Nobody wants to get caught in these uncomfortable silences caused by downtime because they have nothing in common with the people they are playing with, except for the game.
Isnt it more a testament to the shallowness and simplicity of the games if players dont feel the need to talk about them and exchange information and opinions about them?
I dont talk politics in clan chat, do you?
Flame on!
There's quite a difference between "I like this game because of X" or "I don't like this game because of Y" and "I hate all games because they aren't catering to a niche audience that I happen to fall into, developers need to make a game for me!"
There is, but what does it have to do with anything, especially people talking about the game INSIDE the game?
MMORPG's before 2004 did NOT force grouping. You could still solo, it was just harder, more time consuming, and less efficient to do so..unless you were also doing it for the chance at some lucky loot drop (Depending on the game. Which also depended on how loot tables were distributed in said game).
If you really think about it...games such as WoW and Rift for instance almost force you to solo. Now you CAN group in these games, I know this...but it's tough to get groups unless you join some rabid hadcore raiding Guild...because no one wants to group since you can get almost everything alone, or if you aren't in that clique. No one wants to take the time to talk to others, group up and maybe chat and become friends you put on your friends list and look for for that content that may need some grouping.
At least with more group oriented content MMORPG's people are more likely to group and discover community. AND they STILL have an option to solo at any moment they wish. The other way around, it is MUCH harder to get groups than to solo.
I am not saying there shouldn't be solely group oriented MMORPG's, nor am I saying they should be solely solo oriented ones. They should have the ability to do both. But if anything...they should have a bit more group oriented features to them because to me that provides more of a balance and the option to do one or the other more freely with little or at least less of a wait.
Nobody wants to get caught in these uncomfortable silences caused by downtime because they have nothing in common with the people they are playing with, except for the game.
Isnt it more a testament to the shallowness and simplicity of the games if players dont feel the need to talk about them and exchange information and opinions about them?
I dont talk politics in clan chat, do you?
Flame on!
No. Why would i need to discuss endlessly only if a game is deep. Do you discuss endless chess strategy when you are playing chess? Do you discuss endlessly about poker when you are playing Texas Holdem?
Some people may not like to talk .. did that ever occur to you?
Some don't play games to talk about games, you know.
Forced interdependance tends to breed more polite behavior simply because people who act in an anti-social fashion get selected against (e.g. do worse). People are therefore acting in thier own enlightened self-interest by being nice to others.
However this does get mitigated to a very large degree when dealing with much larger communities where there are very low odds that you'll ever need to interact with the same people in future.
So if a player is in a game community of 1,000 people and they know they are going to need to interact with those people in future (interdependence), they'll tend not to act like jerks because in the long run they'll be hurting themselves by doing so.
If the same player is in a game community of 100,000 people even with forced interdependance there is not a very strong push to avoid acting like a jerk because the odds of needing to interact with any of those people they are jerks to in future is low...thus not much disincentive.
If there is no forced interdependance then there is no consequence to acting like a jerk whether it's a community of 1,000 or 100,000. There is not much rocket science to it.
The part of your non-rocket science that you are missing is that you are basing acceptance and rejection on your view of societal norms; views that may or may not be mirrored in the online world you are in. If the norm is speaking in textese, sending group invites without asking first and regularly using profanity, then the polite gentleman is the pariah.
Well "polite" is clearly subjective to the context of the society it is used in (e.g. in some culture's belching is considered polite in others it is considered rude)....... However, the mores of that subjective context are also going to be heavly influenced on things that objectively harm the individual or groups abilitity to function. For example, it would be very unlikely in a gaming subculture context that spamming another players screen with nonsense or doing a "bad pull" would be considered polite because they objectively harm the individual/groups ability to succeed at tasks that are important in the game.
The principle remains valid. The more a person needs another person and expects to need that person in future, the less likely they are to do things which they expect will cause that person to have a negative opinion of them.
I'd say neither side of the fence is more douche-like than the other, it's simply as a result of grouping that you are exposed and effected by douche bags.
Much of it depends on personal circumstances. I have always tended to solo. Why? I do not enjoy, nor can i often justify, being virtualy tethered to my keyboard for a protracted period of time. I don't like to keep people waiting, wether they be inside a virtual world or not.
The older days of having to LFG were often not great fun. PUG'ing often resulted/results in being taken in a direction of play that you didn't really want to go in, unless it's for an instance or specific boss etc. If you're not careful you can end up spending an hour clearing some guys quest chain only for him to "soz gotta go byeeee"...
I much prefer, much like a majority of the fanbase/consumers of MMO's, to be able to group up easily and as an option.
Forced interdependance tends to breed more polite behavior simply because people who act in an anti-social fashion get selected against (e.g. do worse). People are therefore acting in thier own enlightened self-interest by being nice to others.
However this does get mitigated to a very large degree when dealing with much larger communities where there are very low odds that you'll ever need to interact with the same people in future.
So if a player is in a game community of 1,000 people and they know they are going to need to interact with those people in future (interdependence), they'll tend not to act like jerks because in the long run they'll be hurting themselves by doing so.
