The tell I's the use of the word 'depend'. A player looking for a single player experience from a MMO is like joining an organised debate but then only talking to yourself, it's possible but why join the debate in the first place?
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by Bladestrom The tell I's the use of the word 'depend'. A player looking for a single player experience from a MMO is like joining an organised debate but then only talking to yourself, it's possible but why join the debate in the first place?
What exactly do you have issue with? The fact that MMORPGs have single player content or that there are players playing these games who don't want to socialize?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Bladestrom The tell I's the use of the word 'depend'. A player looking for a single player experience from a MMO is like joining an organised debate but then only talking to yourself, it's possible but why join the debate in the first place?
What exactly do you have issue with? The fact that MMORPGs have single player content or that there are players playing these games who don't want to socialize?
I think it's both, tbh. MMOs having single player content attracts players who doesn't want to socialize.
How i see MMOs is that they should have single player content that contributes towards a common goal, and make a player interact with other players in one way or another. That doesn't necessarily mean they are required to start conversations with them, but somehow communicate and work together with them. These games we have got lately are more like traditional SPGs you play on same server with other people, who have bought the same game as you.
The latter of my points is still pretty well represented in MMOs, but the former is getting rare these days. More and more we have these games where a player goes through a linear story, alone, while seeing other players doing the very same thing without a need to even notice them.
Originally posted by Bladestrom The tell I's the use of the word 'depend'. A player looking for a single player experience from a MMO is like joining an organised debate but then only talking to yourself, it's possible but why join the debate in the first place?
What exactly do you have issue with? The fact that MMORPGs have single player content or that there are players playing these games who don't want to socialize?
I have an issue with people who dont understand that mmos are intended for social play. There is nothing wrong with doing solo activites in a mmo or even not wanting to socialise, but when developers or players argue that mmos should be targeted for solo play then it defeats the purpose of the game being an mmo. Deniter's comments above makes a lot of sense.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
I'm not sure of that is good or bad, but you will NOT find megalomaniac necromancers who think they can kill anything and everything, uber-strong fighters that forget to breathe if someone does not remind them to, or druids that will prevent players from killing baby bunnies. Why? Other players will not stand for it. That is a "stupid" way to play. It interferes with others' "beating the game" and much sought after "efficiency."
It is a problem because you depend on others to have fun.
Just play solo, and you can play any style. If you don't optimize, no one will give you a hard time.
Basically, there are two choices. You play solo, and don't care what other say. Or you play multiplayer, and have to modify your behavior somewhat (unlike you are the norm) so others will let you play with them.
That is why I seldom bother with strangers. I don't have to tolerate anyone, and they don't have to tolerate me. Some gameplay (like pvp, or public quests) sidestep that dependency.
Just play solo ?
Why play an mmo ?
See, developers are making there games for everyone to crossover.....Now we don't have mmos anymore...There gone !
Because some mmos have IPs and gameplay that is not available on single player games?
Originally posted by Bladestrom The tell I's the use of the word 'depend'. A player looking for a single player experience from a MMO is like joining an organised debate but then only talking to yourself, it's possible but why join the debate in the first place?
What exactly do you have issue with? The fact that MMORPGs have single player content or that there are players playing these games who don't want to socialize?
I have an issue with people who dont understand that mmos are intended for social play. There is nothing wrong with doing solo activites in a mmo or even not wanting to socialise, but when developers or players argue that mmos should be targeted for solo play then it defeats the purpose of the game being an mmo. Deniter's comments above makes a lot of sense.
Who are you to say what is the purpose of a MMO? Devs decide, since it is their game.
If devs want to make MMOs targeting solo players ... what is the problem? It is a free world. They obviously can do what they want with their game. Players are free to decide if they want to play the game or not.
