In my mind, you're telling that we should sacrifice our own enjoyment, just to make things better for for some other group of people with different preferences.
No .. I'm telling you to recognize what having niche preferences means.
It means that you don't get everything you want, because giving you what you want means that the majority of the playerbase don't get what they want.
Also, replace the highlight with "the vast majority of other players".
Edit for clarification: I enjoy both group and solo content.
An extremist demanding 100% soloable content trivializes the group playstyle.
An extremist demanding 100% group content excludes the solo playstyle.
Having both types of content doesn't exclude anyone or trivialize gameplay.
I'm happy to let you group if that is your preference. I just want the freedom to solo too.
That doesn't make me the hypocritical one in this conversation.
I'm curious about all of these solo extremists. From the plethora of posts that argue about solo vs. grouping, the majority if not all of the solo camp just want equal treatment in games instead of always being the red headed step child. What I do find more often than not are groupers who believe that any solo content in the game somehow trivializes their play style and want it abolished or at least relegated to non-desirable status to anyone but the most diehard masochist. Even WoW, with it's casual bent, treats soloers as second class gamers. Good luck finding equitable equipment or even interesting content in comparison to groupers and raiders. Soloers for the most part are relegated to faction grinding, XP grinding and mind numbing fedex / kill 10 rats quests in just about every game I have ever played.
Perhaps the reason you find Soloers relegated to these things is that you are trying to turn a MMO (which by definition is about interaction) into a Single Player Game with a global chat. If that is enjoyable to you, than have at it. What I'm hearing, however, is that you want equitable rewards with less effort (else it would just be a solo grind to equal the effort of 10-40 people running a raid), which is just selfish.
You are confusing "definition" with "tradition". MMORPGS by tradition are group-centric. By definition they are simply games in which lots of players can be logged into a single game simultaneously. Tradition is not necessarily definition.
My goodness. People still can not grasp the meaning of the second M in MMORPG? Multiplayer... Does it really need to be beaten into your minds? This is why I hate this damn language. People go about things interpreting it anyway they want it to be. The genre was created as a MULTIPLAYER based system. Can you twist this and say they just need to all be in the same game? Yes, sure why not. Now tell me of another game labeled as multiplayer that requires no player interaction with each other? Would that not be, by definition, a SINGLE player game?
It's a frickin' game. Does it really matter how you play it? What I don't get is why people care how others play their own game? If you want to completely solo a multiplayer game, so be it. I like being able to solo and play in groups whenever I choose to. It's on my terms, not the games.
Originally posted by Hyanmen No, I consider you to be a hypocrite. In my mind, you're telling that we should sacrifice our own enjoyment, just to make things better for for some other group of people with different preferences.
No .. I'm telling you to recognize what having niche preferences means. It means that you don't get everything you want, because giving you what you want means that the majority of the playerbase don't get what they want. Also, replace the highlight with "the vast majority of other players". Edit for clarification: I enjoy both group and solo content. An extremist demanding 100% soloable content trivializes the group playstyle. An extremist demanding 100% group content excludes the solo playstyle. Having both types of content doesn't exclude anyone or trivialize gameplay. I'm happy to let you group if that is your preference. I just want the freedom to solo too. That doesn't make me the hypocritical one in this conversation.
I'm curious about all of these solo extremists. From the plethora of posts that argue about solo vs. grouping, the majority if not all of the solo camp just want equal treatment in games instead of always being the red headed step child. What I do find more often than not are groupers who believe that any solo content in the game somehow trivializes their play style and want it abolished or at least relegated to non-desirable status to anyone but the most diehard masochist. Even WoW, with it's casual bent, treats soloers as second class gamers. Good luck finding equitable equipment or even interesting content in comparison to groupers and raiders. Soloers for the most part are relegated to faction grinding, XP grinding and mind numbing fedex / kill 10 rats quests in just about every game I have ever played.
Perhaps the reason you find Soloers relegated to these things is that you are trying to turn a MMO (which by definition is about interaction) into a Single Player Game with a global chat. If that is enjoyable to you, than have at it. What I'm hearing, however, is that you want equitable rewards with less effort (else it would just be a solo grind to equal the effort of 10-40 people running a raid), which is just selfish.
You are confusing "definition" with "tradition". MMORPGS by tradition are group-centric. By definition they are simply games in which lots of players can be logged into a single game simultaneously. Tradition is not necessarily definition.
My goodness. People still can not grasp the meaning of the second M in MMORPG? Multiplayer... Does it really need to be beaten into your minds? This is why I hate this damn language. People go about things interpreting it anyway they want it to be. The genre was created as a MULTIPLAYER based system. Can you twist this and say they just need to all be in the same game? Yes, sure why not. Now tell me of another game labeled as multiplayer that requires no player interaction with each other? Would that not be, by definition, a SINGLE player game?
My "definition" versus "tradition" argument remains unchallenged by the immediately above quoted post. The poster seems to confuse "having" with "requiring". Having the ability to interact with other players doesn't necessarily mean you must be required to interact.
My "definition" versus "tradition" argument remains unchallenged by the immediately above quoted post. The poster seems to confuse "having" with "requiring". Having the ability to interact with other players doesn't necessarily mean you must be required to interact.
In a multiplayer game you're not required to interact, however, the whole point of a multiplayer game is to allow you to do so. So in ignoring what a multiplayer game actually is, you're missing out on the benefits of playing one.
