Honestly, I cant see why anyone still agrees that solo is better.
because it IS better, being able to progress your character solo (at least up until a certain point) is the way MMO should be. there should always be ENCOURAGED grouping via bonuses. but what some crazies on this forum want just isn't going to happen ... where as they seem to want forced grouping.
You can group in every MMORPG hell even in the MMO that everyone hates on this forum ... world of warcraft. In one of the most solo oriented games out there I have leveled a shaman from 15-82 without doing anything but grouping (first 15 levels you can't enter dungeons).
Honestly, I cant see why anyone still agrees that solo is better.
because it IS better, being able to progress your character solo (at least up until a certain point) is the way MMO should be. there should always be ENCOURAGED grouping via bonuses. but what some crazies on this forum want just isn't going to happen ... where as they seem to want forced grouping.
You can group in every MMORPG hell even in the MMO that everyone hates on this forum ... world of warcraft. In one of the most solo oriented games out there I have leveled a shaman from 15-82 without doing anything but grouping (first 15 levels you can't enter dungeons).
It's just a preference. If we wanted to get into "objectively better", we'd have to find some way to measure results, and since that would be in, say, subscriber numbers and the like, then solo would be objectively better. But even there, SW:TOR has group content, and a lot of people participate in it. Neither solo nor group could objectively be measured to determine which is "better" with the information currently available.
It's an inherently subjective thing though. For people who prefer group content, then solo content is not better. For people who prefer solo content, group content is not better. Most likely though, people enjoy some solo content and some group content and neither is "better", it's all just content to play.
Some days you want to go to the Sports Bar, drink beer with your friends and talk or watch 'Sports' (Football / Baseball / Basketball / whatever).
Some days you'd rather have a gathering at your place with the BBQ at the backyard and your TV on with whatever Sports.
Some days you'd rather watch the game in private with your family.
Gasp! It is as if people have a CHOICE now and they can play to their preference!
You like forced grouping? Play games that does that.
You like solo-focused gameplay? Play games that does that.
The only 'problem' I see is your insistence that people like what you like and play games that you like.
Funny, back in the day we had this thing called a single player game for those moments. Your logic takes the MM out of MMO.
Not only do today's MMO's cater to single player minded people more than anything, but they are designed for the single player solo guy who obviously feels too lonely playing single player games, so he does it in an MMO where he can see other people doing the same thing he is while he reads trolls chat for entertainment.
I remember back in the day when games would give group bonuses for experience. Omg, how crazy! To actually encourage group play and socializing in an MMO!! But nah, the games have not changed, it is all just an illusion caused by us wearing these rose colored glasses of nostalgia.
/rant off
Solo play is not even remotely the same as single play on so many levels. I get tired of people stereotyping this issue with false analogies.
Agreed, it's seemingly all they have to argue against solo game-play with though..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Honestly, I cant see why anyone still agrees that solo is better.
That's fairly obvious by now. You don't get it. But that doesn't matter to those of us who like to play that way. It's okay for you not to get it. You don't have to. Enjoy your way of playing and let others enjoy theirs without you needing to 'get them'.
Then go play a solo RPG and stop diluting the MMO market with shitty compromised games that try to do everything at once. No MMO should focus on solo player, because that goes against everything that the genre stands for.
No. And it really isn't any of your business what I play or how. I could just as easily say, go play a group only game and quit trying to ruin the good online games out there that offer solo play. You don't get to control what other people do or like.
Problem is People like you Never were cared for in MMOs before we ended up with countless MMOs. IF you wanted to solo between 1998 - 2009 ish time frame you bought a single player game. NOT an MMO. Yet Marketing people thought it would be great to get you people into an MMO. What has that done? Yes its cheapen the MMO experience for people like me who PLAY TO PLAY WITH OTHER PEOPLE. MMOs were DESIGNED for that. Single Player games were DESIGNED to be a solo experience. So why would you want to play an MMO which is by definition a Mutliplayer game. Yes people can argue about Definition all they want, Pre Massive Single Player games MMOs were about playing with other people.
Straight BS, maybe you should actually play those games? In 2002 I started in DAOC, plenty of things to do solo, moved to SWG in 03, plenty of solo things to do... I didn't play anymore in groups then... than I do now.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The real problem as I see it is that a single player game will offer a better solo experience since it actually can change the world just for you. No MMO can ever do that.
Why not? Phasing .. instances .. there are plenty of ways to do it.
Marvel Heroes has a main story that you can follow through .. mostly done in instances.
I remember back in the day when games would give group bonuses for experience. Omg, how crazy! To actually encourage group play and socializing in an MMO!! But nah, the games have not changed, it is all just an illusion caused by us wearing these rose colored glasses of nostalgia.
/rant off
I feel the same way as you as far as grouping goes, but this is simply not true. Just last week I remember seeing a loading screen hint in a game that said basically "group with others, the more people in the group the more XP bonus you get". Had to be ESO or SWTOR, don't play anything else.
