Remember when players weren't so invested in making other players to toe the line and Play the Game Right (capital R)? Where Right is a moving target, modified at will dependent on speaker?
I don't either. I'm pretty sure that time never existed. I'm certain that it hasn't existed since '97.
But tolerance is always better to preach than its converse.
All depends on challenge. Team games with trivial challenge don't have anyone screaming for others to pull their weight, because the challenge will be won either way. Whereas the ones with significant challenge aren't going to be beaten until every single team member is playing well -- which generates screaming.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't know how else to present it, it seems like there's a segment of posters who think they own or are owed the genre. I've seen it many times with other things, like punk rock, hardcore, metal, etc... the ultra purist, hardline, who thinks they own it, in turn judge who can partake, most of those types leave that behind in their 20's though..
That is why this place is so entertaining. Sooner or later, they will bump up against reality and learn that the market does not owe them games that they like.
I hereby declare this thread the grand prize winner of the "Wast of Space Thread."
nah ... this thread is no more or no less "waste of space" than all the usual dead horses like "lack of community", "lack of death penalty", "lack of FFA pvp" ... take your pick.
There is very little new things here ... and it is really about rehashing old arguments in slightly different language to keep the conversation going.
Originally posted by Kaledren You are wasting your time. The crowd here is mainly clearly anti-group play, nor really seem to get what made MMORPG's unique and stand out from the rest of the genres out there.
And anyone who says they are grown and don't have time to play shouldn't be playing, or trying to play MMORPG's. This is why there are console games and the such. For easy and quick entertainment fixes.
I don't give a shit how you spend your money. My issue is with those who come into a particular genre of games, play, then whine to change it to something they are more familiar with, not it wasn't meant to be, hence why it was different in the first place. It would be like me, having played soccer, trying American football, then complaining that they shouldn't use hands, but only their feet and heads, take down the field goal posts and replace them with two netted goals. If I want quick fix fun, I play FPS games, or something other than a MMORPG.
Couldn't the same be said about people wanting the new direction to shift toward their own preferences? That's just the thing isn't it? Everyone wants everything to bend toward their preference.
Most people aren't anti-group, they're anti "forced". Grouping isn't the issue, forcing people to play a certain way is.
People equate that as well as challenge to community, hence they think it's the only way to achieve that, simply based on what they're used to (EQ, FFXI), judging by your posts, you're one of them.
Contrary to this belief, there are other ways, to some better ways, yet that requires a grand scope (SWG as an example).
ANyway, to the point... There is a segment of posters here, that want everyone playing their way, that's the issue.
Nope. I doubt you read most of my posts, otherwise you'd see I haven't said you can't have soloing, we have to be forced to group, or a great many other things I am assumed to be for, or against.
As a matter of fact, I posted awhile ago about things I'd like to see return from older MMORPG's to promote grouping and community again, but also how I'd enjoy seeing those things incorporated into modern MMORPG's with the many aspects they have improved upon.
I'd say that's compromise. Something many here seem unwilling themselves to do, and go out of their way on a regular basis to constantly derail such threads with the same "rose-colored glasses", "nostalgia" garbage excuses over and over and over and... you get the point. . They know who they are.
And yet again...there is no such thing as forced grouping, or even forced soloing, etc etc. You are only forced to do what you allow or want to happen. I soloed a character from lvl 1 to cap in EQ1 back in 2000. It is completely possible without another person. I wasn't forced to do shit I didn't want to, and neither are you, nor anyone else. So the "forced grouping" BS is just that, BS. But I also grouped quite often. I wasn't forced to, I wanted to. But I rarely raided, again, because i didn't want to. Not as though there is a dev standing over you with a pistol to your mellon telling you to do this or that...come on.
Forced grouping, or "incentives for people to group" means that progression is locked behind that content.
Haha what? No... incentive to grouping is rewarding players for doing the harder activity, otherwise they won't do it at all. Players take the path of least resistance whether they're having fun with it or not, plenty of devs know this. It's basically a law of game design.
