If there is no communication or organization required to complete content balanced around a group of folks (not including a group that plays together consistently and/or has run the exact dungeon multiple times), that's pretty damn cut, dry, and boring content. Nothing unexpected, everything happens in the same, general way.
"boring" is subjective. Furthermore, since there are lots of highly rated SP games (that are fun to many) that requires zero communication .... communication is not required to have fun. So MMO structured like that would be fun ... probably not for you .. .but for many.
And who says talking to a group is slow and undesirable?
I do. Undesirable is subjective. It is undesirable to me.
That's the heart of it, and it follows that the casual player, whose time is restricted and valuable, doesn't want to wait any amount of time for a group to fall together.
See, this is where I see a problem. If the game is time consuming then why are people logging on and expecting to be able to do something? If you don't have time to dedicate, then go do something else, play a single player game, watch some TV, read a couple of chapters in a book. It's like I wouldn't sit down to watch a 2 hour movie if I was going out in 45 minutes. Common sense seems lost on people these days, everything has to cater to the lowest common denominator.
Because devs want their business and structure the game so that you can get something done in 15 min?
And why is it a "problem"? shouldn't devs have freedom to cater to whoever?
If I can't do something in 15-20 min for a MMORPGs, i won't play it .. as you say, i will play a SP game, or read. However, I *can* with many MMOs today ... so why shouldn't I?
If there is no communication or organization required to complete content balanced around a group of folks (not including a group that plays together consistently and/or has run the exact dungeon multiple times), that's pretty damn cut, dry, and boring content. Nothing unexpected, everything happens in the same, general way.
"boring" is subjective. Furthermore, since there are lots of highly rated SP games (that are fun to many) that requires zero communication .... communication is not required to have fun. So MMO structured like that would be fun ... probably not for you .. .but for many.
And who says talking to a group is slow and undesirable?
I do. Undesirable is subjective. It is undesirable to me.
Lots of highly rated singleplayer games that require no communication between players? I'm going to have to say that's pretty obvious. There are no players to communicate or work with. Show me an MMO whose solo content even touches the complexity, depth, responsiveness, and tailoring of singleplayer experiences you get with Mass Effect, The Last of Us, Far Cry, Dead Space, Batman: Arkham XXX, or any other game built around a singleplayer experience. Those all are singleplayer RPGs or have RPG elements. There's a very specific reason MMO gameplay doesn't come close: they have to be built within an engine designed to accommodate a multitude of players playing in a shared gameworld. A world that has to communicate constantly over great distances with players all on different types and speeds of internet. A world that cannot simply shut one quest down to all other players because you or I are currently on that quest. Plain and simple. It's a weakness I don't insist on, but it's there for a reason. But in creating that weakness, MMOs enjoy a strength in another area that those singleplayer RPGs can't touch.
If you're looking for the best singleplayer experience possible, MMOs aren't the best experience video games offer. Never will be, unless you just enjoy the genre for one of its inherent weaknesses.
But then again, some of us enjoy the multiplayer games for their strengths, not their weaknesses. Their strengths are that you can play and interact with other living, thinking human beings. It's fine for you to enjoy them for their weaker elements if they just so happen to fit exactly what you want (though you yourself have admitted you'd rather play a genuinely singleplayer ST TNG-era RPG, and I'd venture to say my above point is the reasoning behind that). It's also fine to hope that developers strengthen this area of MMOs. But it's silly to do so at the cost of the genre's inherent strengths.
You seem to want to advocate that you can hold your opinion on what type of gameplay you prefer, and so can I. But the moment someone critiques gameplay, even in their own preferred realm (as I was doing by saying group content requiring little or no communication within that group is predictable and, therefore, mundane), you are quick to point out that you don't think that way and so (or in spite of this, whatever the case may be) you like solo content, and others solo too, so you must be right. All because casual players looking to make the most progress in the shortest amount of time choose to play solo in games where that style of play makes the most progress in the shortest amount of time, where interaction is not required or really encouraged to make said progress.
