Do you like card games? What about cute dragons like me? You should check out 
Long ago, when the MMORPG genre was young, cooperation between players was considered to be almost a necessity. If you were to roam about solo in Ultima Online, you would likely fall prey to a roaming band of player killers. Similarly, should you forgo companions in EverQuest, you would be greatly limited in what you could achieve. As the industry has matured not only has this notion been weakened, it is almost lost. Massively has asked bloggers to contribute to their Redefining MMOs series and I intend to put the shift from group to solo under the microscope.
EverQuest was not the first graphical MMO on the block but it was the title that really brought the genre to the attention of a lot of PC gamers. It added a new perspective on how these games should be played and opened up a world not unlike the ones many table top players experienced in AD&D. From the first moment you stepped out of a newbie zone you were encouraged to find complementary adventurers and form a band to increase your chance of success. It is this very mechanic that led to cries of the fictional “forced grouping” and the general negative reaction to having to depend on others to ensure your entertainment. These cries were so loud that developers took notice and began down a rather dangerous slope.
In each successive launch year the MMO industry has released games that reduce the need for other players’ assistance to progress. This in itself is not a negative thing. It is very natural and reasonable to want to be able to log in and achieve something without having to waste valuable time to find help. If the industry had stopped at this balance of group content being the focus with a solo option always existing our communities would be far stronger. Unfortunately we went well beyond that and the solo game changed from a choice if you picked a specific class to possible by virtually all classes. Eventually, developers saw soloing as being essentially mandatory so that any class played by any average player could reach max level without ever speaking to anyone else. Soloing is no longer considered an option but, instead, an unalienable human right. In many games it is the most effective way to level and grouping literally penalizes players due to poor experience splits and related mechanics. This seemed like a good plan business-wise but we are just now starting to see some of the negative effects.
The most obvious effect of creating a solo culture in MMOs is that players are less experienced when it comes to dealing with others in game. Most MMOs that offer the solo path to max level still focus on group and guild achievement at the top. The learning curve is far steeper for players that mostly soloed on the path to max level because they do not understand the synergy between classes and group dynamics. Who hasn’t heard a horror story about how one player ruined a perfectly good group or raid because they just didn’t get it? In truth, however, it is not the player’s fault. After all, how logical is it to encourage soloing as the best possible option for the first portion of a game, only to turn around and make grouping the only option at the end? If an MMO’s end game is raiding, grouping or team PvP, then it’s beginning content should reduce the emphasis on solo play and return that focus to grouping. Changing the focus in that type of game will also solve the issue of the dwindling community.
In my eyes and the eyes of many other “old” players, I know the sense of community within MMOs has been diminished over time. Solo players generally do not lay down the deep roots that group and guild players do. They don’t feel the need to join guilds since those organizations no longer offer them anything of value like they once could. Guilds used to ensure good groups, access to raids and numerous other perks. They helped players stay engaged with a game and literally built social connections that were as real and important as real life friendships. I know first hand just how strong those connections can be. I challenge any player to ask themselves if they’ve remained subscribed to an MMO longer simply because the idea of leaving their guild seemed wrong. This is not supposition for me but instead fact. Being the member of a guild and player in a community has kept me in multiple MMOs months longer than I would have stayed otherwise. Sanya Weathers has some data to back up that very point. In short, guilds and groups are good for business.
It is time that we stand up and ask for the second M back in MMORPG because I am tired of being in a world where I play around other players instead of with them. I am tired of spending countless hours alone because group content is so anemic that it is generally a waste of time compared to easily completed solo quests. Developers I ask you to bring back the glory of the group and ensure that they are the best way to achieve max level. Give us inducements to join guilds and remain with them. Keep that solo option there but only for when finding a group isn’t practical or is temporarily impossible. There are plenty of games that can be played solo only so take the chance and push back against the tide. In doing so you’ll empower guild leaders once more, energize your community, and help your bottom line. A player with strong roots has a hard time moving and a reduction in guild and game jumping benefits us all.
Consider discussing “Redefining MMOS: Removing Multiplayer from MMORPG” on the new Epic Slant Forum! You may also end an semail to Ferrel [at] mmology.org
You’ll get nothing but hearty agreement from me.
I second that motion
There are very few things in MMO design that aren’t zero sum. In other words innovation always tends to rob Peter to pay Paul.