In DAoC you were encouraged to group but you could still progress solo. It just took longer, because it was easier.
I don't know how else to present it, it seems like there's a segment of posters who think they own or are owed the genre. I've seen it many times with other things, like punk rock, hardcore, metal, etc... the ultra purist, hardline, who thinks they own it, in turn judge who can partake, most of those types leave that behind in their 20's though..
That is why this place is so entertaining. Sooner or later, they will bump up against reality and learn that the market does not owe them games that they like.
TBH, that may have been the case at a point, say when releases were frequent, announced games even more so etc.. yet now as actual releases as well as announcements dry up, it's become quite the opposite, before it was something to change up the typical uproar over hype, launch queues etc.. now it's the only joint in town and it isn't too happening, if you catch my drift..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Its not the group/solo content thats killing the genre. Its the lack of society and communication back in the "ole" days things took time so inbetween activities you talked. While the mages were reading their spellbooks and mana was regening people talked. while we were recovering from the last big pull or waiting for the next spawn we talked. Through taling a community developed friendships made and guilds were formed.
Now with almost no downtime nobody has time to just talk its all rush rush rush. In EQ1 I soloed most content only really grouping for dungeons and raids. It meant I could play how I wanted when I wanted. Which to me was the main focus of the game when i was resting between encounters I would join in on what ever chat was going on either in the area chat or my guild chat. these chats brought the community together. I remember on the long boat trips talking to each other in our characters natve language which enabled us to pickup other languages,
So, no its not solo or not solo content community and social aspects are down purely to communication and having enough time to stop and smell the roses.
Whether people like it or not, the market has spoken. MMOs that revolve around solo play are struggling, scraping up whatever they can from new players on the F2P monetization. The future for those games is bleak, so those of you championing for them better enjoy them while they last. I guess there is always WoW when the rest dry up and grind to a halt.
For the rest of us who liked MMOs that were massively multiplayer, it won't be easy, but theres dozens of them in development right now. It will be some time before most of them are completed or they struggle to create demos to attract investors, but its inevitable that a few will squeak through and become successful. Its only a matter of time before publishers see (and remember) that challenging, group-based games have higher long term playability and thus, better earnings potential.
Market has spoken about forced grouping MMOs long long time ago.
So if you think future of non forced goruping MMOs is bleak, forced groipng ones have none.
And theres only 1 forced goruping game in....pre pre production that even failed on kickstarter and have volunteers working on it. Yeah, real renaissance.
The point of the matter is not about solo or group centric quests. By the way, I don't remember in my time playing UO or SWG that the game forced grouping in any shape, way or form. So, I suspect this "force grouping" business is another fallacy born from the common misconceptions of these forums.
Anyway, what I greatly miss in current MMORPGs are the networks of interdependency among players because of how the economy, politics, guilds, crafting systems were designed. I think that, despite all their shortcomings, UO and SWG succeeded in delivering a great social experience, as well as immersing the player in a world that felt alive and plausible.
What I find "amusing" is this large segment of autistic players that turn their back to any possibility of interaction with the others. I guess they feel lonely and decide to play MMORPGs to cheer themselves up with the abstract notion that there are other players around them.
But well, it's common knowledge among vets that some contradictory behaviours in the MMORPG genre belong to the psychiatry field, or to stupidity straight away.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
So many players are only focused on rewards and advancement. They don't actually take the time to look at the world around them, try to compete with other players, or say "Hi" to the person next to them on a boat.
I think it's mostly the game's faults and their strive for quantity over quality of players; and partly player's faults for buying into it so often..
So many players are only focused on rewards and advancement. They don't actually take the time to look at the world around them, try to compete with other players, or say "Hi" to the person next to them on a boat.
I think it's mostly the game's faults and their strive for quantity over quality of players; and partly player's faults for buying into it so often..
People play how they want. Who are you to say how people should play.
