques.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Socializing and grouping are two different things. I can be in a random group while socializing through Mumble with another group. You can make grouping awkward and force people to communicate, but that is not a desirable way to make them talk.
I love team sports but I don't socialize in the pitch. I play the game.
at one time, MMO's were as much about the social aspects, as for team sports, lack of communication on the field makes for an extremely bad team, fact.
See you're trying to be smart but communication on the field is not exactly socializing. Its not like we strike conversation: "Hi Bob! How was your day?" More like: "I'm open!"
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Dungeonfinder is good but not cross server dungeon finders. The reason for that is that when you play with other people from your server you will run into them again, making lots of opportunity to learn to know new people.
In a cross server DF you probably never will see them again which really takes away the social point of it.
this doesnt work either. Dungeonfinder on servers with Low populations or massively top heavy pops is practicly useless if its not cross server. everquest 2's dungeon finder comes to mind.
Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. Lao-Tze
Socializing and grouping are two different things. I can be in a random group while socializing through Mumble with another group. You can make grouping awkward and force people to communicate, but that is not a desirable way to make them talk.
I love team sports but I don't socialize in the pitch. I play the game.
at one time, MMO's were as much about the social aspects, as for team sports, lack of communication on the field makes for an extremely bad team, fact.
See you're trying to be smart but communication on the field is not exactly socializing. Its not like we strike conversation: "Hi Bob! How was your day?" More like: "I'm open!"
To an extent, it's just another one of those words subject to subjective definitions...was something else I was thinking.
Consider the following:
It's Monday and almost time for lunch. You talk to several of your coworkers about going to lunch. Everybody decides on a place to go. You go. You get there. The hostess/host sits you and says to enjoy your meal, your waiter/waitress will be right with you, etc. You say thanks. Your group starts talking about their weekends. The waiter/waitress comes and takes your order. The group continues talking about their weekends and about what the week holds. The waiter/waitress brings the food, says to enjoy the meal, let them know if you need anything. You say thanks. The group continues talking. The waiter/waitress brings you the bill eventually and asks if everything was okay. You divy up the check. They take the bill, bring it back to you, thank you for stopping by, and say they hope you enjoy the rest of your day. You thank them, wish them the same, and head on back to the office. The host/hostess wishing you a good day on your way out and you do the same.
All the interactions involved conversation...but was it all social?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
I sort of like grouping without being social. It provides interaction and yet maintains anonymity.
So no, I don't think grouping and social are the same, but neither are they mutually exclusive. Some grouping is very social.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
On the drive to work, do you notice all the other people you're grouped with in traffic...?
Not very social is it?
this is a very good analogy tbh, just because your in the same place and doing the same things, doesnt mean you communicate in any way, and no its not very social at all.
This is something i've noticed about MMO's generally though, they are no longer promoting social interraction, how many games could you replace the players with bots and not notice the difference. Its not even about enforcing grouping in a game, its about games being more social generally, i don't know of any game released in the last couple of years that actually promoted interdependance. Kind of sad really.
I don't think promoting interdependence is the key, as that is the tool most MMOs use and it simply doesn't work. Promoting interaction seems to work much better. More importantly, Providing channels for like-minded individuals to separate from the rest and interact allows for more social behaviour. While on the surface, that sounds contradictory, it really is how people work.
Rather than paste it all in this post, here's something I wrote a few years back on this particular topic. People interact more when you allow them to divide.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It really depends on what you mean when you talking about socializing. Technically, socializing with people can include buying something from them in an auction house without ever actually talking to them. The interactivity happens, and it's part of the social structure of the the society of the game.
Threads are usually into page 2 before the kind of socialization people are talking about is defined. Are they talking about social interaction or "being social"?
