Again, you are allowing your own conceptions of what an MMO should be to color your definition.
No, I'm working on the actual definition of MMO. MMO isn't some nebulas phantom that we as a gaming community have failed to define. There does, in fact, exist a definitative and concrete definition of MMO.
And again, I'm not arguing against playing solo in an MMO. That is part of the game, and definitely a supported play-style. What I saying is, the concept of playing with small or large groups of other players is a cornerstone design concept of the MMO.
That's what makes is Massive, Multiplayer and inherently Online.
Again, you are allowing your own conceptions of what an MMO should be to color your definition.
No, I'm working on the actual definition of MMO. MMO isn't some nebulas phantom that we as a gaming community have failed to define. There does, in fact, exist a definitative and concrete definition of MMO.
And again, I'm not arguing against playing solo in an MMO. That is part of the game, and definitely a supported play-style. What I saying is, the concept of playing with small or large groups of other players is a cornerstone design concept of the MMO.
That's what makes is Massive, Multiplayer and inherently Online.
This is pretty much what we were all getting at yeah. MMO's are not single player games with other players as "background noise". That just defeats the whole point of an MMO. I mean i like having some solo content in my MMO's too for when i can't find a group or i just want to hop in and out of a game and just kill half an hour or something. But being annoyed because an MMO is designed around being multiplayer just seems really weird. It's like eating an egg and getting mad because it wasn't a steak.
What if I want a single player game that gets new content every few weeks?
Not that I do, but just pointing out the attraction in solo mmo's
There is nothing wrong with that desire, but I would submit that what you are asking for is not in any way an MMO.
It is a single-player game (i.e. not "multiplayer, which is the second 'M' in MMO) that has frequent content updates.
For what it's worth, having new content every few weeks is a wet dream for multi-player online games today too. Even a traditional multi-player MMO doesn't have new content every few weeks. The only worthwhile change you see in most of the current games is when the infrequent expansion is released (every three to six months) or player-initiated content like PvP. Which is why many people (myself included) are growing increasingly tired of the DIKU design paradigm.
(And before anyone points out AC having monthly updates, I'd like to point out that I did use the word "most". Also, holiday events are not "worthwhile".)
To say that a MMO exists with a certain neutrality between solo and group play is wholly and totally incorrect. It is you who is trying to shoehorn his own square solo-play peg into another person's round MMO hole. I'm not disagreeing with your statements that a good MMO should be solo friendly, as it's unrealistic to believe that every player is going to want to play with a bunch of people all the time to do every task.
But it's really sad to see that anyone would consider solo-play of an MMO to be a viable option. These are MULTIPLAYER games. Asking for a solo-able MMO is like asking to play a solo game of Counterstrike. If you want a single-player experience, play a single-player game! If you want a single-player game with chatting, and open an RPG IRC chat in another window. Same thing.
Bioware's SWTOR is specifically being designed to support solo play throughout. I assume that this is based on market research which shows that a lot of people in MMOs want the ability to go strictly solo. LotRO has also reworked its first volume to allow solo players to complete all epic quests by themselves. Their new skirmish system also has a solo only option. Based on what these developers are doing, it seems very clear that there is a lot of consumer desire to play these games solo. Call them what you want, but if it makes economic sense to create a game which treats solo and group play equally in an MMO-sized persistent environment with monthly fees, then that's what's going to happen.
See... I don't get this MMO is only for grouping thing. I enjoy leveling up, questing and getting items solo... I don't really care for the social aspect, however I also like PvP'ing against other people since humans are much more exciting to fight against. Is there some other genre I am missing where you can do this?
See, I am inclined to agree with ironzerg on all points.
First off, I played WoW for its inherent "massively multiplayer" angle, and while I know it can be enjoyed as a single player experience, the interaction is what sold me, personally.
The concept of playing a single player game in an online world calls to mind the notion of the game Demon's Souls for the PS3, where, for the most part, the player IS on their own, barring a few limited encounters with enemy or friendly players. There's a huge world to explore, and IS in many ways linked to other people's experiences, whether it be through comments left as bloodstains or seeing glimpses of other players walking around or dying, but is really geared to be a solo experience. A game like that walks a fine line between MMORPG and...well, just RPG.