I'm not defining anything, what does MMORPG represent? Your confusing games genre with preference. We enjoy single player games we enjoy mMORPG, if you turn an MMO into a single player game what was the point In investing millions into building the MMO as an MMO in the first place. if you want a MMO that plays like a single player - fine, if you want a single player that plays like a single player - fine. If you argue against a genre because you don't like it - not fine, you are failing to understand that the genre is not aimed at you. Now you can play that genre, but playing the genre and wanting it to be something else?
Put it this way what if in another parallel universe the opposite happened and devs started changing all single player games to satisfy MMO conmunity lovers, to the extent where core single player gaming is affected.
This is about people not understanding that it's good for players to have choice, and it's ok for some games to be different enough that it won't suit you. Prime example, I hate open world pvp and ganking, and as a result it ruins eve for me - but I understand that's my problem not Eve's.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by Bladestrom I'm not defining anything, what does MMORPG represent? Your confusing games genre with preference. We enjoy single player games we enjoy mMORPG, if you turn an MMO into a single player game what was the point In investing millions into building the MMO as an MMO in the first place. if you want a MMO that plays like a single player - fine, if you want a single player that plays like a single player - fine. If you argue against a genre because you don't like it - not fine, you are failing to understand that the genre is not aimed at you. Now you can play that genre, but playing the genre and wanting it to be something else?
What is "argue against a genre"? Mere pointing out what the genre trend is going ... is not "argue against the genre".
In fact, you are arguing against the genre. The MMO genre is becoming more solo friendly, more convenient and less social. Why are you arguing against where the devs want to take it?
and again, it is a free world. If devs want to take MMOs to be more like single player games, and i like it, is there a problem?
Um ok, il spell it out since you can't be bothered reading what I wrote - sure you can turn a MMO into a coorg, but then it's not a MMO is it - it has been moved to the coorg genre.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Il Make it even more simple, if you want a game to be a coorg, why spend millions creating a MMO and then fecking of the MMO customer base by bastardising the game for profit - why not just build a dedicated MMO and a seperate coorg that is dedicated to making solo players happy?
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
nah .. just put in a difficulty slider, and let players choose their own difficulties.
Players choosing difficulties actually is what has taken the community out. I watched the community fall off each time City Of, added a solo-friendly feature, or smoothed the leveling curve. When you had issues progressing after level 5-10 EVERYBODY was chatting up chat. Looking for groups.
I say it tons, so much I get tired of it, but WoW changed MMORPG's. How? They made money selling MMORPGs to people that didn't, wouldn't, couldn't, play them. They did it by changing how MMORPGs are played. They changed it to: level 10 -15 levels, do group dungeon. Level 10-15 more levels, do group dungeon. Then the money started coming in. In pipes. In trucks. By plane. So much money that it had an effect on EVERY game developed since.
Originally posted by Bladestrom Um ok, il spell it out since you can't be bothered reading what I wrote - sure you can turn a MMO into a coorg, but then it's not a MMO is it - it has been moved to the coorg genre.
Given that the definition of MMO is now broadened, i doubt that matters. And it is only a matter of semantics.
If you want to call WoW a corpg (since it can be solo-ed, and most gameplay is in instances anyway), be my guest. I don't mind. It is just a label.
Originally posted by Bladestrom Il Make it even more simple, if you want a game to be a coorg, why spend millions creating a MMO and then fecking of the MMO customer base by bastardising the game for profit - why not just build a dedicated MMO and a seperate coorg that is dedicated to making solo players happy?
hmmm ... why ask me? Ask the devs. I just play MMOs because they are more like corpg. Why that is so? I don't really care.
I would be more than happy if some of the games i play (like marvel heroes, or STO) get rid of the MMO features, and become a single player online game.
And now you hit the nail on the head nar, you look at a MMORPG and hope for a coorg/solo rich experience and I look at a MMORPG and hope for a MMORPG with a focus on community and rich virtual worlds. the fault lies with developers who try to invest in both and dedicate to neither. They need to stop trying to be a square and a circle at the same time and specialise - create games you love, and create games I Love and therefore avoid conflicting requirements.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
And now you hit the nail on the head nar, you look at a MMORPG and hope for a coorg/solo rich experience and I look at a MMORPG and hope for a MMORPG with a focus on community and rich virtual worlds. the fault lies with developers who try to invest in both and dedicate to neither. They need to stop trying to be a square and a circle at the same time and specialise -create games you love, and create games I Love and therefore avoid conflicting requirements.
