But you can solo in Call of Duty and Battlefied.

You can choose to solo and you can choose to play a a team.  Funny enough, just like an MMO.

So I agree with the definition of muliplayer, it just means you can, you have the opportunity for group play. 

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

But you can solo in Call of Duty and Battlefied.

You can choose to solo and you can choose to play a a team.  Funny enough, just like an MMO.

So I agree with the definition of muliplayer, it just means you can, you have the opportunity for group play. 

Not in a multiplayer game you can't. What are you going to do? Stand there and whine when someone starts shooting you? "Hey, I want to play on my own here!". The single player campaign is solo, when you play with or against other people, that's multiplayer.

But the game themselves still let you do it solo. 

The point is the game lets you do it.  You can do it solo or you can do it with a team.  That is a team based game. 

I don't think multiplayer has ever meant MUST interact, it has always meant CAN and maybe SHOULD interact.

@Cephus,

I can and have pointed to any number of games that are focused on group/cooperative based play and have been commercialy successfull enough to support themselves. Heck, I can even point to commercialy operated text based MUD's (eg SIMUTRONICS) that still have larger subscriber bases and more monthly income then some of the smaller MMO's.   You're response tends to be " well, I don't consider them MMO's, so they don't count."   Honestly, at this point I think you are purposefully dismissing valid examples simply for the sake of dismissing them, perhaps because you feel your prefered play style will be threatened?

Not only are there existing examples of sustainable games which are focused on group/cooperative based play...there are new ones being bankrolled right now.

SOE is about to release Planetside2

Paizo, through Goblinworks is building Pathfinder Online

CCP is working on World of Darkness...which given CCP's model is likely to be heavly focused on player interaction.

I could go on. I'm not saying group/cooperative play is going to be the "wave of the future." or anything like that...but if you are saying that such games lack sufficient audience to support themselves... you've already been proving wrong, repeatedly....and some pretty significant gaming exec's seem to be betting on you being wrong in future as well.

VengeSunsoar,

You can't really play the Battlefield games, etc online "solo" because they have absolutely no PVE content. You are playing with or against other players DIRECTLY.  You may not be "joining a squad." or communicating with said players...but your play is DIRECTLY affecting and affected by thier play.  Also, you and your sides chances of success are SIGNIFICANTLY reduced if you aren't coordinating your activties. Some of those titles are so team focused that they have an auto-join squad feature built in and have set it as the default for players preferences.

Note: That I don't believe many of us who have advocated group/cooperative based play have held the position that you MUST literaly join a group the moment you login to a game before you can proceed. We've simply advocated that not interacting with other players will SIGNIFICANTLY hinder your ability for success and the practical options available to you. Which is PRECISELY what happens with "lone wolfs" in FPS games like Battlefield.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

 

VengeSunsoar,

You can't really play the Battlefield games, etc online "solo" because they have absolutely no PVE content. You are playing with or against other players DIRECTLY.  You may not be "joining a squad." or communicating with said players...but your play is DIRECTLY affecting and affected by thier play.  Also, you and your sides chances of success are SIGNIFICANTLY reduced if you aren't coordinating your activties. Some of those titles are so team focused that they have an auto-join squad feature built in and have set it as the default for players preferences.

Note: That I don't believe many of us who have advocated group/cooperative based play have held the position that you MUST literaly join a group the moment you login to a game before you can proceed. We've simply advocated that not interacting with other players will SIGNIFICANTLY hinder your ability for success and the practical options available to you. Which is PRECISELY what happens with "lone wolfs" in FPS games like Battlefield.

Oh I didn't say that it wouldn't be hard, or that it wouldn't suck.  But it can be done, might be a terrible game play experience but it can still be one. 

I agree that it will significantly hinder your ability for success.  And in that type of game it should.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
 

Oh I didn't say that it wouldn't be hard, or that it wouldn't suck.  But it can be done, might be a terrible game play experience but it can still be one. 

I agree that it will significantly hinder your ability for success.  And in that type of game it should.

How can you have a match in an online shooter (team based) in which you have zero interaction or impact on/from another player?