I find this topic silly. Because mmorpg today have tones of group content. It's just they have solo content too. That dont' mean mmorpg today is solo focused.
The reality is it's so hard to survive in the mmorpg market today. So developer makes games that caters to "everyone". That's why mmorpg today have solo content as well as group content.
If a game is to have forced grouping. That game better be very good. Because they are already cutting out a huge audience.
So many players are only focused on rewards and advancement. They don't actually take the time to look at the world around them, try to compete with other players, or say "Hi" to the person next to them on a boat.
I think it's mostly the game's faults and their strive for quantity over quality of players; and partly player's faults for buying into it so often..
There is no "fault". Why is there a problem if players enjoy rewards & advancement more? These are just games, and I don't see a problem if people want to enjoy their entertainment certain ways.
If say "hi" to the next person is not fun to me, why would I bother?
The point of the matter is not about solo or group centric quests. By the way, I don't remember in my time playing UO or SWG that the game forced grouping in any shape, way or form. So, I suspect this "force grouping" business is another fallacy born from the common misconceptions of these forums.
Anyway, what I greatly miss in current MMORPGs are the networks of interdependency among players because of how the economy, politics, guilds, crafting systems were designed. I think that, despite all their shortcomings, UO and SWG succeeded in delivering a great social experience, as well as immersing the player in a world that felt alive and plausible.
What I find "amusing" is this large segment of autistic players that turn their back to any possibility of interaction with the others. I guess they feel lonely and decide to play MMORPGs to cheer themselves up with the abstract notion that there are other players around them.
But well, it's common knowledge among vets that some contradictory behaviours in the MMORPG genre belong to the psychiatry field, or to stupidity straight away.
Maybe the OP is talking more about EQ and not SWG.
The point of the matter is not about solo or group centric quests. By the way, I don't remember in my time playing UO or SWG that the game forced grouping in any shape, way or form. So, I suspect this "force grouping" business is another fallacy born from the common misconceptions of these forums.
Anyway, what I greatly miss in current MMORPGs are the networks of interdependency among players because of how the economy, politics, guilds, crafting systems were designed. I think that, despite all their shortcomings, UO and SWG succeeded in delivering a great social experience, as well as immersing the player in a world that felt alive and plausible.
What I find "amusing" is this large segment of autistic players that turn their back to any possibility of interaction with the others. I guess they feel lonely and decide to play MMORPGs to cheer themselves up with the abstract notion that there are other players around them.
But well, it's common knowledge among vets that some contradictory behaviours in the MMORPG genre belong to the psychiatry field, or to stupidity straight away.
Forced grouping is essentially a game where even the mundane everyday task warrants a group to be successful. UO and SWG were not like that, nor was PVE in DAOC when I played it prior to moving on to SWG.
I'd consider this to be in regard to something like EQ, or L2, where dying cost you time and effort. Every MMORPG has had some form of content that required groups, even SWG where the DWB and Corvette are examples of that. That's different than regular Mobs tearing you a new one like they may in EQ.
I agree though, SWG was able to pull off a social environment without forcing people into situations where they had to play a certain way. I think that's all people really want, is that type of freedom.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The point of the matter is not about solo or group centric quests. By the way, I don't remember in my time playing UO or SWG that the game forced grouping in any shape, way or form. So, I suspect this "force grouping" business is another fallacy born from the common misconceptions of these forums.
Anyway, what I greatly miss in current MMORPGs are the networks of interdependency among players because of how the economy, politics, guilds, crafting systems were designed. I think that, despite all their shortcomings, UO and SWG succeeded in delivering a great social experience, as well as immersing the player in a world that felt alive and plausible.
What I find "amusing" is this large segment of autistic players that turn their back to any possibility of interaction with the others. I guess they feel lonely and decide to play MMORPGs to cheer themselves up with the abstract notion that there are other players around them.
But well, it's common knowledge among vets that some contradictory behaviours in the MMORPG genre belong to the psychiatry field, or to stupidity straight away.