Oh, btw guys, I solved my dilemma. Pokemon Soul Silver came out, and I am reliving my childhood through my DS. Don't fuck this one up, Nintendo!
See... I don't get this MMO is only for grouping thing. I enjoy leveling up, questing and getting items solo... I don't really care for the social aspect, however I also like PvP'ing against other people since humans are much more exciting to fight against. Is there some other genre I am missing where you can do this?
Single player RPG's with an online component. Diablo 1/2, the Divine Divinity series, Titan Quest, Borderlands, Two Worlds...ect ect. What you described you wanted here isn't solely in MMO's.
In my opinion, a good MMO should be able to stand alone as a single player game before they consider multiplayer dynamics. If the game isn't good enough to be played by yourself, simply doing the same thing with more people isn't going to make it worth playing.
What I liked about WoW was that you could solo all the quests in the overworld, but instances needed to be grouped to be done. Given an open world to do things in, people are generally going to rely on themselves to get things done, simply because you'll get things done faster most often. You're not waiting for your group to catch up (and likewise you're not falling behind if someone is rushing and you want to read the quest text), you're not recompleting quests for other people to get to where you are, you're not sharing loot and money, etc. But it is also worth noting that there is nothing in WoW's over world content stopping people from grouping, that option is still there if you want to do things with friends.
Then you have instances which provide structure to the group. They're linear, offer rewards to everyone in the form of quests, and there are some really fun boss fights and events that you'll only witness within the instance.
The only problem I have with the way things turned out, is it seems like WoW made the soloable stuff TOO good compared to the instances. It can become pretty tough to find instance groups at lower levels.
I wouldn't say the lower level stuff is too good. It's just that grinding instances is bad experiance compared to quest turn-ins and for most people it's all about getting to the end game content. Because just about every player has at least one max level the whole process has been streamlined so new players can get there faster. Leveling used to be something you did with your friends now it's just something to get over with. (in some cases having people with no idea how to play in a group just plain sucking)
I still think that for an MMO to do well you have to have a slower leveling curve. I've played EQ, DAoC, WoW and WAR. With the exception of the first you can get from level 1-10 in one sitting, and very fast once you understand the mechanics of the game. This means your hard core players will be at endgame in a month and wanting new content in 3.
Leveling is when you build some of your strongest relationships with people not repeated runs through the same endgame content.
Leveling is when you build some of your strongest relationships with people not repeated runs through the same endgame content.
This point cannot be understated. I remember when WoW first launched, and everyone was trying to figure the game out, leveling was a long process. These days you have all kinds of guides, add-ons, and streamlining that has really made leveling very efficient. However, I think this is where WoW has lost a bit of luster for that new player, and why we're seeing subscriptions for WoW flatline.
There's no compelling game to keep people moving along from 1-80 anymore. There is such a diversity in levels, that a huge gap exists between players. It's called "Level 80" and "Not Level 80". Most of us remember meeting lots of interesting people, playing in many different groups, and even moving through some different guilds as we journey to 60 (or 70 or 80). It's these experiences that built the social foundation for a fun end-game experience.
Now, people go through the content so fast, or see solo-ing and skipping group dungeons as the most efficient way to 80. However, once you get to 80 this way, there's a good chance you're lacking the social foundation to continue the game into the post-leveling content. The LFD tool was designed to give people a chance to get more and easier dungeon access, but since it's cross-realm, the chances of you actually grouping and forming a bond with other players on your own server is very slim.
Anyway, maybe this is the cycle WoW is trying to reboot with Cataclysm. Because right now, if you're not already level 80, starting at level 1 is possibly the worse thing you can do in WoW.
To say that a MMO exists with a certain neutrality between solo and group play is wholly and totally incorrect. It is you who is trying to shoehorn his own square solo-play peg into another person's round MMO hole. I'm not disagreeing with your statements that a good MMO should be solo friendly, as it's unrealistic to believe that every player is going to want to play with a bunch of people all the time to do every task.
But it's really sad to see that anyone would consider solo-play of an MMO to be a viable option. These are MULTIPLAYER games. Asking for a solo-able MMO is like asking to play a solo game of Counterstrike. If you want a single-player experience, play a single-player game! If you want a single-player game with chatting, and open an RPG IRC chat in another window. Same thing.