If the same player is in a game community of 100,000 people even with forced interdependance there is not a very strong push to avoid acting like a jerk because the odds of needing to interact with any of those people they are jerks to in future is low...thus not much disincentive.
If there is no forced interdependance then there is no consequence to acting like a jerk whether it's a community of 1,000 or 100,000. There is not much rocket science to it.
The part of your non-rocket science that you are missing is that you are basing acceptance and rejection on your view of societal norms; views that may or may not be mirrored in the online world you are in. If the norm is speaking in textese, sending group invites without asking first and regularly using profanity, then the polite gentleman is the pariah.
Well "polite" is clearly subjective to the context of the society it is used in (e.g. in some culture's belching is considered polite in others it is considered rude)....... However, the mores of that subjective context are also going to be heavly influenced on things that objectively harm the individual or groups abilitity to function. For example, it would be very unlikely in a gaming subculture context that spamming another players screen with nonsense or doing a "bad pull" would be considered polite because they objectively harm the individual/groups ability to succeed at tasks that are important in the game.
The principle remains valid. The more a person needs another person and expects to need that person in future, the less likely they are to do things which they expect will cause that person to have a negative opinion of them.
You are confusing mores and norms with skill and tactics, or is your assumption that every bad pull is the person intentionally acting like a jerk?
In other words, when in Rome...
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Really wish some game would try mandatory Forced grouping again. It has been a decade since a game really forced players to group up. No solo content at all so people like the OP don't even bother setting foot in this game.
Sure, if you wan to see a game fail even faster than SWTOR, go for it.
Really? The last game I played that forced grouping (FFXI) did quite well. Solo players have hundreds of games to choose from, why begrudge group players 1 game.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
People are solo-oriented. Games can force you to group, it doesn't mean people want to be social.
I don't even know that's true. The problem with the pro-groupers is they simply refuse to acknowledge that the genre and it's playerbase has changed over the years, they think that it's possible to reset things and it will go back to the way it used to be.
The reality is, back in the day of UO and EQ, the majority of people playing MMOs were the geeks and the nerds, they were the only ones that had access to high-end machines and broadband Internet. Therefore you already had a group of people who fundamentally had a lot in common outside of playing the game. It wasn't horrible to get caught with nothing to do once in a while because no matter who you were with, you probably had something to talk about. There probably wasn't a group I was in back then that couldn't quote Monty Python and the Holy Grail from memory. There was an actual community because virtually everyone playing the game belonged to the same social group.
Enter the broadband explosion and now *EVERYONE* has access to these games. Instead of one single unified community, you have dozens, even hundreds of different communities with different interests, different tastes, different goals. Nobody wants to get caught in these uncomfortable silences caused by downtime because they have nothing in common with the people they are playing with, except for the game. That's why people started playing solo because it avoided those uncomfortable encounters. Everyone played for their own purposes and their own goals and if they could hook up with a couple of people who shared their interests and were on at the same time, great. If not... you played alone. Games changed to reflect this new reality.
The fact is, even if you did go back to forced grouping, you'll never go back to the same feeling of community that games once had. Those days are simply gone, at least unless you restrict games to a single social group, which no one is going to do. I'm sure people want to be social, they just want to do it with people that they share common interests with. It's just not that easy to come by in modern games, or in modern online life.
I think you hit upon an interesting point. Obviously people play games for different reasons and everyone does need a certain amount of personal space and "alone time". However, at thier core people are "social animals" which means they do instinctualy want to spend a significant amount of time engaged in social activity (millions of years of hard wired instinct will see to that). However they also have a hard wired anxiety about "strangers". One of the ways this is overcome is when people become less of a stranger due to repeated encounters (i.e. you see the person every day). Another way is when people are purposefully going out of thier way to engage in a certain pre-designated group activity (e.g. "signing up to play baseball/softball".) This breaks a certain amount of the anxiety about the stranger.
Modern games probably work against this in 2 ways. Firstly much larger populations on each "server", meaning less chance of seeing/meeting the same people repeatedly and gaining some familiarty with them that way. Secondly, much broader target audiences and range of activities supported within a single game....e.g. your there to PvE level, I'm there to PvP, Joe's there to explore, Suzy is there to RP, Billy is there to raid/equipment grind, etc. Thus no way to reduce the natural sense of anxiety about strangers by introducing a common built-in assumption about why we are there and want we want to do there.
Forced interdependance tends to breed more polite behavior simply because people who act in an anti-social fashion get selected against (e.g. do worse). People are therefore acting in thier own enlightened self-interest by being nice to others.
However this does get mitigated to a very large degree when dealing with much larger communities where there are very low odds that you'll ever need to interact with the same people in future.
So if a player is in a game community of 1,000 people and they know they are going to need to interact with those people in future (interdependence), they'll tend not to act like jerks because in the long run they'll be hurting themselves by doing so.
If the same player is in a game community of 100,000 people even with forced interdependance there is not a very strong push to avoid acting like a jerk because the odds of needing to interact with any of those people they are jerks to in future is low...thus not much disincentive.
If there is no forced interdependance then there is no consequence to acting like a jerk whether it's a community of 1,000 or 100,000. There is not much rocket science to it.