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
 

Oh I didn't say that it wouldn't be hard, or that it wouldn't suck.  But it can be done, might be a terrible game play experience but it can still be one. 

I agree that it will significantly hinder your ability for success.  And in that type of game it should.

How can you have a match in an online shooter (team based) in which you have zero interaction or impact on/from another player?

The same way that you would in an PvP mmo that people are always saying you can have zero interaction. You can't. 

You don't need to talk with anyone, or speak with anyone or team with anyone.  But in an MMO pvp world there will be some level of interaction or impact. 

So if people think that is soloing in a pvp MMO than I guess it's soloing in a pvp shooter.  The definition works both ways.

---------

But in reality the games offer a solo mode.  At least CoD does.  And you can play in solo survival mode. 

Thats what I am saying.  The game lets you play both ways.  Solo and with a team. 

Also I am saying a team based game is a subgroup of mulitplayer and not the definition of multiplayer, and I'm saying it has always been this way.

-

Some would argue that the free for all mode in CoD is the same as soloing in a pvp mmo.  I sure would. 

There are more ways of interacting than grouping.  This is whay we have always and will continue to say.  Grouping does not define multiplayer, and multiplayer does not mean grouping.  Just interaction. 

It really depends on what I'm doing. PvE I solo, PvP I don't mind grouping up.

In PvE I find the only reason why I need to group up is because the enemy has more HP or better gear than me. Not that the AI is more skillfull.

If AI becomes human like then I may group up for PvE, as I may feel like I have accomplished something.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

But you can solo in Call of Duty and Battlefied.

You can choose to solo and you can choose to play a a team.  Funny enough, just like an MMO.

So I agree with the definition of muliplayer, it just means you can, you have the opportunity for group play. 

No the difference is that you CAN play the singple player campaign but it will always be nothing more than single player. If you chose to play multiplayer in CoD it can never be anything else but multiplayer. It is the same as if I was to chose a private game on battle net in Diablo 2 while playing alone. Yes battle net enables multiplayer but if I am playing in my own game I am still playing single player even if it is online.

Multiplayer has and always will mean that another player(s) is directly involved in your gameplay experience. In the same way you cant PvP solo you cant group or raid PvE solo and thats just the way it is. You cant have multiplayer without it dictating that other players are directly involved.

You can play single player in CoD campaign but it will always be single player, it wont be multiplayer untill you go online and join matches. The same waya  MMORPG is and always wills be a multiplayer game with groups and raids, you can solo some quests and what not but soloing in a MMORPG will never be multiplayer gameplay.

---

Originally posted by UsualSuspect

---

Originally posted by Cephus404   I wish someone would make an MMO with decent people playing it.  I just know that won't happen, that any MMO I play will continue to be populated by mental midgets and obnoxious assholes so I just don't play.  Nobody owes me the game I want to play.  I can still want it, I just know that it won't happen.

---

What you actually need to play then is a group orientated game, as it's actually been proven that the more solo oriented the gameplay the more of a dick the player becomes.

http://www.gamefront.com/study-team-gamers-less-likely-to-be-jerks/

I've been saying this for a long time - you can probably find it in one of my many posts in this oversized thread - that the more solo orientated a game becomes, the more the community suffers. It seems a study has proven me right.

---

Of all the posts here, this is the one I wish to quote. Cephus' subsequent post, "casting a wider net will yield more bottom-feeders" flits with brilliance as well.

/agree!!

Originally posted by CorvusCorax

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

But you can solo in Call of Duty and Battlefied.

You can choose to solo and you can choose to play a a team.  Funny enough, just like an MMO.

So I agree with the definition of muliplayer, it just means you can, you have the opportunity for group play. 

No the difference is that you CAN play the singple player campaign but it will always be nothing more than single player. If you chose to play multiplayer in CoD it can never be anything else but multiplayer. It is the same as if I was to chose a private game on battle net in Diablo 2 while playing alone. Yes battle net enables multiplayer but if I am playing in my own game I am still playing single player even if it is online.

