I've said it before: there is a time and a place for both. I personally do both and as such when I'm doing one or the other I appreciate design elements that cater to either and make my gaming time more enjoyable... is there really anything else to say on the subject?
People take issue with decisions that designers make when games are developed. Sure, folks argue over these points but in fact devs do make choices and players like to think that maybe, just maybe, they can influence these choices.
I realize that group content must be different than solo content. I don’t mind if a game like WoW features both. (I would have different servers for each but that’s another topic.) I come to this discussion because of the responses I got in other forums when I complained about crafting and the solo/party world/instance problem that I ran into in WoW. Namely, crafting materials were and still are sequestered away in group content where a solo player can’t reach them. Take chaos orbs. They only drop from end bosses in Cataclysm heroic instances. If I want them to level up my engineering and make the high end stuff I must run these heroic instances. This is something I won’t do.
What happened was that people told me I wasn’t playing the game properly. That I was supposed to party in MMOs. I was also told that if group content didn’t offer exclusive rewards then enough people wouldn’t group! I disagree with these suppositions and came here to discuss them.
Are multi-million numbers the only measure of success in this industry? Oprah is so far ahead of her competition when it comes to anual earnings that she's in a category all by herself. Does that mean that Helen Mirem, Meryl Streep and Jodie Foster are fringe "niche" actresses? They are in fact much better at their craft than Oprah will ever be.
Um, Oprah isn't famous for her acting, but for her talk show. None of the others have talk shows. Try comparing apples to apples if you hope to make any coherent points.
Ok I'll spell it out for you: female, entertainers (btw Oprah wasn't a half-bad actress in The Color Purple...she got a Best Supporting Actress nomination for that.)
I'm sorry that your confusion over the analogy prevented you from comprehending the post.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Originally posted by Iselin Originally posted by Cephus404
Originally posted by Iselin
Are multi-million numbers the only measure of success in this industry? Oprah is so far ahead of her competition when it comes to anual earnings that she's in a category all by herself. Does that mean that Helen Mirem, Meryl Streep and Jodie Foster are fringe "niche" actresses? They are in fact much better at their craft than Oprah will ever be.
Um, Oprah isn't famous for her acting, but for her talk show. None of the others have talk shows. Try comparing apples to apples if you hope to make any coherent points. Ok I'll spell it out for you: female, entertainers (btw Oprah wasn't a half-bad actress in The Color Purple...she got a Best Supporting Actress nomination for that.) I'm sorry that your confusion over the analogy prevented you from comprehending the post.
Since Oprah reaches many more people through many more mediums of entertainment than Jodie Foster, Meryle Streep and Helen Mirem, she is a more versatile entertainer. She is a more productive and a more successful entertainer. I'm not sure what it makes the other people...Oprah is literally in a class by herself. It's not like comparing one mmorpg to another mmorpg. That would be like comparing a few mmorpg to the entire movie and music industry.
I understand your point, but in the mmorpg genre and industry, the really small games are called "niche" because they do not have a broad appeal. If you're talking about group play vs solo play, games that have both will have broad appeal, while games that have only one or the other would be niche. A game that requires (not encourages, but requires) group play is going to be even smaller (and more deserving of the description "niche") than a game where group play is simply more successful. Eve would be an example of this. Groups are far more successful, but the solo operator can carve out a space and operate just fine on a smaller scale. Vindictus is a game where there is no solo play at all (as far as I know). There are many other, probably more important, differences, but limiting the player choices based on group vs solo play limits the possible audience for your game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
There are many other, probably more important, differences, but limiting the player choices based on group vs solo play limits the possible audience for your game.
It also limits the amount of content development and balancing necessary in comparison to attempting to create content for both playstyles. Games that cater to one or the other would still be able to earn substantial profits by not having to waste time and manpower on players that were never an intended audience.
However, that would be assuming that devs, publishers, etc are looking for longevity in a MMO rather than the fastest payback and profit on initial costs. The latter seems to be more of what we've received and I can see how that would come about with such a population of gamers seeking solo play- they are a fickle lot. Solo gamers consume content until they've completed whatever they are able to solo, then either submit to grouping (while still only having their desires as the main motivator) or they move on to another game.
Group players I've experienced to be the type that also have their own desires and goals in game, but especially in a guild atmosphere are also very inclined to stick around to play and assist the other players in their chosen group (guilds, tribes, clans, whatever) which increases the time those players will stay subbed. Hell, a LOT of people I know that still play WoW (which arguably has the worst community of any MMO ever) only play because of the other players they have built friendships with gaming together, not for any draw to the largely solocentric gameplay the game provides.
The group play vs. solo play in MMOs is a moot point when it seems recent MMOs are made for slash & burn gameplay (like Champions Online, for example).
Agree with previous posters about having the option between solo and grouping.
If i have alot of time to play in an evening, i would like to group up, it's much more fun than playing alone. But if i only have an hour tops to play, it's nice to be able to accomplish something in that time, where there is not enough time to justify making a group.
However, it's one thing giving players the option, but the thing that really frustrates me about Fallen Earth is that there is no need for any grouping or player interaction whatsoever. So players don't bother and solo to end game. Even the regional chat is dead.
If i wanted that, i will just play Dragon Age or Mass Effect - Two more polished RPG's than any MMO offering. But i play MMO's to play with and against others, without that i can't see how any MMO can last too long.
Originally posted by Vegetto Agree with previous posters about having the option between solo and grouping. If i have alot of time to play in an evening, i would like to group up, it's much more fun than playing alone. But if i only have an hour tops to play, it's nice to be able to accomplish something in that time, where there is not enough time to justify making a group. However, it's one thing giving players the option, but the thing that really frustrates me about Fallen Earth is that there is no need for any grouping or player interaction whatsoever. So players don't bother and solo to end game. Even the regional chat is dead. If i wanted that, i will just play Dragon Age or Mass Effect - Two more polished RPG's than any MMO offering. But i play MMO's to play with and against others, without that i can't see how any MMO can last too long.