Wikipedia states:
Multiplayer components allow players to enjoy interaction with other individuals, be it in the form of partnership, competition or rivalry, and provide them with a form of social communication that is almost always missing in single-player oriented games. In a variety of different multiplayer game types, players may individually compete against two or more human contestants, work cooperatively with a human partner(s) in order to achieve a common goal, supervise activities of other players, or engage in a game type that incorporates any possible combination of the above. Examples of better-known multiplayer gametypes include deathmatch and team deathmatch, MMORPG-associated forms of PvP and Team PvE, capture the flag, domination (competition over control of resources), co-op, and various objective-based modes, often expressed in terms of "assault/defend a control point".
So to play a multiplayer game as a single player game is ignoring the multitude of interactions on offer. The whole design structure of a multiplayer game is to allow people to work together or against each other, if the developers didn't want you to do this then they wouldn't have made it a multiplayer game to begin with. To come into a multiplayer game with the mindset of doing everything yourself is a flaw in the person playing, it states quite clearly on the box that the game is a multiplayer game, so why purchase it expecting a solo experience?
Would you watch an action movie expecting to be amused? No. However, most action movies do have some funny moments. This is how it should be with MMO's. The main experience should be a multiplayer game, however it should allow for some soloing. Soloing a multiplayer game is going against the whole reason behind creating it as such.
In my mind, you're telling that we should sacrifice our own enjoyment, just to make things better for for some other group of people with different preferences.
No .. I'm telling you to recognize what having niche preferences means.
It means that you don't get everything you want, because giving you what you want means that the majority of the playerbase don't get what they want.
Also, replace the highlight with "the vast majority of other players".
Edit for clarification: I enjoy both group and solo content.
An extremist demanding 100% soloable content trivializes the group playstyle.
An extremist demanding 100% group content excludes the solo playstyle.
Having both types of content doesn't exclude anyone or trivialize gameplay.
I'm happy to let you group if that is your preference. I just want the freedom to solo too.
That doesn't make me the hypocritical one in this conversation.
I'm curious about all of these solo extremists. From the plethora of posts that argue about solo vs. grouping, the majority if not all of the solo camp just want equal treatment in games instead of always being the red headed step child. What I do find more often than not are groupers who believe that any solo content in the game somehow trivializes their play style and want it abolished or at least relegated to non-desirable status to anyone but the most diehard masochist. Even WoW, with it's casual bent, treats soloers as second class gamers. Good luck finding equitable equipment or even interesting content in comparison to groupers and raiders. Soloers for the most part are relegated to faction grinding, XP grinding and mind numbing fedex / kill 10 rats quests in just about every game I have ever played.
Perhaps the reason you find Soloers relegated to these things is that you are trying to turn a MMO (which by definition is about interaction) into a Single Player Game with a global chat. If that is enjoyable to you, than have at it. What I'm hearing, however, is that you want equitable rewards with less effort (else it would just be a solo grind to equal the effort of 10-40 people running a raid), which is just selfish.
You are confusing "definition" with "tradition". MMORPGS by tradition are group-centric. By definition they are simply games in which lots of players can be logged into a single game simultaneously. Tradition is not necessarily definition.
My goodness. People still can not grasp the meaning of the second M in MMORPG? Multiplayer... Does it really need to be beaten into your minds? This is why I hate this damn language. People go about things interpreting it anyway they want it to be. The genre was created as a MULTIPLAYER based system. Can you twist this and say they just need to all be in the same game? Yes, sure why not. Now tell me of another game labeled as multiplayer that requires no player interaction with each other? Would that not be, by definition, a SINGLE player game?
Player interaction isn't equal to must group 8) Guess you yourself doesn't know the meaning of multiplayer.
I think the real world is massive mulitplayer but there are people who solo to end game. Art imitates life.
Yeah but you can't do shit alone in real life. You always rely on others from the beginning till the end. You know, the society. Those who produce your food, make your clothes. Those who changed your diapers when you were a baby and will when you get old. You create a company and rely on your employers. Peoples are in big groups called states. A state that gives you security, education and job. What can humans do alone.
A mmorpg imitates life and like in real life the bigger is the group the more you achieve.
Yeah but you can't do shit alone in real life. You always rely on others from the beginning till the end. You know, the society. Those who produce your food, make your clothes. Those who changed your diapers when you were a baby and will when you get old. You create a company and rely on your employers. Peoples are in big groups called states. A state that gives you security, education and job. What can humans do alone.
A mmorpg imitates life and like in real life the bigger is the group the more you achieve.
I haven't been following this thread but I would like to say that your response is the most nonsensical and confounded post I have read in a while. Society does not equal "grouping up" but is more like a community, which is probably one of the main reasons why soloist play MMOs.
You don't help the farmer milk a cow or grind wheat to make bread. You buy a product from a store. You don't group up with the clerks to help you find what you need. Maybe you'd "group" up with a car salesman to find a vehicle but I don't see the entire staff going along with you guys to find a better car. More people does not always mean you could achieve more, sometimes too many people could hinder you.
A MMORPG is a game and in no way imitates real life. This is a game, we're not constructing a pyramid.
Yeah but you can't do shit alone in real life. You always rely on others from the beginning till the end. You know, the society. Those who produce your food, make your clothes. Those who changed your diapers when you were a baby and will when you get old. You create a company and rely on your employers. Peoples are in big groups called states. A state that gives you security, education and job. What can humans do alone.
A mmorpg imitates life and like in real life the bigger is the group the more you achieve.
I haven't been following this thread but I would like to say that your response is the most nonsensical and confounded post I have read in a while. Society does not equal "grouping up" but is more like a community, which is probably one of the main reasons why soloist play MMOs.