I'm not saying there aren't players that wish to encounter minimal interaction with other players. I'm saying that not all players who solo in those games wish to. I know I don't, but I'll log into games such as ESO and solo grind quests all day (albeit while chatting with guildies). Not because I don't want to group up and have fun (I did instanced group dungeons that literally weren't worth the time in terms of experience, loot, or gold), but because it's the most efficient method of progression in that game. I submit that there are many other folks that wouldn't mind grouping and interacting, but solo because it's efficient. For the third time: correlation does not always equal causation.
If you're looking for the best singleplayer experience possible, MMOs aren't the best experience video games offer. Never will be, unless you just enjoy the genre for one of its inherent weaknesses.
Yes, they are if you care about the setting, like I do.
The best Star Trek RPG (with both ship & ground combat, and stories) is STO, a MMORPG .... because there is no other choices.
The best action RPG with marvel characters is Marvel Heroes, a MMORPG ... because the only other alternatives are old games like Marvel Ultimate Alliance 1 & 2 (which I played).
How about The Secret World? Where is the conspiracy theory modern day single player RPG?
Before good SP RPGs are produced in these areas, I would have to continue to play MMORPGs.
And what is all this stuff about "i think i am right" and "correlation is not causation". I never said no one has preferences like yours .. i am merely pointing out mine, and also that many seems to share that preferences.
There is no "right" or "wrong" in preferences. You state yours, I state mine.
If you're looking for the best singleplayer experience possible, MMOs aren't the best experience video games offer. Never will be, unless you just enjoy the genre for one of its inherent weaknesses.
Yes, they are if you care about the setting, like I do.
The best Star Trek RPG (with both ship & ground combat, and stories) is STO, a MMORPG .... because there is no other choices.
The best action RPG with marvel characters is Marvel Heroes, a MMORPG ... because the only other alternatives are old games like Marvel Ultimate Alliance 1 & 2 (which I played).
How about The Secret World? Where is the conspiracy theory modern day single player RPG?
Before good SP RPGs are produced in these areas, I would have to continue to play MMORPGs.
And what is all this stuff about "i think i am right" and "correlation is not causation". I never said no one has preferences like yours .. i am merely pointing out mine, and also that many seems to share that preferences.
There is no "right" or "wrong" in preferences. You state yours, I state mine.
I'm not sure there are single player games that cater exactly to what you want, but the Mass Effect series is very similar to Star Trek and I enjoyed it a lot more then STO.
I've never played any great comic book games. I didn't enjoy Marvel Heroes though. To each their own. I prefer to watch comic book hero movies.
There are a lot of single player conspiracy theory games out there. Resident Evil 5 isn't that old and is pretty good. The Splinter Cell series usually has some kind of conspiracy and so does the modern warfare/battlefield type of games. It seems like a lot of single player games have conspiracies of some sort that are revealed at the end. Especially horror and war SP games. I generally don't like war games much myself. There is to much shooting/noise/non stop action. Look around and I'm sure there are some single player games you would like with conspiracy theories.
I'm not sure there are single player games that cater exactly to what you want, but the Mass Effect series is very similar to Star Trek and I enjoyed it a lot more then STO.
I've never played any great comic book games. I didn't enjoy Marvel Heroes though. To each their own. I prefer to watch comic book hero movies.
There are a lot of single player conspiracy theory games out there. Resident Evil 5 isn't that old and is pretty good. The Splinter Cell series usually has some kind of conspiracy and so does the modern warfare/battlefield type of games. It seems like a lot of single player games have conspiracies of some sort that are revealed at the end. Especially horror and war SP games. I generally don't like war games much myself. There is to much shooting/noise/non stop action. Look around and I'm sure there are some single player games you would like with conspiracy theories.
Similar is not exactly the same.
Plus, who said i don't play these other SP games ... Splinter Cell Blacklist is great. Mass Effect .. a bit too slow in my taste, but not too bad.
But the point is this ..when i want a Star Trek RPG fix, STO is it ... it is simply the best (because it is the only) Star Trek game out there. I cannot pilot a constitution class star ship in Mass Effect, can I?
And yes, everyone has a different preference. Marvel Ultimate Alliances (essentially marvel heroes in a SP ARPG) was rated very high and it was very popular. Too bad it only has one sequel, and now if I want a modern game like that, Marvel Heroes is it.