Grouping is socialization, but it's not "being social" unless the people are talking. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by PhryOriginally posted by VirusDancerOn the drive to work, do you notice all the other people you're grouped with in traffic...?Not very social is it?
this is a very good analogy tbh, just because your in the same place and doing the same things, doesnt mean you communicate in any way, and no its not very social at all. This is something i've noticed about MMO's generally though, they are no longer promoting social interraction, how many games could you replace the players with bots and not notice the difference. Its not even about enforcing grouping in a game, its about games being more social generally, i don't know of any game released in the last couple of years that actually promoted interdependance. Kind of sad really.I don't think promoting interdependence is the key, as that is the tool most MMOs use and it simply doesn't work. Promoting interaction seems to work much better. More importantly, Providing channels for like-minded individuals to separate from the rest and interact allows for more social behaviour. While on the surface, that sounds contradictory, it really is how people work.
Rather than paste it all in this post, here's something I wrote a few years back on this particular topic. People interact more when you allow them to divide.
This makes sense. It's how Facebook became the raging internet monster we all know and love to hate. It allows people to all get together, and then divide themselves into as many groups as they want.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
When WOW released dungeon finder tool there was much cry and complaining that it does not encourage social behaviour. For me it doesn't matter. Now GW2 does it at large scale. Puts you into groups automaticaly with even larger number of players in open world and still players say the same that it is an anti social MMO.
For me socializing means communication and if that is missing whether you play with 5 players or 50 you are going to feel the same.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Don't like any of the options, so won't vote. But i will give my opinion on the matter. I think it's not about socializing per se, but more about the feeling of mmorpg interactions being "impersonall". Allow to use examples.
When i'm doing a dynamic event, rift, pq, dungeon run using LFG tools, etc, there is a clear, pre-determined, game goal. The game tells me to "kill x". So, even if i'm "grouped" with other players, we see each other as just npcs. Not completly of course, but in a certain way, you could replace people with AI (really good one) and it would not make that much difference.
Now, imagine playing a card game with other players in-game. Or how about an rp and guild event, like, a game of hide and seek (just came up with it because i posted a video). In this situation, the "goal" is set by the players. If you replace people with npcs, it would feel hollow and shallow. In these events and situation, being around players and "socializing" matters.
Another possible example. This one using forced grouping. A high level area in the game is sooo hard that you must have another player (just 1 is enough) to stay alive.
Now, using my dungeon run exmaple again, the objective is to beat it, beat the trash mobs, beat the bosses, fast as possible, etc, etc. Bam, ty maam, kthxbye. Game set goal, right?
Now, game to the high level area. Let's say i, the player, wanty to go explore it and find great views and even take some shots. Another person wants to go there too to find some rare materials for crafting. So, we decide to group up, explore and do stuff along side each other. In this case, our "goals" where set by ourselves. I wanted to explore, but went mat hunting to help out soemone else as they help me.
In conclusion, i think it goes like this:
When the goals, objectives, actions, etc exist in a way that the players join "around it in a circle", the "socialization" occurs automatically as the goals "bounce off" each person. We are "facing each other as we face the goal". Even if there's no chatting, if feels like a personal group experience.
When the goal, objectives, actions, etc exist in a way that the players seperate themselves and "look up each in their own space", there's no personal feeling of communication, because everyone is "in their own world". Yes, they have the same objective, but are not "looking at each other, just the goal", so everyone's "around you" but not "with you".
I know, i know. "WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT MMOwanderer?"
My previous posts more or less ignored everything but the title of the thread. So, here's an answer.
In games like WoW, Rift and TSW, the Dynamic Events and Group Finders are necessary. Good or bad, you need them. Not initially, as there are plenty of people around to put a group together by just talking, but after awhile, there's not enough people or they are spread out so much that putting a group together in global chat is just frustrating, not fun.
In more open world games where players aren't progressing from a beginning to an end, even if there are instances, something that puts groups together may not be necessary, and may not be beneficial.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by UsualSuspect To make things more social you need to prolong the experience, games such as EverQuest had a single group together for hours inside dungeons, which is more like going on a camping trip with a bunch of strangers - the longer you're together, the more time you have to get to know each other and have more interesting conversations.