While you could design a game that rekindles old school values of group-friendliness and community it is likely you will also redesign back in most of the problems games designed themselves away from in 2004.
Also another problem might be the community. In 2004 most gamers had a gaming and grouping background and the culture was solid enough that new people could be absorbed. Now – I’m not so sure. Having been an officer recently in a guild where people were extraordinarily apathetic I’m not sure whether you can take modern MMO players and turn them into EQ style guildies, people putting the guild first.
It may be that the period in the early 2000s we remember fondly was to some extent a never-to-be-repeated cultural phenomenon rather than something that can simply be designed back in.
I can totally accept and see the opinion that the situation might just be “different gamers” and “a different time.” It does seem that the MMO community, as it expanded, has begun to include less team players.
My thought, however, is that we’re stuck in a chicken and egg situation. This massive growth came with WoW. WoW is a solo friendly game. Are these players in question (not all WoW players) naturally not team members or have they been conditioned not to be?
My thinking is if you were rewarded best by grouping more players would group. People would seek to avoid pugs again and stick to the people they know and join/form guilds. Necessity can change behavior. Obviously this is just my theory but until someone steps up and stops making solo the preferable way to play we’ll never know.
I am not sure that this article matches the intention of the “redefining MMOs” contest. You’re basically saying “We should go back in time, not forward.” That’s decidedly not a redefinition in the evolutionary or revolutionary sense–which is the spirit of this contest, if I’m reading its description correctly–, but instead you’re favoring regression. In vertically-focused MMOs that have easy leveling curves that just require a significant time investment, forced grouping is ludicrous. I don’t see the industry shifting back in time again. Going towards elitist punishing gameplay is the opposite of what a mass market MMO (what we mean by the genre in general) would willingly do. Niche games might be able to successfully do this, but on a mass scale, the age of forced grouping has long passed and for good reason.
I would have to disagree that this doesn’t match the intention. To quote step 1:
“It should be generally about some aspect of how the genre has changed over the years, where you think it’s heading or even where you think it should be heading.”
The genre has changed over the years from a group focus to a solo one. It seems to be still heading in that directly and I think it shouldn’t.
“forced grouping is ludicrous”
Forced grouping is basically fiction and I did point out several times that the solo option would exist and be viable. Just not the -best method by which to level.- I never said it wouldn’t be a good one. The term “forced grouping” comes up whenever the solo play style is challenged. Forced anything means you can’t progress any other way. That isn’t what I suggested.
“Going towards elitist punishing gameplay”
When does advocating that grouping be viable or better than soloing constitute that?
Reference the Common MMO Myths article.
Yeah, their description is vague; more vague than I remembered. I assumed that this contest was about actually writing something about the progression of MMOs and how it should/will continue–a glimpse into the future. The “write something about how MMOs have changed” topic is, well, much less interesting.
And “forced grouping” is a hyperbolic statement. If you take it literally, you will find ZERO games that fit the description. It’s supposed to mean that the game is designed for grouping at all times. Everquest clearly had this mentality. D&D has a forced grouping mentality, as well, but it’s not difficult to run a solo adventure. Forced grouping doesn’t mean that soloing is impossible, it means that soloing is discouraged and less effective than grouping for the majority of the playerbase. You chose to pick the strictest definition that is basically a strawman in your “myths” article.
If you’re going to take that tack in general arguments about features, you’d contest the fact that roguelikes feature permadeath because you can copy the save files into a backup directory where they won’t be deleted when your character dies. Sure, it’s effectively not 100% certain that permadeath will be in effect, but the game intends for permadeath to be a mechanic and it is implemented as such. The exception makes the rule.
You’d also contest the fact that Shadowbane and Darkfall are PvP-centric games because some of their players never willingly engage in PvP and can avoid confrontation with other players almost indefinitely.
I got the general feeling from this post that your point was principally “the old ways are better because I have fond memories of them.” Your arguments tend to break when you consider that WoW-like games are built to suit a wide variety of people. This doesn’t necessitate people ever choosing to play in a guild, in challenging content, or even in a group at all. Arguing that grouping is best because people aren’t good at grouping in the endgame if they solo has no meaning for the masses that don’t care about grouping at endgame. And the majority of players don’t care about challenging group content enough for a change towards group-play throughout the game to be necessary.