And btw, who has to choose between games and movies? I love the marvel movies, and I like ARPGs with marvel characters. I like to enjoy BOTH.
nothing changed they forced you to group in order to do content back in the day they just didn't call it forced grouping but the reality is you were still forced to do so
If you're looking for the best singleplayer experience possible, MMOs aren't the best experience video games offer. Never will be, unless you just enjoy the genre for one of its inherent weaknesses.
Yes, they are if you care about the setting, like I do.
The best Star Trek RPG (with both ship & ground combat, and stories) is STO, a MMORPG .... because there is no other choices.
The best action RPG with marvel characters is Marvel Heroes, a MMORPG ... because the only other alternatives are old games like Marvel Ultimate Alliance 1 & 2 (which I played).
How about The Secret World? Where is the conspiracy theory modern day single player RPG?
Before good SP RPGs are produced in these areas, I would have to continue to play MMORPGs.
And what is all this stuff about "i think i am right" and "correlation is not causation". I never said no one has preferences like yours .. i am merely pointing out mine, and also that many seems to share that preferences.
There is no "right" or "wrong" in preferences. You state yours, I state mine.
And I honestly wish developers tap into these IPs for singleplayer RPGs for you and every other Star Trek fan who wishes for a KOTOR-type experience in the Star Trek universe. Just as I wish a legitimately awesome Transformers MMO would be created, or a legitimately awesome 3rd person action TMNT, featuring 4-player coop, would be created (the child in me would cry tears of joy). But that doesn't change the fact that these are MMOs, even if you play them as singleplayer games, and they should be developed as such. To ignore the first three letters in MMORPG is doing a disservice to the genre's inherent advantage compared to singleplayer games. They will never reach the level of tailored and fitted singleplayer experience you can get in singleplayer games. We can at least agree on this, correct?
That doesn't mean they should stop improving in that area. Or that you should put them down because they're online. They just shouldn't develop that at the expense of the inherent advantage they have developing in the genre (i.e. ESO levels 1-50).
I'm also all for MOBAs and World of Tanks-style online games. Not only because they provide a variety of gameplay choices to the consumer, but also because they still aren't in the same specific genre as MMOs. I actually think their success might help MMO studios take their development in the more "massively multiplayer virtual world" direction, as that's the distinction MMOs have against MOBAs. That's what would distinguish them. That's what would have players forgiving the fact that the gameplay may be more rigid, that PvP may be less about the "I got XXX kills, check the scoreboard!" and more about the "We took/defended XXX keeps/towers from hundreds of other players!" It would help further distinguish the flavor of the online game they had built from that of the MOBA and other online experiences.
Originally posted by Nephaerius nothing changed they forced you to group in order to do content back in the day they just didn't call it forced grouping but the reality is you were still forced to do so
'Back in the day' it was just called grouping, it was to be expected when you went online, you were going online to play with other people. It's the same as logging on to Quake 3 multiplayer, you knew you were going to be fighting a bunch of other players, not random game monsters.
It was the rise of WoW and its clones that brought about the description 'forced grouping', because they made it like a single player experience with optional teamwork, so all the millions of people that signed up then tried other MMO's suddenly came up with the whine, "They're forcing me to group. WoW doesn't do that.".
Originally posted by Nephaerius nothing changed they forced you to group in order to do content back in the day they just didn't call it forced grouping but the reality is you were still forced to do so
'Back in the day' it was just called grouping, it was to be expected when you went online, you were going online to play with other people. It's the same as logging on to Quake 3 multiplayer, you knew you were going to be fighting a bunch of other players, not random game monsters.
It was the rise of WoW and its clones that brought about the description 'forced grouping', because they made it like a single player experience with optional teamwork, so all the millions of people that signed up then tried other MMO's suddenly came up with the whine, "They're forcing me to group. WoW doesn't do that.".
No the forced grouping term started with EQ. EQ was the outlier, the majority of games back then had soloing has a viable option... Except EQ (other than a few classes).