Bioware's SWTOR is specifically being designed to support solo play throughout. I assume that this is based on market research which shows that a lot of people in MMOs want the ability to go strictly solo. LotRO has also reworked its first volume to allow solo players to complete all epic quests by themselves. Their new skirmish system also has a solo only option. Based on what these developers are doing, it seems very clear that there is a lot of consumer desire to play these games solo. Call them what you want, but if it makes economic sense to create a game which treats solo and group play equally in an MMO-sized persistent environment with monthly fees, then that's what's going to happen.
The designers of CoX had a brainstorm when they enacted a difficulty slider that allowed missions to be scaled, giving large groups more of a challenge while letting smaller groups and solo players experience almost all of the content (with some exceptions). This also led to scalable rewards, which created an incentive to group without forcing it.
Though, this may not be possible in other MMO's that don't instance their missions as much as CoX.
Your point about Bioware is interesting- given their track record, we can assume that they've done some serious research into the desires of the gaming population. If they're puttting so much solo content into SWTOR, that probably means that there is a significant percentage of the MMO player base who find that option attractive.
I think there is a lot of Common Knowledge about MMO's that is probably false. For example, EvE is supposedly the home for the hardest of hardcore PvPers, but I recall that CCP released numbers showing that a majority of EvE players never voluntarily engage in PvP.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Leveling is when you build some of your strongest relationships with people not repeated runs through the same endgame content.
This point cannot be understated. I remember when WoW first launched, and everyone was trying to figure the game out, leveling was a long process. These days you have all kinds of guides, add-ons, and streamlining that has really made leveling very efficient. However, I think this is where WoW has lost a bit of luster for that new player, and why we're seeing subscriptions for WoW flatline.
There's no compelling game to keep people moving along from 1-80 anymore. There is such a diversity in levels, that a huge gap exists between players. It's called "Level 80" and "Not Level 80". Most of us remember meeting lots of interesting people, playing in many different groups, and even moving through some different guilds as we journey to 60 (or 70 or 80). It's these experiences that built the social foundation for a fun end-game experience.
Now, people go through the content so fast, or see solo-ing and skipping group dungeons as the most efficient way to 80. However, once you get to 80 this way, there's a good chance you're lacking the social foundation to continue the game into the post-leveling content. The LFD tool was designed to give people a chance to get more and easier dungeon access, but since it's cross-realm, the chances of you actually grouping and forming a bond with other players on your own server is very slim.
Anyway, maybe this is the cycle WoW is trying to reboot with Cataclysm. Because right now, if you're not already level 80, starting at level 1 is possibly the worse thing you can do in WoW.
This is true, and might be what brings me back with Cataclysm is released. I always preferred the leveling content. But the first wave goes by so fast, that if you miss it, you practically miss the game. And that was true at launch as well. I know because I remember hitting around level 20, and there were so many things going on and so many people everywhere, and then when I hit level 30 I decided to make a new character and start again. And while it's not like it is now, that first wave was now 20-30 levels ahead of me, and a lot of zones were near empty. And this was like a month or two after launch. I think it is almost unavoidable in MMOs.
As for building lasting e-friendships, I found most of them came about through pvp and battlegrounds (pre-cross server), and raiding for me. I think the worst thing WoW ever did was make pvp cross-server. There used to be people who were absolutely hated on my server, now no one cares. I think one big barrier stopping people from making new friends is that most of the cliques are already formed. Even when cataclysm launches and a ton of people start level 1 characters, they're going to group with people they already know. Meanwhile, I can't think of anyone I leveled with in pretty much any MMO. Not because I didn't group, but because even if you ended up forming a group with a random dude and playing for a whole day, there was always the chance that you would simply never play with them again. Maybe they re-rolled, or maybe one of you outleveled the other. Or maybe someone joined a guild and they're playing with guildmates instead.
I know the first person I ended up befriending, I guess, on my realm I met when battlegrounds came out. It was a druid that ended up grabbing the flag in WSG while I slowed, shocked, totem'd, and basically made sure he got points. This was before grouping with people so we got lucky and ended up in the same ones for some six hours.
Shit like that just didn't really happen when I quit brining my second shaman to the end game. Burned the hell out real quick because I was playing an essentially solo game trying to catch up with my friends to get to what had become the real point, raids.