The part of your non-rocket science that you are missing is that you are basing acceptance and rejection on your view of societal norms; views that may or may not be mirrored in the online world you are in. If the norm is speaking in textese, sending group invites without asking first and regularly using profanity, then the polite gentleman is the pariah.
Well "polite" is clearly subjective to the context of the society it is used in (e.g. in some culture's belching is considered polite in others it is considered rude)....... However, the mores of that subjective context are also going to be heavly influenced on things that objectively harm the individual or groups abilitity to function. For example, it would be very unlikely in a gaming subculture context that spamming another players screen with nonsense or doing a "bad pull" would be considered polite because they objectively harm the individual/groups ability to succeed at tasks that are important in the game.
The principle remains valid. The more a person needs another person and expects to need that person in future, the less likely they are to do things which they expect will cause that person to have a negative opinion of them.
You are confusing mores and norms with skill and tactics, or is your assumption that every bad pull is the person intentionally acting like a jerk?
In other words, when in Rome...
No confusion...I'm simply stating that while mores and norms are subjective....they are often strongly influenced by objective factors which effect performance.....and using the hypothetical example that doing a "bad pull" would unlikely to ever become an accepted more because it objectively harms performance.
I think you hit upon an interesting point. Obviously people play games for different reasons and everyone does need a certain amount of personal space and "alone time". However, at thier core people are "social animals" which means they do instinctualy want to spend a significant amount of time engaged in social activity (millions of years of hard wired instinct will see to that). However they also have a hard wired anxiety about "strangers". One of the ways this is overcome is when people become less of a stranger due to repeated encounters (i.e. you see the person every day). Another way is when people are purposefully going out of thier way to engage in a certain pre-designated group activity (e.g. "signing up to play baseball/softball".) This breaks a certain amount of the anxiety about the stranger.
Modern games probably work against this in 2 ways. Firstly much larger populations on each "server", meaning less chance of seeing/meeting the same people repeatedly and gaining some familiarty with them that way. Secondly, much broader target audiences and range of activities supported within a single game....e.g. your there to PvE level, I'm there to PvP, Joe's there to explore, Suzy is there to RP, Billy is there to raid/equipment grind, etc. Thus no way to reduce the natural sense of anxiety about strangers by introducing a common built-in assumption about why we are there and want we want to do there.
The problem is, while we are a social species, that means we like to be around other people, not that we necessarily have to interact with them. Tens of thousands of people can go to a baseball game and sit in the stands and never directly interact with each other, yet that is a social activity. Just being in the same MMO with a couple of hundred or thousand people is a social activity in and of itself.
It's all well and good to say that people are just anxious about playing with people they don't know but that's probably not the case. In order to want to get to know someone, you have to have something significant in common and, in modern MMOs, that's almost certainly not the case. Beyond playing the game, you'll probably run into someone who has a common interest very rarely, there's no reason to talk to anyone in a game and if the people available to you have different playstyles or goals in mind, then playing with them at all isn't really worthwhile either. It doesn't stop an MMO from being a social activity, it just stops it from being valuable to interact directly with most of the people around you.
Really wish some game would try mandatory Forced grouping again. It has been a decade since a game really forced players to group up. No solo content at all so people like the OP don't even bother setting foot in this game.
Sure, if you wan to see a game fail even faster than SWTOR, go for it.
Really? The last game I played that forced grouping (FFXI) did quite well. Solo players have hundreds of games to choose from, why begrudge group players 1 game.
You don't need force grouping to encourage group. There are many groups in D3 every day, and it can be a solo game. Heck, it is not even a MMO.
Force grouping just takes choices away. There is no need for that.
I think you hit upon an interesting point. Obviously people play games for different reasons and everyone does need a certain amount of personal space and "alone time". However, at thier core people are "social animals" which means they do instinctualy want to spend a significant amount of time engaged in social activity (millions of years of hard wired instinct will see to that). However they also have a hard wired anxiety about "strangers". One of the ways this is overcome is when people become less of a stranger due to repeated encounters (i.e. you see the person every day). Another way is when people are purposefully going out of thier way to engage in a certain pre-designated group activity (e.g. "signing up to play baseball/softball".) This breaks a certain amount of the anxiety about the stranger.
Modern games probably work against this in 2 ways. Firstly much larger populations on each "server", meaning less chance of seeing/meeting the same people repeatedly and gaining some familiarty with them that way. Secondly, much broader target audiences and range of activities supported within a single game....e.g. your there to PvE level, I'm there to PvP, Joe's there to explore, Suzy is there to RP, Billy is there to raid/equipment grind, etc. Thus no way to reduce the natural sense of anxiety about strangers by introducing a common built-in assumption about why we are there and want we want to do there.
The problem is, while we are a social species, that means we like to be around other people, not that we necessarily have to interact with them. Tens of thousands of people can go to a baseball game and sit in the stands and never directly interact with each other, yet that is a social activity. Just being in the same MMO with a couple of hundred or thousand people is a social activity in and of itself.