EQ was the outlier, not the norm. Now the games are coming back to their roots with soloing being a once again real viable option.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
No the forced grouping term started with EQ. EQ was the outlier, the majority of games back then had soloing has a viable option... Except EQ (other than a few classes).
EQ was the outlier, not the norm. Now the games are coming back to their roots with soloing being a once again real viable option.
You already had to group in Meridian 59 3 years before EQ, and it was the first game we would recognize as a MMO today.
I think that one the major reasons for grouping and socializing no longer being a pillar of MMO-Design can be found in the developers and publishers interest to attract an as large as possible audience and to keep players busy. This means that the developers must create something that could be called a virtual universe of general tastes.
Regarding progression in a game, this general taste nowadays seems to be: The player must be able to take every role of the Holy Trinity with his chosen class. This freedom enables the player to solo through many parts of the game. In addition, almost every part of the games are designed to offer you a enduring and action based experience. Downtimes are bad. Dying is bad. Loosing experience is bad. Everything that results in a negative experience is bad.
The problem of games coaxing playtime out of their audience by meeting general tastes is that they quickly loose their player base due to boring gameplay.
When it comes to grouping I still love the systems of good old Dark Age of Camelot or Lineage 2. In these MMORPGs you grouped, because it was a benefit. It eased up things for you and speeded up the leveling process.
As a warrior in DAoC...
... it was a benefit to group with a healer to shorten downtimes.
... .t was a benefit to group with a shaman to increase attributes to a point that enabled you to kill far higher opponents.
... it was a benefit to group with s skald to reduce travel times and to have additional damage.
... it was a benefit to group with a Runemanster for his dmg output or support abilities.
Originally posted by Nephaerius nothing changed they forced you to group in order to do content back in the day
o rly?
In UO, right? Or was it AC?
4th Coming?
Furcadia?
AO?
EVE Online?
There?
Planet Entropia?
Neocron?
Or was it Toon Town? Puzzle Pirates? Second Life?
Maybe... just maybe... solo gameplay was a big part of a lot of MMOs "back in the day" and the ex-EQers are a little off on their history. Tinted glasses, and such.
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
And I honestly wish developers tap into these IPs for singleplayer RPGs for you and every other Star Trek fan who wishes for a KOTOR-type experience in the Star Trek universe. Just as I wish a legitimately awesome Transformers MMO would be created, or a legitimately awesome 3rd person action TMNT, featuring 4-player coop, would be created (the child in me would cry tears of joy). But that doesn't change the fact that these are MMOs, even if you play them as singleplayer games, and they should be developed as such. To ignore the first three letters in MMORPG is doing a disservice to the genre's inherent advantage compared to singleplayer games. They will never reach the level of tailored and fitted singleplayer experience you can get in singleplayer games. We can at least agree on this, correct?
Yes, we can agree on this. I would be more than happy to play a Star Trek SP RPG, or Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3. In fact, Marvel Heroes is more or less a single player game already if you don't play in the public zones.
Now the categorization of these games into MMO is purely convenience (Marvel Heroes is more similar to Diablo in terms of gameplay and online features, than WoW, for example). I don't think games are there to "do service to a genre". In fact, I don't even think a "genre" is that important .... if a game if fun to me, i really don't care if it is in genre A or genre B. Thus, i occasionally will play MMOs that appeals to me by its IP or gameplay ... and it is about the game, not that it is a MMO.
And yes, Marvel Heroes will probably be a better game if it is made SP, and so is STO (in fact, TOR also). But before I get choice, i will be playing these (not TOR though) MMOs.
No the forced grouping term started with EQ. EQ was the outlier, the majority of games back then had soloing has a viable option... Except EQ (other than a few classes).
EQ was the outlier, not the norm. Now the games are coming back to their roots with soloing being a once again real viable option.
You already had to group in Meridian 59 3 years before EQ, and it was the first game we would recognize as a MMO today.
You are forced to group even before that, in a game precursor to MMOs, Kingdom of Drakkar. You cannot kill the boss unless you are in a group. (Although in that game, a group means people showing up .. there is no "grouping" mechanics).