I think there's enouugh room in the industry for the full range of possibilities: all the way from the "must group" to the "99% solo." Of course, the financial success of each MMO is, in part, dependent on having a style of play that appeals to a lot of players.
I'll point out that one of the most succesfull RPGs in the history of computer gaming, the original Diablo (released Christmas 1996,) was a stand-alone game with a small on-line group component. And there are plenty of examples with both console and PC games that follow a similar format. Apparently the market for mostly-solo-group-rarely RPGs is very robust.
My MMO history from my first, Asheron's Call, to present (WOW and Rift beta) is full of friends made and those who drifted away followed by more friends, different guilds, etc. At times I have grouped 90+% of my play time and at times hardly at all. I'm not crazy about repeating the same raids over and over for gear and prestige so I find most end-games boring unless there is a good PvP, or better yet RvR, system.
I tend to stick with games that cater to all my constantly changing play style whims. That's something that WOW does extremely well and its why I keep going back to it despite all its warts like its immature and unfriendly community, gear grinds and too-structured PvP. It just has tons of easily accessible solo or group activities although for unstructured world PvP, you pretty well need to be in a large guild in a PvP server.
I don't know anything about Fallen Earth but from your description it sounds like they don't have a robust community. To me that's a different issue from solo vs. group and is not as dependent on having good group content as a lot of people seem to believe. There are a lot of more important factors (combat system, good "lore", technical excellence, server capacity, etc.) that are much more important. There is no question that large populations--even if you have to merge servers for instances like WOW does--enhance grouping quickly and easily but it doesn't work the other way around: need to group doesn't necessarily result in a large population.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Recent poster, long time spectator, really enjoy and appreciate all the different oppinions on these forums. This is actually a really important/core topic for MMORPGs, therefore promting me to make an account to share my thoughts.
Group Play is the most essential part of any successful MMORPG and any Solo Play is there for help you familiarize yourself with the game, working you up for Group Play or for times when you cannot participate in Group Play. The basic reason, for at least my self, to submerge into an MMORPG is to of course have fun, but eventually show off my accomplishments or accomplish with others. I can recall tons of great times when I had fun by my self in an MMORPG but the real memorables ones were with friends/guildies. Not looking into writing a wall of text but I truly believe MMO means Massively Multiplay Player.
What I don't understand is why MMOs that mainly rely on group-focused content for endgame (be it PvP or PvE, small group or entire raid) don't allow for both styles of gaming in different ways. Right now there seems to be a very jarring change at endgame from being able to completely and easily solo to being entirely dependent on groups which feels like a big bait and switch to many gamers. Just because some of those games are extremely popular doesn't mean that that aspect is what makes them popular. If they allow for both styles of gameplay it should be conducive even throughout endgame to play in either fashion.
Hypothetically, in a level-based game, what if players were able to solo, but not in order to level? Make leveling, dungeons, and raids group-focused throughout the game (past the tutorial) but allow meaningful character advancement through non-leveling ways a solo experience, such as crafting, reputation type quests that would allow access to other NPC faction areas (NOT just for loot and recipes- see Velious expansion for EQ1), perhaps even ways to advance spells or abilities via real time training (I'd imagine a mini-game where you string together the optimum abilities for your class on a training dummy- not only would it allow players with a DPS spec to figure out their best rotation but it would also provide advancement in those abilities you use). There could be more ways or dynamics those were only examples I could think of off the top of my head.
Sorry Pierth. Some may like that idea but not me. To me that would be the very definition of a forced grouping game. I like to mix solo and group, however when I solo I still want to progress my characters combat skills abilities. I don't mind it being slower, or not as good, thats fine, but I still want to progress him. Your way would make that impossible. As I said some may like it, I'd never touch it.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Sorry Pierth. Some may like that idea but not me. To me that would be the very definition of a forced grouping game. I like to mix solo and group, however when I solo I still want to progress my characters combat skills abilities. I don't mind it being slower, or not as good, thats fine, but I still want to progress him. Your way would make that impossible. As I said some may like it, I'd never touch it.
Venge
No worries, to each his/her own- that's why there should be choices out there with different games catering to different crowds (soloists as well!) but that isn't the case at all. But tell me, do you find it preferable that a game force you to group at cap instead?
If a game at cap forced me to do only one thing, group or solo, than no I wouldn't like that. Luckily no game has yet forced me to do that, possibly only because I've never actually been at cap.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Okay...I feel MMOs should not be "Group Only", and definitely not "Solo Only" games...
There should be SOME Solo quests, but definitely MORE Group quests...
The reason I say this is because MMOs are meant to be played socially. Player interaction includes grouping...Thats why they are MMOs and not single player RPGs...
Now, I'm not bashing the soloist, but some recent MMOs are trying too much to cater to the solo player...I do not agree with this...
Like I said, have some solo quests, actually, a healthy supply of solo quests, but not so much as to pull people away from grouping...
Grouping should be the main focus of MMOs, and soloing should be next...
Okay...I feel MMOs should not be "Group Only", and definitely not "Solo Only" games...
There should be SOME Solo quests, but definitely MORE Group quests...
The reason I say this is because MMOs are meant to be played socially. Player interaction includes grouping...Thats why they are MMOs and not single player RPGs...
Now, I'm not bashing the soloist, but some recent MMOs are trying too much to cater to the solo player...I do not agree with this...
Like I said, have some solo quests, actually, a healthy supply of solo quests, but not so much as to pull people away from grouping...
Grouping should be the main focus of MMOs, and soloing should be next...