The point is, the mechanics to make group play better are still there. However, since it is no longer REQUIRED to group, fewer people actually do it.
There are a plethora of reasons to why they all suck and die out very quickly.
First of all almost EVERY opinion is biased because proof is in the fact these people are playing games they soon quit and don't like,so why join in the first place,making a terrible developer money?As long as people keep paying a ton of early money and make these guys rich,they will keep turning out products that last 1-3 months.
ARK has 70+k viewers today in Twitch,guess where that game will be in 3 months,right beside H1Z1 with 2-3k.
Once you see a solo based game,you know the developer put no effort into the game,they simply made a single player game and slapped on the internet.
REAL good quality mmorpg's take 5+ years,every one these modern games are like those old console single player games that took 18 months.The difference being that some take longer because they don't have the money or manpower NOT because they are putting in 5 years worth of effort.
The obvious problem is not JUST solo-group,it is the entire design.The biggest flaw to a CHEAP game design is that it only has ONE objective worth doing and that is usually end level gear.Very few care about the rest of the game and that is why so many look for pvp just because the games are THAT bad.
I ask the same question WHY support these cheap built games if they don't have the ENTIRE package?
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Some days you want to go to the Sports Bar, drink beer with your friends and talk or watch 'Sports' (Football / Baseball / Basketball / whatever).
Some days you'd rather have a gathering at your place with the BBQ at the backyard and your TV on with whatever Sports.
Some days you'd rather watch the game in private with your family.
Gasp! It is as if people have a CHOICE now and they can play to their preference!
You like forced grouping? Play games that does that.
You like solo-focused gameplay? Play games that does that.
The only 'problem' I see is your insistence that people like what you like and play games that you like.
Funny, back in the day we had this thing called a single player game for those moments. Your logic takes the MM out of MMO.
Not only do today's MMO's cater to single player minded people more than anything, but they are designed for the single player solo guy who obviously feels too lonely playing single player games, so he does it in an MMO where he can see other people doing the same thing he is while he reads trolls chat for entertainment.
I remember back in the day when games would give group bonuses for experience. Omg, how crazy! To actually encourage group play and socializing in an MMO!! But nah, the games have not changed, it is all just an illusion caused by us wearing these rose colored glasses of nostalgia.
/rant off
Solo play is not even remotely the same as single play on so many levels. I get tired of people stereotyping this issue with false analogies.
Agreed, it's seemingly all they have to argue against solo game-play with though..
If Solo Gameplay was actually difficult then I would have no problem with it.
If I went into a Solo-Focused MMO, and I had actually had difficult battles the required as much thought and trial and error as a Singleplayer game, then Yes, I would LOVE solo gameplay.
Notice how the characters health never dips below half health? Wheres the risk? Wheres the Challenge? There is none!! Its just kill mob 1, kill mob 2, rinse and repeat, its boring and its not fun, unless you are the type of person who simply likes reward with no risk, no challenge.
And if thats you, thats fine with me. But dont tell me that's a good strategy for development for all future MMO's. There should be more than one way to play an MMO and progress and there should be more challenging Solo MMO's if thats what they are going to make.
So heres my updated lists of wants/needs:
- Group content (At least 50/50)
- Challenging Solo Content (Even at level 1 there should be some sort of challenge)
- Less emphasis on Mega-servers/Cutting development corners
- Less F2P marketing ploys/tactics that divide communities.
If Solo Gameplay was actually difficult then I would have no problem with it.
If I went into a Solo-Focused MMO, and I had actually had difficult battles the required as much thought and trial and error as a Singleplayer game, then Yes, I would LOVE solo gameplay.
Notice how the characters health never dips below half health? Wheres the risk? Wheres the Challenge? There is none!! Its just kill mob 1, kill mob 2, rinse and repeat, its boring and its not fun, unless you are the type of person who simply likes reward with no risk, no challenge.
And if thats you, thats fine with me. But dont tell me that's a good strategy for development for all future MMO's. There should be more than one way to play an MMO and progress and there should be more challenging Solo MMO's if thats what they are going to make.
So heres my updated lists of wants/needs:
- Group content (At least 50/50)
- Challenging Solo Content (Even at level 1 there should be some sort of challenge)
- Less emphasis on Mega-servers/Cutting development corners
- Less F2P marketing ploys/tactics that divide communities.
Hallelujah! Now we can close this thread.
Oh, and by the way, grouping doesn't, in an by itself, automatically make game content any harder. As a matter of fact, a good argument can be made that grouping makes the game much, much easier. Anyone can be carried in a group. Heck, you can even go AFK and not lift a finger, and be carried in a group. Where is the risk and challenge in that? No such thing is possible playing solo.