 

Multiplayer has and always will mean that another player(s) is directly involved in your gameplay experience. In the same way you cant PvP solo you cant group or raid PvE solo and thats just the way it is. You cant have multiplayer without it dictating that other players are directly involved.

 

You can play single player in CoD campaign but it will always be single player, it wont be multiplayer untill you go online and join matches. The same waya  MMORPG is and always wills be a multiplayer game with groups and raids, you can solo some quests and what not but soloing in a MMORPG will never be multiplayer gameplay.

I disagree.  Soloing has almost always been considered not grouping, not just not having any impact or no interaction.  People talk about grouping.

Therefore if I play a MMO pvp and do not group I'm still playing solo.   Just like joining a free for all CoD.  I'm not grouped, therefore it's solo.  That is the same definition people apply to MMO's.

They say not grouping, only when it's pointed out that there are other ways to interact do they change the definition to no interacton or at all which is just silly. 

It is my understanding that all these threads of the format This vs That tend to quickly degenerate into an endless exchange of "things should be like this" or "they are intrinsecally meant to be that way" responses, instead of the discussion about the advantages and disadvantages that come with each of the options (and optionally how to avoid the latters). Truth is there are (and always will be) players who like soloing, players who like grouping and players who like both; there are people who enjoy the challenge of an unforgiving world where grouping is almost mandatory (and the sense of community that tends to bring with it), while other people dislike that approach in favor of going through the world solo (while still enjoying being surrounded with other players, or interacting with them in other ways).

There's absolutely nothing wrong or selfish with any approach. There's room, and market, for every kind of MMO: be it solo-friendly, group-only, or a mix of the two in whatever manner you want to imagine. MMO is a game mode allowing multiple people to play it at the same time with the grade of interaction they choose; the rest of the meaning implied by that acronym we give it ourselves, and is different for everyone.

This said, I can understand how the people partial to purely group-oriented gameplay feel frustrated in view of the current gaming panorama (which admittedly lacks any strong titles in that direction), and the players who prefer solo react to that discontent defensively because it seems as if the others were pressing for an undesired change in the existing games they enjoy.

However, I think there's room for optimism here. The enormous success of World of Warcraft (very solo-friendly in many ways) in the last decade started a proportional wave of titles that tried to follow its success by adopting its gameplay style. The failure of this trend (and I use failure very loosely: those games still made huge money, just not as much as intended) only became apparent about 4-5 years ago (which conicidently is the typical development time of most MMORPGs). It is my belief that soon we will start to see a wider variety in the MMO selection, better suiting the different audiences willing to buy them.

Originally posted by Arclan

 

---

Originally posted by UsualSuspect

---

Originally posted by Cephus404   I wish someone would make an MMO with decent people playing it.  I just know that won't happen, that any MMO I play will continue to be populated by mental midgets and obnoxious assholes so I just don't play.  Nobody owes me the game I want to play.  I can still want it, I just know that it won't happen.

---

What you actually need to play then is a group orientated game, as it's actually been proven that the more solo oriented the gameplay the more of a dick the player becomes.

 

http://www.gamefront.com/study-team-gamers-less-likely-to-be-jerks/

I've been saying this for a long time - you can probably find it in one of my many posts in this oversized thread - that the more solo orientated a game becomes, the more the community suffers. It seems a study has proven me right.

---

 

Of all the posts here, this is the one I wish to quote. Cephus' subsequent post, "casting a wider net will yield more bottom-feeders" flits with brilliance as well.

/agree!!

 

That was me, not Cephus, but thanks.

Originally posted by Ninethousand

It is my understanding that all these threads of the format This vs That tend to quickly degenerate into an endless exchange of "things should be like this" or "they are intrinsecally meant to be that way" responses, instead of the discussion about the advantages and disadvantages that come with each of the options (and optionally how to avoid the latters). Truth is there are (and always will be) players who like soloing, players who like grouping and players who like both; there are people who enjoy the challenge of an unforgiving world where grouping is almost mandatory (and the sense of community that tends to bring with it), while other people dislike that approach in favor of going through the world solo (while still enjoying being surrounded with other players, or interacting with them in other ways).