I agree, I think the reason some people play an MMO is because they like the social or grouping aspect of it. Of course some play the game that just happens to be an MMO XD
I think a game should start off kinda solo only because you should get to know the game and as you progress it should get harder and harder to not interact with other players. An MMO really needs to emphasis its most basic characteristic it has going for it. MULTIPLAYER!
MUD got popular because it allowed players to interact and work together, against the environment, or even eachother
Solo mode is definitely important to me atleast because of the doorknobs that decide ruining every minute of my game makes it fun for them lol
I disagree that there needs to be no compromise in game design (involving solo versus party dynamics). I am kind of tired of the old fanboi argument that sets WoW up as a title always to be emulated on every level, without any decent argument to support it. It is true, WoW was an exceptional game, and they did a lot of things right, but it was first and foremost a game directed towards those who need to PvP...also with a stress on all-level soloing. Yes, there is teamplay in the game, and it is a crucial feature of the game; however, the thing that makes it obvious to a less-casual player that one has just walked into a PvP, solo, or ego-centered game realm is the amount of nerfing or character equalization that must be done constantly to keep the gaming community happy. In Final Fantasy, were there is little to no authentic PvP (much less, all-level soloing) nerfing is not as frequent because no one cares that a White Mage is less burly in combat than a Warrior class. A White Mage does its own job well, and a Warrior class tanks well...it makes for a more tailor-fitted, flawless and pleasurable party environment; but for WoW, the party dynamics appear to suffer at the expense of a more egalitarian method of universal equalization. This is my opinion on the matter...it is not right or wrong; it is just how I perceive the difficulty of trying to make a game that suits all gaming interests...it just doesn't make anyone truly happy (especially if you are a more serious gamer who is very particular about game dynamics and extended playabillity). That being said, I know that the popularity and success of WoW is well established for a reason (and a very good one, as well...it is a well thought out game); but for me, success is not merely about numbers. It is also about the degree of devotion in its fanbase (no matter how small)...and the type of fanbase that it has. It also must be said that I put much more importance on party dynamics, than PvP or solo aspects; but, here again, this is just my preference. Indeed, I think some style of compromise is always evident.
I am more of a DIY kind of guy and i just join parties and groupd for raids, boss hunts and dungeons.
In almost all MMORPGs that I play it is so hard to kill a boss all by yourself unless you party with someone else (except for low level bosses). In my opinion there is no MMORPG released in which you can reach the max level without partying...
The first is that the vocal minorities at either extreme of the "group - solo" spectrum need to stop believing that they have a right to dictate the playstyles of other people. I pay my subscription fee, so I make the decisions on how I choose to spend my time in-game.
So you have the right to dictate the playstyle?
He has the right to dictate his own playstyle. thats what he said. Feel free to disagree on that one.
And by doing that, he will dictate everyone else's playstyle as well. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Allow me to analyze your logic here, if I may.
You consider me to be the bad guy because I want to play the game my way.
In your mind, I should be willing to sacrifice my own enjoyment, just to make things better for a handful of vocal extremists who spend most of their time belittling my preferences on forums.
Do I look like bloody Gandhi to you?
A Jawa, actually. Ooo-Tee-deee!!! to you, sir. :-p
That said, I think I understand what Hyan's getting at, though granted in a rather vague and inarticulate manner...
If I'm wrong in this, Hyan, feel free to correct me .
Basically, what I'm taking it as is basically that you're saying you prefer to play the game *your* way, and in that context, you prefer a game that allows you to do so. You consider anyone preferring a different playstyle or setup to be infringing on *your* right to play how *you* want.
However... what if, in providing you with that ability - to play *your* way - the design of the game is inhibiting others from playing how *they* would like to play?
You are then, in a way, arguing that the game should be designed to *your* preferences, even if at the expense of others' preferences.
I can further dig into that in saying that I have very, very seldomly ever seen a game with both grouping and soloing where one didn't suffer, and one group (soloers or groupers) didn't feel they were the ones put out.
If, as you say, we're all paying our subscription fees, and we all have the right to play "our way", then... it seems that no matter how you put it, someone's feeling screwed over in the equation. So how do you resolve that without someone feeling their gaming dollar is less valuable than another's?
Personally, I believe the issue could be resolved in 2 steps, with responsibility resting on both the devs and the players.
1. Developers stop this "trying to please everyone equally" BS. It never works out that way. Instead identify a demographic they want to cater to - primarily soloers, primarily groupers, primarily PvEers... primarily PvP'ers, etc... and work on crafting the absolute best MMO experience they can for that group.
2. Note: This is a statement about the MMO population at large, not anyone in particular.... that said... A large number of players need to get over themselves and drop this egocentric sense of entitlement they have that because *they* choose to play a game - it buys them the right to dictate how the game should be designed.
You do not go into a vegan restaurant and start demanding more meat on the menu because "you're a paying customer and it's your right to receive the service you want". You use your head and go to a restaurant that serves what you're looking for in the first place... like, say, a steak house.
Similarly, if you're a fan of soloing, you do not go into a MMO with group-centric tactics and start demanding they make it more soloable because *you* chose to play it. You use your head, do the research and find a MMO that is more geared toward solo-play.
If you're a fan of PvP, you do not go into a MMO that is decidedly PvE and start demanding they add PvP because *you* chose to play it. You use your head, do some research and find a MMO that is more focused on PvP.
All this should be common-sense. Sadly, it isn't for a lot of people.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
And Nintendo is laughing all the way to the bank. They, like the majority of MMO developers, know how business works. You cater to the largest audience and you will be successful. None of the MMOs that you list will ever be major players, simply because they're niche games. They're welcome to do whatever they want, but they're never going to hit multi-million numbers.