Its the quest based nature. You placed on a track and told to run. Most people run the most effiecent way which is solo and thus you have a genre based around soloing. Many times there is no off the beaten path place to go. You just have a world designed to push you from one level to next.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Its the quest based nature. You placed on a track and told to run. Most people run the most effiecent way which is solo and thus you have a genre based around soloing. Many times there is no off the beaten path place to go. You just have a world designed to push you from one level to next.
But that's only true if your goal is to get to max level as fast as possible. If you don't care about endgame, as I don't, then you have no need to get on the treadmill and run as fast as you can, you get to slow down and enjoy the journey because the journey is the only thing I care about. That's why I can never find anyone to group with, everyone else is running as fast as they can to endgame, I refuse to run along with them.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Its the quest based nature. You placed on a track and told to run. Most people run the most effiecent way which is solo and thus you have a genre based around soloing. Many times there is no off the beaten path place to go. You just have a world designed to push you from one level to next.
But that's only true if your goal is to get to max level as fast as possible. If you don't care about endgame, as I don't, then you have no need to get on the treadmill and run as fast as you can, you get to slow down and enjoy the journey because the journey is the only thing I care about. That's why I can never find anyone to group with, everyone else is running as fast as they can to endgame, I refuse to run along with them.
That's because you're going against the design to grind quest and for gear. The way worlds and the gameplay are designed there isn't much else to do in the game. I mean, you could smell the roses if there were many roses to smell.
In the dim, dark age of the first mmorpgs the players had usually played pen and paper RPGs which were intensely social affairs and treated mmorpgs as an extension of these tabletop sessions. Those days have long gone.
There may be quite a few old-style players still around, like myself, but they are lost amid the "hurry, hurry, must max my level asap" players. I can't be bothered to wade hip-deep through the endless chaff to find the wheat. Not any more.
Originally posted by Nephaerius nothing changed they forced you to group in order to do content back in the day
o rly?
In UO, right? Or was it AC?
4th Coming?
Furcadia?
AO?
EVE Online?
There?
Planet Entropia?
Neocron?
Or was it Toon Town? Puzzle Pirates? Second Life?
Maybe... just maybe... solo gameplay was a big part of a lot of MMOs "back in the day" and the ex-EQers are a little off on their history. Tinted glasses, and such.
Combat is only one feature for community. Really only a driving factor in games that are combat only. Which means essentially Everquest back in the day.
Because people are asses online just like they're asses in real life. Sometimes worse. And the longer I play the more I realize that it is in the best interests of my fun to minimize contact with them.
Change people, and I'll interact with them more. Except when I'm feeling like a bit of an ass, in which case I'll be nice and solo.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
That's because you're going against the design to grind quest and for gear. The way worlds and the gameplay are designed there isn't much else to do in the game. I mean, you could smell the roses if there were many roses to smell.
Because most players want combat. There are other stuff to do and even MMORPGs which has no combat (like Tales of the Dessert) but those things are very niche.
If people want to smell roses, devs would put them in (supply and demand, you know). The reason why we have combat centric gear centric gameplay is because that is popular.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Its the quest based nature. You placed on a track and told to run. Most people run the most effiecent way which is solo and thus you have a genre based around soloing. Many times there is no off the beaten path place to go. You just have a world designed to push you from one level to next.
But that's only true if your goal is to get to max level as fast as possible. If you don't care about endgame, as I don't, then you have no need to get on the treadmill and run as fast as you can, you get to slow down and enjoy the journey because the journey is the only thing I care about. That's why I can never find anyone to group with, everyone else is running as fast as they can to endgame, I refuse to run along with them.
That's because you're going against the design to grind quest and for gear. The way worlds and the gameplay are designed there isn't much else to do in the game. I mean, you could smell the roses if there were many roses to smell.
While to some degree, you're right, but I used to go sit out in public and craft for people for hours and hours for free, just because it was fun to help people and talk to people, plus I could be chatting with my in-game friends. There were weeks when I'd spend more time crafting than I would playing the game. Of course, I didn't get anywhere doing that but I didn't care because the only thing that matters to me in a game is having a good time. For most people, if they're not running around killing things all the time, they don't want to play at all.
That's because you're going against the design to grind quest and for gear. The way worlds and the gameplay are designed there isn't much else to do in the game. I mean, you could smell the roses if there were many roses to smell.
