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

Reader Comments (41)

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 10:20AM Dril said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Personally, I died a little inside when I read DarkWalker's comments.

The attitude in that comment, to me, typifies everything (gameplay-wise) that's wrong with the genre's direction. I have a really hard time sympathising with people who don't like to make any effort to group in their MMO and don't like even the slightest of inconveniences: more often, I want to ask them: why don't you just go and play a lobby-based game instead?

It sounds far more like what you want.

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 10:50AM Ehra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Dril

Why SHOULD people put up with "slight inconveniences" if they don't have to? See, the thing about "inconveniences" is that they're unfun, small, annoying obstacles you need to hurdle to get to the part that you do find fun. There are too many great games out now and coming soon in the future for me to waste my time on games that think "inconvenience" equals immersion.

The thing that annoys me the most with the gaming community (especially the MMO community) are people who feel the need to act like there's one way and one way only to enjoy a game or genre, and if you play that way then you're doing it wrong and you should go play something else. There are countless MMOs on the market, all of which cater to a multitude of different playstyles. The genre is remarkably flexible in the type of game it can produce, and it's absolutely mind boggling that the people who would typically consider themselves the most hardcore, informed fans of the genre absolutely insist on pigeonholing it to fit the limited scope that they personally find enjoyable. If a game has features that they don't personally enjoy, then it's either shallow trash, destined to fail, or isn't a "tr00 MMO" for some arbitrary, contrived reason.

Someone doesn't like spending a long time getting to where they want to go, spending a long time finding people to group with, spending a long time to get the resources necessary to experiment with their character, or being heavily penalized for death, and that suddenly means MMOs aren't for them even though there are plenty of MMOs that provide (or want to provide) those sort of features. Makes perfect sense.


Don't mean to pick on you specifically, just using your post as a jumping off point to comment on a general attitude that's pretty wide spread.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 10:50AM Dumac said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Dril
Word. I literally felt my stomach twist. Actually, he sounds like he doesn't want to play games at all.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 10:59AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Dril

I agree. I have asked many people wanting to turn MMOs into solo-games why they are playing an MMO in the first place.

The whole reason Blizzard did the guild levelling/perk system in Cata was to force players into large guilds so they would socialise and have people to play with. If it wasn't for my awesome guild I wouldn't play more then a month or two a year.

As to DarkWalkers last point, he doesn't like playing reckless, he likes playing with little to no consequence. It is reckless when you do something despite the high chance of severe consequences.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 11:04AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ehra

"The thing that annoys me the most with the gaming community (especially the MMO community) are people who feel the need to act like there's one way and one way only to enjoy a game or genre"

No, the issue is solo players whining about MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER games not being entirely soloable. It is like whining that First Person Shooters have too much gun violence. Large group based activity is the whole point of MMOs.

If you don't like the feeling of travelling around a huge game world then play hub based games like Guild Wars.

Solo games are all about the one player. MMOs are about all the players and hence sometimes you as an individual are inconvenienced by other players.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 11:20AM Ehra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

Thanks for proving my point exactly. If anyone ever wants to play a game solo, then MMOs obviously aren't for them because it couldn't be FATHOMABLE that someone might want to play "with" other players without being dependent on being "grouped" with them at the same time. Interaction with other players in MMOs goes so much deeper than simply "grouping" with them that I wonder if the people telling people who'd like to be able to enjoy the game solo to just play a single player game are even playing these games, or if they pay any attention to what's actually going on when they play these games.

Then of course Guild Wars is brought up, which goes right back to my point of how people come up with completely arbitrary reasons to exclude a game for not being a "MMO." Because it has instancing? So what? Most MMOs have instancing, and if you exclude GW then you have to exclude DDO which would be the most ridiculous thing ever. People love to try to say DDO isn't a "MMO" because of its instancing (like GW), but then whenever the discussion turns to F2P MMOs you'll suddenly never see anyone argue that DDO doesn't count due to not being a MMO.

Then, inevitably, someone will bring up the "Well if GW is a MMO then Diablo 2 must be too, because it's online and you're with lots of players making it massive!" which sort of makes sense if you don't think about it too much. A pretty important difference between the two is that Diablo 2 can not be a Massively Multiplayer Online game because you can play it offline in the singleplayer mode. The game can't suddenly change genres when playing it multiplayer, since the only thing that's changing compared to the offline singleplayer mode is the fact that it is, in fact, multiplayer.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 11:23AM Obext said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree and think maybe gamers like Darkwalker are just in a diffrent genre mindset, not that its a bad thing but its just how it is.
Traveling some distance to your destination or to have a death penality where you are actually penalized is the core of MMO's, at least when they started out when I began playing MMO's like UO. These things werent "inconvenient", but were apart of the game.

Anyways, all the MMO's to me feel like they have the difficulty of a kindergarden connect-the-dots.