You argue that the sense of community has diminished. That is definitely true, but is it a bad thing for games that aim for mass-appeal? A strong community is an exclusive one. Exclusivity drives non-gamers and the non-dedicated away from the game. Big MMOs want to be as inclusive as possible. Their aim is to make the community as weak as it can be to keep the hardcore players playing and no stronger. Soloing is more inclusive than grouping, so it will receive preference in the content that most people will play.
And now for a few minor points:
“If the industry had stopped at this balance of group content being the focus with a solo option always existing our communities would be far stronger.”
When did this balance happen? I have no idea. I have not once seen a game with this balance and I don’t think it’s even possible. Grouping has so many costs associated with it in contemporary MMOs that I don’t think you can offset those costs in a reliable way for more than a small subset of players without absolutely breaking grouping or soloing for everyone else. Different people require different motivators to get into a group. The reasons why people don’t group are myriad. Everyone has basically the same motivation to solo.
“I ask you to bring back the glory of the group and ensure that they are the best way to achieve max level. Give us inducements to join guilds and remain with them. Keep that solo option there but only for when finding a group isn’t practical or is temporarily impossible.”
Here, you’re saying first that you want grouping to be most effective, then that you want soloing to be as effective.
“Forced grouping doesn’t mean that soloing is impossible, it means that soloing is discouraged and less effective than grouping for the majority of the playerbase.”
Actually, that is again why I say it is a myth. If EQ1, the game we all use as an example, soloing was often far more effective and rewarding than grouping. The issue was that you had to pick from a limited options of classes. There is no forced grouping. Just limited choice.
By this same argument I can now say that games are using “forced soloing.” Grouping is generally less effective than soloing for anyone who likes that play style. You say the myth argument is a straw man but in this case it goes both ways easily. You can’t say one play style is forcing something while the other does the same. Yes I can group in these games, it is isn’t as effective and by your definition that is forced.
“I got the general feeling from this post that your point was principally “the old ways are better because I have fond memories of them.””
I limited my statement to only on grouping and not the whole EQ1 system. I listed two reasons I thought it was better. There was no “grass is greener” here. Reading more into it than there is doesn’t actually lessen my argument.
“You argue that the sense of community has diminished. That is definitely true, but is it a bad thing for games that aim for mass-appeal?”
Yes it is. Name one “mass appeal” MMO that has had the success of WoW. There isn’t one. Every mass appeal MMO since them has flared and then ended up in the 300,000 subscriber area. That number is about what we call a “niche” game. Mass appeal means getting a constant stream of people who only subscribe for a short period of time who are then replaced by more short timers. That hasn’t really seemed to work that well for the industry. It is time to look for an alternative.
“Here, you’re saying first that you want grouping to be most effective, then that you want soloing to be as effective.”
I’m not sure how you read that as that. I said -Keep that solo option there but only for when finding a group isn’t practical or is temporarily impossible.- The word “option” does not immediately contain the meaning “equally effective” and since I state “finding a group isn’t practical or is temporarily impossible” it should be fairly clear that one is more preferable. How that can be inferred as “say one thing and then say the other thing is equal I’ll never know.
I’ll grant you that forced grouping in EQ is a myth. How did it become such a widely spread concept if it was so false, though? The majority of players had to have some experience that led them to hold this belief.
“I limited my statement to only on grouping and not the whole EQ1 system. I listed two reasons I thought it was better. There was no “grass is greener” here. Reading more into it than there is doesn’t actually lessen my argument.”
You still have not made a real argument for stronger grouping aspects being objectively better for mass-market MMOs. You’ve provided some anecdotal feelings, but little in the way of actual reasoning.
“Yes it is. Name one “mass appeal” MMO that has had the success of WoW. There isn’t one. Every mass appeal MMO since them has flared and then ended up in the 300,000 subscriber area. That number is about what we call a “niche” game. Mass appeal means getting a constant stream of people who only subscribe for a short period of time who are then replaced by more short timers. That hasn’t really seemed to work that well for the industry. It is time to look for an alternative.”
And WoW has had its mass market success (and, according to you, the ONLY mass market success) via submarining community and making it unimportant! The majority of players are not in hardcore raiding guilds and just log on occasionally to play with their friends or solo in a low-stress environment. The evidence seems to point towards less community being better for profits–although there isn’t much evidence in general.