You don't help the farmer milk a cow or grind wheat to make bread. You buy a product from a store. You don't group up with the clerks to help you find what you need. Maybe you'd "group" up with a car salesman to find a vehicle but I don't see the entire staff going along with you guys to find a better car. More people does not always mean you could achieve more, sometimes too many people could hinder you.
A MMORPG is a game and in no way imitates real life. This is a game, we're not constructing a pyramid.
I brought other examples of more close grouping like a company of few peoples that work for a goal. Like in real life this company would achieve more than a single person. A mmorpg tries to create a virtual world and yeah it does imitates real life in some forms.
I've noticed this about your arguments, you never say 'groupers', you always say 'hardcore groupers'. What does hardcore have to do with anything? What exactly is a hardcore grouper? Someone who will never ever solo? If that's a hardcore grouper then sure, there's going to be a handful of those at best. What I'm talking about are people who prefer to group, like the social aspect, and will solo if they're short on time or want to be alone for a bit. I'm asking for a game with a focus on group play, not one that is 100% grouping. Even EverQuest, the most group-centric game I can think of, had the ability to solo in it. It wasn't a good choice and for some classes it was a very hard choice, but you could do it just fine.
To differentiate them from people who will group occasionally. I use the term to refer to people who want group-centric games. There are a lot of people who seem to think they get to dictate how people play and anyone who doesn't want to primarily group ought to just go the hell away.
Really? So why do they keep churning out these godawful quest-chain MMO's that would be easier played as a single player game? Surely their market research would have told them that people really don't want to play that trash. They've all picked up a tiny number of subscribers, you'd think the research would have realised by the time the fifth game of its type bombed?
What business is it of yours what anyone plays? Who died and made you boss? Where does it say you get to decide what games anyone ought to play? Apparently those games *ARE* popular because they keep making them. You have to realize that, no matter the industry, more than 70% of all business startups fail. That applies to the MMO market too. However, among those MMOs that are successful, most are quest-chain MMOs. That's what people want, apparently.
You repeat this so many times it's making my head hurt. How on earth do we prove we're here? What? We make a petition and go knocking at Cryptic's door saying, "Please Mr. Developer, could you make a game for us?". That's idiotic. On the one hand you're right, they are spending their dollars making solo games, but personally I think the reason for that is purely for the dollars. It's relatively simple to make a game with a quest chain as you know exactly where your players are going as you're leading them by the nose. Making a more involved MMO takes more time and effort, so they continue to churn out the same trash with a different wrapper time after time, hoping to get a few more dollars in return.
It's not my job to solve your problems, sorry. These companies are doing market research and apparently, they're not finding that the majority of players want group-centric games. The only way you're going to get a group-centric game is to convince them that there are tons of hardcore groupers who are willing to pay for such a game. How you're going to do that is your concern, not mine. The same goes for FFA PvP fans and permadeath fans. How they prove to developers that they exist is up to them.
Developers aren't concerned about the games anymore, they just want to make the money, you're right. And that's sad, that the games industry is releasing nothing more than the gaming equivalent of a popcorn movie.
Hate to break it to you, but developers have *ALWAYS* wanted to make money, welcome to reality. That's all the people who made UO cared about, that's all the people who made EQ cared about and that's all the people who make the games today care about. The fact is, Hollywood makes popcorn movies because those are the movies that make money. If you want them to make other movies, you have to prove to them that other movies are just as profitable. If you can't, like it or not, they're going to make what they think will provide the largest profit. And like everything else, 70% of all Hollywood movies fail.
My goodness. People still can not grasp the meaning of the second M in MMORPG? Multiplayer... Does it really need to be beaten into your minds? This is why I hate this damn language. People go about things interpreting it anyway they want it to be. The genre was created as a MULTIPLAYER based system. Can you twist this and say they just need to all be in the same game? Yes, sure why not. Now tell me of another game labeled as multiplayer that requires no player interaction with each other? Would that not be, by definition, a SINGLE player game?
Player interaction isn't equal to must group 8) Guess you yourself doesn't know the meaning of multiplayer.
I'm with you. Multiplayer means multiple players, nothing more or nothing less. Some people may like to interact with people but not enjoy directly working with others. They both are part of a persistant world and are multiple players in a single community.
Thats so far from the truth it isn't even funny. Almost all of the old MMOs that have been "moved on" from were because devs changed the core mechanics and scared off their player base. It happened in DAoC, it happened in SWG, it even happened in EQ to an extent. You cannot say theres no market for oldschool MMORPGs when they used to draw in up to 500k players (which back then, out of the pool of MMORPG players, that was MASSIVE) and modern games STILL can't get up to that number, despite how solo friendly they are.
And why did they change? Because they weren't making enough money! They changed to attract more paying customers! Those games used to draw up to 500k customers back when they were the only game in town. Once other games that were attracting millions of customers came along, those games tried to compete by adopting more popular modes of gameplay.
I would hope that the developers aiming for the WOW audience has learned that the WoW audience is not a typical MMORPG gamer, they like their WoW like arcade game, and making another one exactly like it isn't going to draw them away. All the companies that have tried making simple casual solo friendly modern MMOs have lost millions and millions, whereas games like Darkfall that know enough to cater to a niche have been steadily growing.
No, they *ARE* typical MMO gamers. That's what the modern MMO gamer is. The hardcore gamer is an anachronism in the industry, not the norm. You be sure to let us know when Darkfall gets anywhere near WoW subscription numbers, won't you?
History has already proven they are there. The entire MMORPG market was birthed on grouping and socializing.
And that died a quick death when everyone realized there wasn't enough money in it to make a large industry financially viable.