Forced grouping is essentially a game where even the mundane everyday task warrants a group to be successful. UO and SWG were not like that, nor was PVE in DAOC when I played it prior to moving on to SWG.
I'd consider this to be in regard to something like EQ, or L2, where dying cost you time and effort. Every MMORPG has had some form of content that required groups, even SWG where the DWB and Corvette are examples of that. That's different than regular Mobs tearing you a new one like they may in EQ.
I agree though, SWG was able to pull off a social environment without forcing people into situations where they had to play a certain way. I think that's all people really want, is that type of freedom.
Spot on my friend!
I remember my first time grouping up in SWG, and it was 100% not forced.
Me and a group of other players were having a discussion in the Cantina on what big creatures we wanted to kill.
We all joked about how a "Rancor" would be awesome to fight, but we didnt even know if they existed yet because the game was still so new.
We all had basically starter pistols called "CDEF Pistols" and decided to go out into the dunes of Tatooine together and hunt "Dewbacks" because we figured they would be the biggest thing we could fight with our crappy pistols.
We ended up getting a couple more people from the cantina and went out exploring Tatooine for the Dewbacks.
There was nothing forced about it, in fact while we were out we saw a guy with a flamethrower who was obviously a commando, killing the things by themselves.
We all joked about how he was probably grinding from day 1 just to be able to kill these things with such ease, Which is what you could do! You could grind and solo whatever, or you could get a bunch of newbies together and take the thing out yourself, but the game in no way FORCED you to GROUP. It was entirely up to your playstyle.
Now, we dont even see that playstyle being represented, there is NEVER a time when grouping is represented when you can solo 90% of the content. There's never an incentive or a way to even make it fun, because the content is so cookie-cutter is just falls back on the same principle of "If the player wants it now, they should have it now."
Forced grouping is essentially a game where even the mundane everyday task warrants a group to be successful. UO and SWG were not like that, nor was PVE in DAOC when I played it prior to moving on to SWG.
If that is the case, then every game that has a raid, or a grouped dungeon is forced grouping? You cannot be successful in raids & 5-man dungeons alone.
In SWTOR, you can literally log in, turn off your chat bar and play the entire game without ever talking to anyone, EVER. That's not a multiplayer game, that's a solo game. Now they're raping people dry of their money with the cartel market and it's ridiculous. I also find it somewhat insulting to feed on people's impulse buying.
Counter-Strike is more of a multipayer game than SWTOR is. At least they don't try to be something they're not.
It was a matter of time before someone would jump into this thread screaming: SWG was great, TOR sucks.
I leveled my last two characters in WoW without talking to anyone. Bought them the full heirloom sets and off i went from 1 to 100 without interacting with a single soul. Wow.. Apparently Blizzard ripped me off. Are you frustrated because TOR as WoW gives a player the CHOICE to play solo? Yes it does as it does the other way around by offering plenty of group activities. There is tons of group content in TOR and guess what.. people are actually participating in it and having fun, for the most part at least. On every planet you'll see people grouping for the heroic quests while they are leveling their characters, entering flashpoints & battlegrounds and later joining guilds tackling TOR's raids. Actually, very few prefer to go the lone ranger path.
Bioware's game as as much mmo as every other theme park mmo out there. Furthermore, in my opinion it offers the best balance between solo and group play.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Weird because Millions of players are grouping at all levels of the game.
It's really a ideaology rather than about grouping or solo.
He want the experience where he step in the world where the environment is harsh and he meet people and form companionship with people.
I remember step in to a mmorpg where every where you go, you get ganked, so you are forced to group and play together if you are new. He's probably looking for something like that.
Since obviously every mmorpg endgame is about raids, dungeons, and pvp. Those are obviously group forcused.
Forced grouping is essentially a game where even the mundane everyday task warrants a group to be successful. UO and SWG were not like that, nor was PVE in DAOC when I played it prior to moving on to SWG.