Notice how the characters health never dips below half health? Wheres the risk? Wheres the Challenge? There is none!! Its just kill mob 1, kill mob 2, rinse and repeat, its boring and its not fun, unless you are the type of person who simply likes reward with no risk, no challenge.
its level 4 gameplay ... its basically the tutorial still LOL. As i said go into a high level dungeon and try to play like that see if the "characters health never dips below half"
Honestly, I cant see why anyone still agrees that solo is better.
because it IS better, being able to progress your character solo (at least up until a certain point) is the way MMO should be. there should always be ENCOURAGED grouping via bonuses. but what some crazies on this forum want just isn't going to happen ... where as they seem to want forced grouping.
You can group in every MMORPG hell even in the MMO that everyone hates on this forum ... world of warcraft. In one of the most solo oriented games out there I have leveled a shaman from 15-82 without doing anything but grouping (first 15 levels you can't enter dungeons).
It's just a preference. If we wanted to get into "objectively better",
having options is ALWAYS better.
and thats what many games give you now. if you want to solo your way to the end game you can do that, if you want to group all the way to the end ... you can do that.
Notice how the characters health never dips below half health? Wheres the risk? Wheres the Challenge? There is none!! Its just kill mob 1, kill mob 2, rinse and repeat, its boring and its not fun, unless you are the type of person who simply likes reward with no risk, no challenge.
its level 4 gameplay ... its basically the tutorial still LOL. As i said go into a high level dungeon and try to play like that see if the "characters health never dips below half"
Since the comparison was made to single player games earlier... on most single player games you also wade through waves of trash before you reach a boss fight. Things get very annoying if every single battle is an epic battle.
If you want challenge you can find it by soloing the heroics on Swtor, and most MMOs have similar content.
Still, it would be great to have a system like City of Heroes' again, where everything scales to your group size, and where you can even tweak the difficulty to be even harder than that. Which lets everyone solo whenever they want, or group up to tackle more difficult content (in addition to running the actual task forces of course).
It's still the MMO where I grouped the most because it was fun and easy to do, and you didn't even have to worry about some jackass wanting to rush through everything since the content was all repeatable anyway. (And the loot was per individual, no ninja looter bullshit to deal with either)
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
I'll tell you all right now what the current problem is:
Devs think that an "MMORPG" should have solo elements, but the actual definition does not involve solo elements whatsoever. It's call a massive multiplayer online RPG, not a massive solo player RPG. You can either make a really great solo game, or a really great multiplayer game - you can't make both (and if people try to, they usually fail in most cases because it cost far too much money to put an emphasis on both - we've seen this done time and again).
Until developers realize that multiplayer is multiplayer and solo is solo, we will continue to see failure MMORPG's, it's just that simple. SWG was good (the combat somewhat lacking, but it was in a lot of games back then if you compare any of them to the combat of games today) - but it had social elements of a multiplayer game built into the game systems. Even if you went out and killed stuff solo, you would need to hit a hospital or a cantina to heal yourself. You had to wait for the shuttle to arrive (naturally, people chatted to each other because it was a 15 minute wait). You couldn't hunt on dangerous planets alone. The only thing that really focused on solo-play was crafting, but even then there were elements where multiplayer was needed. That's just to name a few things...
In SWTOR, you can literally log in, turn off your chat bar and play the entire game without ever talking to anyone, EVER. That's not a multiplayer game, that's a solo game. Now they're raping people dry of their money with the cartel market and it's ridiculous. I also find it somewhat insulting to feed on people's impulse buying.
Counter-Strike is more of a multipayer game than SWTOR is. At least they don't try to be something they're not.
I don't have time(or willpower or energy) to waste on plebs who insist on limiting my freedom. Plus, why do it in a group and waste time on meaningless stuff if you can do it better by yourself(more concentration, more time, more freedom, less stupidity etc)? Why?
Plus I know a lot about Extro/intro. And the truth is, extros are pack animals who refuse to think for themselves 99% of time. Because they get energy from that shit. Lord save me, but it's ok! It's your freedom and even if I do grumble about it, I wouldn't even dream of limiting it. That's against my beliefs lol!
And this is what these shitty threads always end up as. Extros saying "group is da best!" while intros countering it with "but you're 10x more awesome if you do it yourself!".
Dam this site has gone down the gutter. I almost want to delete my accnt lol!
Look, I completely agree. I think that there are a lot of dysfunctional people out there and many who are just looking to lash out "because they can".
But let's not go creating nutty stereotypes because I have to tell you there are certainly enough centering around introverts.
Extroverts get energy and enjoyment from having people around. gettign enjoyment from ruining someone's day or insisting they "fall in line" is about something else.