My goodness. People still can not grasp the meaning of the second M in MMORPG? Multiplayer... Does it really need to be beaten into your minds? This is why I hate this damn language. People go about things interpreting it anyway they want it to be. The genre was created as a MULTIPLAYER based system. Can you twist this and say they just need to all be in the same game? Yes, sure why not. Now tell me of another game labeled as multiplayer that requires no player interaction with each other? Would that not be, by definition, a SINGLE player game?
Player interaction isn't equal to must group 8) Guess you yourself doesn't know the meaning of multiplayer.
I'm with you. Multiplayer means multiple players, nothing more or nothing less. Some people may like to interact with people but not enjoy directly working with others. They both are part of a persistant world and are multiple players in a single community.
And almost every mmo game allows you to do whatever you want. If you don't want to work with others then don't. What's the problem here I don't understand. What exactly do you solo guys want. You are free to not party with others.
Yeah but you can't do shit alone in real life. You always rely on others from the beginning till the end. You know, the society. Those who produce your food, make your clothes. Those who changed your diapers when you were a baby and will when you get old. You create a company and rely on your employers. Peoples are in big groups called states. A state that gives you security, education and job. What can humans do alone.
A mmorpg imitates life and like in real life the bigger is the group the more you achieve.
I haven't been following this thread but I would like to say that your response is the most nonsensical and confounded post I have read in a while. Society does not equal "grouping up" but is more like a community, which is probably one of the main reasons why soloist play MMOs.
You don't help the farmer milk a cow or grind wheat to make bread. You buy a product from a store. You don't group up with the clerks to help you find what you need. Maybe you'd "group" up with a car salesman to find a vehicle but I don't see the entire staff going along with you guys to find a better car. More people does not always mean you could achieve more, sometimes too many people could hinder you.
A MMORPG is a game and in no way imitates real life. This is a game, we're not constructing a pyramid.
I brought other examples of more close grouping like a company of few peoples that work for a goal. Like in real life this company would achieve more than a single person. A mmorpg tries to create a virtual world and yeah it does imitates real life in some forms.
If a General leads an army to victory, of course his army helped him do it. It would be foolish to say the General did it on his own but likewise it would be foolish to say that his tactics and leadership did not bring victory. Groups without leaders are lost and leaders without followers are unproductive. In this regard a single person can achieve more than a group.
Originally posted by Edli
And almost every mmo game allows you to do whatever you want. If you don't want to work with others then don't. What's the problem here I don't understand. What exactly do you solo guys want. You are free to not party with others.
I personally want the genre to evolve out of the same traditional crap that developers keep spitting out of us. I don't understand the problem either, if players want a solo-centric MMO you are not forced to play it, so why does it matter to you? What do you want?
I brought other examples of more close grouping like a company of few peoples that work for a goal. Like in real life this company would achieve more than a single person. A mmorpg tries to create a virtual world and yeah it does imitates real life in some forms.
If a General leads an army to victory, of course his army helped him do it. It would be foolish to say the General did it on his own but likewise it would be foolish to say that his tactics and leadership did not bring victory. Groups without leaders are lost and leaders without followers are unproductive. In this regard a single person can achieve more than a group.
No no no. The question would be if that general would achieve anything ALONE? He is the leader of a group or a leader of a raid in mmo. He still rely on his group. The general didn't achieve more than the group. He achieved something with the group. Alone he wouldn't achieve nothing, no matter how smart he is.
Originally posted by Edli
And almost every mmo game allows you to do whatever you want. If you don't want to work with others then don't. What's the problem here I don't understand. What exactly do you solo guys want. You are free to not party with others.
I personally want the genre to evolve out of the same traditional crap that developers keep spitting out of us. I don't understand the problem either, if players want a solo-centric MMO you are not forced to play it, so why does it matter to you? What do you want?
The majority of the mmo today gives you the option to not party with anyone. So you have nothing to worry about.
No no no. The question would be if that general would achieve anything ALONE? He is the leader of a group or a leader of a raid in mmo. He still rely on his group. The general didn't achieve more than the group. He achieved something with the group. Alone he wouldn't achieve nothing, no matter how smart he is.
So what if an assassin eliminates the general the day before the war and the army becomes discouraged and surrenders, then in fact an assassin defeated an entire army alone.
Originally posted by Edli
The majority of the mmo today gives you the option to not party with anyone. So you have nothing to worry about.
No no no. The question would be if that general would achieve anything ALONE? He is the leader of a group or a leader of a raid in mmo. He still rely on his group. The general didn't achieve more than the group. He achieved something with the group. Alone he wouldn't achieve nothing, no matter how smart he is.
So what if an assassin eliminates the general the day before the war and the army becomes discouraged and surrenders, then in fact an assassin defeated an entire army alone.
Let's say the leader of this raid is the only one that knows how to deal with the dungeon. He gets disconnected and the entire raid fails. It happened to me a lot of times. This was not the point though. The point was about being able to achive everything alone. Yes a good leader can make the raid succeed or fail but he alone can't do shit. No matter how good the general is, he cannot solo the war. That's how mmorpgs work. If you don't cooperate, that's fine but don't expect to achieve more than those who do. This is how everything works after all.
To differentiate them from people who will group occasionally. I use the term blah blah blah.. hardcore groupers.. blah blah blah.. money.. blah blah.. that's what people want.. blah blah.. market research.. blah.. profit.. blah blah.. prove to them.. blah..
I'm so bored of listening to this stuff. Everytime you post something it's just a repeat of the last time, over and over, like a stuck record jumping back to repeat the same tune again and again. Drone drone.. So tired of it. Someone can come along and give the perfect reason why group play is better than solo play, everyone will go, "Wow, that's so true!", except you who will say profit.. blah.. people want.. blah.. prove it..