If that is the case, then every game that has a raid, or a grouped dungeon is forced grouping? You cannot be successful in raids & 5-man dungeons alone.
Wow would be the opposite. Raids as well as dungeons are one of it's mainstays as far as content goes. When I say mundane tasks I'm referring to EQ or something similar, the harder to kill random spawns, as well as losses on death, forced folks more or less into working together, if they wanted to be the most efficient (the intended experience). Most of the game was built that way. This isn't the case in WOW or games of it's type. That content is reserved for the elder game for the most part.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
How many MMO's that have 90% group focus and 10% solo focus are doing really great?
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Couldn't the same be said about people wanting the new direction to shift toward their own preferences? That's just the thing isn't it? Everyone wants everything to bend toward their preference.
Most people aren't anti-group, they're anti "forced". Grouping isn't the issue, forcing people to play a certain way is.
People equate that as well as challenge to community, hence they think it's the only way to achieve that, simply based on what they're used to (EQ, FFXI), judging by your posts, you're one of them.
Contrary to this belief, there are other ways, to some better ways, yet that requires a grand scope (SWG as an example).
ANyway, to the point... There is a segment of posters here, that want everyone playing their way, that's the issue.
This.
Actually there's forced grouping in today's MMOs if you want to experience all the content. You just have the option to do it or not.
"Forced Grouping" is a Forum term that people made up, have you ever seen a design document for a Video Game that says "Forced Grouping"?
No you havent because it doesnt exist to game developers.
No MMO developers sit around and go:
"Ok Steve, what should the features of our new MMO be?"
"O I think we should have an open world game, with sandbox elements...and of course FORCED GROUPING!"
Its not even a term that applies anywhere outside of this little circle you see here. Seriously let me show you.
The only time you will see the term is on a forum, literally no where else, and this needs to stop. No one in EQ forced you to group, you know why!?
Because no one is forcing you to buy the game! How can they FORCE you to group, if you willing bought the game, knowing exactly what type of product your getting? Your paying to either Co-operate or Compete, thats it.
If you buy an MMO, and it is grouped focused, you dont have to play it, no one is forcing you to do anything, thats the gameplay mechanics.
No one ever says Call of Duty Multiplayer has "Forced Grouping" because the objective of the gameplay is that multiple people compete for an objective. In an MMO you CO-OPERATE for an Objective, no one is forcing that.
Who said Devs created the term? Funny how a term that only applies to a little circle gets 29,500,000 hits in a search engine. Why do people always add, if you don't like to play it you don't have to, like the person never thought of that in the first place?
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Well it seems to me that people of the OP's persuasion haven't been able to convince any devs out there that there are enough numbers of players out there that want to play the way he sees it, to start working on a an MMO that matches his expectations. Remember, they go where the money is.
Originally posted by Octagon7711 How many MMO's that have 90% group focus and 10% solo focus are doing really great?
There aren't any that i am aware of.
Most MMO's are designed these days to cater to the solo and the 'group' orientated player equally, players don't always have time to do group content, but at the same time, they like to have the option there to do group content when they do have the time or inclination, so having a mix of solo and group content in MMO's does make a lot of sense, while focusing on one or the other rarely does, the bigger question these days i think, is whether or not to include PVP content in a game, and if so, how much, i think WoW, SW;TOR and FFXIV;ARR are good examples of how games can support both types of gameplay without really detracting from either, as they are games that can be enjoyed as both a single player and grouped player experience.
I agree totally. On top of that many of the mmorpg era gamers have grown and don't have the time to play. Hopping on the internet to play games now comes in between coming home, eating, helping with homework, getting the kids ready for bed, and then squeezing in half an hour to play. Not everyone has the time to prepare a week ahead to raid for 4 or 5 hours, and developers know this and are giving players this discretion.
MMOs do not have to be about being in a party or group. There is still plenty of immersion in doing quests and killing on your own and being allowed the luxury of choosing when to join someone. Something as simple as crafting and selling items at an AH may be all that some may want from an mmorpg. Choices.