Because most players want combat. There are other stuff to do and even MMORPGs which has no combat (like Tales of the Dessert) but those things are very niche.
If people want to smell roses, devs would put them in (supply and demand, you know). The reason why we have combat centric gear centric gameplay is because that is popular.
You can have other things to do while other do combat. I think we're going to start seeing that because the whole quest grind gameplay seems to be worn out. Not many themeparks are on the horizon.
Comments
The answer to the question: "Why did soloing in old MMOs lead to grouping where as in new games it does not"
Is that in old MMOs soloing was slow and painful where as in new MMOs they are not. Pretty simple, really.
My gaming blog
Because devs want their business and structure the game so that you can get something done in 15 min?
And why is it a "problem"? shouldn't devs have freedom to cater to whoever?
If I can't do something in 15-20 min for a MMORPGs, i won't play it .. as you say, i will play a SP game, or read. However, I *can* with many MMOs today ... so why shouldn't I?
Lots of highly rated singleplayer games that require no communication between players? I'm going to have to say that's pretty obvious. There are no players to communicate or work with. Show me an MMO whose solo content even touches the complexity, depth, responsiveness, and tailoring of singleplayer experiences you get with Mass Effect, The Last of Us, Far Cry, Dead Space, Batman: Arkham XXX, or any other game built around a singleplayer experience. Those all are singleplayer RPGs or have RPG elements. There's a very specific reason MMO gameplay doesn't come close: they have to be built within an engine designed to accommodate a multitude of players playing in a shared gameworld. A world that has to communicate constantly over great distances with players all on different types and speeds of internet. A world that cannot simply shut one quest down to all other players because you or I are currently on that quest. Plain and simple. It's a weakness I don't insist on, but it's there for a reason. But in creating that weakness, MMOs enjoy a strength in another area that those singleplayer RPGs can't touch.
If you're looking for the best singleplayer experience possible, MMOs aren't the best experience video games offer. Never will be, unless you just enjoy the genre for one of its inherent weaknesses.
But then again, some of us enjoy the multiplayer games for their strengths, not their weaknesses. Their strengths are that you can play and interact with other living, thinking human beings. It's fine for you to enjoy them for their weaker elements if they just so happen to fit exactly what you want (though you yourself have admitted you'd rather play a genuinely singleplayer ST TNG-era RPG, and I'd venture to say my above point is the reasoning behind that). It's also fine to hope that developers strengthen this area of MMOs. But it's silly to do so at the cost of the genre's inherent strengths.
You seem to want to advocate that you can hold your opinion on what type of gameplay you prefer, and so can I. But the moment someone critiques gameplay, even in their own preferred realm (as I was doing by saying group content requiring little or no communication within that group is predictable and, therefore, mundane), you are quick to point out that you don't think that way and so (or in spite of this, whatever the case may be) you like solo content, and others solo too, so you must be right. All because casual players looking to make the most progress in the shortest amount of time choose to play solo in games where that style of play makes the most progress in the shortest amount of time, where interaction is not required or really encouraged to make said progress.
I'm not saying there aren't players that wish to encounter minimal interaction with other players. I'm saying that not all players who solo in those games wish to. I know I don't, but I'll log into games such as ESO and solo grind quests all day (albeit while chatting with guildies). Not because I don't want to group up and have fun (I did instanced group dungeons that literally weren't worth the time in terms of experience, loot, or gold), but because it's the most efficient method of progression in that game. I submit that there are many other folks that wouldn't mind grouping and interacting, but solo because it's efficient. For the third time: correlation does not always equal causation.
Yes, they are if you care about the setting, like I do.
The best Star Trek RPG (with both ship & ground combat, and stories) is STO, a MMORPG .... because there is no other choices.
The best action RPG with marvel characters is Marvel Heroes, a MMORPG ... because the only other alternatives are old games like Marvel Ultimate Alliance 1 & 2 (which I played).
How about The Secret World? Where is the conspiracy theory modern day single player RPG?
Before good SP RPGs are produced in these areas, I would have to continue to play MMORPGs.
