Massively http://massively.joystiq.com Massively http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/http://massively.joystiq.com/media/feedlogo.gif Massively http://massively.joystiq.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/<![CDATA[The Daily Grind: How much grouping should be required in a game?]]>http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/03/11/the-daily-grind-how-much-grouping-should-be-required-in-a-game/http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/03/11/the-daily-grind-how-much-grouping-should-be-required-in-a-game/http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/03/11/the-daily-grind-how-much-grouping-should-be-required-in-a-game/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,

However much grouping a game requires, there will always be a camp arguing a game has too much and another arguing it has not enough. This is inevitable.
A good group arguably makes any game more fun. No matter how much fun you're having in any game, be it Star Wars: The Old Republic or Global Agenda or whatever else, there are players who believe it's better when you're running with other people, telling jokes or roleplaying or even just working in unison. Of course, others would point out that's all if you have a good group. A bad group can turn even something fun into a real misery, which sort of defeats the purpose of playing a game. And that's not getting into the time it takes to form a group or coordinate several people... or the fact that some players just prefer not to group.

So how much grouping should an MMO require out of its players? Should pretty much all content require a group, forcing players to work together and build a real sense of community at the expense of any solitary play? Or should pretty much all content not require a group, letting everyone group with players as they wish without hard restrictions -- and making large chunks of the game single-player for all intents and purposes?

Every morning, the Massively bloggers probe the minds of their readers with deep, thought-provoking questions about that most serious of topics: massively online gaming. We crave your opinions, so grab your caffeinated beverage of choice and chime in on today's Daily Grind!

MassivelyThe Daily Grind: How much grouping should be required in a game? originally appeared on Massively on Sun, 11 Mar 2012 08:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>contentdaily-grindendgamegame-contentgame-mechanicsgroup-playgroupinggroupslevelingopinionsolosolo-playsoloingtdgthe-daily-grindSun, 11 Mar 2012 08:00:00 EST<![CDATA[Wasteland Diaries: Lone wolf]]>http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/09/03/wasteland-diaries-lone-wolf/http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/09/03/wasteland-diaries-lone-wolf/http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/09/03/wasteland-diaries-lone-wolf/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,

An MMO is a massively multiplayer online game. So what would attract a lone-wolf type to something that is massively multiplayer? You would think this would drive someone who enjoys his solitude away. This is simply not the case, as every MMORPG has lone-wolf players. If that MMO happens to be Fallen Earth, with its post-apocalyptic setting, it might seem to attract individualistic survivalist types who strive to be self-sufficient. I have never played an MMO in which so many people were withdrawn, introverted, and downright antisocial.

Well, it is the apocalypse, and there are times when I just want to be left alone to kill in silence. I am a bit of a lone wolf, myself. But many times, trying to get a group together can be like pulling teeth... from a drunken throwback's maw. Sure, people aren't bound to be as friendly in a ravaged, unlawful world like the one we call home in Fallen Earth, but sometimes the wasteland can be a very lonely place. I enjoy doing my own thing as much as anyone else, and in many cases I don't want to stop what I'm doing to help other players, but I tend to. And I'm almost always glad I did. After the cut, I'll take a look at the pros and cons of being a lone wolf.

Continue reading Wasteland Diaries: Lone wolf

MassivelyWasteland Diaries: Lone wolf originally appeared on Massively on Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>antisocialclanmatesclanscraftingcrafting-systemdeadfallfallen-earthfallen-earth-llcfeaturedgroup-missionsgroupsguildsicarusicarus-studioslone-wolfmissionssolo-playsolo-playersteamsFri, 03 Sep 2010 18:00:00 EST<![CDATA[The Tattered Notebook: Worth your time?]]>http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/07/12/the-tattered-notebook-worth-your-time/http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/07/12/the-tattered-notebook-worth-your-time/http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/07/12/the-tattered-notebook-worth-your-time/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,


"EverQuest II, that's the crappy Sony game with five-year old graphics and a bunch of RMT isn't it," said a friend of mine as we ran around the chilly slopes of Dun Morogh in Azeroth a few weeks back. Even though he phrased it in the form of a question, his delivery implied a mind already made up. Such is EQII's reputation among a decent chunk of the MMORPG-playing population it seems.