Are multi-million numbers the only measure of success in this industry? Oprah is so far ahead of her competition when it comes to anual earnings that she's in a category all by herself. Does that mean that Helen Mirem, Meryl Streep and Jodie Foster are fringe "niche" actresses? They are in fact much better at their craft than Oprah will ever be.
WOW is a cultural phenomenom that has a life of its own. Comparing any other MMO to WOW when assesing their value is meaningles and pointless: there's just one WOW and one Oprah.
I have no idea how many subscription-years it takes a given MMO to break even or turn a modest profit but I assume that if they are loosing tons of money a bean counter somewhere will pull the plug. The fact that so many continue to operate even years after they were notorious and had a lot of buzz means that there's a lot of room in this industry for many different MMOs that, in theory, could appeal to anyone--especially the whiners who do nothing but find fault with WOW and the other flavor of the day MMOs.
There's something for everyone out there but there's an odd subtext in many of the posts here and other places where MMO fans come to bicker: It seems to me that many people want their MMO-of-their-dreams with whatever feature they favor to be the one with the 10 million + subscriptions. They want their own particular version of MMO heaven to be the One True MMO and all other infidels be damned.
There's enough room in the MMO world to cater to just about any taste: fantasy, sci-fi, sandbox, theme-park, solo-friendly, harsh, elite, noob-friendly...whatever. Subscription numbers are just a byproduct of how many different bits and pieces an MMO cobbles together that are attractive to different players for different reasons.
Solo vs. group discussions like this one often sound like what you'd get if you put a couple of religious zealots--say, an Anglican and a Catholic--in a room together and don't let them out until they agree on which one is right.
I've said it before: there is a time and a place for both. I personally do both and as such when I'm doing one or the other I appreciate design elements that cater to either and make my gaming time more enjoyable... is there really anything else to say on the subject?
Excellent post. I agree, especially with the bit in blue.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Take EQ and the Befallen dungeon - just about every EQ player has a Befallen story to tell. It becomes a shared experience that, over the years, build up and these shared experiences give you stuff to talk about within the context of the game. Missing an event that others share becomes a "bad" thing - you want to share those experiences with people you've met.
If the game mechanics make it difficult to do this, I lose interrest in the game. This is what keeps me subscribed to the game.
Indeed.. FFXI has/had so many of those same situations. Barely surviving a horrible mob train in Garlaige Citadel or Crawler's Nest. Trying to get the damn parchment in Eldiemme Necropolis; the first ever trip to Jeuno on foot... and on and on.
Those memories, for me, always revolve as much around the event as they do who I experienced them with. Like I've said before, I can't tell you when I hit a certain milestone in the game, but I can tell you who was there... When you're solo, it's great... but it's just you.
Call it corny, but there's an excellent lyric by Neil Peart (of Rush) in the song "Chain Lightning" from Presto...
"sun dogs fire on the horizon
meteor rain stars across the night
this moment may be brief
but it can be so bright
reflected in another source of light
when the moment dies
the spark still flies
reflected in another pair of eyes"
To me, that chorus basically describes how moments are often much more "intense", and remain far longer in our memories (for better or worse) when others are there to share them.
I think that's what it really boils down to.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
You do not go into a vegan restaurant and start demanding more meat on the menu because "you're a paying customer and it's your right to receive the service you want". You use your head and go to a restaurant that serves what you're looking for in the first place... like, say, a steak house.
Similarly, if you're a fan of soloing, you do not go into a MMO with group-centric tactics and start demanding they make it more soloable because *you* chose to play it. You use your head, do the research and find a MMO that is more geared toward solo-play.
If you're a fan of PvP, you do not go into a MMO that is decidedly PvE and start demanding they add PvP because *you* chose to play it. You use your head, do some research and find a MMO that is more focused on PvP.
All this should be common-sense. Sadly, it isn't for a lot of people.
You cannot compare MMO's to restaurants.
I demand MMO's to cater my playstyle. Or else I leave. Period. I demand GOOD food at restaurants. Or else I will not ever visit that restaurant again. Period.
You do not go into a vegan restaurant and start demanding more meat on the menu because "you're a paying customer and it's your right to receive the service you want". You use your head and go to a restaurant that serves what you're looking for in the first place... like, say, a steak house.
Similarly, if you're a fan of soloing, you do not go into a MMO with group-centric tactics and start demanding they make it more soloable because *you* chose to play it. You use your head, do the research and find a MMO that is more geared toward solo-play.
If you're a fan of PvP, you do not go into a MMO that is decidedly PvE and start demanding they add PvP because *you* chose to play it. You use your head, do some research and find a MMO that is more focused on PvP.
All this should be common-sense. Sadly, it isn't for a lot of people.
You cannot compare MMO's to restaurants.
I demand MMO's to cater my playstyle. Or else I leave. Period. I demand GOOD food at restaurants. Or else I will not ever visit that restaurant again. Period.
And there is that lack of common sense.
Do you also buy Black Ops and demand that the game allow you to play it like Sim City? Or maybe vice-versa, do you demand Sim City games allow you to FPS your way down main street? Although that would be kinda cool..
You don't make demands of any game, unless you're on the development team. If the game doesn't cater to your playstyle then it's not the game you're going to be playing. 'Period'.
i do not see any sense of playing an MMORPG without planning to party up and just doing things alone...
better to play a console game instead.
Yeah, most MMORPGs are now being geared for solo play. Bosses are not that had anymare and could easily be dispatched if you have decent equipments.
We need more bosses that need tactics and strategy in order for them to be defeated and would not go down easily if a group of players just spam their skills on them.
CoH/CoV it in prime had the perfect balance of both. I could solo just about anything or find a group anytime in about 3 minutes. (on the right server)
But most games can’t pull of what they did because the questing system was different.