To me, just thinking about rerolling was absolutely terrifying. After doing it a couple times, doing the same things over and over, being repeatedly called a nub or a scrub or whatever by alts and 80's, dealing with the goddamn Barrens multiple times, and CONSTANTLY gearing and regearing, I realized that the only thing that truly was emphasized WAS the endgame. In fact, the leveling was actually being DOWNPLAYED. This seemed odd to me too, as I had had the most fun (the first time anyway) reaching the cap, and each subsequent cap as the expansions came out. Nowadays, they give added experience for lowbies, and practically throw abilities and spells at them. I only recently found out that rogues, since the time I had made mine, had been given dual wielding daggers and stealth practically from get-go!
It's like Blizzard is saying "yeah we know this level grinding sucks, so we're making it easier on you" instead of breathing new life into it or making it different in any way.
To me, just thinking about rerolling was absolutely terrifying. After doing it a couple times, doing the same things over and over, being repeatedly called a nub or a scrub or whatever by alts and 80's, dealing with the goddamn Barrens multiple times, and CONSTANTLY gearing and regearing, I realized that the only thing that truly was emphasized WAS the endgame. In fact, the leveling was actually being DOWNPLAYED. This seemed odd to me too, as I had had the most fun (the first time anyway) reaching the cap, and each subsequent cap as the expansions came out. Nowadays, they give added experience for lowbies, and practically throw abilities and spells at them. I only recently found out that rogues, since the time I had made mine, had been given dual wielding daggers and stealth practically from get-go!
It's like Blizzard is saying "yeah we know this level grinding sucks, so we're making it easier on you" instead of breathing new life into it or making it different in any way.
I'm with you. I have way more fun getting to the cap. Once I reach the cap and the endgame, I tend to get bored.
As far as rerolling goes, yeah clearly not as fun as the first time through. A fun SWTOR factoid, they insist that there is no overlap at all between quests for each of the eight classes. In fact, it looks like the storylines are intertwined but viewed from different angles, so that seems like it would really encourage playing through all eight classes to see all the storylines. Plus it's Bioware, so I have a lot of confidence their stories will actually be worth playing through.
Again, you are allowing your own conceptions of what an MMO should be to color your definition.
No, I'm working on the actual definition of MMO. MMO isn't some nebulas phantom that we as a gaming community have failed to define. There does, in fact, exist a definitative and concrete definition of MMO.
What I saying is, the concept of playing with small or large groups of other players is a cornerstone design concept of the MMO.
That's what makes is Massive, Multiplayer and inherently Online.
Having played MUDs in the 90's I can assuredly say you are full of shit. The cornerstone of design is that it is a multiplayer RPG with a persistent world. That is it. I log off, world keeps going. World is comprised of bunches of people. RPG elements. There yah go. Insisting that grouping is somehow a requirement of these games is moronic and has no basis in reality.
To me, just thinking about rerolling was absolutely terrifying. After doing it a couple times, doing the same things over and over, being repeatedly called a nub or a scrub or whatever by alts and 80's, dealing with the goddamn Barrens multiple times, and CONSTANTLY gearing and regearing, I realized that the only thing that truly was emphasized WAS the endgame. In fact, the leveling was actually being DOWNPLAYED. This seemed odd to me too, as I had had the most fun (the first time anyway) reaching the cap, and each subsequent cap as the expansions came out. Nowadays, they give added experience for lowbies, and practically throw abilities and spells at them. I only recently found out that rogues, since the time I had made mine, had been given dual wielding daggers and stealth practically from get-go!
It's like Blizzard is saying "yeah we know this level grinding sucks, so we're making it easier on you" instead of breathing new life into it or making it different in any way.
I'm with you. I have way more fun getting to the cap. Once I reach the cap and the endgame, I tend to get bored.
As far as rerolling goes, yeah clearly not as fun as the first time through. A fun SWTOR factoid, they insist that there is no overlap at all between quests for each of the eight classes. In fact, it looks like the storylines are intertwined but viewed from different angles, so that seems like it would really encourage playing through all eight classes to see all the storylines. Plus it's Bioware, so I have a lot of confidence their stories will actually be worth playing through.
This was why i never enjoyed WoW. Everyone was in this race to get to the cap as quickly as possible. I didn't enjoy WoW's end game, it was too hardcore for me, what i do enjoy is questing and exploring. Maybe this is why i subbed to DDO back in the day for longer than i subbed in WoW, now DDO is free so thats different now. My 3 big MMO's i spent lots of time in were Guild Wars, DDO, and EvE Online.