And by the way, even though I'm an extrovert I don't go around saying "group da best". I mostly solo precisely because I don't like poisonous people. Mainly with friends or people I find to be "good people".
so before you delete your account maybe you should put things in perspective.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
The focused and vocal "forced-group" crowd is a niche group not unlike the focused and vocal "forced" OWPvP crowd. Nothing "forced" has a chance of succeeding in the MMORPG genre. The "massive" in MMORPG is all-inclusive and pretty much says it all, and the "massively" in MMORPG" can only succeed when a massive amount of people are playing. That objective is obviously not satisfied with only a niche group like "forced-grouping," or "forced-OWPvP" crowds. That "massive" is obviously better represented in the majority than it is in that "niche" minority regardless of how focused or vocal that minority may be. And the money will always follow the majority.
The few "inspired" progression servers of "group-centric" games are nothing but a cash grab to capitalize on the "rose-colored" interest of the "niche" minority of group of players you speak of. Even so, developers are well aware that the "resurgence" of one or two progression servers of an older game do not warrant the attention, interest, and most importantly the necessary funding of AAA development. No matter how much you wish for it, its just not there anymore. The player demographic has changed. It is simply an unsustainable business model for today's player demographic.
Stick a fork in it. It's done. Over with. Kaput.
LoL seriously your debate ends with something as trite as...
( I don't agree with you, the type of MMO you like is dead ) Stick a fork in itm It's done. Over with. Kaput.
Well somebody better alert the media and let all the developers know. I mean Daybreak Studios just announced that the Progression servers were so overwhelmingly successful they are going to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to build even more for EQ2 . You know so they can waste money chasing something that has no importance because that type of game is Kpaut and all.
Cheers.
Hundreds of thousands for a couple of extra servers to run a game with system requirements from the dark ages? Seriously?
They'd spent more on those servers than they get from their subscriptions if that were the case.
Clearly someone's a little out of touch with today's technology.
Sorry my cost estimates were guesstimated around the entire project including all the staff that will be working over the next 6 months to poll the customers and then retrofit the game to match the chosen play style and rules.
Though the server hardware, database licensing and support costs are significant the staff costs push it over $ 100000 almost by itself with say 50% of 3 people over 6 months with a Manager to keep things on track.
Some days you want to go to the Sports Bar, drink beer with your friends and talk or watch 'Sports' (Football / Baseball / Basketball / whatever).
Some days you'd rather have a gathering at your place with the BBQ at the backyard and your TV on with whatever Sports.
Some days you'd rather watch the game in private with your family.
Gasp! It is as if people have a CHOICE now and they can play to their preference!
You like forced grouping? Play games that does that.
You like solo-focused gameplay? Play games that does that.
The only 'problem' I see is your insistence that people like what you like and play games that you like.
Funny, back in the day we had this thing called a single player game for those moments. Your logic takes the MM out of MMO.
Not only do today's MMO's cater to single player minded people more than anything, but they are designed for the single player solo guy who obviously feels too lonely playing single player games, so he does it in an MMO where he can see other people doing the same thing he is while he reads trolls chat for entertainment.
I remember back in the day when games would give group bonuses for experience. Omg, how crazy! To actually encourage group play and socializing in an MMO!! But nah, the games have not changed, it is all just an illusion caused by us wearing these rose colored glasses of nostalgia.
/rant off
Solo play is not even remotely the same as single play on so many levels. I get tired of people stereotyping this issue with false analogies.
Agreed, it's seemingly all they have to argue against solo game-play with though..
If Solo Gameplay was actually difficult then I would have no problem with it.
If I went into a Solo-Focused MMO, and I had actually had difficult battles the required as much thought and trial and error as a Singleplayer game, then Yes, I would LOVE solo gameplay.
Notice how the characters health never dips below half health? Wheres the risk? Wheres the Challenge? There is none!! Its just kill mob 1, kill mob 2, rinse and repeat, its boring and its not fun, unless you are the type of person who simply likes reward with no risk, no challenge.
And if thats you, thats fine with me. But dont tell me that's a good strategy for development for all future MMO's. There should be more than one way to play an MMO and progress and there should be more challenging Solo MMO's if thats what they are going to make.
So heres my updated lists of wants/needs:
- Group content (At least 50/50)
- Challenging Solo Content (Even at level 1 there should be some sort of challenge)
- Less emphasis on Mega-servers/Cutting development corners
- Less F2P marketing ploys/tactics that divide communities.
Thats around level 4 content in EverQuest. Yeah he doesn't dip below half health, it's fine to be against this sort of thing but don't use extremely low level content as a standing point for how one game is bad when one of the most well known MMOs of all time uses these exact same thing.
Just for the lazy, he actually beat this thing while talking about the game to teach other people and it never dropped below 90% health.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
The focused and vocal "forced-group" crowd is a niche group not unlike the focused and vocal "forced" OWPvP crowd. Nothing "forced" has a chance of succeeding in the MMORPG genre. The "massive" in MMORPG is all-inclusive and pretty much says it all, and the "massively" in MMORPG" can only succeed when a massive amount of people are playing. That objective is obviously not satisfied with only a niche group like "forced-grouping," or "forced-OWPvP" crowds. That "massive" is obviously better represented in the majority than it is in that "niche" minority regardless of how focused or vocal that minority may be. And the money will always follow the majority.