This justification is wearing thin for me. I have all of those responsibilities, and yet when I want to play an MMORPG I have to bracket time for that activity. The money-driven answer seemed to be: give people an MMORPG simulation that doesn't really match the actual gameplay, and their short available time will drive them to praise the truncated (and lightweight) experience. There is no complexity or depth to any of the game worlds because to allow that into the activity list leaves out the "play for 20 minutes," guy. You can't even have those possibilities in game because Bob Breadwinner will get invo envy and fucking quit I guess.
The heavily instanced, solo-centric, easy-park design has been hailed as the way to go for busy player on the go, but I question if this was the best idea, or just the easiest to implement given the easily-attained consumer buy-in on the concept. I ask you not to confuse my meaning. I am not saying that 5 hour Raid parking lots are utopia, but the progressive dumbing down and slimming out of features over time has reduced the genre to a state of elegant stupidity where games are a collection of clichés implemented as cost effectively as possible.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Comments
All depends on challenge. Team games with trivial challenge don't have anyone screaming for others to pull their weight, because the challenge will be won either way. Whereas the ones with significant challenge aren't going to be beaten until every single team member is playing well -- which generates screaming.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That is why this place is so entertaining. Sooner or later, they will bump up against reality and learn that the market does not owe them games that they like.
nah ... this thread is no more or no less "waste of space" than all the usual dead horses like "lack of community", "lack of death penalty", "lack of FFA pvp" ... take your pick.
There is very little new things here ... and it is really about rehashing old arguments in slightly different language to keep the conversation going.
Nope. I doubt you read most of my posts, otherwise you'd see I haven't said you can't have soloing, we have to be forced to group, or a great many other things I am assumed to be for, or against.
As a matter of fact, I posted awhile ago about things I'd like to see return from older MMORPG's to promote grouping and community again, but also how I'd enjoy seeing those things incorporated into modern MMORPG's with the many aspects they have improved upon.
I'd say that's compromise. Something many here seem unwilling themselves to do, and go out of their way on a regular basis to constantly derail such threads with the same "rose-colored glasses", "nostalgia" garbage excuses over and over and over and... you get the point. . They know who they are.
And yet again...there is no such thing as forced grouping, or even forced soloing, etc etc. You are only forced to do what you allow or want to happen. I soloed a character from lvl 1 to cap in EQ1 back in 2000. It is completely possible without another person. I wasn't forced to do shit I didn't want to, and neither are you, nor anyone else. So the "forced grouping" BS is just that, BS. But I also grouped quite often. I wasn't forced to, I wanted to. But I rarely raided, again, because i didn't want to. Not as though there is a dev standing over you with a pistol to your mellon telling you to do this or that...come on.
Haha what? No... incentive to grouping is rewarding players for doing the harder activity, otherwise they won't do it at all. Players take the path of least resistance whether they're having fun with it or not, plenty of devs know this. It's basically a law of game design.
In DAoC you were encouraged to group but you could still progress solo. It just took longer, because it was easier.
TBH, that may have been the case at a point, say when releases were frequent, announced games even more so etc.. yet now as actual releases as well as announcements dry up, it's become quite the opposite, before it was something to change up the typical uproar over hype, launch queues etc.. now it's the only joint in town and it isn't too happening, if you catch my drift..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Its not the group/solo content thats killing the genre. Its the lack of society and communication back in the "ole" days things took time so inbetween activities you talked. While the mages were reading their spellbooks and mana was regening people talked. while we were recovering from the last big pull or waiting for the next spawn we talked. Through taling a community developed friendships made and guilds were formed.
Now with almost no downtime nobody has time to just talk its all rush rush rush. In EQ1 I soloed most content only really grouping for dungeons and raids. It meant I could play how I wanted when I wanted. Which to me was the main focus of the game when i was resting between encounters I would join in on what ever chat was going on either in the area chat or my guild chat. these chats brought the community together. I remember on the long boat trips talking to each other in our characters natve language which enabled us to pickup other languages,
So, no its not solo or not solo content community and social aspects are down purely to communication and having enough time to stop and smell the roses.