To me, the biggest problems MMOs face is that, due to persistence, it's more difficult to get involved in a game the further from the release date. This is a much bigger problem with games like EVE where time spent is skill earned, but it can be the case in WoW where you'll want to do instances that few people ever really want to do. Yeah, you could get a buddy who is level 80 to pave the way for you, but that whole group of friends experiencing something for the first time is what a MMO is about to me. I think the storyline in The Old Republic will help to some degree, as people like me will want to check out each story, so that point of establishment will be pushed back purely by higher amounts of content.
It's a Catch 22 really. In Star Trek Online, someone could start today, and be at the exact same point I am in two weeks of hardcore playing. My ship is basically stacked from daily grind missions. On the other extreme, you have EVE where people have been developing skills for years, and can do pretty much whatever they want while even after a few months of hardcore playing, you'll still be hindered by the skill point differential. Striking that balance by doing something involving diminishing returns would make sense, but I haven't encountered a MMO yet that has really struck the point super well.
Actually I think Eve is one of the more newbie-friendly games I've played, PVP wise. You can be pretty useful within literally hours, and within a week you can have a choice of a few different, effective ships. PVE... it takes a few months to be at a point you can do anything competitive with an older player, but really, it doesn't take that long to specialize in a lot of things: older players aren't always better at any one thing, they are just more diverse.
You can start a new character and within about 4-5 months be flying, say, a t2 HAC (probably the most popular and powerful PVP ships) at about 90 -95% of the effectiveness of a player that has been playing since launch. Specializing in a less skill intensive ship would get you on even footing much faster.
Actually I think Eve is one of the more newbie-friendly games I've played, PVP wise. You can be pretty useful within literally hours, and within a week you can have a choice of a few different, effective ships. PVE... it takes a few months to be at a point you can do anything competitive with an older player, but really, it doesn't take that long to specialize in a lot of things: older players aren't always better at any one thing, they are just more diverse.
You can start a new character and within about 4-5 months be flying, say, a t2 HAC (probably the most popular and powerful PVP ships) at about 90 -95% of the effectiveness of a player that has been playing since launch. Specializing in a less skill intensive ship would get you on even footing much faster.
Umm... I don't equate newbie with 4-5 months of play time.
To answer the question in the OP, shame on everyone else for not mentioning Puzzle Pirates! It's free (the core stuff is anyway), somewhat solo friendly, and if you want to, it can have as much political stuff as Eve.
Having played MUDs in the 90's I can assuredly say you are full of shit. The cornerstone of design is that it is a multiplayer RPG with a persistent world. That is it. I log off, world keeps going. World is comprised of bunches of people. RPG elements. There yah go. Insisting that grouping is somehow a requirement of these games is moronic and has no basis in reality.
Don't confuse language with mechanics. I'm talking about groups of players, not literally "Slayer Bob has invited you to a group". Playing with groups of people is what makes a game Multiplayer. It's the very definition of Multiplayer. Again, it's madness for anyone to argue otherwise.
Plus, what do you define as a "persistent world"? When I log off in WoW, people keep playing the game, but the world never changes. I log off at an Inn next to Bob the Innkeeper. I log back in a day later, and I'm right there, next to Bob the Innkeeper. Bob almost never changes. He's been in the same place doing the same thing for years now. Same thing with almost the entire World of Warcraft. Yes, the world is persistent, but it's also static. How is that any different from a single player game, like Dragon Age? I shut down my game in DA, boot it up 3 days later, and nothing in the world has changed.
Except the players. That's it. That's the only thing that changes. That large (or small) group of players in the game is all that changes. If you ask anyone what the difference between X server and Y server is, it all boils down to the players, because each version of WoW is exactly the same. And this holds true for every single MMO out there.
And yes, content patches are added, and things do change. But again, that's not any different then Bioware releasing new content for DA, a single player game. Additional content may be a good business model, but it's not inherent to the design of an MMO, like the consideration of how groups of players, large and small are interacting with each other.
