| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
| Solo vs Group: Bitter Enemies or Long Lost Friends? @ GamerG |
|
GamerGod's Vanguard subsite has a piece called <a href="http://www.gamergod.com/article.php?article_id=3736&fansite_id=118" target="_blank">Solo vs Group: Bitter Enemies or Long Lost Friends?</a>:<blockquote><em>Why would anyone want to solo in a massively multiplayer game? That is a question often heard in the Solo vs. Group debate. Yet, with each new game, the question persists: Will we be allowed to solo?
<br>
<br>There are players who maintain soloing will destroy any massively multiplayer game. If players are allowed to solo, there won’t be groups, and if there aren’t groups, there isn’t a community. There are other players who insist a character should be able to solo the entire time and have the same experience as anyone else. As is often the case, the truth is found somewhere in the middle.</em></blockquote> |
Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:31 pm |
|
|
Loremaster
Village Leader
Joined: 31 Mar 2002
Posts: 88
Location: Hampshire, England |
Both the original article and the ensuing discussion fail to address two important issues central to the topic of soloing versus grouping.
First, no mention is made of those who want to solo most if not all of the time but who don't expect to achieve the same loot etc as those who group or indeed raid. Most of those who solo predominantly do not expect or demand to receive the best stuff, they just want their playstyle to be both viable and enjoyable.
Second, we're stuck in this debate with the same tired old cliches. Nowhere does anyone make the point that Massively Multiplayer does NOT mean grouped combat. It means that you will be playing in a persistent world occupied by other players, and it also means that there will plenty of ways to interract with other players beyond simply joining them in combat.
I very rarely group, I prefer to solo for combat for many reasons. Time constraints, bad experiences, the desire to overcome challenges on my own, a desire to quest, these are just some of the reasons. Yet every time I log in I interract with other players in various ways - chat, trading, helping, buffing, healing, and so on. I don't see being sociable as being about fighting in a group, I really don't!
Any developer looking to make a successful game in an ever more competitive marketplace would be wise to cater for every playstyle. There are plenty of examples of games where both solo and group play co-exist happily alongside each other - EQ and EQ2 being just a couple of them. The claim that EQ is not a solo-friendly game is simple nonsense. It always was and it has become ever more so. Often those who claim a game can't be soloed are those who have no inkling how to solo and couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag without 5 mates on hand to help  ! Diehard groupers don't make good soloers, and vice versa.
The majority occupy the middle ground and choose both to solo and to group, and do both equally comfortably. However, I'm all for games being designed for the two extreme minorities as well, and developers who choose not to do that will inevitably learn the hard way - as I expect Turbine to do with DDO although that game has the additional complication of charging a monthly subscription for a format that cries out to follow the Guild Wars model. |
|
Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:46 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I agree 100% Loremaster.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:14 am |
|
|
Lord_Brownie
High Emperor
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Unfashionable arm of the spiral galaxy |
Perfectly said, Loremaster.
LB |
|
Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:05 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
Excellent post.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:10 am |
|
|
methusala
Tempered Warlord
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
Posts: 281
Location: Odinwald |
Nicely put and I agree except for your mentioning that EQ and EQ2 were solo friendly as well as group friendly.I will not play a mmorpg that is not solo viable and I belong in the group that does not expect the same rewards for group play as compared to solo play.As long as I can solo my way through the game and level-up in a reasonable fashion,I am happy.That is not possible with either EQ or EQ2.
I challenge anyone to solo either mmorpg up to level limit in a reasonable amount of time.What I mean is that anyone can sit there and in 5 years get to level whatever.I mean solo the game.Seeing it all,exploring it,doing the dungeons,doing the Q's and doing it all by yourself.Sorry my friend,it can't be done in these 2 mmorpgs.