It's all well and good to say that people are just anxious about playing with people they don't know but that's probably not the case. In order to want to get to know someone, you have to have something significant in common and, in modern MMOs, that's almost certainly not the case. Beyond playing the game, you'll probably run into someone who has a common interest very rarely, there's no reason to talk to anyone in a game and if the people available to you have different playstyles or goals in mind, then playing with them at all isn't really worthwhile either. It doesn't stop an MMO from being a social activity, it just stops it from being valuable to interact directly with most of the people around you.
Actualy, I'd disagree with you about the "being around but not interacting with others" part....we aren't just a social species, we are a "pack species". Interacting with others is built into our hard wiring. Stick a bunch of people in an elavator for long enough and they'll eventualy start talking with each other.....even if they are complete strangers.... they just won't be able to help it, it's hard wired into us.
That doesn't mean there isn't any value to social activities where you are around but not interacting with people. That may be enough sometimes but we really do...on a regular basis have a basic need to interact directly with others. Some people express that ossasionaly in the type of games they play....others not.
Really wish some game would try mandatory Forced grouping again. It has been a decade since a game really forced players to group up. No solo content at all so people like the OP don't even bother setting foot in this game.
Sure, if you wan to see a game fail even faster than SWTOR, go for it.
Really? The last game I played that forced grouping (FFXI) did quite well. Solo players have hundreds of games to choose from, why begrudge group players 1 game.
You don't need force grouping to encourage group. There are many groups in D3 every day, and it can be a solo game. Heck, it is not even a MMO.
Force grouping just takes choices away. There is no need for that.
Or it can be used to FOCUS choices....e.g. I'm here to play baseball, not fly a kite.
Nothing wrong with either playing baseball or flying a kite.... and public parks can be used for both.
However people that are interested in playing baseball are FAR better off with signing up onto a league for "playing baseball" not a league for "some random use of a park". That way they know that everyone who shows up at the predesignated place at the predesignated time is there for the same activity, and they can even have features (like base-paths and plates) that are specificaly designed for the activity they are interested in.
I think you hit upon an interesting point. Obviously people play games for different reasons and everyone does need a certain amount of personal space and "alone time". However, at thier core people are "social animals" which means they do instinctualy want to spend a significant amount of time engaged in social activity (millions of years of hard wired instinct will see to that). However they also have a hard wired anxiety about "strangers". One of the ways this is overcome is when people become less of a stranger due to repeated encounters (i.e. you see the person every day). Another way is when people are purposefully going out of thier way to engage in a certain pre-designated group activity (e.g. "signing up to play baseball/softball".) This breaks a certain amount of the anxiety about the stranger.
Modern games probably work against this in 2 ways. Firstly much larger populations on each "server", meaning less chance of seeing/meeting the same people repeatedly and gaining some familiarty with them that way. Secondly, much broader target audiences and range of activities supported within a single game....e.g. your there to PvE level, I'm there to PvP, Joe's there to explore, Suzy is there to RP, Billy is there to raid/equipment grind, etc. Thus no way to reduce the natural sense of anxiety about strangers by introducing a common built-in assumption about why we are there and want we want to do there.
So in other words, you can reset the mechanics back to how things were in the past, but if you don't change the human factor to go with it, you're generally screwed?
Really wish some game would try mandatory Forced grouping again. It has been a decade since a game really forced players to group up. No solo content at all so people like the OP don't even bother setting foot in this game.
Sure, if you wan to see a game fail even faster than SWTOR, go for it.
Really? The last game I played that forced grouping (FFXI) did quite well. Solo players have hundreds of games to choose from, why begrudge group players 1 game.
You don't need force grouping to encourage group. There are many groups in D3 every day, and it can be a solo game. Heck, it is not even a MMO.
Force grouping just takes choices away. There is no need for that.
Or it can be used to FOCUS choices....e.g. I'm here to play baseball, not fly a kite.
Nothing wrong with either playing baseball or flying a kite.... and public parks can be used for both.
However people that are interested in playing baseball are FAR better off with signing up onto a league for "playing baseball" not a league for "some random use of a park". That way they know that everyone who shows up at the predesignated place at the predesignated time is there for the same activity, and they can even have features (like base-paths and plates) that are specificaly designed for the activity they are interested in.
That based on the assumptions that you are only targetting those who are interested in ONE and the SAME activity.
In the example of the park, if you restrict the park to have ONLY baseball, then you miss the kite flying audience, and those who would like to do both at different times.
It is obvious that current MMO want to cater to both who want to group, and those who does not .. and also those who can change their mind.
Actualy, I'd disagree with you about the "being around but not interacting with others" part....we aren't just a social species, we are a "pack species". Interacting with others is built into our hard wiring. Stick a bunch of people in an elavator for long enough and they'll eventualy start talking with each other.....even if they are complete strangers.... they just won't be able to help it, it's hard wired into us.
That doesn't mean there isn't any value to social activities where you are around but not interacting with people. That may be enough sometimes but we really do...on a regular basis have a basic need to interact directly with others. Some people express that ossasionaly in the type of games they play....others not.
But that's not analogous to what we're talking about. It's like my baseball stadium analogy, yes, the people in the stands might start talking to each other, they will not get up and start playing baseball together. I might talk to people in an MMO, that doesn't mean I'm going to group up and play the game with them.