And furthermore, even in these descriptions of "solo" game play, you're still dependent on interaction with other players. A lot of people in this thread have stated they enjoy playing a MMO completely solo, but like the feeling that there's a living world working around them. That feeling can only come from the actual players, not just the game world. Again, I point to games like Fable and Oblivion, where there is a living, albeit it, completely generated world going on around you. But it's fake and you can't escape that feeling.
However, when you populate the game with with a massive number of players, you create the sense of a truely dynamic world, whether that world is static and unchanging (WoW) or has elements that are in constant flux (EVE). But ultimately, these all boil down to the mechanics and design inherent in bringing together an experience shared by multitudes of people. Hence, the MMO genre.
So I stand by my statement. The cornerstone of an MMO is the concept of playing with large groups of other players. Whether or not you chose to actively or passively play with the other people is your decision. But you cannot deny how those interactions (or lack of) as a key design concept.
Posts
No, I'm working on the actual definition of MMO. MMO isn't some nebulas phantom that we as a gaming community have failed to define. There does, in fact, exist a definitative and concrete definition of MMO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game
And again, I'm not arguing against playing solo in an MMO. That is part of the game, and definitely a supported play-style. What I saying is, the concept of playing with small or large groups of other players is a cornerstone design concept of the MMO.
That's what makes is Massive, Multiplayer and inherently Online.
This is pretty much what we were all getting at yeah. MMO's are not single player games with other players as "background noise". That just defeats the whole point of an MMO. I mean i like having some solo content in my MMO's too for when i can't find a group or i just want to hop in and out of a game and just kill half an hour or something. But being annoyed because an MMO is designed around being multiplayer just seems really weird. It's like eating an egg and getting mad because it wasn't a steak.
There is nothing wrong with that desire, but I would submit that what you are asking for is not in any way an MMO.
It is a single-player game (i.e. not "multiplayer, which is the second 'M' in MMO) that has frequent content updates.
For what it's worth, having new content every few weeks is a wet dream for multi-player online games today too. Even a traditional multi-player MMO doesn't have new content every few weeks. The only worthwhile change you see in most of the current games is when the infrequent expansion is released (every three to six months) or player-initiated content like PvP. Which is why many people (myself included) are growing increasingly tired of the DIKU design paradigm.
(And before anyone points out AC having monthly updates, I'd like to point out that I did use the word "most". Also, holiday events are not "worthwhile".)
Bioware's SWTOR is specifically being designed to support solo play throughout. I assume that this is based on market research which shows that a lot of people in MMOs want the ability to go strictly solo. LotRO has also reworked its first volume to allow solo players to complete all epic quests by themselves. Their new skirmish system also has a solo only option. Based on what these developers are doing, it seems very clear that there is a lot of consumer desire to play these games solo. Call them what you want, but if it makes economic sense to create a game which treats solo and group play equally in an MMO-sized persistent environment with monthly fees, then that's what's going to happen.
First off, I played WoW for its inherent "massively multiplayer" angle, and while I know it can be enjoyed as a single player experience, the interaction is what sold me, personally.
The concept of playing a single player game in an online world calls to mind the notion of the game Demon's Souls for the PS3, where, for the most part, the player IS on their own, barring a few limited encounters with enemy or friendly players. There's a huge world to explore, and IS in many ways linked to other people's experiences, whether it be through comments left as bloodstains or seeing glimpses of other players walking around or dying, but is really geared to be a solo experience. A game like that walks a fine line between MMORPG and...well, just RPG.
Oh, btw guys, I solved my dilemma. Pokemon Soul Silver came out, and I am reliving my childhood through my DS. Don't fuck this one up, Nintendo!
(the girl in the middle is a pet)
God fuck dammit. I can't unsee that. You have ruined me.
Single player RPG's with an online component. Diablo 1/2, the Divine Divinity series, Titan Quest, Borderlands, Two Worlds...ect ect. What you described you wanted here isn't solely in MMO's.
You mean you dont want a small child as a pet for your burly warrior man? Korean Child Slave Fantasy Simulator Sword Combat Game AIKA!
At least it isn't a Transformers: Kiss Players MMO
What I liked about WoW was that you could solo all the quests in the overworld, but instances needed to be grouped to be done. Given an open world to do things in, people are generally going to rely on themselves to get things done, simply because you'll get things done faster most often. You're not waiting for your group to catch up (and likewise you're not falling behind if someone is rushing and you want to read the quest text), you're not recompleting quests for other people to get to where you are, you're not sharing loot and money, etc. But it is also worth noting that there is nothing in WoW's over world content stopping people from grouping, that option is still there if you want to do things with friends.