Market has spoken about forced grouping MMOs long long time ago.
So if you think future of non forced goruping MMOs is bleak, forced groipng ones have none.
And theres only 1 forced goruping game in....pre pre production that even failed on kickstarter and have volunteers working on it. Yeah, real renaissance.
Can't see the forest for the trees...
The point of the matter is not about solo or group centric quests. By the way, I don't remember in my time playing UO or SWG that the game forced grouping in any shape, way or form. So, I suspect this "force grouping" business is another fallacy born from the common misconceptions of these forums.
Anyway, what I greatly miss in current MMORPGs are the networks of interdependency among players because of how the economy, politics, guilds, crafting systems were designed. I think that, despite all their shortcomings, UO and SWG succeeded in delivering a great social experience, as well as immersing the player in a world that felt alive and plausible.
What I find "amusing" is this large segment of autistic players that turn their back to any possibility of interaction with the others. I guess they feel lonely and decide to play MMORPGs to cheer themselves up with the abstract notion that there are other players around them.
But well, it's common knowledge among vets that some contradictory behaviours in the MMORPG genre belong to the psychiatry field, or to stupidity straight away.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
So many players are only focused on rewards and advancement. They don't actually take the time to look at the world around them, try to compete with other players, or say "Hi" to the person next to them on a boat.
I think it's mostly the game's faults and their strive for quantity over quality of players; and partly player's faults for buying into it so often..
Founder and Lead developer of Factions. The complete fantasy sandbox survival MMO.
Factions indiedb Page (most up to date info) | Factions Website
People play how they want. Who are you to say how people should play.
I find this topic silly. Because mmorpg today have tones of group content. It's just they have solo content too. That dont' mean mmorpg today is solo focused.
The reality is it's so hard to survive in the mmorpg market today. So developer makes games that caters to "everyone". That's why mmorpg today have solo content as well as group content.
If a game is to have forced grouping. That game better be very good. Because they are already cutting out a huge audience.
There is no "fault". Why is there a problem if players enjoy rewards & advancement more? These are just games, and I don't see a problem if people want to enjoy their entertainment certain ways.
If say "hi" to the next person is not fun to me, why would I bother?
Maybe the OP is talking more about EQ and not SWG.
Forced grouping is essentially a game where even the mundane everyday task warrants a group to be successful. UO and SWG were not like that, nor was PVE in DAOC when I played it prior to moving on to SWG.
I'd consider this to be in regard to something like EQ, or L2, where dying cost you time and effort. Every MMORPG has had some form of content that required groups, even SWG where the DWB and Corvette are examples of that. That's different than regular Mobs tearing you a new one like they may in EQ.
I agree though, SWG was able to pull off a social environment without forcing people into situations where they had to play a certain way. I think that's all people really want, is that type of freedom.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Spot on my friend!
I remember my first time grouping up in SWG, and it was 100% not forced.
Me and a group of other players were having a discussion in the Cantina on what big creatures we wanted to kill.
We all joked about how a "Rancor" would be awesome to fight, but we didnt even know if they existed yet because the game was still so new.
We all had basically starter pistols called "CDEF Pistols" and decided to go out into the dunes of Tatooine together and hunt "Dewbacks" because we figured they would be the biggest thing we could fight with our crappy pistols.
We ended up getting a couple more people from the cantina and went out exploring Tatooine for the Dewbacks.
There was nothing forced about it, in fact while we were out we saw a guy with a flamethrower who was obviously a commando, killing the things by themselves.
We all joked about how he was probably grinding from day 1 just to be able to kill these things with such ease, Which is what you could do! You could grind and solo whatever, or you could get a bunch of newbies together and take the thing out yourself, but the game in no way FORCED you to GROUP. It was entirely up to your playstyle.
