The most popular posts
in the last 7 days
- WoW loses another 100,000 subscribers 150 comments
- The Daily Grind: What's the highest sub fee you'd pay? 85 comments
- Earthrise shutting down today 69 comments
- BioWare kicks off Star Wars: The Old Republic Q&A Fridays 67 comments
- Star Trek Online unpacks Cardassian mystery boxes 60 comments
Massively Speaking Podcast
Massively Speaking Episode 185: Bree-to-play
Latest episode: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012



Reader Comments (2)
Posted: Apr 6th 2009 9:16AM Tom in VA said
I have played WoW, Guild Wars, CoH, and LotRO and, in my opinion, Guild Wars handles this issue best. Guild Wars is essentially online MMO SRPG with a strong multiplayer option for those that want it.
That is to say, in Guild Wars you can solo (using the henchmen/heroes provided by the game), all three campaigns, the expansion, the dungeons -- but this is much harder to do than with player groups. The beauty of this henchmen/hero system is that a groups of players from 1 to 8 can tackle an 8-man mission or dungeon, by just filling in the missing player spots with henchmen. No more of that aggravating waiting for a "healer" or "tank."
This arrangement, to me, gives players the best of both worlds, grouping is a fun (and even preferable) option, but you are never held back or denied content just because you cannot find a full player group. Guild Wars has major endgame sections that do require groups, but that's OK because it is there for fun as kind of an "add-on."
This is where LotRO, WoW, EQ2, etc., all really FAIL. Players of these games are denied content UNLESS they can find a full player group (with HEALER, TANK, etc.) ready to commit to the FULL DUNGEON, at the RIGHT TIME and so on. That's way too many IFs. Finding groups in these games is a major chore, like waiting for the stars to align in just the right way. Who has time for that? Dedicated gamers, that's who. F
But for people with limited time (the same people who really can't give up their day jobs to nourish guild/kin commitments and plan their lives around scheduled instance runs), that is a deal-killer.
I am not antisocial, but I absolutely detest waiting around for groups to form; that mechanic is very VERY frustrating and far too many MMOs seem married to the idea. Forcing players to wait for that "full, balanced group" to form in order to run some instance or other is going to be the downfall of the standard MMO model.
Yes, you can level to 80 solo in WoW, but try running some level-appropriate instanced dungeon solo and see how far you get. The ability to reach maximum level does NOT mean a game is soloable. Solable means a solo player has access to and can complete premium game content (i.e., the instances, in most cases) on their own if they choose to. If WoW/Blizzard were smart they would offer "solo versions" of many of their instances so that players could run, say Deadmines, on their own now that finding groups for many of these instances is nearly impossible. There is much content in WoW that is, for all intents and purposes, now effectively inaccessible because groups cannot be found to run them.
Let's face it, in most of today's MMOs, the "best content" is almost always restricted to instances reserved for player groups -- except Guild Wars.
One of these days an MMO designer is going to approach this issue from the "other side" and design a truly soloable MMO with a lot of fun (but purely optional) group content thrown in as well.
I am currently playing LotRO and it's a great game. But it would be a better game if about 50% of its lower-level instances offered a "solo option". If SWTOR or STO have a more solo-friendly, "Guild Wars-esque" approach to game design and are as fun as I suspect they will be, I will be dropping LotRO like a hot rock to play them -- that is, unless LotRO/Turbine either (i) does something to take the pain out of finding groups for its group content or (ii) "solofies" more of the group content for players like me.
Posted: Apr 6th 2009 10:14AM (Unverified) said