Then you have instances which provide structure to the group. They're linear, offer rewards to everyone in the form of quests, and there are some really fun boss fights and events that you'll only witness within the instance.
The only problem I have with the way things turned out, is it seems like WoW made the soloable stuff TOO good compared to the instances. It can become pretty tough to find instance groups at lower levels.
I still think that for an MMO to do well you have to have a slower leveling curve. I've played EQ, DAoC, WoW and WAR. With the exception of the first you can get from level 1-10 in one sitting, and very fast once you understand the mechanics of the game. This means your hard core players will be at endgame in a month and wanting new content in 3.
Leveling is when you build some of your strongest relationships with people not repeated runs through the same endgame content.
3DS FC: 5086-1134-6451
Shiny Code: 3837
This point cannot be understated. I remember when WoW first launched, and everyone was trying to figure the game out, leveling was a long process. These days you have all kinds of guides, add-ons, and streamlining that has really made leveling very efficient. However, I think this is where WoW has lost a bit of luster for that new player, and why we're seeing subscriptions for WoW flatline.
There's no compelling game to keep people moving along from 1-80 anymore. There is such a diversity in levels, that a huge gap exists between players. It's called "Level 80" and "Not Level 80". Most of us remember meeting lots of interesting people, playing in many different groups, and even moving through some different guilds as we journey to 60 (or 70 or 80). It's these experiences that built the social foundation for a fun end-game experience.
Now, people go through the content so fast, or see solo-ing and skipping group dungeons as the most efficient way to 80. However, once you get to 80 this way, there's a good chance you're lacking the social foundation to continue the game into the post-leveling content. The LFD tool was designed to give people a chance to get more and easier dungeon access, but since it's cross-realm, the chances of you actually grouping and forming a bond with other players on your own server is very slim.
Anyway, maybe this is the cycle WoW is trying to reboot with Cataclysm. Because right now, if you're not already level 80, starting at level 1 is possibly the worse thing you can do in WoW.
Though, this may not be possible in other MMO's that don't instance their missions as much as CoX.
Your point about Bioware is interesting- given their track record, we can assume that they've done some serious research into the desires of the gaming population. If they're puttting so much solo content into SWTOR, that probably means that there is a significant percentage of the MMO player base who find that option attractive.
I think there is a lot of Common Knowledge about MMO's that is probably false. For example, EvE is supposedly the home for the hardest of hardcore PvPers, but I recall that CCP released numbers showing that a majority of EvE players never voluntarily engage in PvP.
Rigorous Scholarship
This is true, and might be what brings me back with Cataclysm is released. I always preferred the leveling content. But the first wave goes by so fast, that if you miss it, you practically miss the game. And that was true at launch as well. I know because I remember hitting around level 20, and there were so many things going on and so many people everywhere, and then when I hit level 30 I decided to make a new character and start again. And while it's not like it is now, that first wave was now 20-30 levels ahead of me, and a lot of zones were near empty. And this was like a month or two after launch. I think it is almost unavoidable in MMOs.
As for building lasting e-friendships, I found most of them came about through pvp and battlegrounds (pre-cross server), and raiding for me. I think the worst thing WoW ever did was make pvp cross-server. There used to be people who were absolutely hated on my server, now no one cares. I think one big barrier stopping people from making new friends is that most of the cliques are already formed. Even when cataclysm launches and a ton of people start level 1 characters, they're going to group with people they already know. Meanwhile, I can't think of anyone I leveled with in pretty much any MMO. Not because I didn't group, but because even if you ended up forming a group with a random dude and playing for a whole day, there was always the chance that you would simply never play with them again. Maybe they re-rolled, or maybe one of you outleveled the other. Or maybe someone joined a guild and they're playing with guildmates instead.
Shit like that just didn't really happen when I quit brining my second shaman to the end game. Burned the hell out real quick because I was playing an essentially solo game trying to catch up with my friends to get to what had become the real point, raids.
It's like Blizzard is saying "yeah we know this level grinding sucks, so we're making it easier on you" instead of breathing new life into it or making it different in any way.