And what is all this stuff about "i think i am right" and "correlation is not causation". I never said no one has preferences like yours .. i am merely pointing out mine, and also that many seems to share that preferences.
There is no "right" or "wrong" in preferences. You state yours, I state mine.
I'm not sure there are single player games that cater exactly to what you want, but the Mass Effect series is very similar to Star Trek and I enjoyed it a lot more then STO.
I've never played any great comic book games. I didn't enjoy Marvel Heroes though. To each their own. I prefer to watch comic book hero movies.
There are a lot of single player conspiracy theory games out there. Resident Evil 5 isn't that old and is pretty good. The Splinter Cell series usually has some kind of conspiracy and so does the modern warfare/battlefield type of games. It seems like a lot of single player games have conspiracies of some sort that are revealed at the end. Especially horror and war SP games. I generally don't like war games much myself. There is to much shooting/noise/non stop action. Look around and I'm sure there are some single player games you would like with conspiracy theories.
Similar is not exactly the same.
Plus, who said i don't play these other SP games ... Splinter Cell Blacklist is great. Mass Effect .. a bit too slow in my taste, but not too bad.
But the point is this ..when i want a Star Trek RPG fix, STO is it ... it is simply the best (because it is the only) Star Trek game out there. I cannot pilot a constitution class star ship in Mass Effect, can I?
And yes, everyone has a different preference. Marvel Ultimate Alliances (essentially marvel heroes in a SP ARPG) was rated very high and it was very popular. Too bad it only has one sequel, and now if I want a modern game like that, Marvel Heroes is it.
And btw, who has to choose between games and movies? I love the marvel movies, and I like ARPGs with marvel characters. I like to enjoy BOTH.
Steam: Neph
And I honestly wish developers tap into these IPs for singleplayer RPGs for you and every other Star Trek fan who wishes for a KOTOR-type experience in the Star Trek universe. Just as I wish a legitimately awesome Transformers MMO would be created, or a legitimately awesome 3rd person action TMNT, featuring 4-player coop, would be created (the child in me would cry tears of joy). But that doesn't change the fact that these are MMOs, even if you play them as singleplayer games, and they should be developed as such. To ignore the first three letters in MMORPG is doing a disservice to the genre's inherent advantage compared to singleplayer games. They will never reach the level of tailored and fitted singleplayer experience you can get in singleplayer games. We can at least agree on this, correct?
That doesn't mean they should stop improving in that area. Or that you should put them down because they're online. They just shouldn't develop that at the expense of the inherent advantage they have developing in the genre (i.e. ESO levels 1-50).
I'm also all for MOBAs and World of Tanks-style online games. Not only because they provide a variety of gameplay choices to the consumer, but also because they still aren't in the same specific genre as MMOs. I actually think their success might help MMO studios take their development in the more "massively multiplayer virtual world" direction, as that's the distinction MMOs have against MOBAs. That's what would distinguish them. That's what would have players forgiving the fact that the gameplay may be more rigid, that PvP may be less about the "I got XXX kills, check the scoreboard!" and more about the "We took/defended XXX keeps/towers from hundreds of other players!" It would help further distinguish the flavor of the online game they had built from that of the MOBA and other online experiences.
'Back in the day' it was just called grouping, it was to be expected when you went online, you were going online to play with other people. It's the same as logging on to Quake 3 multiplayer, you knew you were going to be fighting a bunch of other players, not random game monsters.
It was the rise of WoW and its clones that brought about the description 'forced grouping', because they made it like a single player experience with optional teamwork, so all the millions of people that signed up then tried other MMO's suddenly came up with the whine, "They're forcing me to group. WoW doesn't do that.".
No the forced grouping term started with EQ. EQ was the outlier, the majority of games back then had soloing has a viable option... Except EQ (other than a few classes).
EQ was the outlier, not the norm. Now the games are coming back to their roots with soloing being a once again real viable option.
You already had to group in Meridian 59 3 years before EQ, and it was the first game we would recognize as a MMO today.
I think that one the major reasons for grouping and socializing no longer being a pillar of MMO-Design can be found in the developers and publishers interest to attract an as large as possible audience and to keep players busy. This means that the developers must create something that could be called a virtual universe of general tastes.