Originally posted by Cephus404 But that's not analogous to what we're talking about. It's like my baseball stadium analogy, yes, the people in the stands might start talking to each other, they will not get up and start playing baseball together. I might talk to people in an MMO, that doesn't mean I'm going to group up and play the game with them.
Looks like you played tons of games, which doesn't leave much time for any one game. You seem like a game tourist, really. Logically, it follows you would have neither the time nor desire to form personal bonds with other players. Hundreds of games for you to choose from. I'd like one game for people who like to put down roots and form a community to overcome an adverse, harsh world.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Really wish some game would try mandatory Forced grouping again. It has been a decade since a game really forced players to group up. No solo content at all so people like the OP don't even bother setting foot in this game.
Sure, if you wan to see a game fail even faster than SWTOR, go for it.
Really? The last game I played that forced grouping (FFXI) did quite well. Solo players have hundreds of games to choose from, why begrudge group players 1 game.
You don't need force grouping to encourage group. There are many groups in D3 every day, and it can be a solo game. Heck, it is not even a MMO.
Force grouping just takes choices away. There is no need for that.
Or it can be used to FOCUS choices....e.g. I'm here to play baseball, not fly a kite.
Nothing wrong with either playing baseball or flying a kite.... and public parks can be used for both.
However people that are interested in playing baseball are FAR better off with signing up onto a league for "playing baseball" not a league for "some random use of a park". That way they know that everyone who shows up at the predesignated place at the predesignated time is there for the same activity, and they can even have features (like base-paths and plates) that are specificaly designed for the activity they are interested in.
That based on the assumptions that you are only targetting those who are interested in ONE and the SAME activity.
In the example of the park, if you restrict the park to have ONLY baseball, then you miss the kite flying audience, and those who would like to do both at different times.
It is obvious that current MMO want to cater to both who want to group, and those who does not .. and also those who can change their mind.
Absolutely true....parks are multi-use environments....and there is an INCREASED COST built-in to allowing the park to be used in such a manner and used well...which the park officials are willing to carry. You'll note even there though, that the park segregates activities to a specific portion of the park at a specific time and place.
If you show up at 10:00 AM on a Saturday at the baseball field.....people WILL be playing baseball there....kite flying isn't allowed at that time and place.
There is nothing wrong with individuals for wanting a specific game devoted to a specific style of play...both so the game can do a good job of supporting the structures which faciltate that style of play and so players can be reasonably confident they'll encounter others there with a similar interest. What the OP requested doesn't really take away choices since there is no shortage of games out there that support a different type of player interest....anymore then the player wishing that someone would make a Western Themed MMO takes away from the person who prefers Fantasy themed, of which there are thousands to choose.
I do think that MMO Developers are suffering a bit from the "Its a floor-wax, it's a breakfast cereal" symdrome. The obviously want the economic benefit of being able to appeal to the most diverse audience of users....but unlike the park officials, they don't really do a very good job of building out the features that would support all those uses well....nor do they have a good way of segregating usages so players can be reasonably confident they are playing in the same spot as others with the exact same interests without bumping heads with those with conflicting interests.
Looks like you played tons of games, which doesn't leave much time for any one game. You seem like a game tourist, really. Logically, it follows you would have neither the time nor desire to form personal bonds with other players. Hundreds of games for you to choose from. I'd like one game for people who like to put down roots and form a community to overcome an adverse, harsh world.
Apparently it hasn't occurred to you that people can play multiple games at the same time and can play single games for several years, which certainly I have done. I also played in several text-only games for 15+ years straight. The idea that I have neither the time nor desire to form personal bonds is absurd, the fact is, most people simply are not worth forming those bonds with, regardless of the game. I've been in games where I'd be happy to sit down with people for hours on end and just talk. Those games are few and far between today. While I'd love to find a community that I have things in common with outside of the game, I've essentially given up hope of ever actually finding one.
Originally posted by Cephus404 Apparently it hasn't occurred to you that people can play multiple games at the same time and can play single games for several years, which certainly I have done. I also played in several text-only games for 15+ years straight. The idea that I have neither the time nor desire to form personal bonds is absurd, the fact is, most people simply are not worth forming those bonds with, regardless of the game. I've been in games where I'd be happy to sit down with people for hours on end and just talk. Those games are few and far between today. While I'd love to find a community that I have things in common with outside of the game, I've essentially given up hope of ever actually finding one.
Fair enough. I can't think of any game on the market today that fosters such relationships, anyways. Which explains why I'm not playing any MMOs atm.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
It is obvious that current MMO want to cater to both who want to group, and those who does not .. and also those who can change their mind.
Depends on what you mean with "cater", you know, in wow we have seen the approach that group activities become so streamlined and automatic so that even a soloer who does not like to talk and socialze can participate in them, at the expense of real solo content like quests, (some)reps , crafting...
And even in general it is more often than not that you can solo up to endgame and it becomes group only there, bringing another host of problems with it...