You might try listening to what people have to say and consider the responses they have before singing the same tune all the time, you might learn something about people and what they actually want, rather than what a statistic on a market researchers board says in some backroom office. Had enough of this topic, it's just turned into nonsense and is well away from the entire point which is Group Play or Solo Play.
In my eyes MMO's have always been designed, and should stay designed, with the multiplayer experience in mind. Teaming up to combat challenges too large to face alone. To be a part of something special rather than just a person doing the same quests that the guy next to you is doing. Multiplayer games have never been for loners, they're a shared experience, be it combating an enemy team or working together to defeat a dragon. It's always been about more than just the individual, it's about what people can do when they work together.
Let's say the leader of this raid is the only one that knows how to deal with the dungeon. He gets disconnected and the entire raid fails. It happened to me a lot of times. This was not the point though. The point was about being able to achive everything alone. Yes a good leader can make the raid succeed or fail but he alone can't do shit. No matter how good the general is, he cannot solo the war. That's how mmorpgs work. If you don't cooperate, that's fine but don't expect to achieve more than those who do. This is how everything works after all.
You're avoiding the point, your judgment is clouded by your intent. I'm not going to circle back around with you to repeat myself again. There are MMOs out there that suit your desires, you have nothing to worry about.
To differentiate them from people who will group occasionally. I use the term blah blah blah.. hardcore groupers.. blah blah blah.. money.. blah blah.. that's what people want.. blah blah.. market research.. blah.. profit.. blah blah.. prove to them.. blah..
I'm so bored of listening to this stuff. Everytime you post something it's just a repeat of the last time, over and over, like a stuck record jumping back to repeat the same tune again and again. Drone drone.. So tired of it. Someone can come along and give the perfect reason why group play is better than solo play, everyone will go, "Wow, that's so true!", except you who will say profit.. blah.. people want.. blah.. prove it..
You might try listening to what people have to say and consider the responses they have before singing the same tune all the time, you might learn something about people and what they actually want, rather than what a statistic on a market researchers board says in some backroom office. Had enough of this topic, it's just turned into nonsense and is well away from the entire point which is Group Play or Solo Play.
In my eyes MMO's have always been designed, and should stay designed, with the multiplayer experience in mind. Teaming up to combat challenges too large to face alone. To be a part of something special rather than just a person doing the same quests that the guy next to you is doing. Multiplayer games have never been for loners, they're a shared experience, be it combating an enemy team or working together to defeat a dragon. It's always been about more than just the individual, it's about what people can do when they work together.
I see this on both sides. I think group and solo based MMOs have their place in the market. I don't think soloers should try and convert a group based game into something more solo and visa versa. I have a major problem when someone says "should stay designed" because that limits the design. I think MMOs should focus on the community and creating bonds between players. You can't force people to be friends and when you force people to group, you are only setting them up to use each other like tools to get what they desire. Back in the old days we made friends and had fun grouping - you can't force that experience back.
To differentiate them from people who will group occasionally. I use the term blah blah blah.. hardcore groupers.. blah blah blah.. money.. blah blah.. that's what people want.. blah blah.. market research.. blah.. profit.. blah blah.. prove to them.. blah..
I'm so bored of listening to this stuff. Everytime you post something it's just a repeat of the last time, over and over, like a stuck record jumping back to repeat the same tune again and again. Drone drone.. So tired of it. Someone can come along and give the perfect reason why group play is better than solo play, everyone will go, "Wow, that's so true!", except you who will say profit.. blah.. people want.. blah.. prove it..
You might try listening to what people have to say and consider the responses they have before singing the same tune all the time, you might learn something about people and what they actually want, rather than what a statistic on a market researchers board says in some backroom office. Had enough of this topic, it's just turned into nonsense and is well away from the entire point which is Group Play or Solo Play.
In my eyes MMO's have always been designed, and should stay designed, with the multiplayer experience in mind. Teaming up to combat challenges too large to face alone. To be a part of something special rather than just a person doing the same quests that the guy next to you is doing. Multiplayer games have never been for loners, they're a shared experience, be it combating an enemy team or working together to defeat a dragon. It's always been about more than just the individual, it's about what people can do when they work together.
If you prefer grouping in MMOs, fine. But why do ALL MMOs have to be the way you think? Why can't the market have some MMOs where ALL content can be done solo, and those who prefer to group can do so out of choice? And please, please, keep in mind there is MUCH more to player interaction in MMOs than just teaming up to combat.
It comes down to this: if content is put in an MMO that can only be accomplished by a group, then the soloer has to either play a playstyle he doesn't want to, or not see the content (and the rewards that come with it). That is a poor set of options for the soloer. But, if content is put in that can be accomplished solo or group, then both playstyles are accomodated. Both can see the content and get the loot.
I'm not suggesting removing all group content from all MMOs, but for all the times I've seen groupers complain about how solo-friendly some MMOs are, I've seen exactly ONE that has a soloable endgame. That means heavily favoring one style over the other. I'm just suggesting the market could bear to have a few MMOs that are completely soloable. Neither grouping nor the industry would fall apart if that happened. Now what exactly do you have against that?
To differentiate them from people who will group occasionally. I use the term blah blah blah.. hardcore groupers.. blah blah blah.. money.. blah blah.. that's what people want.. blah blah.. market research.. blah.. profit.. blah blah.. prove to them.. blah..
I'm so bored of listening to this stuff. Everytime you post something it's just a repeat of the last time, over and over, like a stuck record jumping back to repeat the same tune again and again. Drone drone.. So tired of it. Someone can come along and give the perfect reason why group play is better than solo play, everyone will go, "Wow, that's so true!", except you who will say profit.. blah.. people want.. blah.. prove it..