The few "inspired" progression servers of "group-centric" games are nothing but a cash grab to capitalize on the "rose-colored" interest of the "niche" minority of group of players you speak of. Even so, developers are well aware that the "resurgence" of one or two progression servers of an older game do not warrant the attention, interest, and most importantly the necessary funding of AAA development. No matter how much you wish for it, its just not there anymore. The player demographic has changed. It is simply an unsustainable business model for today's player demographic.
Stick a fork in it. It's done. Over with. Kaput.
LoL seriously your debate ends with something as trite as...
( I don't agree with you, the type of MMO you like is dead ) Stick a fork in itm It's done. Over with. Kaput.
Well somebody better alert the media and let all the developers know. I mean Daybreak Studios just announced that the Progression servers were so overwhelmingly successful they are going to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to build even more for EQ2 . You know so they can waste money chasing something that has no importance because that type of game is Kpaut and all.
Cheers.
Hundreds of thousands for a couple of extra servers to run a game with system requirements from the dark ages? Seriously?
They'd spent more on those servers than they get from their subscriptions if that were the case.
Clearly someone's a little out of touch with today's technology.
Sorry my cost estimates were guesstimated around the entire project including all the staff that will be working over the next 6 months to poll the customers and then retrofit the game to match the chosen play style and rules.
Though the server hardware, database licensing and support costs are significant the staff costs push it over $ 100000 almost by itself with say 50% of 3 people over 6 months with a Manager to keep things on track.
I imagine they'll put their existing network team to work on setting everything up. Unless they have a crisis on their hands every day with their current servers that requires their full time attention, they'll be more than capable of doing it as part of the job they're being paid for.
Likewise with the required coding. They're going back to an older version of the game, not designing completely new things (unless I'm terribly mistaken), so it's very likely that they've got the old code backed up somewhere.
It'll cost them something of course, but it likely won't be spectacular.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
In SWTOR, you can literally log in, turn off your chat bar and play the entire game without ever talking to anyone, EVER. That's not a multiplayer game, that's a solo game. Now they're raping people dry of their money with the cartel market and it's ridiculous. I also find it somewhat insulting to feed on people's impulse buying.
Counter-Strike is more of a multipayer game than SWTOR is. At least they don't try to be something they're not.
and yet TOR made $200M+ in 2013 ...
and talking to others in a game is way over-rated. Just play TOR as a single player game. Problem solved.
In SWTOR, you can literally log in, turn off your chat bar and play the entire game without ever talking to anyone, EVER. That's not a multiplayer game, that's a solo game. Now they're raping people dry of their money with the cartel market and it's ridiculous. I also find it somewhat insulting to feed on people's impulse buying.
Counter-Strike is more of a multipayer game than SWTOR is. At least they don't try to be something they're not.
and yet TOR made $200M+ in 2013 ...
and talking to others in a game is way over-rated. Just play TOR as a single player game. Problem solved.
First off, SWTOR DID NOT make 200M+ in 2013. They made 165M, and that is Direct from Superdata.
The developers made more money splitting the game into chunks and selling it off in pieces to make you pay more for the exact same content. Or even worse, selling an advantage for those who pay more than others, again splitting community even further.
I want to ask you are serious question. Why are you even discussing low level experience.
All the new mmorpg take no time to reach level cap. Who even care if the level 4 content for swtor is all solo.
Get in a guild in those games, wildstar, swtor, gw2 whatever. Pretty much everyone is at level cap. No one cares if low level content is all solo. Hack I just login GW2. 82 people online in my guild. "EVERYONE is at level cap"
The developers made more money splitting the game into chunks and selling it off in pieces to make you pay more for the exact same content. Or even worse, selling an advantage for those who pay more than others, again splitting community even further.
Thats almost always the case at first with F2P games. From strictly a business standpoint, its great in that it opens a game up to new demographics of players, and even with all the ones paying nothing, many players that never would have tried the game end up spending money. Problem is, it tapers off just like subscriptions after not very long unless new content is created fast enough or designed in such a way as to retain more players. Done right, it can serve as a second wind for games. Its really a brilliant monetization for MMOs, but brilliant sort of like engineering a virus that brings dead people back to life in a zombie state, yet too debilitated for them to ever enjoy life the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
Honestly, I cant see why anyone still agrees that solo is better. Every single MMO that has been released and focused on providing 90% solo content and 10% group content has just not done well.
Like I was looking at screenshots of SWTOR a minute ago and thinking to myself. Damn, this game world looks amazing. Then I went back and looked at the classes and im thinking, "Hey you know what, it not SWG, but these are a really cool mix of classes, the mechanics for all of them read like a heroic Star Wars character!"