I think the problem is not really in catering to several groups, but the ambition (motivated by cost, maybe) to satisfy several groups with one type of content , while creating the situation that in the end both dont like it very much.
Like adding kite flying catchers at the back during a baseball game.
Ok ok, excluding the irony of playing solo in a game that wouldn't exist except for the premise of sharing the world with countless others...
It occured to me that optional grouping, where solo play is either as rewarding, or as NET rewarding (minus hassle of putting together a group, etc), doesn't work because people who choose to slow thier own progression or go to great lengths to group up are usually immature, incompentant, or ill-mannered.
Not saying those self-interested enough to play solo when it is most profitable are perfect, but this is the irony I see when I play mmos today. For the philosophically minded, consider ethical egoism. People who care about themselves are probably more polite to others that they may depend on later than those who care about nothing at all, or perhaps just about having some immediate kicks.
I guess the point of this revelation is that it's not so simple to say 'just group up anyways', when what you'll get is a very unfun grouping experience in a game that doesn't promote or pressure team efforts.
This can be solved simply by adding a system that rates players based on their actions. Consider, for your perception, the ranking system on this website. I have provided nothing but clear and concise feedback to all of my posts. Therefore, I have 2 stars when persons with thousands of posts have 1.
so doing dungeon or battleground or realm vs realm is consider solo?
Since that is what every single themepark game look like when you reach max level. There is nothing to do except dungeon or battleground.
Most endgame is solo dailies or dungeon finder, which is just like playing solo. I like leveling myself, and in old school mmos you leveled in a group. Endgame was more of a 'oh crap we need to give leet locusts something to keep paying for'. Further, the vast majority of mmo subscribers never reach endgame, and arent really represented by this site's members.
So mostly I refer to level progression where people arent judgemental about your gear or spec. Though admittedly, the rude tendencies of endgame stress are seeping into every aspect of mmo gameplay more and more as time goes on.
Some of you likely never experienced mmo grouping in its full potential for fun. And no, I dont mean with leet guild buddies over vent. I mean relaxing, having fun, showing off, etc with strangers who become friends.
That based on the assumptions that you are only targetting those who are interested in ONE and the SAME activity.
In the example of the park, if you restrict the park to have ONLY baseball, then you miss the kite flying audience, and those who would like to do both at different times.
It is obvious that current MMO want to cater to both who want to group, and those who does not .. and also those who can change their mind.
Absolutely true....parks are multi-use environments....and there is an INCREASED COST built-in to allowing the park to be used in such a manner and used well...which the park officials are willing to carry. You'll note even there though, that the park segregates activities to a specific portion of the park at a specific time and place.
If you show up at 10:00 AM on a Saturday at the baseball field.....people WILL be playing baseball there....kite flying isn't allowed at that time and place.
There is nothing wrong with individuals for wanting a specific game devoted to a specific style of play...both so the game can do a good job of supporting the structures which faciltate that style of play and so players can be reasonably confident they'll encounter others there with a similar interest. What the OP requested doesn't really take away choices since there is no shortage of games out there that support a different type of player interest....anymore then the player wishing that someone would make a Western Themed MMO takes away from the person who prefers Fantasy themed, of which there are thousands to choose.
I do think that MMO Developers are suffering a bit from the "Its a floor-wax, it's a breakfast cereal" symdrome. The obviously want the economic benefit of being able to appeal to the most diverse audience of users....but unlike the park officials, they don't really do a very good job of building out the features that would support all those uses well....nor do they have a good way of segregating usages so players can be reasonably confident they are playing in the same spot as others with the exact same interests without bumping heads with those with conflicting interests.
Let me throw out one more reason why MMO dev is catering to multiple groups. There is cost synergies. It is much cheaper to develop ONE game that uses the same class mechanics/art assets for both style of play, then to develop two games. Think about it. The WOW dungeon runs, and arena pvp are basically TWO games. However, they use the same character models, and the combat mechanics are roughly the same with some tweaks (additional stats, some variation of mechanics like diminiishign return on CC).
This is obviously CHEAPER than maknig two games. That, i think, is one of the primary reason.
Granted that both sides suffer because the mechanics has to fit both to some extent.
Comments
There is, but what does it have to do with anything, especially people talking about the game INSIDE the game?
Flame on!
MMORPG's before 2004 did NOT force grouping. You could still solo, it was just harder, more time consuming, and less efficient to do so..unless you were also doing it for the chance at some lucky loot drop (Depending on the game. Which also depended on how loot tables were distributed in said game).
If you really think about it...games such as WoW and Rift for instance almost force you to solo. Now you CAN group in these games, I know this...but it's tough to get groups unless you join some rabid hadcore raiding Guild...because no one wants to group since you can get almost everything alone, or if you aren't in that clique. No one wants to take the time to talk to others, group up and maybe chat and become friends you put on your friends list and look for for that content that may need some grouping.
At least with more group oriented content MMORPG's people are more likely to group and discover community. AND they STILL have an option to solo at any moment they wish. The other way around, it is MUCH harder to get groups than to solo.
I am not saying there shouldn't be solely group oriented MMORPG's, nor am I saying they should be solely solo oriented ones. They should have the ability to do both. But if anything...they should have a bit more group oriented features to them because to me that provides more of a balance and the option to do one or the other more freely with little or at least less of a wait.