You might try listening to what people have to say and consider the responses they have before singing the same tune all the time, you might learn something about people and what they actually want, rather than what a statistic on a market researchers board says in some backroom office. Had enough of this topic, it's just turned into nonsense and is well away from the entire point which is Group Play or Solo Play.
In my eyes MMO's have always been designed, and should stay designed, with the multiplayer experience in mind. Teaming up to combat challenges too large to face alone. To be a part of something special rather than just a person doing the same quests that the guy next to you is doing. Multiplayer games have never been for loners, they're a shared experience, be it combating an enemy team or working together to defeat a dragon. It's always been about more than just the individual, it's about what people can do when they work together.
If you prefer grouping in MMOs, fine. But why do ALL MMOs have to be the way you think? Why can't the market have some MMOs where ALL content can be done solo, and those who prefer to group can do so out of choice? And please, please, keep in mind there is MUCH more to player interaction in MMOs than just teaming up to combat.
It comes down to this: if content is put in an MMO that can only be accomplished by a group, then the soloer has to either play a playstyle he doesn't want to, or not see the content (and the rewards that come with it). That is a poor set of options for the soloer. But, if content is put in that can be accomplished solo or group, then both playstyles are accomodated. Both can see the content and get the loot.
I'm not suggesting removing all group content from all MMOs, but for all the times I've seen groupers complain about how solo-friendly some MMOs are, I've seen exactly ONE that has a soloable endgame. That means heavily favoring one style over the other. I'm just suggesting the market could bear to have a few MMOs that are completely soloable. Neither grouping nor the industry would fall apart if that happened. Now what exactly do you have against that?
Most of the player interaction that solo players advocate can be simulated by a program. In fact, even the player interaction in combat (NPC companions) can be simulated. You could simulate chat, but it would be obvious that you were talking to a machine. A machine isn't going to talk tactics and strategy, at least not dynamically. A machine isn't going to understand your difficulties and want to help. The main problem I have with solo players is that the developers cater to them, and then I am left with fewer and fewer players to interact with dynamically. It's fine if you want to solo, but pretty soon everyone else will want to do it too. And then we might as well all be playing single-player games in my opinion.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I'm so bored of listening to this stuff. Everytime you post something it's just a repeat of the last time, over and over, like a stuck record jumping back to repeat the same tune again and again. Drone drone.. So tired of it. Someone can come along and give the perfect reason why group play is better than solo play, everyone will go, "Wow, that's so true!", except you who will say profit.. blah.. people want.. blah.. prove it..
Because I'm not blinded by the gameplay, I recognize that the business behind it exists to make money, something that most of the people around here who have never had a serious job in their life, especially not one where they were financially responsible for an entire business. I have. No matter how much people might ooh and ahh about the mechanics of the game, it's still balancing the books at the end of the month that makes the difference whether you like it or not. The investors don't give a damn how the game plays, they care how much money they are making.
You might try listening to what people have to say and consider the responses they have before singing the same tune all the time, you might learn something about people and what they actually want, rather than what a statistic on a market researchers board says in some backroom office. Had enough of this topic, it's just turned into nonsense and is well away from the entire point which is Group Play or Solo Play.
Because whether Group Play or Solo Play wins is entirely dependent on which side can bring in the most money. Full stop. Ideally, a game will provide both sides enough impetus to sign up and pay a monthly fee, but if push comes to shove, it is the soloer side who has the financial strength to rule the day. You, like a lot of other groupers around here, have an entitlement fantasy. You think somehow everyone owes you whatever you want, just because you want it. Life doesn't work that way. I might want to walk into Baskin Robbins and get free ice cream, that doesn't mean they have any obligation to give it to me and in fact, they'd be foolish to do so. They're in business to make money, just as every MMO developer out there is. Giving away their product, catering to unprofitable sectors, just because someone wants them to do so is financial suicide.
In my eyes MMO's have always been designed, and should stay designed, with the multiplayer experience in mind. Teaming up to combat challenges too large to face alone. To be a part of something special rather than just a person doing the same quests that the guy next to you is doing. Multiplayer games have never been for loners, they're a shared experience, be it combating an enemy team or working together to defeat a dragon. It's always been about more than just the individual, it's about what people can do when they work together.
You can sit there all day and argue that chocolate is better than vanilla, that doesn't mean that anyone is obligated to give you chocolate ice cream. You're just arguing for your own personal preferences, then making unjustified claims that because they are your preferences, they are automatically true for everyone. There may have been a time when almost all of the very tiny group of existing MMOs were group-centric. Times change. It's the move away from a single playstyle that has allowed the marketplace to go from two or three MMOs to hundreds worldwide. It's like you bitching that cars come in lots of colors because Henry Ford once insisted that Model T's only come in black. That may have been true at one time, it's not true today. Stop living in the past. Deal with the reality that actually exists today.
Most of the player interaction that solo players advocate can be simulated by a program. In fact, even the player interaction in combat (NPC companions) can be simulated. You could simulate chat, but it would be obvious that you were talking to a machine. A machine isn't going to talk tactics and strategy, at least not dynamically. A machine isn't going to understand your difficulties and want to help. The main problem I have with solo players is that the developers cater to them, and then I am left with fewer and fewer players to interact with dynamically. It's fine if you want to solo, but pretty soon everyone else will want to do it too. And then we might as well all be playing single-player games in my opinion.