Since taking over the Tattered Notebook, I've been asked more than a few times what it is about EverQuest II that makes it worth playing, aside from the Massively paycheck of course. From friends and family, to commenters, to colleagues, it seems many people are curious about SOE's long-running fantasy flagship, but relatively few take the time to learn more about it in order to make an informed go/no-go decision.

Regrettably, I'm a somewhat slow leveler, due to the fact that I've got a lot of demands on my time and I enjoy running around willy-nilly exploring the nooks and crannies of Norrath. So, I won't be level 90 with 250 AAs, raiding, or able to tell you about endgame any time soon. That said, is it worth playing through the early 30s?

Indeed it is. Turn the page for some reasons why.

Continue reading The Tattered Notebook: Worth your time?

MassivelyThe Tattered Notebook: Worth your time? originally appeared on Massively on Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>chronomagicEQ2EQIIEverQuest-2everquest-iifeaturedgroup-playhousingimpressionsnorrathsoesolo-playSony-Online-Entertainmentthe-tattered-notebookthe-tattered-notebook-jef-reahardworth-playingMon, 12 Jul 2010 12:00:00 EST<![CDATA[Grouping versus soloing as the genre evolves]]>http://massively.joystiq.com/2009/11/18/grouping-versus-soloing-as-the-genre-evolves/http://massively.joystiq.com/2009/11/18/grouping-versus-soloing-as-the-genre-evolves/http://massively.joystiq.com/2009/11/18/grouping-versus-soloing-as-the-genre-evolves/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,


Back in the day, there were two ways to play most MMOs -- you could form a group with other players, or you could stay inside the cities and wait. Those days are long gone, of course, and it's a rare game that doesn't allow a player to do quite a bit without the support framework of a group. But there's a point to be made about what's been lost in the process, and We Fly Spitfires has an interesting take on how we now have to be pushed and prodded into grouping. There was a time when people were expected to group to complete tasks, but players are increasingly opposed to the idea as more and more becomes possible to solo and we grow less and less patient for finding a group.

Unsurprisingly, Game by Night brings up the obvious counterpoint: that evolving game design has relegated forced grouping to the past. There are more MMO players now than there were back then, and the majority of them started on games such as World of Warcraft or City of Heroes where grouping was only occasionally necessary, and even then only for specific tasks. By removing the requirement, player expectations become different, and there's no longer a sense from most of the playerbase that soloing should be possible for a majority of tasks. It's a debate that's been had over and over through the years, but as the solo play model becomes more and more expansive, it no doubt will be revisted time and again -- and attitudes toward it will shift as the playerbase does.

MassivelyGrouping versus soloing as the genre evolves originally appeared on Massively on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>academiccity-of-heroescity-of-villainscohcovcoxculturegame-designgame-mechanicsgroup-playgroupingmmo-historyopinionsolo-playworld-of-warcraftwowWed, 18 Nov 2009 19:00:00 EST<![CDATA[Is single-player content hurting MMORPGs?]]>http://massively.joystiq.com/2007/11/12/is-single-player-content-hurting-mmorpgs/http://massively.joystiq.com/2007/11/12/is-single-player-content-hurting-mmorpgs/http://massively.joystiq.com/2007/11/12/is-single-player-content-hurting-mmorpgs/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

The term "solo friendly" is commonly cited as a virtue of newer MMO titles. Many MMO related forums have threads such as this one over at MMORPG.com which discuss the "soloability" of player classes within an MMORPG. In fact many of the elements of games such as Everquest which players have complained about over the years such as "forced grouping," "camping spawns," or "racing for non-instanced content" have all but been removed from the most recent MMORPG releases.

When was the last time you saw two guilds racing to kill the same mob in World of Warcraft? How many of you have spent more than 30 minutes on a corpse recovery in City of Heroes? (That is a trick question, since there is no need to recover your corpse in that game.)

Continue reading Is single-player content hurting MMORPGs?

MassivelyIs single-player content hurting MMORPGs? originally appeared on Massively on Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>cohcoxeverquestfeaturedjoystiqfeaturessingle-playersolosolo-playsoloingworld-of-warcraftMon, 12 Nov 2007 15:30:00 EST