WoW, to me,is the most solo friendly mmorpg out there at this time.I have a 60 undead WL and I solo'd the whole way.The only thing I could not do was the instances at the lvl. they were meant to be done at.So I went back when I was strong enough to do them but even then there are at least 5 or 6 high level instances that are impossible to solo at lvl.cap.I doubt that I could do them even when they raise that cap to 70 but I will try.
In closing I would also like to add,in all humility, that I can fight my way out of a paper bag when I play.As a matter of fact,that bag dosen't stand a chance. |
|
Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:06 am |
|
|
roqua1
Guest
|
You're right. Wow was meant to be able to get to cap solo, eq wasn't. EQ2 has a lot of solo content though. DDO can be solo'd. I got to lvl 4 mostly solo. I would say every mmorpg can be solo'd.
But I would say AO is the most solo friendly. ANd also very group oreintated. AO gets a bad rap for some reason, when it really is a genius game.
I think we can all agree that there are mmorpgs that are geared towards solo, like wow or AO, and games that are not (DDO, DAOC, EQ, SB, ETC). |
|
Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:04 pm |
|
|
ToddMcF2002
Leader of the Senate
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 317
Location: Boston MA |
Damn thats alot of acronyms. Can someone verify them for me? Just want to be sure I'm following these posts because I'm looking for a solo friendly MMORPG.
DDO - Dungeons and Dragons Online
Wow - World of Warcraft
EQ - Everquest
EQ2 - Everquest2
DAOC - Dark Age of Camelot ???
AO - Anarchy Online ???
SB - Shadowbane ???
Also, does anyone play Lineage II or Ashertons Call 2? Any good for solo??? Any have active combat controls???
_________________
"For Innos!" |
|
Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:53 pm |
|
|
Loremaster
Village Leader
Joined: 31 Mar 2002
Posts: 88
Location: Hampshire, England |
Those are indeed the right names for the acronyms.
Asherons Call 2 is closed now. Lineage 2 is a long combat grind, it is soloable but it's also open PvP and bedevilled still I believe by gold farmers. I played it at launch and liked it, but the graphics look a bit jaded now. It has some of the loveliest music of any MMORPG. Movement is point and click.
Not sure what is meant by active combat controls. |
|
Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:16 pm |
|
|
ToddMcF2002
Leader of the Senate
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 317
Location: Boston MA |
Why is AC2 closed???
By active controls I mean Gothic - WASD + mouse. I'm really tired of all these click and watch games. I'm playing NWN right now and its getting sort of boring. 
_________________
"For Innos!" |
|
Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:00 pm |
|
|
methusala
Tempered Warlord
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
Posts: 281
Location: Odinwald |
AC2 is shut down because it was a poorly thought out mmorpg with not enough people willing to play it.As someone mentioned and I concur,WoW,AO and DAOC,in that order are probably the most solo friendly mmorpg's around right now.All 3 have WASD and right mouse movement and control. |
|
Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:26 pm |
|
|
ToddMcF2002
Leader of the Senate
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 317
Location: Boston MA |
I was under the impression that only DDO offered "active combat" meaning you actually would tumble, block and parry during melee combat - while the other MMO's were basically "spectator" types during combat. Can you elaborate?
_________________
"For Innos!" |
|
Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:35 pm |
|
|
methusala
Tempered Warlord
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
Posts: 281
Location: Odinwald |
In almost all mmorpg's that I have played,when I've played a melee type,parry,block,evade,etc were either part of the make-up of the char. or could be got as skills as you leveled up.More importantly after a block,parry,etc you oft times had a move in you repetoire that you could use to your advantage.I played a "Hero" in DAOC and had these skills as I lvl.
In WoW,as a warrior or roque,parry is a skill you can buy as you lvl. |
|
Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:03 am |
|
|
ToddMcF2002
Leader of the Senate
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 317
Location: Boston MA |
Thanks for that reply - that was exactly what I was looking for.
What in your opinion, killed AC2? I know nothing of the history there.
_________________
"For Innos!" |
|
Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:50 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:47 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