And therein lies the problem. You are only 1 person. Nariuss is only 1 person. Even if you two liked the 2 opposite spectrums of types of games does not mean everyone who disagrees with you means they like nariuss types of games and if they disagree with nariuss means they like your types of games.
There are a lot of people who would agree with your idea of mmorpg being community driven being number 1, but might hate the type/style of combat that you like and thus would loathe to play the type of mmorpg you'd love to play. Others might want super indepth crafting, much more so than you're comfortable with and also want the best gear to only be able to be made through crafting, others would want it to be through drops from bosses, etcetc.
You are only 1 person. Nariuss is only 1 person. You only represent your own ideals when you're talking about an entire game. There's millions of different people who have different likes and dislikes and have different priorities for combat, graphics, voice overs, storyline, grouping, solo, etc, etc.
If you really think its just as simple as creating games that nariuss loves, and creating games that you love and that would solve everything you're being silly.
And now you hit the nail on the head nar, you look at a MMORPG and hope for a coorg/solo rich experience and I look at a MMORPG and hope for a MMORPG with a focus on community and rich virtual worlds. the fault lies with developers who try to invest in both and dedicate to neither. They need to stop trying to be a square and a circle at the same time and specialise - create games you love, and create games I Love and therefore avoid conflicting requirements.
I don't disagree ... but i do not see it as a "fault". The devs can do whatever they like, and we react with our preferences. It is the essence of what a free market is.
There is no "fault". No "right or wrong". Sure, i would like a less MMO-like Marvel Hero .. but hey ... it is Gazillion's game, and they have the full right to make it anything they want. I take a look, and with full knowledge, decide to live with the MMO elements, and play it solo.
I think you have to let people play their toons as they would in their own imagination. The games with community all at least partially allow players to customize how they play the game and how they achive personal power. I think WOW has a stable player base, but I dont know if I would ever consider that crowd a community. Ryzom has a communty although small, Their needs to be give and take outside of ten mans. EvE has a community, Utlima still has some of its community left, but to say that GW2 , TOR or ESO have a communty would be saying World of Tanks has a communty. The themeparks on rails are so blatant I really don't consider them mmorpgs anymore, where as they are starting to play like single character MOBAs.
Think of it like a city. A village or small town may have a single community. A city of hundreds of thousands had many communities n. A city of millions has even more.
Wow is like that. There is not just one community there are dozens or hundreds of communities now.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
What exactly do you have issue with? The fact that MMORPGs have single player content or that there are players playing these games who don't want to socialize?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I think it's both, tbh. MMOs having single player content attracts players who doesn't want to socialize.
How i see MMOs is that they should have single player content that contributes towards a common goal, and make a player interact with other players in one way or another. That doesn't necessarily mean they are required to start conversations with them, but somehow communicate and work together with them. These games we have got lately are more like traditional SPGs you play on same server with other people, who have bought the same game as you.
The latter of my points is still pretty well represented in MMOs, but the former is getting rare these days. More and more we have these games where a player goes through a linear story, alone, while seeing other players doing the very same thing without a need to even notice them.
I have an issue with people who dont understand that mmos are intended for social play. There is nothing wrong with doing solo activites in a mmo or even not wanting to socialise, but when developers or players argue that mmos should be targeted for solo play then it defeats the purpose of the game being an mmo. Deniter's comments above makes a lot of sense.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Make the game being simple .
You don't need some tricks to bring back community , just make the game being simple and you will see the community back .
Multiplayer game are simple game , don't try so hard .
Because some mmos have IPs and gameplay that is not available on single player games?