But then I go and look at videos of the group content and what is it? Its watered down solo gameplay with text choice options based off a damn coin flip! WHY?!
Thats to me where the problems begin for all these new MMO's, they make it a solo-game first and a group game second. Its so fundamentally wrong and confusing. There is a giant world, you and thousands are connecting to, yet they focus on your personal experiance and no one else.
Its like opening up the biggest new nightclub in town, and inviting everyone to come out. But when they get to the club theres rails separating the dancefloor, so everyone has to boogie by themselves until they walk outside for a smoke break.
Think about that, when your playing in a socially inclined setting and all of a sudden the time you interact with others is only a 10% of your time out, are you really going to wanna come back to that nightclub?
I mean you could just stay home, save yourself the 15$ entrance fee and not ever have to be put into that awkward social scenario ever again.
First off I started playing MMO's in 1999 with Asheron's Call, probably been playing longer then 75% of the posters here. Second of all, AC was a very solo centric game and was amazing for it's influence in my perspective on MMO gaming. I had a chance to play EQ1 with some of my friends but the thought of camping a rare spawn or grinding a static spot over and over for XP did not fit my Pen & Paper RPG background. Plus it required more then you to accomplish anything remotely fun. Which back to my original background and my new found status as a parent wasn't an appeal to me. Being able to play a game, especially an RPG on my OWN time was what led me to AC and the forced grouping aspect of EQ1 was what led the death knell in my beloved Dungeons and Dragons P&P RPG's. Not enough time and too much organization to make it worthy of further investment. What I loved about AC was I could do 99% of the game solo and yet still strive for that online partnership most have.
Which brings me to my final point, It isn't the solo aspect that has destroyed MMO's (well TBH they are 100X more profitable and accessible now but I digress) it is the fact that almost everyone of them are basically carbon copies of the same paradigm we've been playing. Linear, quick leveling, quest grinding, endgame centric MMO. We haven't truly experienced a revolutionary step, let alone an evolutionary step in MMO design. Look into your heart OP, I bet you don't like MMO's not for their lack of social accommodation but for the reasons I think most everyone misses.
So in conclusion. SOLO play is not inherently bad, what is bad is same'y style game design.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
What OP says is completely false. Swtor has great GROUP oriented parts ... BUT at the same time all main quest chain is soloable which is GREAT. Would never play again game that it is not like Swtor. They just follow wishes of player base.
You are wasting your time. The crowd here is mainly clearly anti-group play, nor really seem to get what made MMORPG's unique and stand out from the rest of the genres out there.
And anyone who says they are grown and don't have time to play shouldn't be playing, or trying to play MMORPG's. This is why there are console games and the such. For easy and quick entertainment fixes.
Comments
because it IS better, being able to progress your character solo (at least up until a certain point) is the way MMO should be. there should always be ENCOURAGED grouping via bonuses. but what some crazies on this forum want just isn't going to happen ... where as they seem to want forced grouping.
You can group in every MMORPG hell even in the MMO that everyone hates on this forum ... world of warcraft. In one of the most solo oriented games out there I have leveled a shaman from 15-82 without doing anything but grouping (first 15 levels you can't enter dungeons).
It's just a preference. If we wanted to get into "objectively better", we'd have to find some way to measure results, and since that would be in, say, subscriber numbers and the like, then solo would be objectively better. But even there, SW:TOR has group content, and a lot of people participate in it. Neither solo nor group could objectively be measured to determine which is "better" with the information currently available.
It's an inherently subjective thing though. For people who prefer group content, then solo content is not better. For people who prefer solo content, group content is not better. Most likely though, people enjoy some solo content and some group content and neither is "better", it's all just content to play.
Agreed, it's seemingly all they have to argue against solo game-play with though..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Straight BS, maybe you should actually play those games? In 2002 I started in DAOC, plenty of things to do solo, moved to SWG in 03, plenty of solo things to do... I didn't play anymore in groups then... than I do now.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Why not? Phasing .. instances .. there are plenty of ways to do it.
Marvel Heroes has a main story that you can follow through .. mostly done in instances.
I feel the same way as you as far as grouping goes, but this is simply not true. Just last week I remember seeing a loading screen hint in a game that said basically "group with others, the more people in the group the more XP bonus you get". Had to be ESO or SWTOR, don't play anything else.
The point is, the mechanics to make group play better are still there. However, since it is no longer REQUIRED to group, fewer people actually do it.
There are a plethora of reasons to why they all suck and die out very quickly.
First of all almost EVERY opinion is biased because proof is in the fact these people are playing games they soon quit and don't like,so why join in the first place,making a terrible developer money?As long as people keep paying a ton of early money and make these guys rich,they will keep turning out products that last 1-3 months.