You do not go into a vegan restaurant and start demanding more meat on the menu because "you're a paying customer and it's your right to receive the service you want". You use your head and go to a restaurant that serves what you're looking for in the first place... like, say, a steak house.
Similarly, if you're a fan of soloing, you do not go into a MMO with group-centric tactics and start demanding they make it more soloable because *you* chose to play it. You use your head, do the research and find a MMO that is more geared toward solo-play.
If you're a fan of PvP, you do not go into a MMO that is decidedly PvE and start demanding they add PvP because *you* chose to play it. You use your head, do some research and find a MMO that is more focused on PvP.
All this should be common-sense. Sadly, it isn't for a lot of people.
Consider message boards like this as community meeting places where restaurant patrons discuss the types of restaurants they'd like to see built in their neighbourhood. At the moment, there are dozens of places that serve chinese food to one segment of the community, and there is another segment that wants to be able to buy pizza, but there are currently no pizza restaurants.
Unfortunately, every time the pizza lovers try to bring up the fact that there are no pizza restaurants, the chinese food lovers scream loudly that all restaurants are currently chinese food restaurants, therefore all future restaurants should be as well.
When questioned about the fairness of such a statement, chinese food patrons claim if pizza restaurants are allowed to be built, many of their fellow patrons will start eating there instead, thereby making it more likely that the chinese restaurants will have a harder time staying in business.
In the meantime, large restaurant chains have conducted numerous consumer surveys that have consistently yeilded the same results: the majority of their consumers want to be able to eat pizza.
Common sense economics will dictate what happens next.
For all these solo play lovers some dev needs to make a new type of game we can call it a MMOSPG... IE you log online the game can only be accessed online. Then make it where you run around with other player but cant actually talk to them or group with them or anything. Maybe a world chat channel and thats it. All the content would be soloable. Even the raids. That way the casual players could get everything they want and still be in the mix with other people.
Actually maybe they need a new type of game we can call it a MMOGPG: "Massively Multiplayer Online Grouping Player Game" where you cannot solo anything but must group everything.
MMO in no way implies grouping: it simply doesn't. I know those that prefer grouping would like it to be this way but it just isn't the case. Every major MMO has been relatively solo friendly through the majority of the game, and those that weren't for the most part patched themselves to be more that way.
And there is some circumstantial evidence that MMO's are actually better for soloing then they are for grouping. Based on my many years of playing MMO's, usually the grouping requirement is most prevelant within instances, which are inherently not MMO: they typically limit you to no more than 25 and usually only 5 or so. So why is it that the majority of grouping in most MMO games is implemented during the non-MMO based instances rather than open world?
The reason in my opinion is that open world MMO "group" content is actually very soloable, because there will often be many soloists who attack this content at the some time. A kind of solo grouping mechanic of sorts. They usually need to partitian away the true group content into non MMO instances, otherwise soloists can and will beat it.
So in some ways grouping is very anti-MMO in a sense because it needs to be partitioned away from the MMO world...
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind" 1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN 2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
Not everyone likes grouping but not everyone likes soloing either.
Why must we be forced to solo in a lot of mmos?
What is the probability that a guy is on the same exact quest as you are? not very high...Then you make friends but wait you cant really group together because doing so will leave your friend will little to no exp thats nice n all of your friend but thats just silly -.-
I dont mind not being able to group but then I dont like being forced to solo unless I happen to find someone in the same exact quest as I am but then the next day or week Im alone again because everyone is on different parts of quests -.- Thats just evil IMO.
Soloing is fine but going out of their way to make grouping harder to make it easier for soloers is just as bad as having to group up for end games. Thats why you get to be able to soloall you want while the people who wants to group have to trudge and bear the extremely annoying solo part until they can group up!
PS : Im drunk but its still my opinion so dont hate on me o.o
Edit :
Basically!!! Soloers get happy happy fun fun soloing to max level then get annoyed they cant do groupy end game stuff. fair enough but people who wanan group up are forced to solo till they reach end game to be able to do their happy happy fun fun. So its justfair unless games start allowing more group stuffs or scaling by numbers stuff on low levels then i guess if thats satisfied then the soloers should be able to have some form of end game progression.
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni ( o.o) (")(") **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
Comments
People take issue with decisions that designers make when games are developed. Sure, folks argue over these points but in fact devs do make choices and players like to think that maybe, just maybe, they can influence these choices.
I realize that group content must be different than solo content. I don’t mind if a game like WoW features both. (I would have different servers for each but that’s another topic.) I come to this discussion because of the responses I got in other forums when I complained about crafting and the solo/party world/instance problem that I ran into in WoW. Namely, crafting materials were and still are sequestered away in group content where a solo player can’t reach them. Take chaos orbs. They only drop from end bosses in Cataclysm heroic instances. If I want them to level up my engineering and make the high end stuff I must run these heroic instances. This is something I won’t do.
What happened was that people told me I wasn’t playing the game properly. That I was supposed to party in MMOs. I was also told that if group content didn’t offer exclusive rewards then enough people wouldn’t group! I disagree with these suppositions and came here to discuss them.
Ok I'll spell it out for you: female, entertainers (btw Oprah wasn't a half-bad actress in The Color Purple...she got a Best Supporting Actress nomination for that.)
I'm sorry that your confusion over the analogy prevented you from comprehending the post.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Ok I'll spell it out for you: female, entertainers (btw Oprah wasn't a half-bad actress in The Color Purple...she got a Best Supporting Actress nomination for that.)
I'm sorry that your confusion over the analogy prevented you from comprehending the post.
Since Oprah reaches many more people through many more mediums of entertainment than Jodie Foster, Meryle Streep and Helen Mirem, she is a more versatile entertainer. She is a more productive and a more successful entertainer. I'm not sure what it makes the other people...Oprah is literally in a class by herself. It's not like comparing one mmorpg to another mmorpg. That would be like comparing a few mmorpg to the entire movie and music industry.
I understand your point, but in the mmorpg genre and industry, the really small games are called "niche" because they do not have a broad appeal. If you're talking about group play vs solo play, games that have both will have broad appeal, while games that have only one or the other would be niche. A game that requires (not encourages, but requires) group play is going to be even smaller (and more deserving of the description "niche") than a game where group play is simply more successful. Eve would be an example of this. Groups are far more successful, but the solo operator can carve out a space and operate just fine on a smaller scale. Vindictus is a game where there is no solo play at all (as far as I know). There are many other, probably more important, differences, but limiting the player choices based on group vs solo play limits the possible audience for your game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It also limits the amount of content development and balancing necessary in comparison to attempting to create content for both playstyles. Games that cater to one or the other would still be able to earn substantial profits by not having to waste time and manpower on players that were never an intended audience.
However, that would be assuming that devs, publishers, etc are looking for longevity in a MMO rather than the fastest payback and profit on initial costs. The latter seems to be more of what we've received and I can see how that would come about with such a population of gamers seeking solo play- they are a fickle lot. Solo gamers consume content until they've completed whatever they are able to solo, then either submit to grouping (while still only having their desires as the main motivator) or they move on to another game.
Group players I've experienced to be the type that also have their own desires and goals in game, but especially in a guild atmosphere are also very inclined to stick around to play and assist the other players in their chosen group (guilds, tribes, clans, whatever) which increases the time those players will stay subbed. Hell, a LOT of people I know that still play WoW (which arguably has the worst community of any MMO ever) only play because of the other players they have built friendships with gaming together, not for any draw to the largely solocentric gameplay the game provides.
The group play vs. solo play in MMOs is a moot point when it seems recent MMOs are made for slash & burn gameplay (like Champions Online, for example).
Agree with previous posters about having the option between solo and grouping.
If i have alot of time to play in an evening, i would like to group up, it's much more fun than playing alone. But if i only have an hour tops to play, it's nice to be able to accomplish something in that time, where there is not enough time to justify making a group.
However, it's one thing giving players the option, but the thing that really frustrates me about Fallen Earth is that there is no need for any grouping or player interaction whatsoever. So players don't bother and solo to end game. Even the regional chat is dead.
If i wanted that, i will just play Dragon Age or Mass Effect - Two more polished RPG's than any MMO offering. But i play MMO's to play with and against others, without that i can't see how any MMO can last too long.
I think there's enouugh room in the industry for the full range of possibilities: all the way from the "must group" to the "99% solo." Of course, the financial success of each MMO is, in part, dependent on having a style of play that appeals to a lot of players.
I'll point out that one of the most succesfull RPGs in the history of computer gaming, the original Diablo (released Christmas 1996,) was a stand-alone game with a small on-line group component. And there are plenty of examples with both console and PC games that follow a similar format. Apparently the market for mostly-solo-group-rarely RPGs is very robust.
My MMO history from my first, Asheron's Call, to present (WOW and Rift beta) is full of friends made and those who drifted away followed by more friends, different guilds, etc. At times I have grouped 90+% of my play time and at times hardly at all. I'm not crazy about repeating the same raids over and over for gear and prestige so I find most end-games boring unless there is a good PvP, or better yet RvR, system.
I tend to stick with games that cater to all my constantly changing play style whims. That's something that WOW does extremely well and its why I keep going back to it despite all its warts like its immature and unfriendly community, gear grinds and too-structured PvP. It just has tons of easily accessible solo or group activities although for unstructured world PvP, you pretty well need to be in a large guild in a PvP server.
I don't know anything about Fallen Earth but from your description it sounds like they don't have a robust community. To me that's a different issue from solo vs. group and is not as dependent on having good group content as a lot of people seem to believe. There are a lot of more important factors (combat system, good "lore", technical excellence, server capacity, etc.) that are much more important. There is no question that large populations--even if you have to merge servers for instances like WOW does--enhance grouping quickly and easily but it doesn't work the other way around: need to group doesn't necessarily result in a large population.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Recent poster, long time spectator, really enjoy and appreciate all the different oppinions on these forums. This is actually a really important/core topic for MMORPGs, therefore promting me to make an account to share my thoughts.
Group Play is the most essential part of any successful MMORPG and any Solo Play is there for help you familiarize yourself with the game, working you up for Group Play or for times when you cannot participate in Group Play. The basic reason, for at least my self, to submerge into an MMORPG is to of course have fun, but eventually show off my accomplishments or accomplish with others. I can recall tons of great times when I had fun by my self in an MMORPG but the real memorables ones were with friends/guildies. Not looking into writing a wall of text but I truly believe MMO means Massively Multiplay Player.
What I don't understand is why MMOs that mainly rely on group-focused content for endgame (be it PvP or PvE, small group or entire raid) don't allow for both styles of gaming in different ways. Right now there seems to be a very jarring change at endgame from being able to completely and easily solo to being entirely dependent on groups which feels like a big bait and switch to many gamers. Just because some of those games are extremely popular doesn't mean that that aspect is what makes them popular. If they allow for both styles of gameplay it should be conducive even throughout endgame to play in either fashion.
Hypothetically, in a level-based game, what if players were able to solo, but not in order to level? Make leveling, dungeons, and raids group-focused throughout the game (past the tutorial) but allow meaningful character advancement through non-leveling ways a solo experience, such as crafting, reputation type quests that would allow access to other NPC faction areas (NOT just for loot and recipes- see Velious expansion for EQ1), perhaps even ways to advance spells or abilities via real time training (I'd imagine a mini-game where you string together the optimum abilities for your class on a training dummy- not only would it allow players with a DPS spec to figure out their best rotation but it would also provide advancement in those abilities you use). There could be more ways or dynamics those were only examples I could think of off the top of my head.