But most people aren't talking about any of those things either, especially not in a group. Very very few groups I've been in have said anything to each other. Kill the mob, move on to the next. Rinse, lather, repeat. Not a word spoken, just run like mad from mob to mob to get as much XP as you can, then everyone goes their separate ways, never to see each other again.
To be honest, I'd rather have NPC companions than most actual players because at least NPCs don't screw up and kill the party.
It is all about that almighty purchase. Developers will dumb it down so that anyone that has a mentality above a 5 year old can play and solo everything. The first mmo I played was FFXI and that is 100% group based play other than the first 10 levels. I loved it because it was so much different compared to a basic online rpg. Now today it seems everything is massively single player. It really is disappointing.
Why can't the market have some MMOs where ALL content can be done solo, and those who prefer to group can do so out of choice?
If all the content can be done solo then it can be packaged as a single player game. There is absolutely no need to create multiplayer options for a game that can be an entirely individual experience.
I'm not suggesting removing all group content from all MMOs, but for all the times I've seen groupers complain about how solo-friendly some MMOs are, I've seen exactly ONE that has a soloable endgame. That means heavily favoring one style over the other.
Most, if not all, new MMO's are completely soloable from first to last level. Don't you think it's fair that the people interested in grouping now get a chance at enjoying their own style of play? On the flipside, how would you like to play a game that you were forced to group from first to last level, and only after that are you able to solo?
Comments
My goodness. People still can not grasp the meaning of the second M in MMORPG? Multiplayer... Does it really need to be beaten into your minds? This is why I hate this damn language. People go about things interpreting it anyway they want it to be. The genre was created as a MULTIPLAYER based system. Can you twist this and say they just need to all be in the same game? Yes, sure why not. Now tell me of another game labeled as multiplayer that requires no player interaction with each other? Would that not be, by definition, a SINGLE player game?
It's a frickin' game. Does it really matter how you play it? What I don't get is why people care how others play their own game? If you want to completely solo a multiplayer game, so be it. I like being able to solo and play in groups whenever I choose to. It's on my terms, not the games.
edited for clarity
Guild Wars 2 is my religion
My "definition" versus "tradition" argument remains unchallenged by the immediately above quoted post. The poster seems to confuse "having" with "requiring". Having the ability to interact with other players doesn't necessarily mean you must be required to interact.
In a multiplayer game you're not required to interact, however, the whole point of a multiplayer game is to allow you to do so. So in ignoring what a multiplayer game actually is, you're missing out on the benefits of playing one.
Wikipedia states:
Multiplayer components allow players to enjoy interaction with other individuals, be it in the form of partnership, competition or rivalry, and provide them with a form of social communication that is almost always missing in single-player oriented games. In a variety of different multiplayer game types, players may individually compete against two or more human contestants, work cooperatively with a human partner(s) in order to achieve a common goal, supervise activities of other players, or engage in a game type that incorporates any possible combination of the above. Examples of better-known multiplayer gametypes include deathmatch and team deathmatch, MMORPG-associated forms of PvP and Team PvE, capture the flag, domination (competition over control of resources), co-op, and various objective-based modes, often expressed in terms of "assault/defend a control point".
So to play a multiplayer game as a single player game is ignoring the multitude of interactions on offer. The whole design structure of a multiplayer game is to allow people to work together or against each other, if the developers didn't want you to do this then they wouldn't have made it a multiplayer game to begin with. To come into a multiplayer game with the mindset of doing everything yourself is a flaw in the person playing, it states quite clearly on the box that the game is a multiplayer game, so why purchase it expecting a solo experience?
Would you watch an action movie expecting to be amused? No. However, most action movies do have some funny moments. This is how it should be with MMO's. The main experience should be a multiplayer game, however it should allow for some soloing. Soloing a multiplayer game is going against the whole reason behind creating it as such.
Player interaction isn't equal to must group 8) Guess you yourself doesn't know the meaning of multiplayer.
Yeah but you can't do shit alone in real life. You always rely on others from the beginning till the end. You know, the society. Those who produce your food, make your clothes. Those who changed your diapers when you were a baby and will when you get old. You create a company and rely on your employers. Peoples are in big groups called states. A state that gives you security, education and job. What can humans do alone.
A mmorpg imitates life and like in real life the bigger is the group the more you achieve.
I haven't been following this thread but I would like to say that your response is the most nonsensical and confounded post I have read in a while. Society does not equal "grouping up" but is more like a community, which is probably one of the main reasons why soloist play MMOs.
You don't help the farmer milk a cow or grind wheat to make bread. You buy a product from a store. You don't group up with the clerks to help you find what you need. Maybe you'd "group" up with a car salesman to find a vehicle but I don't see the entire staff going along with you guys to find a better car. More people does not always mean you could achieve more, sometimes too many people could hinder you.
A MMORPG is a game and in no way imitates real life. This is a game, we're not constructing a pyramid.
I brought other examples of more close grouping like a company of few peoples that work for a goal. Like in real life this company would achieve more than a single person. A mmorpg tries to create a virtual world and yeah it does imitates real life in some forms.
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
I'm with you. Multiplayer means multiple players, nothing more or nothing less. Some people may like to interact with people but not enjoy directly working with others. They both are part of a persistant world and are multiple players in a single community.
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
And almost every mmo game allows you to do whatever you want. If you don't want to work with others then don't. What's the problem here I don't understand. What exactly do you solo guys want. You are free to not party with others.
If a General leads an army to victory, of course his army helped him do it. It would be foolish to say the General did it on his own but likewise it would be foolish to say that his tactics and leadership did not bring victory. Groups without leaders are lost and leaders without followers are unproductive. In this regard a single person can achieve more than a group.