ARK has 70+k viewers today in Twitch,guess where that game will be in 3 months,right beside H1Z1 with 2-3k.
Once you see a solo based game,you know the developer put no effort into the game,they simply made a single player game and slapped on the internet.
REAL good quality mmorpg's take 5+ years,every one these modern games are like those old console single player games that took 18 months.The difference being that some take longer because they don't have the money or manpower NOT because they are putting in 5 years worth of effort.
The obvious problem is not JUST solo-group,it is the entire design.The biggest flaw to a CHEAP game design is that it only has ONE objective worth doing and that is usually end level gear.Very few care about the rest of the game and that is why so many look for pvp just because the games are THAT bad.
I ask the same question WHY support these cheap built games if they don't have the ENTIRE package?
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
If Solo Gameplay was actually difficult then I would have no problem with it.
If I went into a Solo-Focused MMO, and I had actually had difficult battles the required as much thought and trial and error as a Singleplayer game, then Yes, I would LOVE solo gameplay.
Here is level 4 gameplay from SWTOR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRwwmEwjjrM
Notice how the characters health never dips below half health? Wheres the risk? Wheres the Challenge? There is none!! Its just kill mob 1, kill mob 2, rinse and repeat, its boring and its not fun, unless you are the type of person who simply likes reward with no risk, no challenge.
And if thats you, thats fine with me. But dont tell me that's a good strategy for development for all future MMO's. There should be more than one way to play an MMO and progress and there should be more challenging Solo MMO's if thats what they are going to make.
So heres my updated lists of wants/needs:
- Group content (At least 50/50)
- Challenging Solo Content (Even at level 1 there should be some sort of challenge)
- Less emphasis on Mega-servers/Cutting development corners
- Less F2P marketing ploys/tactics that divide communities.
Hallelujah! Now we can close this thread.
Oh, and by the way, grouping doesn't, in an by itself, automatically make game content any harder. As a matter of fact, a good argument can be made that grouping makes the game much, much easier. Anyone can be carried in a group. Heck, you can even go AFK and not lift a finger, and be carried in a group. Where is the risk and challenge in that? No such thing is possible playing solo.
its level 4 gameplay ... its basically the tutorial still LOL. As i said go into a high level dungeon and try to play like that see if the "characters health never dips below half"
having options is ALWAYS better.
and thats what many games give you now. if you want to solo your way to the end game you can do that, if you want to group all the way to the end ... you can do that.
Since the comparison was made to single player games earlier... on most single player games you also wade through waves of trash before you reach a boss fight. Things get very annoying if every single battle is an epic battle.
If you want challenge you can find it by soloing the heroics on Swtor, and most MMOs have similar content.
Still, it would be great to have a system like City of Heroes' again, where everything scales to your group size, and where you can even tweak the difficulty to be even harder than that. Which lets everyone solo whenever they want, or group up to tackle more difficult content (in addition to running the actual task forces of course).
It's still the MMO where I grouped the most because it was fun and easy to do, and you didn't even have to worry about some jackass wanting to rush through everything since the content was all repeatable anyway. (And the loot was per individual, no ninja looter bullshit to deal with either)
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
I'll tell you all right now what the current problem is:
Devs think that an "MMORPG" should have solo elements, but the actual definition does not involve solo elements whatsoever. It's call a massive multiplayer online RPG, not a massive solo player RPG. You can either make a really great solo game, or a really great multiplayer game - you can't make both (and if people try to, they usually fail in most cases because it cost far too much money to put an emphasis on both - we've seen this done time and again).
Until developers realize that multiplayer is multiplayer and solo is solo, we will continue to see failure MMORPG's, it's just that simple. SWG was good (the combat somewhat lacking, but it was in a lot of games back then if you compare any of them to the combat of games today) - but it had social elements of a multiplayer game built into the game systems. Even if you went out and killed stuff solo, you would need to hit a hospital or a cantina to heal yourself. You had to wait for the shuttle to arrive (naturally, people chatted to each other because it was a 15 minute wait). You couldn't hunt on dangerous planets alone. The only thing that really focused on solo-play was crafting, but even then there were elements where multiplayer was needed. That's just to name a few things...
In SWTOR, you can literally log in, turn off your chat bar and play the entire game without ever talking to anyone, EVER. That's not a multiplayer game, that's a solo game. Now they're raping people dry of their money with the cartel market and it's ridiculous. I also find it somewhat insulting to feed on people's impulse buying.
Counter-Strike is more of a multipayer game than SWTOR is. At least they don't try to be something they're not.
Look, I completely agree. I think that there are a lot of dysfunctional people out there and many who are just looking to lash out "because they can".
But let's not go creating nutty stereotypes because I have to tell you there are certainly enough centering around introverts.
Extroverts get energy and enjoyment from having people around. gettign enjoyment from ruining someone's day or insisting they "fall in line" is about something else.