However, if you find that you do not actually like the strangers being stuck with them for long periods of time will be a nightmare. I guess yelling and throwing stuff at each other does qualify as 'interesting conversations'.
I remember in school there was a guy I was mildly social with. We knew each other, talked about stuff a few times and were generally cordial to each other. Then we had to work together on a school project and we realized that our work styles clashed too much and we were driving each other nuts due to our quirks. We should have gone our seperate ways and forget the whole thing but we had to finish the project so we could pass our class. By the end we hated each other's guts and afterwards never spoke again.
Originally posted by VirusDancerOn the drive to work, do you notice all the other people you're grouped with in traffic...?Not very social is it?
this is a very good analogy tbh, just because your in the same place and doing the same things, doesnt mean you communicate in any way, and no its not very social at all. This is something i've noticed about MMO's generally though, they are no longer promoting social interraction, how many games could you replace the players with bots and not notice the difference. Its not even about enforcing grouping in a game, its about games being more social generally, i don't know of any game released in the last couple of years that actually promoted interdependance. Kind of sad really.
I don't think promoting interdependence is the key, as that is the tool most MMOs use and it simply doesn't work. Promoting interaction seems to work much better. More importantly, Providing channels for like-minded individuals to separate from the rest and interact allows for more social behaviour. While on the surface, that sounds contradictory, it really is how people work.
Rather than paste it all in this post, here's something I wrote a few years back on this particular topic. People interact more when you allow them to divide.
This makes sense. It's how Facebook became the raging internet monster we all know and love to hate. It allows people to all get together, and then divide themselves into as many groups as they want.
Two of FB's most powerful tools on that front were the Poke and Groups.
While Poke is universally despised currently, it served the very distinct purpose of allowing people to make the leap from wanting to interact to actually interacting when they aren't necessrily sure how to. Poke gave people a tool to initiate interaction with others. Despite it currently being the bane of FB features, it fulfilled a much needed role in getting people communicating.
The Group feature allows people to not only divide but a way find those subgroups. Not only does this allow people to share common interests and bond with new people, but it also allows these groups to do so with minimal atangonism from those who have absolutely no interest in or flat out dislike the discussion matter. Groups based on religion, hobby, nationality, locale, gender, age, etc formed so as new people joined FB they could search and find these groups in order to become part of the community and interact with others more.
A player created chat channel system like AOL's room system with search, invites and other features would facilitate players being social much more than any combat group system.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Don't like any of the options, so won't vote. But i will give my opinion on the matter. I think it's not about socializing per se, but more about the feeling of mmorpg interactions being "impersonall". Allow to use examples.
When i'm doing a dynamic event, rift, pq, dungeon run using LFG tools, etc, there is a clear, pre-determined, game goal. The game tells me to "kill x". So, even if i'm "grouped" with other players, we see each other as just npcs. Not completly of course, but in a certain way, you could replace people with AI (really good one) and it would not make that much difference.
Now, imagine playing a card game with other players in-game. Or how about an rp and guild event, like, a game of hide and seek (just came up with it because i posted a video). In this situation, the "goal" is set by the players. If you replace people with npcs, it would feel hollow and shallow. In these events and situation, being around players and "socializing" matters.
Another possible example. This one using forced grouping. A high level area in the game is sooo hard that you must have another player (just 1 is enough) to stay alive.
Now, using my dungeon run exmaple again, the objective is to beat it, beat the trash mobs, beat the bosses, fast as possible, etc, etc. Bam, ty maam, kthxbye. Game set goal, right?
Now, game to the high level area. Let's say i, the player, wanty to go explore it and find great views and even take some shots. Another person wants to go there too to find some rare materials for crafting. So, we decide to group up, explore and do stuff along side each other. In this case, our "goals" where set by ourselves. I wanted to explore, but went mat hunting to help out soemone else as they help me.