You didn’t actually disprove the reasoning I gave for why weaker communities make more profitable MMOs. That’s far more important than some very preliminary numbers that don’t have any proven causal relationship with the strength of community.
“I’m not sure how you read that as that. I said -Keep that solo option there but only for when finding a group isn’t practical or is temporarily impossible.- The word “option” does not immediately contain the meaning “equally effective” and since I state “finding a group isn’t practical or is temporarily impossible” it should be fairly clear that one is more preferable. How that can be inferred as “say one thing and then say the other thing is equal I’ll never know.”
We’ve been missing one another with terminology in the whole forced grouping debate. Might as well just give up on it. The way I define “viable options” and “forced” seems to be too different from your definitions for us to have useful discussion.
I place the blame on Blizzard first and publishers second. Blizzard did a good thing by opening up the genre to the mass market, one of the key ways in which they did so was by making soloing viable, but modern publishers have solidified soloing as the “unalienable right” you describe.
On one hand, “forced grouping” (a term I use only because it’s familiar) is annoying to those of the WoW generation because it’s foreign and violates that perceived “right.” On the other, it presents the player with a whole new set of experiences and connections that they would otherwise miss out on.
I think we’ve gone too far down the solo path and that the average player would benefit from having to group more. I’d even go so far as to say that when players are required to group earlier and more often that they develop better social interaction skills for the times when it really matters. In the end, you have a better game community and less PuG wariness.
I was a believer in the evils of “forced grouping” until I played Darkfall. For all of the issues and areas that the game needed improvement in, I still mark that time as some of the funnest in my MMO career because you could jump right in and do something with your guild as a team, regardless of your skill level.
Which brings me to a conclusion I’ve been bouncing around in my head for some time: the level based progression system is the natural enemy of group play. It prevents players from being able to play with their friends and get the most out of their social play experience. Even if they wind up grouping with their friends at some point, they’re more than likely going to be forced to alter their playstyle to match that of their friends via artificial limitation or playing more than what they would otherwise. Sidekick/mentor systems help to assuage this effect but it’s still only a bandage on a bigger underlying problem.
It really just means that we have all the more reason to look forward to games that step outside of level based game mechanics.
Good post, Ferrel.
Show me a single solo encounter/quest/zone in ANY game that has any challenge or difficulty to it at all and I’ll show you someone who is really bad at playing video games.
If I can go from level 1 to max level without ever saying a single word to another player (in a MMO) then that means two things:
1: The game I am playing is broken.
2: Why the hell am I playing a MMORPG if I don’t want to interact with anyone?
LMFAO! Buuncha never fails to amuse and delight =)
In a side note, I agree why play an MMO if you aren’t going to group? Might as well play a console game!
Why live a real life if you aren’t going to group? I mean, there are what, 6 *billion* people involved, they must all be there because they like playing with other people, right? Nobody ever thinks to do something *alone* with their life, right?
And if they do, they must be doing it wrong. Yeah, that’s it. Go play a console game, freaky emo loners.
It’s an honest question. Take EQ2 for example. Why would you play that game if you never wanted to group? The lore? The solo quests? The game world/character design? What motivates you to play that over God of War or Zelda or one of the KOTOR games?
Aye, it’s an honest question, but it’s been asked many times and *answered* many times. I’ve written several articles on it, Ysharros and Saylah have written about it, even Tobold has written about it. I’m pretty sure we’re not the only ones.
Go back to the real life example. Not everyone is an extrovert. Not everyone goes to the bathroom in herds. To a very large degree, nobody can be completely self-sufficient. There are too many interconnections in how our lives work, what with the economy, food production, power, health care and so on. Even so, many people don’t actively group up with others to get these things done.
Yes, we’ll go to the doctor’s to get a checkup or when we’re ill, but we don’t call them every day and do dailies with them. We might play volleyball or something with others weekly, but practice alone on the off days. More directly, we go to the store for groceries, but don’t think about the chain of people that it takes for that food to be available. We treat the cashier like an NPC. These *real people* are invisible to us in a lot of ways, but they affect our lives in profound ways, *even though we’re not grouping up with them directly*.
That’s the key. Indirect interaction is a huge part of what makes a world seem “alive” (even though no MMO world to date is really alive and changing; they are supremely static beasties). It’s that sense of other people *out there* doing their thing, running (or ruining) the economy, chasing their dreams (or their quest bounties), that give a world more feeling than a sterile theme park. A game like FFXII will have NPCs milling about, talking to other NPCs and such, all to give the game a sense of life. You never need to *group up* with those NPCs, but they contribute to the game world. Even in the real world, other people around doing their own things *completely independently* contribute in some way to how you perceive reality.