Now, we dont even see that playstyle being represented, there is NEVER a time when grouping is represented when you can solo 90% of the content. There's never an incentive or a way to even make it fun, because the content is so cookie-cutter is just falls back on the same principle of "If the player wants it now, they should have it now."
If that is the case, then every game that has a raid, or a grouped dungeon is forced grouping? You cannot be successful in raids & 5-man dungeons alone.
It was a matter of time before someone would jump into this thread screaming: SWG was great, TOR sucks.
I leveled my last two characters in WoW without talking to anyone. Bought them the full heirloom sets and off i went from 1 to 100 without interacting with a single soul. Wow.. Apparently Blizzard ripped me off. Are you frustrated because TOR as WoW gives a player the CHOICE to play solo? Yes it does as it does the other way around by offering plenty of group activities. There is tons of group content in TOR and guess what.. people are actually participating in it and having fun, for the most part at least. On every planet you'll see people grouping for the heroic quests while they are leveling their characters, entering flashpoints & battlegrounds and later joining guilds tackling TOR's raids. Actually, very few prefer to go the lone ranger path.
Bioware's game as as much mmo as every other theme park mmo out there. Furthermore, in my opinion it offers the best balance between solo and group play.
It's really a ideaology rather than about grouping or solo.
He want the experience where he step in the world where the environment is harsh and he meet people and form companionship with people.
I remember step in to a mmorpg where every where you go, you get ganked, so you are forced to group and play together if you are new. He's probably looking for something like that.
Since obviously every mmorpg endgame is about raids, dungeons, and pvp. Those are obviously group forcused.
Wow would be the opposite. Raids as well as dungeons are one of it's mainstays as far as content goes. When I say mundane tasks I'm referring to EQ or something similar, the harder to kill random spawns, as well as losses on death, forced folks more or less into working together, if they wanted to be the most efficient (the intended experience). Most of the game was built that way. This isn't the case in WOW or games of it's type. That content is reserved for the elder game for the most part.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Who said Devs created the term? Funny how a term that only applies to a little circle gets 29,500,000 hits in a search engine. Why do people always add, if you don't like to play it you don't have to, like the person never thought of that in the first place?
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Well it seems to me that people of the OP's persuasion haven't been able to convince any devs out there that there are enough numbers of players out there that want to play the way he sees it, to start working on a an MMO that matches his expectations. Remember, they go where the money is.
There aren't any that i am aware of.
Most MMO's are designed these days to cater to the solo and the 'group' orientated player equally, players don't always have time to do group content, but at the same time, they like to have the option there to do group content when they do have the time or inclination, so having a mix of solo and group content in MMO's does make a lot of sense, while focusing on one or the other rarely does, the bigger question these days i think, is whether or not to include PVP content in a game, and if so, how much, i think WoW, SW;TOR and FFXIV;ARR are good examples of how games can support both types of gameplay without really detracting from either, as they are games that can be enjoyed as both a single player and grouped player experience.
This justification is wearing thin for me. I have all of those responsibilities, and yet when I want to play an MMORPG I have to bracket time for that activity. The money-driven answer seemed to be: give people an MMORPG simulation that doesn't really match the actual gameplay, and their short available time will drive them to praise the truncated (and lightweight) experience. There is no complexity or depth to any of the game worlds because to allow that into the activity list leaves out the "play for 20 minutes," guy. You can't even have those possibilities in game because Bob Breadwinner will get invo envy and fucking quit I guess.
The heavily instanced, solo-centric, easy-park design has been hailed as the way to go for busy player on the go, but I question if this was the best idea, or just the easiest to implement given the easily-attained consumer buy-in on the concept. I ask you not to confuse my meaning. I am not saying that 5 hour Raid parking lots are utopia, but the progressive dumbing down and slimming out of features over time has reduced the genre to a state of elegant stupidity where games are a collection of clichés implemented as cost effectively as possible.