If I want quick satisfaction and instant action I go play a FPS.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 11:31AM Dril said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Ehra

What I resent is the idea that people come into a game and then DEMAND changes be made to accommodate their limited playstyle, bearing in mind they should have gone in with the full knowledge (ignorance is no excuse) that things would require time, dedication and grouping.

To twist your question: why should *I* be pigeon-holed into doing dailies because people found grinding oh so boring (but dailies aren't; lol.) Why should *I* be pigeon-holed into having to run piss-easy content (all 5-mans are fairly easy) because people found it too hard before?

If there was a choice, I wouldn't mind so much. Even better, if there was a choice and people who spent less time and less effort got worse rewards (e.g. they only got greens for the dungeon) because that's how it works. Less effort, less reward.

But the fact is that my playstyle has been watered-down and, in most games, utterly destroyed to pander to the whims of those who really don't want an MMO in the first place. Who can't be bothered. Who need everything handed to them on a big silver plate labelled "EASY" with no other main course option for those of who don't like our MMOs quite so uncooked.

And, personally, I find that infuriating.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 11:35AM Pingles said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Dril

Oh geez. That's great when you're single, 22 and spend your weekends raiding.

At some point real life catches up to you and, hopefully, you start rearranging your life and prioritizing gaming lower and lower.

Pretty soon you'd rather play Lego with your two year old daughter than group in an MMO.

But, occasionally, you'd like to hop into an MMO and play a bit. Maybe you DO find time to group once in a while but the majority of your time is spent stealing twenty minutes of gameplay from your meager family downtime.

Companies certainly have a choice whether to support those players whose numbers grow and grow every year.

I am glad they do. That's my life right now.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 11:54AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Dril

I don't see anything wrong with his (or her) comment really. He's not saying all MMO's must be like this and if not, they're bad. Rather it's just an expression of what kind of game he'd play, and if an MMO isn't like that he won't play it; not so much the whole spiel of how a game must cater to him.

As for his specific points, unlimited respecs is fine if it makes sense. That sort of thing varies by game and to what degree of difficulty it takes to respec.

Yes, long and uneventful travel is not good design. It takes you out of playing the game. Having to travel is not a bad thing if it's done right but when it's excessive with little to do during it, it then it detracts from the game. WoW is a great example with the flight paths. It's good that it breaks up the action and has great scenery but bad since there are some really long, boring and even frustrating flight paths to take. For those with limited time, a flight path can take out a lot of their allotted play time.

And again, the soloable gameplay is fine, it's a preference I share as well. You know soloers and above can coexist in a game, right? It's totally okay for a game to provide solo content for those that are unable to play for an extended period of time. Heck I often see people mentioning why can't there be dungeons with varying difficulty levels, one of which sorely needed is solo. And yes, that'd include less rewards. It's options like that that make a game highly flexible for the playerbase and more appealing overall.

And don't claim DarkWalker was saying he hates to group with other players and whines about it. He didn't say otherwise but you can't just assume. I'd imagine it's the case of enjoying group content when possible but when time is short, he likes to have the option for quick, solo content as well.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 12:21PM Haldurson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)
There is slow travel and then there is S-L-O-W T-R-A-V-E-L. There is a point at which it becomes ridiculous. The original EQ, for example -- you could spend several hours getting to a raid that would take 15 minutes to complete. Fallen Earth, initially, had no fast travel, meaning that if a low level person in your guild needed help with something, it would take a couple of hours commitment just to get to where that low level person was in order to lend assistance.

I'm not saying that I did not like those games, but a lack of fast travel can impose serious problems for anyone but the most addicted player (ie. those who won't or can't spend 5 hours at a time playing the game to get nearly nothing accomplished).

Similarly, I love grouping with my friends, but sometimes I can only play at odd hours, when that's not possible. I don't know about WoW, but if you are on at the wrong time, you can spend an entire play session and not be able to find a group in most games. THAT is why solo play is so important. I don't want solo play to the exclusion of group conent, but there ALWAYS needs to be solo content at all levels, simply because we don't have an ideal world where you can find company 24/7 that you don't have to pay for by the hour.

People have opinions for good reasons and bad reasons. None of the op's reasons are bad. Those reasons may not apply to you, but dismissing them out of hand, means that it's YOU who are dismissing most MMOs, because the OP actually represents their largest audience.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 12:23PM Dril said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Pingles

So, you've changed as a player.

The question is: why should the game change for you? Why not accept that you can no longer play as you used to, move on, and find a game that is a) more fulfilling for the limited time you have and b) already built specifically for that timeframe?

Why make the devs change the game just to cater to your demographic when. by your own admission, you've effectively done a u-turn on the content you want?

@Shadowform Unverified

On the contrary, he makes numerous assertions that "if it is not like this, I will not play it." And it stands to reason that not playing something is a pretty big indicator that you dislike parts of it.