In conclusion, i think it goes like this:
When the goals, objectives, actions, etc exist in a way that the players join "around it in a circle", the "socialization" occurs automatically as the goals "bounce off" each person. We are "facing each other as we face the goal". Even if there's no chatting, if feels like a personal group experience.
When the goal, objectives, actions, etc exist in a way that the players seperate themselves and "look up each in their own space", there's no personal feeling of communication, because everyone is "in their own world". Yes, they have the same objective, but are not "looking at each other, just the goal", so everyone's "around you" but not "with you".
I know, i know. "WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT MMOwanderer?"
That's actually a damn good explanation.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I love these questions. From what Ive learned from a psychological point of view, people are constructively social if they:
1. Connect the way they individulally want ( leading, following, sharing ideas ). If the individual doesnt get the connection they enjoy it will not be social for them, they will most likely not connect at all.
2. Invest into each other by doing things they dont want to do for the other people. If you only do things you already want to do with or for someone, there is Zero investment in the social relationship.
Connection example: John likes to lead, Mary likes to follow. If Mary tells John what to do and he lets her lead, they will both disconnect and probably not want to hang out with each other gain. On the other hand, if John takes the lead, and Mary follows, both will be much happier and desire to hang out with each other again as their connection has increased.
Investment example: John likes combat but dislikes exploring. Mary likes to explore but dislikes combat. If John ends up exploring with Mary with little combat to help her out, John will be investing emotionaly into Mary. If Mary helps John out with lots of combat, but doesnt get to see any new things, she will be investing in John. Its counter intituitive but it is how our frontal lobe/hedonic system works. Investment doesnt mean happy, it means they will miss each other and probably not know why.
As long as the grouping mechanism allows for both, id argue it is social.
Comments
A few code tweaks, a little database and minute or two of extra wait time in queues and a game can bias the random groups towards previously-encountered players without needing formal friending/guilding to slowly draw people together, especially as they learned to align their schedules.
at one time, MMO's were as much about the social aspects, as for team sports, lack of communication on the field makes for an extremely bad team, fact.
Not really. It's our own personal choice to socialize, and no amount of gameplay mechanics can force us to do otherwise...
Unless you decided to make a system that rewards you for every word you type ingame, but then the chat would have more gibberish than the unintelligible Thwomp (see Bowser's Kingdom for reference).
Games:
Currently playing:Nothing
Will play: Darkfall: Unholy Wars
Past games:
Guild Wars 2 - Xpiher Duminous
Xpiher's GW2
GW 1 - Xpiher Duminous
Darkfall - Xpiher Duminous (NA) retired
AoC - Xpiher (Tyranny) retired
Warhammer - Xpiher
Not sure if I agree with the way you use the word "force", so I'll ask following question: is it possible to force a confession? I am asking because it is a personal choice to give a confession.
Uh...Hm...
I guess not. I think the only reason why you would give a confession willingly is if you were really guilt ridden, or to avoid more pain from things like torture or anger being directed at you.
I only used the word "force" because I couldn't think of a better word for that.
I was out having a smoke and thinking about this. Thinking some more. Thinking some more.
Goals. Short Term vs. Long Term.
Long Term goals - would they not lead to folks being more social?
Short Term goals - wham, bam, thank you ma'am.
I would say that games today are full of STGs rather than LTGs. Outside of those perhaps working on some LTG, there's going to be little socialization. There was a period where even with the STGs, there would have still be the socialization - but in many cases, because of that focus on the STGs...socializing can actually be seen as a hindrance to them. You need to do X now - you need to acquire Y now - you've done X and got Y, so now it's time to do Z!
Everything's faster - shorter....there's no room for socialization.
Kind of gets into the complaints about the death of community and the rise of cliques.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
See you're trying to be smart but communication on the field is not exactly socializing. Its not like we strike conversation: "Hi Bob! How was your day?" More like: "I'm open!"
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
this doesnt work either. Dungeonfinder on servers with Low populations or massively top heavy pops is practicly useless if its not cross server. everquest 2's dungeon finder comes to mind.
Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
Lao-Tze
To an extent, it's just another one of those words subject to subjective definitions...was something else I was thinking.
Consider the following:
It's Monday and almost time for lunch. You talk to several of your coworkers about going to lunch. Everybody decides on a place to go. You go. You get there. The hostess/host sits you and says to enjoy your meal, your waiter/waitress will be right with you, etc. You say thanks. Your group starts talking about their weekends. The waiter/waitress comes and takes your order. The group continues talking about their weekends and about what the week holds. The waiter/waitress brings the food, says to enjoy the meal, let them know if you need anything. You say thanks. The group continues talking. The waiter/waitress brings you the bill eventually and asks if everything was okay. You divy up the check. They take the bill, bring it back to you, thank you for stopping by, and say they hope you enjoy the rest of your day. You thank them, wish them the same, and head on back to the office. The host/hostess wishing you a good day on your way out and you do the same.
All the interactions involved conversation...but was it all social?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I sort of like grouping without being social. It provides interaction and yet maintains anonymity.
So no, I don't think grouping and social are the same, but neither are they mutually exclusive. Some grouping is very social.
I don't think promoting interdependence is the key, as that is the tool most MMOs use and it simply doesn't work. Promoting interaction seems to work much better. More importantly, Providing channels for like-minded individuals to separate from the rest and interact allows for more social behaviour. While on the surface, that sounds contradictory, it really is how people work.
Rather than paste it all in this post, here's something I wrote a few years back on this particular topic. People interact more when you allow them to divide.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It really depends on what you mean when you talking about socializing. Technically, socializing with people can include buying something from them in an auction house without ever actually talking to them. The interactivity happens, and it's part of the social structure of the the society of the game.
Threads are usually into page 2 before the kind of socialization people are talking about is defined. Are they talking about social interaction or "being social"?
Grouping is socialization, but it's not "being social" unless the people are talking. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't think promoting interdependence is the key, as that is the tool most MMOs use and it simply doesn't work. Promoting interaction seems to work much better. More importantly, Providing channels for like-minded individuals to separate from the rest and interact allows for more social behaviour. While on the surface, that sounds contradictory, it really is how people work.
Rather than paste it all in this post, here's something I wrote a few years back on this particular topic. People interact more when you allow them to divide.
This makes sense. It's how Facebook became the raging internet monster we all know and love to hate. It allows people to all get together, and then divide themselves into as many groups as they want.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
When WOW released dungeon finder tool there was much cry and complaining that it does not encourage social behaviour. For me it doesn't matter. Now GW2 does it at large scale. Puts you into groups automaticaly with even larger number of players in open world and still players say the same that it is an anti social MMO.
For me socializing means communication and if that is missing whether you play with 5 players or 50 you are going to feel the same.
Bite Me
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Don't like any of the options, so won't vote. But i will give my opinion on the matter. I think it's not about socializing per se, but more about the feeling of mmorpg interactions being "impersonall". Allow to use examples.
When i'm doing a dynamic event, rift, pq, dungeon run using LFG tools, etc, there is a clear, pre-determined, game goal. The game tells me to "kill x". So, even if i'm "grouped" with other players, we see each other as just npcs. Not completly of course, but in a certain way, you could replace people with AI (really good one) and it would not make that much difference.
Now, imagine playing a card game with other players in-game. Or how about an rp and guild event, like, a game of hide and seek (just came up with it because i posted a video). In this situation, the "goal" is set by the players. If you replace people with npcs, it would feel hollow and shallow. In these events and situation, being around players and "socializing" matters.
Another possible example. This one using forced grouping. A high level area in the game is sooo hard that you must have another player (just 1 is enough) to stay alive.
Now, using my dungeon run exmaple again, the objective is to beat it, beat the trash mobs, beat the bosses, fast as possible, etc, etc. Bam, ty maam, kthxbye. Game set goal, right?
Now, game to the high level area. Let's say i, the player, wanty to go explore it and find great views and even take some shots. Another person wants to go there too to find some rare materials for crafting. So, we decide to group up, explore and do stuff along side each other. In this case, our "goals" where set by ourselves. I wanted to explore, but went mat hunting to help out soemone else as they help me.
In conclusion, i think it goes like this:
When the goals, objectives, actions, etc exist in a way that the players join "around it in a circle", the "socialization" occurs automatically as the goals "bounce off" each person. We are "facing each other as we face the goal". Even if there's no chatting, if feels like a personal group experience.
When the goal, objectives, actions, etc exist in a way that the players seperate themselves and "look up each in their own space", there's no personal feeling of communication, because everyone is "in their own world". Yes, they have the same objective, but are not "looking at each other, just the goal", so everyone's "around you" but not "with you".
I know, i know. "WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT MMOwanderer?"
My previous posts more or less ignored everything but the title of the thread. So, here's an answer.
In games like WoW, Rift and TSW, the Dynamic Events and Group Finders are necessary. Good or bad, you need them. Not initially, as there are plenty of people around to put a group together by just talking, but after awhile, there's not enough people or they are spread out so much that putting a group together in global chat is just frustrating, not fun.
In more open world games where players aren't progressing from a beginning to an end, even if there are instances, something that puts groups together may not be necessary, and may not be beneficial.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
However, if you find that you do not actually like the strangers being stuck with them for long periods of time will be a nightmare. I guess yelling and throwing stuff at each other does qualify as 'interesting conversations'.
I remember in school there was a guy I was mildly social with. We knew each other, talked about stuff a few times and were generally cordial to each other. Then we had to work together on a school project and we realized that our work styles clashed too much and we were driving each other nuts due to our quirks. We should have gone our seperate ways and forget the whole thing but we had to finish the project so we could pass our class. By the end we hated each other's guts and afterwards never spoke again.
Two of FB's most powerful tools on that front were the Poke and Groups.
While Poke is universally despised currently, it served the very distinct purpose of allowing people to make the leap from wanting to interact to actually interacting when they aren't necessrily sure how to. Poke gave people a tool to initiate interaction with others. Despite it currently being the bane of FB features, it fulfilled a much needed role in getting people communicating.
The Group feature allows people to not only divide but a way find those subgroups. Not only does this allow people to share common interests and bond with new people, but it also allows these groups to do so with minimal atangonism from those who have absolutely no interest in or flat out dislike the discussion matter. Groups based on religion, hobby, nationality, locale, gender, age, etc formed so as new people joined FB they could search and find these groups in order to become part of the community and interact with others more.
A player created chat channel system like AOL's room system with search, invites and other features would facilitate players being social much more than any combat group system.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
That's actually a damn good explanation.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I love these questions. From what Ive learned from a psychological point of view, people are constructively social if they:
1. Connect the way they individulally want ( leading, following, sharing ideas ). If the individual doesnt get the connection they enjoy it will not be social for them, they will most likely not connect at all.
2. Invest into each other by doing things they dont want to do for the other people. If you only do things you already want to do with or for someone, there is Zero investment in the social relationship.
Connection example: John likes to lead, Mary likes to follow. If Mary tells John what to do and he lets her lead, they will both disconnect and probably not want to hang out with each other gain. On the other hand, if John takes the lead, and Mary follows, both will be much happier and desire to hang out with each other again as their connection has increased.
Investment example: John likes combat but dislikes exploring. Mary likes to explore but dislikes combat. If John ends up exploring with Mary with little combat to help her out, John will be investing emotionaly into Mary. If Mary helps John out with lots of combat, but doesnt get to see any new things, she will be investing in John. Its counter intituitive but it is how our frontal lobe/hedonic system works. Investment doesnt mean happy, it means they will miss each other and probably not know why.
As long as the grouping mechanism allows for both, id argue it is social.
-Blitz
Werewolf Online(R) - Lead Developer
They where just examples to express a point. Did you miss it? Not being sarcastic.