Sorry Pierth. Some may like that idea but not me. To me that would be the very definition of a forced grouping game. I like to mix solo and group, however when I solo I still want to progress my characters combat skills abilities. I don't mind it being slower, or not as good, thats fine, but I still want to progress him. Your way would make that impossible. As I said some may like it, I'd never touch it.
Venge
No worries, to each his/her own- that's why there should be choices out there with different games catering to different crowds (soloists as well!) but that isn't the case at all. But tell me, do you find it preferable that a game force you to group at cap instead?
If a game at cap forced me to do only one thing, group or solo, than no I wouldn't like that. Luckily no game has yet forced me to do that, possibly only because I've never actually been at cap.
Venge
Okay...I feel MMOs should not be "Group Only", and definitely not "Solo Only" games...
There should be SOME Solo quests, but definitely MORE Group quests...
The reason I say this is because MMOs are meant to be played socially. Player interaction includes grouping...Thats why they are MMOs and not single player RPGs...
Now, I'm not bashing the soloist, but some recent MMOs are trying too much to cater to the solo player...I do not agree with this...
Like I said, have some solo quests, actually, a healthy supply of solo quests, but not so much as to pull people away from grouping...
Grouping should be the main focus of MMOs, and soloing should be next...
{Mod Edit}
I agree, I think the reason some people play an MMO is because they like the social or grouping aspect of it. Of course some play the game that just happens to be an MMO XD
I think a game should start off kinda solo only because you should get to know the game and as you progress it should get harder and harder to not interact with other players. An MMO really needs to emphasis its most basic characteristic it has going for it. MULTIPLAYER!
MUD got popular because it allowed players to interact and work together, against the environment, or even eachother
Solo mode is definitely important to me atleast because of the doorknobs that decide ruining every minute of my game makes it fun for them lol
*Jesus te ama*
I disagree that there needs to be no compromise in game design (involving solo versus party dynamics). I am kind of tired of the old fanboi argument that sets WoW up as a title always to be emulated on every level, without any decent argument to support it. It is true, WoW was an exceptional game, and they did a lot of things right, but it was first and foremost a game directed towards those who need to PvP...also with a stress on all-level soloing. Yes, there is teamplay in the game, and it is a crucial feature of the game; however, the thing that makes it obvious to a less-casual player that one has just walked into a PvP, solo, or ego-centered game realm is the amount of nerfing or character equalization that must be done constantly to keep the gaming community happy. In Final Fantasy, were there is little to no authentic PvP (much less, all-level soloing) nerfing is not as frequent because no one cares that a White Mage is less burly in combat than a Warrior class. A White Mage does its own job well, and a Warrior class tanks well...it makes for a more tailor-fitted, flawless and pleasurable party environment; but for WoW, the party dynamics appear to suffer at the expense of a more egalitarian method of universal equalization. This is my opinion on the matter...it is not right or wrong; it is just how I perceive the difficulty of trying to make a game that suits all gaming interests...it just doesn't make anyone truly happy (especially if you are a more serious gamer who is very particular about game dynamics and extended playabillity). That being said, I know that the popularity and success of WoW is well established for a reason (and a very good one, as well...it is a well thought out game); but for me, success is not merely about numbers. It is also about the degree of devotion in its fanbase (no matter how small)...and the type of fanbase that it has. It also must be said that I put much more importance on party dynamics, than PvP or solo aspects; but, here again, this is just my preference. Indeed, I think some style of compromise is always evident.
I am more of a DIY kind of guy and i just join parties and groupd for raids, boss hunts and dungeons.
In almost all MMORPGs that I play it is so hard to kill a boss all by yourself unless you party with someone else (except for low level bosses). In my opinion there is no MMORPG released in which you can reach the max level without partying...
A Jawa, actually. Ooo-Tee-deee!!! to you, sir. :-p
That said, I think I understand what Hyan's getting at, though granted in a rather vague and inarticulate manner...
If I'm wrong in this, Hyan, feel free to correct me
.
Basically, what I'm taking it as is basically that you're saying you prefer to play the game *your* way, and in that context, you prefer a game that allows you to do so. You consider anyone preferring a different playstyle or setup to be infringing on *your* right to play how *you* want.
However... what if, in providing you with that ability - to play *your* way - the design of the game is inhibiting others from playing how *they* would like to play?
You are then, in a way, arguing that the game should be designed to *your* preferences, even if at the expense of others' preferences.
I can further dig into that in saying that I have very, very seldomly ever seen a game with both grouping and soloing where one didn't suffer, and one group (soloers or groupers) didn't feel they were the ones put out.
If, as you say, we're all paying our subscription fees, and we all have the right to play "our way", then... it seems that no matter how you put it, someone's feeling screwed over in the equation. So how do you resolve that without someone feeling their gaming dollar is less valuable than another's?
Personally, I believe the issue could be resolved in 2 steps, with responsibility resting on both the devs and the players.
1. Developers stop this "trying to please everyone equally" BS. It never works out that way. Instead identify a demographic they want to cater to - primarily soloers, primarily groupers, primarily PvEers... primarily PvP'ers, etc... and work on crafting the absolute best MMO experience they can for that group.
2. Note: This is a statement about the MMO population at large, not anyone in particular.... that said... A large number of players need to get over themselves and drop this egocentric sense of entitlement they have that because *they* choose to play a game - it buys them the right to dictate how the game should be designed.
You do not go into a vegan restaurant and start demanding more meat on the menu because "you're a paying customer and it's your right to receive the service you want". You use your head and go to a restaurant that serves what you're looking for in the first place... like, say, a steak house.
