General Discussion

Tired old argument. Some notes from past discussions:

*MMORPGs split players up far too much. You have severs/shards, factions, levels, classes, and other factors that prevent you from grouping with other players. I can't group with my buddy that works at the computer store because he's on a different server. I can't group with my buddy that dabbles in art because he's higher level than me. I can't group with my PnP friend because he's on the other faction.
*Time. Games are best played for about 2 hours, from action to action. Grouping can eat up 30 minutes more of that time.

Originally posted by ladyattis

I pose this question in light of my own conclusions about the majority of 'modern' MMOs, where the entire set of 'content' that one can play is fashioned to be from the perspective of a single player as opposed to multiple players. Whether we're talking about Tabula Rasa or talking about Vanguard, or Everquest 2 or even World of Warcraft. Each one of these MMOs can be effectively played solo with no need to even have the chat window open save for to bicker with others if one so chooses. This observation makes me wonder where MMO developers went wrong, by that I mean that the entire point of MMOs is the MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER aspect of the 'genre' (I use this loosely), where you're stuck with strangers and suppose to cooperate in some function to win out over extraordinary odds. Yet, this doesn't pan out like it anymore. I doubt it has anything to do with the playerbases getting older otherwise people would become total shut-ins in real life, so I'm puzzled by this development. Is it because it makes development easier for the companies? Or is it because they're trying to appeal to the largest segments of the market? I have my own ideas on it, but I rather see what you all have to say.

-- Brede

uhm well ya that is the point of MMORPG's lol

Originally posted by ladyattis

I pose this question in light of my own conclusions about the majority of 'modern' MMOs, where the entire set of 'content' that one can play is fashioned to be from the perspective of a single player as opposed to multiple players. Whether we're talking about Tabula Rasa or talking about Vanguard, or Everquest 2 or even World of Warcraft. Each one of these MMOs can be effectively played solo with no need to even have the chat window open save for to bicker with others if one so chooses. This observation makes me wonder where MMO developers went wrong, by that I mean that the entire point of MMOs is the MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER aspect of the 'genre' (I use this loosely), where you're stuck with strangers and suppose to cooperate in some function to win out over extraordinary odds. Yet, this doesn't pan out like it anymore. I doubt it has anything to do with the playerbases getting older otherwise people would become total shut-ins in real life, so I'm puzzled by this development. Is it because it makes development easier for the companies? Or is it because they're trying to appeal to the largest segments of the market? I have my own ideas on it, but I rather see what you all have to say.

-- Brede

Why do think they won't "wrong" just cause you can solo?

Havn't read the entire thread, but a select few posts toward the beginning and the end, but tossing my 2 cents in anyway.

From my reading the argument seems to be based on the idea that what is happening in mmo's is contradictory to semantics, or that becomes one is capable of doing tasks within the "Massive" game world alone,  one is not interacting with the players within the game world online, thus making it more of a single player experience. But by all means, picking apart the word multiplayer one would end up with multiple players. There is nothing within the terms dictating the idea that one must interact with others, only that others exist. In old school games, one also had the option of disassociating themselves from the rest of the players on their particular server only the gameplay style of say, everquest, led to the idea that it would be better to take on something as a party. There are many situations in eq that i ended up doing things on my own successfully without interacting with another player. Does this make that experience a, "singleplayer," one? Nobody was prevented from coming into the area, and i was well aware of the possibility that somebody would come into the area and compete with me. That they didn't made the task -easier- for me.

In the modern mmo nothing stops you from partying with others or playing with others. Its your choice. Just seek out others who share this desire and things will work out. Its not always been easy, it never has been. Part of being in a party is trusting other people to do things in a way that benefits the whole party, and some people (point and case, a friend of mine who picked up ffxi and was reluctant when i told him the easiest way to level was to find a pick up group) have difficulties on the trust part.

The simple view I hold is that things are never made more difficult by making the primary mode of leveling through parties, but that it simply shifts partying from one hand to another. On one hand you have to have faith and knowledge in your own abilities, on the other you need to have faith in somebody elses and how it functions with your own.

Out of curiosity, having never played muds but knowing mmos were heavily influenced by them; were they or could they be played solo?

---

Originally posted by EMortalOne
Why do think they won't "wrong" just cause you can solo?

---

The only advantage that MMOs have over singleplayer games is the fact that they can be persistent for thousands of objective persons, which these persons can manipulate that persistence together or alone to produce unintended (but not game breaking) results. Here's the catch: no MMO to date has fully realized it. You might be thinking, who gives a flying flip I just want my phat lewtz or whatever, but many folks that have been either playing MMOs or building them (MUDs in particular) are beginning to realize (along with some mathematicians and economists) that that this underlying feature of persistence provides not only a new way to play, but also a new way to learn, and possibly a new way to consider human nature. In all aspects, MMOs are trivial save for the persistence feature. If any developer would take the time to consider that feature in light of the massively multiplayer portion of it, then their games may take a different life on their own, giving tools to players to interact with each other and their environment (see, those pixels and bits are an environment. More specifically a set.) in ways that they may not readably predict nor really would want to predict.

In the end, solo play is the cheap (and weak minded) developer's way out just as much as the forced grouping (btw, I never asserted forced grouping, every one else did, so I find it amusing people try to assume that I did when the thread is a log of who posted what and it seems no one takes the time to look... tsk tsk.), and it leads to the complete bastardization of the MMO 'genre.'

-- Brede

---

Originally posted by nomadian
Out of curiosity, having never played muds but knowing mmos were heavily influenced by them; were they or could they be played solo?

---

-- Brede

---

Originally posted by UsualSuspect
 

---

Originally posted by Jirel

UsualSuspect
"MMO's have been and should be focused primarily on multiplayer action."
As others have said - Why do you feel YOU can dictate what an MMO should or shouldn't be?

---

I'm not dictating, the name 'MMO' is dictating what the game should be. Massively Multiplayer. Like, lets say you went out and bought Crysis because its a single player game, then you got home and found out that to progress in it you had to have 5 other people playing too. How would you feel about that? You paid for a single player game focused on multiplayer.
 
Same thing with MMO's. I buy an MMO because its a multiplayer game, yet when I get them home I find out that most of the game is spent in single player mode. Why have I not got the right to be annoyed about that?
I just bought EQ2 with all its expansions expecting a great multiplayer experience, but I've seen very few other players and after 30 levels I still haven't been offered a group or had anyone accept to be in mine. I've been told most people now just solo play right up to Level 80. Why is it sold as a multiplayer game? I want my money back!

---

Just as a side note on EQ2, in the release of EQ2 it was much grouping but now grouping almost doesnt exist any longer, this game has changed so much in this regard, at the relaese of the Kunark expansion(latest), I quit in disgust to the total dominace of these solo quest series...SOE destroyed a perfectly alright game by introducing to much solo stuff..

The idea that we all wan't to solo is dominating the minds of almost ALL big MMO companies..and I DO NOT like it..It creates empty barren worlds with lot's of zombies that you CAN'T even KILL, due to it beiing a PVE server..

/Junker