No. Why would i need to discuss endlessly only if a game is deep. Do you discuss endless chess strategy when you are playing chess? Do you discuss endlessly about poker when you are playing Texas Holdem?
Some people may not like to talk .. did that ever occur to you?
Some don't play games to talk about games, you know.
Well "polite" is clearly subjective to the context of the society it is used in (e.g. in some culture's belching is considered polite in others it is considered rude)....... However, the mores of that subjective context are also going to be heavly influenced on things that objectively harm the individual or groups abilitity to function. For example, it would be very unlikely in a gaming subculture context that spamming another players screen with nonsense or doing a "bad pull" would be considered polite because they objectively harm the individual/groups ability to succeed at tasks that are important in the game.
The principle remains valid. The more a person needs another person and expects to need that person in future, the less likely they are to do things which they expect will cause that person to have a negative opinion of them.
I'd say neither side of the fence is more douche-like than the other, it's simply as a result of grouping that you are exposed and effected by douche bags.
Much of it depends on personal circumstances. I have always tended to solo. Why? I do not enjoy, nor can i often justify, being virtualy tethered to my keyboard for a protracted period of time. I don't like to keep people waiting, wether they be inside a virtual world or not.
The older days of having to LFG were often not great fun. PUG'ing often resulted/results in being taken in a direction of play that you didn't really want to go in, unless it's for an instance or specific boss etc. If you're not careful you can end up spending an hour clearing some guys quest chain only for him to "soz gotta go byeeee"...
I much prefer, much like a majority of the fanbase/consumers of MMO's, to be able to group up easily and as an option.
currently not playing much...
You are confusing mores and norms with skill and tactics, or is your assumption that every bad pull is the person intentionally acting like a jerk?
In other words, when in Rome...
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Really? The last game I played that forced grouping (FFXI) did quite well. Solo players have hundreds of games to choose from, why begrudge group players 1 game.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
I think you hit upon an interesting point. Obviously people play games for different reasons and everyone does need a certain amount of personal space and "alone time". However, at thier core people are "social animals" which means they do instinctualy want to spend a significant amount of time engaged in social activity (millions of years of hard wired instinct will see to that). However they also have a hard wired anxiety about "strangers". One of the ways this is overcome is when people become less of a stranger due to repeated encounters (i.e. you see the person every day). Another way is when people are purposefully going out of thier way to engage in a certain pre-designated group activity (e.g. "signing up to play baseball/softball".) This breaks a certain amount of the anxiety about the stranger.
Modern games probably work against this in 2 ways. Firstly much larger populations on each "server", meaning less chance of seeing/meeting the same people repeatedly and gaining some familiarty with them that way. Secondly, much broader target audiences and range of activities supported within a single game....e.g. your there to PvE level, I'm there to PvP, Joe's there to explore, Suzy is there to RP, Billy is there to raid/equipment grind, etc. Thus no way to reduce the natural sense of anxiety about strangers by introducing a common built-in assumption about why we are there and want we want to do there.
No confusion...I'm simply stating that while mores and norms are subjective....they are often strongly influenced by objective factors which effect performance.....and using the hypothetical example that doing a "bad pull" would unlikely to ever become an accepted more because it objectively harms performance.
The problem is, while we are a social species, that means we like to be around other people, not that we necessarily have to interact with them. Tens of thousands of people can go to a baseball game and sit in the stands and never directly interact with each other, yet that is a social activity. Just being in the same MMO with a couple of hundred or thousand people is a social activity in and of itself.
It's all well and good to say that people are just anxious about playing with people they don't know but that's probably not the case. In order to want to get to know someone, you have to have something significant in common and, in modern MMOs, that's almost certainly not the case. Beyond playing the game, you'll probably run into someone who has a common interest very rarely, there's no reason to talk to anyone in a game and if the people available to you have different playstyles or goals in mind, then playing with them at all isn't really worthwhile either. It doesn't stop an MMO from being a social activity, it just stops it from being valuable to interact directly with most of the people around you.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
You don't need force grouping to encourage group. There are many groups in D3 every day, and it can be a solo game. Heck, it is not even a MMO.
Force grouping just takes choices away. There is no need for that.
Actualy, I'd disagree with you about the "being around but not interacting with others" part....we aren't just a social species, we are a "pack species". Interacting with others is built into our hard wiring. Stick a bunch of people in an elavator for long enough and they'll eventualy start talking with each other.....even if they are complete strangers.... they just won't be able to help it, it's hard wired into us.
That doesn't mean there isn't any value to social activities where you are around but not interacting with people. That may be enough sometimes but we really do...on a regular basis have a basic need to interact directly with others. Some people express that ossasionaly in the type of games they play....others not.
Or it can be used to FOCUS choices....e.g. I'm here to play baseball, not fly a kite.
Nothing wrong with either playing baseball or flying a kite.... and public parks can be used for both.