Respecs take away meaningful character choice. They encourage people to not make a full commitment to their role, because "oh I can respec l8r lulz." I personally believe people should have a deep connection to their character's identity, and changing their entire gameplay on-the-fly doesn't help with that.

I agree in a sense that really uneventful (EVE Autopilot) and long travel is generally not fun, but it does add to the feeling of being in a vast, vast world rather than a tiny playground. WoW's longest flight-paths really aren't that long, anyway, and since they're mostly AFK, you could just log on quickly, set up the flying and then finish things up RL. That's not poor game design, that's poor time management.

Look. I enjoy soloing. I find deep satisfaction from the idea that I, alone, accomplished something. But I dislike the notion that, in an MMO, there should be things of equally epic proportions just for solo players. I think there should be meaningful and fun solo content, but it should lead to group content, not be an alternative. It should co-exist and inter-depend on group content, not be a complete replacement (which DarkWalker says he wants in the case of levelling, i.e. "I must be able to solo to the cap."

He suggests quite openly that actually having to find a group and interact with people is something that will turn him off a game. That seem like he dislikes it. If time is short, go play something geared for those short of time.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 12:26PM Ehra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Dril

I actually agree with you about people demanding that a game completely change its focus to accommodate their playstyle. There's suggesting potentially useful features, then there's going against the entire spirit of the game; if you're asking Blizzard to add open PvP and body looting to the game then maybe you should think about playing a game that already does that (and better than WoW would).
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 12:27PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ehra

I never said anything about Guild Wars not being an MMO. I used it as an example of a hub based game for those that want instant action.

Stop fighting a strawman and listen to what people are saying. Otherwise you just come off as being an arrogant fool only interested in the sound of your own voice (as it were).

P.S. MMOG stands for MASSIVELY multiplayer online game. I don't count games like the original Guild Wars and Diablo II (or Starcraft II) because I don't think they met the qualification of MASSIVELY multiplayer. They are just multiplayer online games.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 12:49PM Ehra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

"I never said anything about Guild Wars not being an MMO. I used it as an example of a hub based game for those that want instant action."

You heavily implied it when you first said you hate how people expect to solo in MMOs, said wanting to solo in a MMO is like getting upset about gun violence in a FPS, then suggested they play GW. It's not a strawman when you your own post was, logically, excluding GW from being a MMO.

As for "Massively," you're going to have to prove what "massively" refers to. The number of players you can see around you? Outposts in GW and DDO hold huge amounts of people. The size of the world? Then how big does it have to be to be a "real MMO"? GW fits every definition of a MMO; maybe it didn't when it first came out, but the genre as evolved since then and to exclude it now would mean to also exclude plenty of other games that are already considered MMOs (even by this very site).

As for Diablo 2 and SC2, I already explain in pretty logical terms why those games can't be Massively Multipayer Online games; you can't be massively multiplayer when you can play it singleplayer (and if can't be a "online game" when you can play offline).


The problem with the term "MMO" is that it's vague to the point of uselessness, but then again so are most gaming genres. When the RPG genre can contain two radically different games like Chrono Trigger and Fallout 3, the MMO genre can consider "hub based" games like GW a MMO. It's going to becoming even more vague in the future as developers start adding more and more social and multiplayer features to what would normally considered a "single player" mode and the line between single player and multi player itself starts to blur (Valve, for example, has said that Portal 2 will likely be their final "true" single player game).

Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 12:54PM Dril said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ehra

Aye.

It's not that I hate the playstyle espoused by DarkWalker; I could happily ignore it and let people frolic in 30-minute playslots if there was a game designed for it.

But changing a game to move from one playstyle to another is vexing, and that's ultimately what I'm against.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 1:00PM Ehra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

I also think it's funny that you accuse me of attacking a strawman and seeming like an arrogant fool for saying you didn't think GW is a MMO, then at the end of that same post you go on to say that you don't think GW is a MMO because it's not "massively multiplayer." Well played.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 1:12PM Pingles said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Dril

Why do you think companies are catering to soloers?

It's because their numbers are growing as gamers age. If this was s small minority believe me companies wouldn't bother. They'd point you to other MMOs, like they do hardcore PvPers.

As much as it may aggravate you that developers add soloing content (or even "dumb-down" content to accommodate soloers) they are doing it to ATTRACT the soloers. Let the developer know you don't like it.

But as someone who has to squeeze gaming time in but STILL wants to interact with other players when time permits (and put stuff on an auction house, or sell crafts, etc.) I am glad they are keeping me included.

(Pssst...Don't let the developers know this but they don't HAVE to make solo content. I like trying to solo group content or fight my way through levels slowly but steadily. I solo in games that don't cater to soloers just fine.)
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 2:31PM cholo71796 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ehra

I don't think the point of this discussion was to argue about your personal definition of an MMO.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 3:09PM Ehra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@cholo71796

If you would follow the path this whole discussion took, you'd notice that it actually is relevant.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW