What I don't like is how it is thought that MMOs stand for Group Play. There was no grouping in the early days of MMOs. This sense that MMOs = Group Play is a misconception at one's own ideals about playing games. To say that solo-players should stick to single player games makes it just as easy to say that Group Players should stick to Multi-Player games.
MMO stands for Massively Multiplayer Online. It does not stand for Massively Group-play Online. The key word is Massively, which denotes a large number beyond just "multi-player." This then brings into the notion that these Masses, just like in real life, will have their own play-styles, agendas, and personalities.
Personally, as a mostly-solo player, I prefer playing MMOs for these reasons:
Constantly updated content in a persistent world.
Massive amounts of a players to Interact with in a multitude of ways.
Ability to share one's own and enjoy other's characters and roleplaying lore.
Ability to decide if I want to play with others in a group or not at any given time.
Ability to partake in a player driven economy for the purchase of gear and other items.
Experience a "living" world where other players are doing their own thing, which adds to the uniqueness of the world not found in single-player or even multi-player games.
Roleplaying with other players.
Show me one single player game that has all this and I'd happily never play another MMO again. Oh wait, that's right, single-player games do not have these qualities. If I wanted to be forced into a group with others, I'd play a Multi-Player game. If I wanted to play a game by myself, I'd play a Single-Player game. What I enjoy is playing in a living world that gives me the choice to play how I wish and does not discriminate against how I wish to play at any given moment. This latter is what MMORPGs stand for and is why I prefer MMORPGs.
Another misconception is that most MMORPG players want to play in groups. This has been found to be the opposite and has even been flat out stated as such by WB, which you can hear in this video(linked to the begining of the conversation, listen to when he talks about learning from their mistakes on group content). So, those who prefer their MMORPGs to be group-focused are actually in the minority.
And WB knows that most folks want to play solo from their blockbuster hits such as Champions Online and Star Trek Online? Both very solo centric mmo games.
Discrimination is the word i was looking for in this context (thanks zeb). Not misconception. You can not have misconceptions about a game that allows for all kinds of gameplay or style. You can however force your gameplay on other players by using discrimination, and the common argument that it is "today's standard for online gaming". We are dealing with a minority of folks who want to play a grouped-focussed mmo and are feeling discriminated. I belong to this faction and i usually take pains to find a group that fits my liking better than the average group. I usually succeed, so no sweat. I can impose as well and i do so more often than not, many times half the party leaves the run because of me imposing a cooperative gameplay. This just goes to show how hard it is to integrate all interests, and how bad the feelings are on the part of (less experienced) players who don't know how to react.
In fact, after getting rid of the single annoying player, the rest of us usually move along, playing together nicely. Can you see how the misconception is yours ?
It is possible, after some time, to cooperate with a player who plays a competitive game. It is usually not possible, to tell them what you think about that.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
zebularMember, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 15,270Community Moderator
And WB knows that most folks want to play solo from their blockbuster hits such as Champions Online and Star Trek Online? Both very solo centric mmo games.
Actually, "WB Games" has a hand in a very large number of games ranging from Table-Top, Single Player, to Multi-player and MMOs.
enygmasoulMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited December 2012
Ooh, I seem to have sparked a bit of a discussion. Careful now, I may lose my lurker status if people go around getting INVOLVED in the things I say. We wouldn't want that, would we? *giggles*
Seriously, though, though I appreciate the support for group-based content, I see a lot of you are arguing it from a social perspective, or talking about the nature of MMOs. I said in my original post that I quite enjoy soloing in an MMO, as I tend to want to play at my own pace. Actually read text. Not rush through things in a mad dash to the next level. And it's hard to find people to group with who don't make me feel pressured to 'keep up" with them.
The reason I'm hoping to see a solid amount of group based content in THIS PARTICULAR game isn't that I equate MMOs with grouping. It's that I equate D&D with grouping. Furthermore, I equate D&D 4th edition with grouping even more than the others versions I've played, simply because, of the editions, it has the largest emphasis on tactical combat and teamwork between party members. Teamwork is the single biggest defining trait of 4e combat with me, and the fact that NWO is being released as an action game has made me significantly concerned that teamwork will not, at any point, really be necessary (as, let's face it, player characters in action games tend to be designed to be independently functioning unstoppable engines of destruction).
I just want content where it's necessary to put some thought into how your characters skill-set will interact with those of the people playing with you. The common MMO trinity mechanic is more or less the most basic, primitive form of this, and I'm sure that will be represented in the larger dungeons and such, but I felt like 4e did a decent job of adding a bit of depth beyond that. I want challenges that are not only dependant on my ability to do my own single function within a party, but to enable, assist, and enhance my ally's ability to do his or hers as well.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use "
-- Galileo Galilei
[...] has the largest emphasis on tactical combat and teamwork between party members. Teamwork is the single biggest defining trait of 4e combat [...]
If this is true for 4E, it has certainly had little impact on the digital games i played. Most of these are losely based on DND rulesets, but they are making characters ever more autonomous, soloable and pvp-able. Mechanics are going in the direction of universal warrior. Everyone gets to fly, sneak and fb all at the same time, while wielding dual large blades etc.
Perhaps I am in the minority here, but I prefer to solo for the first 20 levels of a new game to really get to know the game-play nuances, then both solo and group thereafter. The combination is welcome as occasionally I feel sociable and sometimes I want to be by myself. Is there anything wrong with that?
Comments
It's all true. We should have the choice, and this game setup of missions being solo with optional group and delves does that.
In fact, after getting rid of the single annoying player, the rest of us usually move along, playing together nicely. Can you see how the misconception is yours ?
It is possible, after some time, to cooperate with a player who plays a competitive game. It is usually not possible, to tell them what you think about that.
[ Support Center • Rules & Policies and Guidelines • ARC ToS • Guild Recruitment Guidelines | FR DM Since 1993 ]
That's the cool thing about studies and expert opinions etc, they can pretty much say what ever we want them to say.
Neverwinter Thieves Guild
Seriously, though, though I appreciate the support for group-based content, I see a lot of you are arguing it from a social perspective, or talking about the nature of MMOs. I said in my original post that I quite enjoy soloing in an MMO, as I tend to want to play at my own pace. Actually read text. Not rush through things in a mad dash to the next level. And it's hard to find people to group with who don't make me feel pressured to 'keep up" with them.
The reason I'm hoping to see a solid amount of group based content in THIS PARTICULAR game isn't that I equate MMOs with grouping. It's that I equate D&D with grouping. Furthermore, I equate D&D 4th edition with grouping even more than the others versions I've played, simply because, of the editions, it has the largest emphasis on tactical combat and teamwork between party members. Teamwork is the single biggest defining trait of 4e combat with me, and the fact that NWO is being released as an action game has made me significantly concerned that teamwork will not, at any point, really be necessary (as, let's face it, player characters in action games tend to be designed to be independently functioning unstoppable engines of destruction).
I just want content where it's necessary to put some thought into how your characters skill-set will interact with those of the people playing with you. The common MMO trinity mechanic is more or less the most basic, primitive form of this, and I'm sure that will be represented in the larger dungeons and such, but I felt like 4e did a decent job of adding a bit of depth beyond that. I want challenges that are not only dependant on my ability to do my own single function within a party, but to enable, assist, and enhance my ally's ability to do his or hers as well.
-- Galileo Galilei
If this is true for 4E, it has certainly had little impact on the digital games i played. Most of these are losely based on DND rulesets, but they are making characters ever more autonomous, soloable and pvp-able. Mechanics are going in the direction of universal warrior. Everyone gets to fly, sneak and fb all at the same time, while wielding dual large blades etc.