And by the way, even though I'm an extrovert I don't go around saying "group da best". I mostly solo precisely because I don't like poisonous people. Mainly with friends or people I find to be "good people".
so before you delete your account maybe you should put things in perspective.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Sorry my cost estimates were guesstimated around the entire project including all the staff that will be working over the next 6 months to poll the customers and then retrofit the game to match the chosen play style and rules.
Though the server hardware, database licensing and support costs are significant the staff costs push it over $ 100000 almost by itself with say 50% of 3 people over 6 months with a Manager to keep things on track.
https://youtu.be/xOLmuPQ9wgo?t=8m29s
Thats around level 4 content in EverQuest. Yeah he doesn't dip below half health, it's fine to be against this sort of thing but don't use extremely low level content as a standing point for how one game is bad when one of the most well known MMOs of all time uses these exact same thing.
Just for the lazy, he actually beat this thing while talking about the game to teach other people and it never dropped below 90% health.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
The expected result of binary thinking. All MMOs that resemble [X] are great games, and all that resemble [Y] are horrific abortions.
There is no middle ground. White hats and sinister villains.
Your game forces grouping, or it's 'soloplay' wickedness.
But but... even games that force grouping don't force it at every moment? Even games with "solo focused gameplay" don't require you to play solo?
Why bother. These minds were closed off as of 2004.
I imagine they'll put their existing network team to work on setting everything up. Unless they have a crisis on their hands every day with their current servers that requires their full time attention, they'll be more than capable of doing it as part of the job they're being paid for.
Likewise with the required coding. They're going back to an older version of the game, not designing completely new things (unless I'm terribly mistaken), so it's very likely that they've got the old code backed up somewhere.
It'll cost them something of course, but it likely won't be spectacular.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
and yet TOR made $200M+ in 2013 ...
and talking to others in a game is way over-rated. Just play TOR as a single player game. Problem solved.
First off, SWTOR DID NOT make 200M+ in 2013. They made 165M, and that is Direct from Superdata.
If you can link me an article that isnt wikipedia that says otherwise thats fine, but the numbers I have seen from 20 minutes of searching say 139M from the Cartel Sales, and 165M total for the year of 2013.
So yes they doubled their sales using the F2P/Cartel Market.
The developers made more money splitting the game into chunks and selling it off in pieces to make you pay more for the exact same content. Or even worse, selling an advantage for those who pay more than others, again splitting community even further.
Hey OP.
I want to ask you are serious question. Why are you even discussing low level experience.
All the new mmorpg take no time to reach level cap. Who even care if the level 4 content for swtor is all solo.
Get in a guild in those games, wildstar, swtor, gw2 whatever. Pretty much everyone is at level cap. No one cares if low level content is all solo. Hack I just login GW2. 82 people online in my guild. "EVERYONE is at level cap"
Thats almost always the case at first with F2P games. From strictly a business standpoint, its great in that it opens a game up to new demographics of players, and even with all the ones paying nothing, many players that never would have tried the game end up spending money. Problem is, it tapers off just like subscriptions after not very long unless new content is created fast enough or designed in such a way as to retain more players. Done right, it can serve as a second wind for games. Its really a brilliant monetization for MMOs, but brilliant sort of like engineering a virus that brings dead people back to life in a zombie state, yet too debilitated for them to ever enjoy life the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
First off I started playing MMO's in 1999 with Asheron's Call, probably been playing longer then 75% of the posters here. Second of all, AC was a very solo centric game and was amazing for it's influence in my perspective on MMO gaming. I had a chance to play EQ1 with some of my friends but the thought of camping a rare spawn or grinding a static spot over and over for XP did not fit my Pen & Paper RPG background. Plus it required more then you to accomplish anything remotely fun. Which back to my original background and my new found status as a parent wasn't an appeal to me. Being able to play a game, especially an RPG on my OWN time was what led me to AC and the forced grouping aspect of EQ1 was what led the death knell in my beloved Dungeons and Dragons P&P RPG's. Not enough time and too much organization to make it worthy of further investment. What I loved about AC was I could do 99% of the game solo and yet still strive for that online partnership most have.
Which brings me to my final point, It isn't the solo aspect that has destroyed MMO's (well TBH they are 100X more profitable and accessible now but I digress) it is the fact that almost everyone of them are basically carbon copies of the same paradigm we've been playing. Linear, quick leveling, quest grinding, endgame centric MMO. We haven't truly experienced a revolutionary step, let alone an evolutionary step in MMO design. Look into your heart OP, I bet you don't like MMO's not for their lack of social accommodation but for the reasons I think most everyone misses.
So in conclusion. SOLO play is not inherently bad, what is bad is same'y style game design.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
And anyone who says they are grown and don't have time to play shouldn't be playing, or trying to play MMORPG's. This is why there are console games and the such. For easy and quick entertainment fixes.