I'm with you. I have way more fun getting to the cap. Once I reach the cap and the endgame, I tend to get bored.
As far as rerolling goes, yeah clearly not as fun as the first time through. A fun SWTOR factoid, they insist that there is no overlap at all between quests for each of the eight classes. In fact, it looks like the storylines are intertwined but viewed from different angles, so that seems like it would really encourage playing through all eight classes to see all the storylines. Plus it's Bioware, so I have a lot of confidence their stories will actually be worth playing through.
Did you even read the very link you posted?
Having played MUDs in the 90's I can assuredly say you are full of shit. The cornerstone of design is that it is a multiplayer RPG with a persistent world. That is it. I log off, world keeps going. World is comprised of bunches of people. RPG elements. There yah go. Insisting that grouping is somehow a requirement of these games is moronic and has no basis in reality.
This was why i never enjoyed WoW. Everyone was in this race to get to the cap as quickly as possible. I didn't enjoy WoW's end game, it was too hardcore for me, what i do enjoy is questing and exploring. Maybe this is why i subbed to DDO back in the day for longer than i subbed in WoW, now DDO is free so thats different now. My 3 big MMO's i spent lots of time in were Guild Wars, DDO, and EvE Online.
It's a Catch 22 really. In Star Trek Online, someone could start today, and be at the exact same point I am in two weeks of hardcore playing. My ship is basically stacked from daily grind missions. On the other extreme, you have EVE where people have been developing skills for years, and can do pretty much whatever they want while even after a few months of hardcore playing, you'll still be hindered by the skill point differential. Striking that balance by doing something involving diminishing returns would make sense, but I haven't encountered a MMO yet that has really struck the point super well.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
You can start a new character and within about 4-5 months be flying, say, a t2 HAC (probably the most popular and powerful PVP ships) at about 90 -95% of the effectiveness of a player that has been playing since launch. Specializing in a less skill intensive ship would get you on even footing much faster.
Umm... I don't equate newbie with 4-5 months of play time.
To answer the question in the OP, shame on everyone else for not mentioning Puzzle Pirates! It's free (the core stuff is anyway), somewhat solo friendly, and if you want to, it can have as much political stuff as Eve.
Don't confuse language with mechanics. I'm talking about groups of players, not literally "Slayer Bob has invited you to a group". Playing with groups of people is what makes a game Multiplayer. It's the very definition of Multiplayer. Again, it's madness for anyone to argue otherwise.
Plus, what do you define as a "persistent world"? When I log off in WoW, people keep playing the game, but the world never changes. I log off at an Inn next to Bob the Innkeeper. I log back in a day later, and I'm right there, next to Bob the Innkeeper. Bob almost never changes. He's been in the same place doing the same thing for years now. Same thing with almost the entire World of Warcraft. Yes, the world is persistent, but it's also static. How is that any different from a single player game, like Dragon Age? I shut down my game in DA, boot it up 3 days later, and nothing in the world has changed.
Except the players. That's it. That's the only thing that changes. That large (or small) group of players in the game is all that changes. If you ask anyone what the difference between X server and Y server is, it all boils down to the players, because each version of WoW is exactly the same. And this holds true for every single MMO out there.
And yes, content patches are added, and things do change. But again, that's not any different then Bioware releasing new content for DA, a single player game. Additional content may be a good business model, but it's not inherent to the design of an MMO, like the consideration of how groups of players, large and small are interacting with each other.
And furthermore, even in these descriptions of "solo" game play, you're still dependent on interaction with other players. A lot of people in this thread have stated they enjoy playing a MMO completely solo, but like the feeling that there's a living world working around them. That feeling can only come from the actual players, not just the game world. Again, I point to games like Fable and Oblivion, where there is a living, albeit it, completely generated world going on around you. But it's fake and you can't escape that feeling.
However, when you populate the game with with a massive number of players, you create the sense of a truely dynamic world, whether that world is static and unchanging (WoW) or has elements that are in constant flux (EVE). But ultimately, these all boil down to the mechanics and design inherent in bringing together an experience shared by multitudes of people. Hence, the MMO genre.
So I stand by my statement. The cornerstone of an MMO is the concept of playing with large groups of other players. Whether or not you chose to actively or passively play with the other people is your decision. But you cannot deny how those interactions (or lack of) as a key design concept.