However people that are interested in playing baseball are FAR better off with signing up onto a league for "playing baseball" not a league for "some random use of a park". That way they know that everyone who shows up at the predesignated place at the predesignated time is there for the same activity, and they can even have features (like base-paths and plates) that are specificaly designed for the activity they are interested in.
So in other words, you can reset the mechanics back to how things were in the past, but if you don't change the human factor to go with it, you're generally screwed?
That based on the assumptions that you are only targetting those who are interested in ONE and the SAME activity.
In the example of the park, if you restrict the park to have ONLY baseball, then you miss the kite flying audience, and those who would like to do both at different times.
It is obvious that current MMO want to cater to both who want to group, and those who does not .. and also those who can change their mind.
But that's not analogous to what we're talking about. It's like my baseball stadium analogy, yes, the people in the stands might start talking to each other, they will not get up and start playing baseball together. I might talk to people in an MMO, that doesn't mean I'm going to group up and play the game with them.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Looks like you played tons of games, which doesn't leave much time for any one game. You seem like a game tourist, really. Logically, it follows you would have neither the time nor desire to form personal bonds with other players. Hundreds of games for you to choose from. I'd like one game for people who like to put down roots and form a community to overcome an adverse, harsh world.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Absolutely true....parks are multi-use environments....and there is an INCREASED COST built-in to allowing the park to be used in such a manner and used well...which the park officials are willing to carry. You'll note even there though, that the park segregates activities to a specific portion of the park at a specific time and place.
If you show up at 10:00 AM on a Saturday at the baseball field.....people WILL be playing baseball there....kite flying isn't allowed at that time and place.
There is nothing wrong with individuals for wanting a specific game devoted to a specific style of play...both so the game can do a good job of supporting the structures which faciltate that style of play and so players can be reasonably confident they'll encounter others there with a similar interest. What the OP requested doesn't really take away choices since there is no shortage of games out there that support a different type of player interest....anymore then the player wishing that someone would make a Western Themed MMO takes away from the person who prefers Fantasy themed, of which there are thousands to choose.
I do think that MMO Developers are suffering a bit from the "Its a floor-wax, it's a breakfast cereal" symdrome. The obviously want the economic benefit of being able to appeal to the most diverse audience of users....but unlike the park officials, they don't really do a very good job of building out the features that would support all those uses well....nor do they have a good way of segregating usages so players can be reasonably confident they are playing in the same spot as others with the exact same interests without bumping heads with those with conflicting interests.
Apparently it hasn't occurred to you that people can play multiple games at the same time and can play single games for several years, which certainly I have done. I also played in several text-only games for 15+ years straight. The idea that I have neither the time nor desire to form personal bonds is absurd, the fact is, most people simply are not worth forming those bonds with, regardless of the game. I've been in games where I'd be happy to sit down with people for hours on end and just talk. Those games are few and far between today. While I'd love to find a community that I have things in common with outside of the game, I've essentially given up hope of ever actually finding one.
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
Fair enough. I can't think of any game on the market today that fosters such relationships, anyways. Which explains why I'm not playing any MMOs atm.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Depends on what you mean with "cater", you know, in wow we have seen the approach that group activities become so streamlined and automatic so that even a soloer who does not like to talk and socialze can participate in them, at the expense of real solo content like quests, (some)reps , crafting...
And even in general it is more often than not that you can solo up to endgame and it becomes group only there, bringing another host of problems with it...
I think the problem is not really in catering to several groups, but the ambition (motivated by cost, maybe) to satisfy several groups with one type of content , while creating the situation that in the end both dont like it very much.
Like adding kite flying catchers at the back during a baseball game.
Flame on!
so doing dungeon or battleground or realm vs realm is consider solo?
Since that is what every single themepark game look like when you reach max level. There is nothing to do except dungeon or battleground.
This can be solved simply by adding a system that rates players based on their actions. Consider, for your perception, the ranking system on this website. I have provided nothing but clear and concise feedback to all of my posts. Therefore, I have 2 stars when persons with thousands of posts have 1.
Most endgame is solo dailies or dungeon finder, which is just like playing solo. I like leveling myself, and in old school mmos you leveled in a group. Endgame was more of a 'oh crap we need to give leet locusts something to keep paying for'. Further, the vast majority of mmo subscribers never reach endgame, and arent really represented by this site's members.
So mostly I refer to level progression where people arent judgemental about your gear or spec. Though admittedly, the rude tendencies of endgame stress are seeping into every aspect of mmo gameplay more and more as time goes on.
Some of you likely never experienced mmo grouping in its full potential for fun. And no, I dont mean with leet guild buddies over vent. I mean relaxing, having fun, showing off, etc with strangers who become friends.
Let me throw out one more reason why MMO dev is catering to multiple groups. There is cost synergies. It is much cheaper to develop ONE game that uses the same class mechanics/art assets for both style of play, then to develop two games. Think about it. The WOW dungeon runs, and arena pvp are basically TWO games. However, they use the same character models, and the combat mechanics are roughly the same with some tweaks (additional stats, some variation of mechanics like diminiishign return on CC).
This is obviously CHEAPER than maknig two games. That, i think, is one of the primary reason.
Granted that both sides suffer because the mechanics has to fit both to some extent.