So yes, it does come back to an interest in the game world, the lore, the game mechanics and overall experience. There is a LOT more to an MMO than group content, at least if it’s realizing its potential as a fictional *place*. If all an MMO has to offer is group content, honestly, it’s underperforming.
There is so much more to a fully realized *world* than raids and people running around in groups. For one, people have different tastes. This is why it’s important for an MMO angling for the mainstream to have things like intelligent crafting suites and smart economies, including auction houses. It’s important to have a wide variety of *places* to visit. Not everyone will like Dalaran or Luclin. It’s important to have content for all levels of players, and all group sizes, even soloists, if only because of the wide variety of playstyles and preferences.
Assuming an MMO should be all about grouping and group content is just looking at a narrow slice of what an MMO really can be. It’s possible to make a viable game based on such an assumption, to be sure, but as in the real world, there’s more to life than hanging out. Some of the most important activities are undertaken solo, with one other person, or with a small group (family). Some important activities are definitely done in groups… just not everything.
Perhaps the issue is, once again, about terminology and assumptions. I’m operating under the assumption that these MMO things are meant to be living, interesting worlds to take part in at leisure. The “Massive” part of the acronym isn’t about hordes of players Zerging battlefields, but rather, about the scope of the world design and the participation of many players doing *whatever* they feel like, grouping or otherwise. Some approach MMOs as gaming lobbies where you meet up with mates (or try to find a mate) and do your thing.
Those are very different mindsets, and they profoundly influence how someone approaches the game and what they consider “normal” or “optimal” in game design.
The “Multiplayer” part of the acronym is the hangup, perhaps, and where the terminology has constrained the design and the player expectations. If it’s read as a mandate, then yes, I’m off my rocker. If it’s read as an option, then I maintain that it’s only a slice of the whole that an online persistent world really can be. Muckbeast has written about this before, proposing a new acronym (P.O.W.-Persistent Online World) to better reflect a different game design mentality.
It’s especially interesting to me that people have come to accept the mainstream as How Things Are, with nary a question for “How Things Could Be” rattling around. Again, to be sure, current game design can be fun, but it’s not what everyone wants, and what we now call an “MMO” isn’t all that can be done with online gaming in persistent worlds with multiple players.
I am a persistent online world enthusiast. There are almost none of them. EVE does this to some extent, and Darkfall tries.
There aren’t enough verbs in mainstream MMOs for soloing and grouping to have meaning and actually work together in a broader sense at changing the world. Your character is so limited in its capabilities that playing the game is primarily an ego-stroking session. You’re just spinning your wheels in the mud when you play theme-park games. Sure, it might be fun to hear the engine rev, but nothing’s actually happening once you look out the window. Right now, there’s only one path to go down in mainstream MMOs: that’s the path with all the mud on it. If more verbs are added to the gameplay, there will necessarily be paths where players can make real progress and change the course of events for thousands. The way those paths interact will create living, changing worlds that have a lot of meaning for those who play.
Well, this is a bit late but to answer the question about why play an MMO rather than a single-player game if you are going to play by yourself, it’s because a MMO still offers things that a single-player game doesn’t.
For one thing it’s constantly changing and expanding. Single player games, even if they have expansions, end. There’s usually a linear path and you pretty much have to follow it to get through the game. MMOs offer you many options for how you progress through the game and no matter how quickly or slowly there are many things you could do in a given play period.
Also, even if you don’t like to actually play with other people, it doesn’t mean you don’t enjoy the social interaction. I like the casual chat of dedicated channels and casual guilds while I play. I’m a person who rarely has enough time to play to do group activities like raids, instances or grouping for quests. Sometimes I can only sign on for 20-30 minutes at a time. But it’s still nice to have people to chat with as I play for fun. I can’t do that in Fable, or whatever other game I play instead.
But even that is secondary to the massive, and constantly expanding world that will always be there with new things to do. If they invent a solo game like that which never ends, has such a wide variety of things to do and modes to play in, where I can take a character through a storyline of my choosing and not the game’s, and make multiple characters that all have a different experience, then yeah, I’ll play it in a second.