| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (5)

Posted: Apr 28th 2011 8:40PM Jeromai said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's amazing how they forgot to consider this from the beginning. Simple logic suggests that an MMO playerbase consists of a large amount of solo players (since that is the state that most people log into the game as), some of which will be perfectly fine grouping if it is easy/accessible, and then this scales upward on a spectrum to the smaller subset of dedicated group-lovers who are interested in difficult/inaccessible content (aka raiders on their raid ladder.)

City of Heroes especially attracted those who weren't interested in an endgame hamster wheel in the first place. So you'd think that while attempting to expand towards a previously not-catered for audience, they'd still want to drop a few breadcrumbs for their existing audience.

Well, it's time for the folks who like endgame to pay for solo and small group content development now.

Posted: Apr 29th 2011 1:19AM Stormwalker said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Jeromai No it is not simple logic. It's a massively -multiplayer- game. Simple logic is people generally play in order to play together. Those who strictly want to solo are not as large a segment of the player base as you seem to think.

And no, it did not attract people who didn't want an end game. I dunno where you even got that from. Players have been clamoring for more end game content for years. You make a lot of bizarre assumptions, sir.

Posted: Apr 29th 2011 7:23AM Borick said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Stormwalker "Multi-player" is rife with polysemy, making it easy to run around in semantic circles. Social organization isn't an aggregate function, and for many people the draw of multiplayer gaming is in the potential for encounters with other people, rather than subscribing to the idea that sports-like teamwork is the most enjoyable thing about playing with others.

Posted: Apr 28th 2011 10:05PM patman23 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Jeromai, you are right that CoH has a lot of soloists, but 7 years ago, I think the Devs expected people to want to team more often than not. It informed the design of hazard zones, the reliance of Task Forces for big stories (the Shadow Shard is an example of nearly all relevant content locked behind a task force), etc.

I do a lot of soloing, and I'd get a lot of grief from some people in the early days who couldn't understand why I'd want to solo in an MMORPG.

I just put more emphasis on the G part instead of the MM part.

Anyway, I've enjoyed the recent mass teaming, but I am looking forward to more solo content

Posted: Apr 29th 2011 10:18AM Draccan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report

Interesting that CoH is still one of the most solid mmos on the market. Pre-NGE SWG, CoH and vanilla WoW still ranks as the best mmos in my mind. EVE too. AoC is the only one that has been great since then (though on life support and shitty launch)

The market places is littered with mmo corpses since those early mmos.
Let's review a list of failures (both released and not released):
Star Trek
Mortal Online
Champions Online
DC Universe Online
Now Marvel Online (with todays announcement, what is there to be said?)
Tabula Rasa
Black Prophecy
Gods and Heroes
Rift (controversial for some, but I wouldn't play it)

Even triple A companies can not follow through on creating great games... they think a simple game world with some cookie cutter combat and raids and the usual snooze is enough...

Way to go CoH!

Featured Stories





WoW Insider