Here is a more detailed answer:
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/634/view/forums/post/5903599#5903599
Who are you to say what is the purpose of a MMO? Devs decide, since it is their game.
If devs want to make MMOs targeting solo players ... what is the problem? It is a free world. They obviously can do what they want with their game. Players are free to decide if they want to play the game or not.
Put it this way what if in another parallel universe the opposite happened and devs started changing all single player games to satisfy MMO conmunity lovers, to the extent where core single player gaming is affected.
This is about people not understanding that it's good for players to have choice, and it's ok for some games to be different enough that it won't suit you. Prime example, I hate open world pvp and ganking, and as a result it ruins eve for me - but I understand that's my problem not Eve's.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
What is "argue against a genre"? Mere pointing out what the genre trend is going ... is not "argue against the genre".
In fact, you are arguing against the genre. The MMO genre is becoming more solo friendly, more convenient and less social. Why are you arguing against where the devs want to take it?
and again, it is a free world. If devs want to take MMOs to be more like single player games, and i like it, is there a problem?
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Players choosing difficulties actually is what has taken the community out. I watched the community fall off each time City Of, added a solo-friendly feature, or smoothed the leveling curve. When you had issues progressing after level 5-10 EVERYBODY was chatting up chat. Looking for groups.
I say it tons, so much I get tired of it, but WoW changed MMORPG's. How? They made money selling MMORPGs to people that didn't, wouldn't, couldn't, play them. They did it by changing how MMORPGs are played. They changed it to: level 10 -15 levels, do group dungeon. Level 10-15 more levels, do group dungeon. Then the money started coming in. In pipes. In trucks. By plane. So much money that it had an effect on EVERY game developed since.
Which, is what it is, to turn a phrase.
It very easy.
Given that the definition of MMO is now broadened, i doubt that matters. And it is only a matter of semantics.
If you want to call WoW a corpg (since it can be solo-ed, and most gameplay is in instances anyway), be my guest. I don't mind. It is just a label.
hmmm ... why ask me? Ask the devs. I just play MMOs because they are more like corpg. Why that is so? I don't really care.
I would be more than happy if some of the games i play (like marvel heroes, or STO) get rid of the MMO features, and become a single player online game.
And now you hit the nail on the head nar, you look at a MMORPG and hope for a coorg/solo rich experience and I look at a MMORPG and hope for a MMORPG with a focus on community and rich virtual worlds. the fault lies with developers who try to invest in both and dedicate to neither. They need to stop trying to be a square and a circle at the same time and specialise - create games you love, and create games I Love and therefore avoid conflicting requirements.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
And therein lies the problem. You are only 1 person. Nariuss is only 1 person. Even if you two liked the 2 opposite spectrums of types of games does not mean everyone who disagrees with you means they like nariuss types of games and if they disagree with nariuss means they like your types of games.
There are a lot of people who would agree with your idea of mmorpg being community driven being number 1, but might hate the type/style of combat that you like and thus would loathe to play the type of mmorpg you'd love to play. Others might want super indepth crafting, much more so than you're comfortable with and also want the best gear to only be able to be made through crafting, others would want it to be through drops from bosses, etcetc.
You are only 1 person. Nariuss is only 1 person. You only represent your own ideals when you're talking about an entire game. There's millions of different people who have different likes and dislikes and have different priorities for combat, graphics, voice overs, storyline, grouping, solo, etc, etc.
If you really think its just as simple as creating games that nariuss loves, and creating games that you love and that would solve everything you're being silly.
I don't disagree ... but i do not see it as a "fault". The devs can do whatever they like, and we react with our preferences. It is the essence of what a free market is.
There is no "fault". No "right or wrong". Sure, i would like a less MMO-like Marvel Hero .. but hey ... it is Gazillion's game, and they have the full right to make it anything they want. I take a look, and with full knowledge, decide to live with the MMO elements, and play it solo.
I think it is pretty fair.
Wow is like that. There is not just one community there are dozens or hundreds of communities now.