I personally want the genre to evolve out of the same traditional crap that developers keep spitting out of us. I don't understand the problem either, if players want a solo-centric MMO you are not forced to play it, so why does it matter to you? What do you want?
The majority of the mmo today gives you the option to not party with anyone. So you have nothing to worry about.
So what if an assassin eliminates the general the day before the war and the army becomes discouraged and surrenders, then in fact an assassin defeated an entire army alone.
I'm not worried.
Let's say the leader of this raid is the only one that knows how to deal with the dungeon. He gets disconnected and the entire raid fails. It happened to me a lot of times. This was not the point though. The point was about being able to achive everything alone. Yes a good leader can make the raid succeed or fail but he alone can't do shit. No matter how good the general is, he cannot solo the war. That's how mmorpgs work. If you don't cooperate, that's fine but don't expect to achieve more than those who do. This is how everything works after all.
To differentiate them from people who will group occasionally. I use the term blah blah blah.. hardcore groupers.. blah blah blah.. money.. blah blah.. that's what people want.. blah blah.. market research.. blah.. profit.. blah blah.. prove to them.. blah..
I'm so bored of listening to this stuff. Everytime you post something it's just a repeat of the last time, over and over, like a stuck record jumping back to repeat the same tune again and again. Drone drone.. So tired of it. Someone can come along and give the perfect reason why group play is better than solo play, everyone will go, "Wow, that's so true!", except you who will say profit.. blah.. people want.. blah.. prove it..
You might try listening to what people have to say and consider the responses they have before singing the same tune all the time, you might learn something about people and what they actually want, rather than what a statistic on a market researchers board says in some backroom office. Had enough of this topic, it's just turned into nonsense and is well away from the entire point which is Group Play or Solo Play.
In my eyes MMO's have always been designed, and should stay designed, with the multiplayer experience in mind. Teaming up to combat challenges too large to face alone. To be a part of something special rather than just a person doing the same quests that the guy next to you is doing. Multiplayer games have never been for loners, they're a shared experience, be it combating an enemy team or working together to defeat a dragon. It's always been about more than just the individual, it's about what people can do when they work together.
You're avoiding the point, your judgment is clouded by your intent. I'm not going to circle back around with you to repeat myself again. There are MMOs out there that suit your desires, you have nothing to worry about.
I see this on both sides. I think group and solo based MMOs have their place in the market. I don't think soloers should try and convert a group based game into something more solo and visa versa. I have a major problem when someone says "should stay designed" because that limits the design. I think MMOs should focus on the community and creating bonds between players. You can't force people to be friends and when you force people to group, you are only setting them up to use each other like tools to get what they desire. Back in the old days we made friends and had fun grouping - you can't force that experience back.
If you prefer grouping in MMOs, fine. But why do ALL MMOs have to be the way you think? Why can't the market have some MMOs where ALL content can be done solo, and those who prefer to group can do so out of choice? And please, please, keep in mind there is MUCH more to player interaction in MMOs than just teaming up to combat.
It comes down to this: if content is put in an MMO that can only be accomplished by a group, then the soloer has to either play a playstyle he doesn't want to, or not see the content (and the rewards that come with it). That is a poor set of options for the soloer. But, if content is put in that can be accomplished solo or group, then both playstyles are accomodated. Both can see the content and get the loot.
I'm not suggesting removing all group content from all MMOs, but for all the times I've seen groupers complain about how solo-friendly some MMOs are, I've seen exactly ONE that has a soloable endgame. That means heavily favoring one style over the other. I'm just suggesting the market could bear to have a few MMOs that are completely soloable. Neither grouping nor the industry would fall apart if that happened. Now what exactly do you have against that?
Most of the player interaction that solo players advocate can be simulated by a program. In fact, even the player interaction in combat (NPC companions) can be simulated. You could simulate chat, but it would be obvious that you were talking to a machine. A machine isn't going to talk tactics and strategy, at least not dynamically. A machine isn't going to understand your difficulties and want to help. The main problem I have with solo players is that the developers cater to them, and then I am left with fewer and fewer players to interact with dynamically. It's fine if you want to solo, but pretty soon everyone else will want to do it too. And then we might as well all be playing single-player games in my opinion.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
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
But most people aren't talking about any of those things either, especially not in a group. Very very few groups I've been in have said anything to each other. Kill the mob, move on to the next. Rinse, lather, repeat. Not a word spoken, just run like mad from mob to mob to get as much XP as you can, then everyone goes their separate ways, never to see each other again.
To be honest, I'd rather have NPC companions than most actual players because at least NPCs don't screw up and kill the party.
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
It is all about that almighty purchase. Developers will dumb it down so that anyone that has a mentality above a 5 year old can play and solo everything. The first mmo I played was FFXI and that is 100% group based play other than the first 10 levels. I loved it because it was so much different compared to a basic online rpg. Now today it seems everything is massively single player. It really is disappointing.
Why can't the market have some MMOs where ALL content can be done solo, and those who prefer to group can do so out of choice?
If all the content can be done solo then it can be packaged as a single player game. There is absolutely no need to create multiplayer options for a game that can be an entirely individual experience.
I'm not suggesting removing all group content from all MMOs, but for all the times I've seen groupers complain about how solo-friendly some MMOs are, I've seen exactly ONE that has a soloable endgame. That means heavily favoring one style over the other.
Most, if not all, new MMO's are completely soloable from first to last level. Don't you think it's fair that the people interested in grouping now get a chance at enjoying their own style of play? On the flipside, how would you like to play a game that you were forced to group from first to last level, and only after that are you able to solo?