Similarly, if you're a fan of soloing, you do not go into a MMO with group-centric tactics and start demanding they make it more soloable because *you* chose to play it. You use your head, do the research and find a MMO that is more geared toward solo-play.
If you're a fan of PvP, you do not go into a MMO that is decidedly PvE and start demanding they add PvP because *you* chose to play it. You use your head, do some research and find a MMO that is more focused on PvP.
All this should be common-sense. Sadly, it isn't for a lot of people.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Excellent post. I agree, especially with the bit in blue.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Indeed.. FFXI has/had so many of those same situations. Barely surviving a horrible mob train in Garlaige Citadel or Crawler's Nest. Trying to get the damn parchment in Eldiemme Necropolis; the first ever trip to Jeuno on foot... and on and on.
Those memories, for me, always revolve as much around the event as they do who I experienced them with. Like I've said before, I can't tell you when I hit a certain milestone in the game, but I can tell you who was there... When you're solo, it's great... but it's just you.
Call it corny, but there's an excellent lyric by Neil Peart (of Rush) in the song "Chain Lightning" from Presto...
"sun dogs fire on the horizon
meteor rain stars across the night
this moment may be brief
but it can be so bright
reflected in another source of light
when the moment dies
the spark still flies
reflected in another pair of eyes"
To me, that chorus basically describes how moments are often much more "intense", and remain far longer in our memories (for better or worse) when others are there to share them.
I think that's what it really boils down to.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
You cannot compare MMO's to restaurants.
I demand MMO's to cater my playstyle. Or else I leave. Period. I demand GOOD food at restaurants. Or else I will not ever visit that restaurant again. Period.
Make us care MORE about our faction & world pvp!
And there is that lack of common sense.
Do you also buy Black Ops and demand that the game allow you to play it like Sim City? Or maybe vice-versa, do you demand Sim City games allow you to FPS your way down main street? Although that would be kinda cool..
You don't make demands of any game, unless you're on the development team. If the game doesn't cater to your playstyle then it's not the game you're going to be playing. 'Period'.
i do not see any sense of playing an MMORPG without planning to party up and just doing things alone...
better to play a console game instead.
Yeah, most MMORPGs are now being geared for solo play. Bosses are not that had anymare and could easily be dispatched if you have decent equipments.
We need more bosses that need tactics and strategy in order for them to be defeated and would not go down easily if a group of players just spam their skills on them.
Why not do both?
CoH/CoV it in prime had the perfect balance of both. I could solo just about anything or find a group anytime in about 3 minutes. (on the right server)
But most games can’t pull of what they did because the questing system was different.
Consider message boards like this as community meeting places where restaurant patrons discuss the types of restaurants they'd like to see built in their neighbourhood. At the moment, there are dozens of places that serve chinese food to one segment of the community, and there is another segment that wants to be able to buy pizza, but there are currently no pizza restaurants.
Unfortunately, every time the pizza lovers try to bring up the fact that there are no pizza restaurants, the chinese food lovers scream loudly that all restaurants are currently chinese food restaurants, therefore all future restaurants should be as well.
When questioned about the fairness of such a statement, chinese food patrons claim if pizza restaurants are allowed to be built, many of their fellow patrons will start eating there instead, thereby making it more likely that the chinese restaurants will have a harder time staying in business.
In the meantime, large restaurant chains have conducted numerous consumer surveys that have consistently yeilded the same results: the majority of their consumers want to be able to eat pizza.
Common sense economics will dictate what happens next.
Actually maybe they need a new type of game we can call it a MMOGPG: "Massively Multiplayer Online Grouping Player Game" where you cannot solo anything but must group everything.
MMO in no way implies grouping: it simply doesn't. I know those that prefer grouping would like it to be this way but it just isn't the case. Every major MMO has been relatively solo friendly through the majority of the game, and those that weren't for the most part patched themselves to be more that way.
And there is some circumstantial evidence that MMO's are actually better for soloing then they are for grouping. Based on my many years of playing MMO's, usually the grouping requirement is most prevelant within instances, which are inherently not MMO: they typically limit you to no more than 25 and usually only 5 or so. So why is it that the majority of grouping in most MMO games is implemented during the non-MMO based instances rather than open world?
The reason in my opinion is that open world MMO "group" content is actually very soloable, because there will often be many soloists who attack this content at the some time. A kind of solo grouping mechanic of sorts. They usually need to partitian away the true group content into non MMO instances, otherwise soloists can and will beat it.
So in some ways grouping is very anti-MMO in a sense because it needs to be partitioned away from the MMO world...
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
Not everyone likes grouping but not everyone likes soloing either.
Why must we be forced to solo in a lot of mmos?
What is the probability that a guy is on the same exact quest as you are? not very high...Then you make friends but wait you cant really group together because doing so will leave your friend will little to no exp thats nice n all of your friend but thats just silly -.-
I dont mind not being able to group but then I dont like being forced to solo unless I happen to find someone in the same exact quest as I am but then the next day or week Im alone again because everyone is on different parts of quests -.- Thats just evil IMO.
Soloing is fine but going out of their way to make grouping harder to make it easier for soloers is just as bad as having to group up for end games. Thats why you get to be able to soloall you want while the people who wants to group have to trudge and bear the extremely annoying solo part until they can group up!
PS : Im drunk but its still my opinion so dont hate on me o.o
Edit :
Basically!!! Soloers get happy happy fun fun soloing to max level then get annoyed they cant do groupy end game stuff. fair enough but people who wanan group up are forced to solo till they reach end game to be able to do their happy happy fun fun. So its justfair unless games start allowing more group stuffs or scaling by numbers stuff on low levels then i guess if thats satisfied then the soloers should be able to have some form of end game progression.
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**