Regarding progression in a game, this general taste nowadays seems to be: The player must be able to take every role of the Holy Trinity with his chosen class. This freedom enables the player to solo through many parts of the game. In addition, almost every part of the games are designed to offer you a enduring and action based experience. Downtimes are bad. Dying is bad. Loosing experience is bad. Everything that results in a negative experience is bad.
The problem of games coaxing playtime out of their audience by meeting general tastes is that they quickly loose their player base due to boring gameplay.
When it comes to grouping I still love the systems of good old Dark Age of Camelot or Lineage 2. In these MMORPGs you grouped, because it was a benefit. It eased up things for you and speeded up the leveling process.
As a warrior in DAoC...
... it was a benefit to group with a healer to shorten downtimes.
... .t was a benefit to group with a shaman to increase attributes to a point that enabled you to kill far higher opponents.
... it was a benefit to group with s skald to reduce travel times and to have additional damage.
... it was a benefit to group with a Runemanster for his dmg output or support abilities.
... i could go on, but will stop at this point.
o rly?
In UO, right? Or was it AC?
4th Coming?
Furcadia?
AO?
EVE Online?
There?
Planet Entropia?
Neocron?
Or was it Toon Town? Puzzle Pirates? Second Life?
Maybe... just maybe... solo gameplay was a big part of a lot of MMOs "back in the day" and the ex-EQers are a little off on their history. Tinted glasses, and such.
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
Yes, we can agree on this. I would be more than happy to play a Star Trek SP RPG, or Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3. In fact, Marvel Heroes is more or less a single player game already if you don't play in the public zones.
Now the categorization of these games into MMO is purely convenience (Marvel Heroes is more similar to Diablo in terms of gameplay and online features, than WoW, for example). I don't think games are there to "do service to a genre". In fact, I don't even think a "genre" is that important .... if a game if fun to me, i really don't care if it is in genre A or genre B. Thus, i occasionally will play MMOs that appeals to me by its IP or gameplay ... and it is about the game, not that it is a MMO.
And yes, Marvel Heroes will probably be a better game if it is made SP, and so is STO (in fact, TOR also). But before I get choice, i will be playing these (not TOR though) MMOs.
You are forced to group even before that, in a game precursor to MMOs, Kingdom of Drakkar. You cannot kill the boss unless you are in a group. (Although in that game, a group means people showing up .. there is no "grouping" mechanics).
But that's only true if your goal is to get to max level as fast as possible. If you don't care about endgame, as I don't, then you have no need to get on the treadmill and run as fast as you can, you get to slow down and enjoy the journey because the journey is the only thing I care about. That's why I can never find anyone to group with, everyone else is running as fast as they can to endgame, I refuse to run along with them.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
That's because you're going against the design to grind quest and for gear. The way worlds and the gameplay are designed there isn't much else to do in the game. I mean, you could smell the roses if there were many roses to smell.
I like you.
Combat is only one feature for community. Really only a driving factor in games that are combat only. Which means essentially Everquest back in the day.
Because people are asses online just like they're asses in real life. Sometimes worse. And the longer I play the more I realize that it is in the best interests of my fun to minimize contact with them.
Change people, and I'll interact with them more. Except when I'm feeling like a bit of an ass, in which case I'll be nice and solo.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Because most players want combat. There are other stuff to do and even MMORPGs which has no combat (like Tales of the Dessert) but those things are very niche.
If people want to smell roses, devs would put them in (supply and demand, you know). The reason why we have combat centric gear centric gameplay is because that is popular.
While to some degree, you're right, but I used to go sit out in public and craft for people for hours and hours for free, just because it was fun to help people and talk to people, plus I could be chatting with my in-game friends. There were weeks when I'd spend more time crafting than I would playing the game. Of course, I didn't get anywhere doing that but I didn't care because the only thing that matters to me in a game is having a good time. For most people, if they're not running around killing things all the time, they don't want to play at all.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
You can have other things to do while other do combat. I think we're going to start seeing that because the whole quest grind gameplay seems to be worn out. Not many themeparks are on the horizon.