There's absolutely nothing wrong or selfish with any approach. There's room, and market, for every kind of MMO: be it solo-friendly, group-only, or a mix of the two in whatever manner you want to imagine. MMO is a game mode allowing multiple people to play it at the same time with the grade of interaction they choose; the rest of the meaning implied by that acronym we give it ourselves, and is different for everyone.

This said, I can understand how the people partial to purely group-oriented gameplay feel frustrated in view of the current gaming panorama (which admittedly lacks any strong titles in that direction), and the players who prefer solo react to that discontent defensively because it seems as if the others were pressing for an undesired change in the existing games they enjoy.

However, I think there's room for optimism here. The enormous success of World of Warcraft (very solo-friendly in many ways) in the last decade started a proportional wave of titles that tried to follow its success by adopting its gameplay style. The failure of this trend (and I use failure very loosely: those games still made huge money, just not as much as intended) only became apparent about 4-5 years ago (which conicidently is the typical development time of most MMORPGs). It is my belief that soon we will start to see a wider variety in the MMO selection, better suiting the different audiences willing to buy them.

Well, this is pretty much what I've been saying.  We need to stop trying to be WoW with every subsequent MMO in the genre, and start focusing on niche gameplay.  Instead of having every game focused on catering to the solo players, we need to have MMOs that do that, but also have MMOs that cater primarily to group play.  The first games in the genre were group-only really (with the notable exception of UO but that's a different beast altogether), and they were obviously successful enough to spawn an entire genre worth of successors.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

I disagree.  Soloing has almost always been considered not grouping, not just not having any impact or no interaction.  People talk about grouping.

Therefore if I play a MMO pvp and do not group I'm still playing solo.   Just like joining a free for all CoD.  I'm not grouped, therefore it's solo.  That is the same definition people apply to MMO's.

They say not grouping, only when it's pointed out that there are other ways to interact do they change the definition to no interacton or at all which is just silly. 

Soloing is doing everything yourself, hence the word solo. There are posts on here about how soloers want to be able to do raids or group content alone. It's about not involving the other players or them interfering with your actions. Where we come to MMO pvp and not grouping, you're thinking you're playing solo, but you're really not. You look at the other players, consider their locations and actions, work out the best plan of attack based on what they're doing, you are therefore directly influenced by the actions of the other players. Just because a technical invention called 'grouping' exists and you're not in said group doesn't mean you're not playing multiplayer. You attack another player, that's multiplayer. You can't play solo and still affect or be affected by other players.

Basically, the solo player in an MMO wants to be able to play the equivalent of a single player campaign. Why they join an MMO is beyond me, why play a multiplayer game at all if you have no interest in involving the rest of the playerbase? The only argument I've seen for this is that MMO's are so very large and are constantly updated. So, much like the solo personality, it's all about self, Cephus' description of, "Me! Me! Me!".

Once again I disagree.  Soloing has primarily only referred to those who don't group and thats it.  Yes they want to do the raids/dungeons things on their own.  Thats soloing.

It has never meant anything to do with pvp, it has never meant anything to do with buying/selling, auctioning, crafting, role playihng.... or any other hundred activities that people do in MMO's.  It has only referred to people who don't group.

So you don't group in an MMO your considered soloing, thne not grouping in CoD is still soloing. 

It is just as faulty for the one as it is for the other.

There are many many more activites to do, than just grouping. 

I think the best method is catering to group play first.

I say this because it is an MMO.  If you want solo play go play a RPG.  Although I agree there are other aspects of an MMORPG that are beneficial for example you may not enjoy farming for tradeskill items but you do like to tradeskill so buying from other players is beneficial.  But in general, I don't think that is why we choose to play many games... maybe Sims Online I could understand that logic for?

But at the same time there needs to be a means of solo content.  However, soloing should be much less efficient and rewarding.  IMO it should be what somebody would do when they are

1. Well geared/skilled and can do content the less geared/skilled players need groups for.

2. Are LFG.

3. Do not have time to search for a group but need something to do in the mean time.

4.  Need a break from grouping.

Originally posted by CorvusCorax

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

But you can solo in Call of Duty and Battlefied.

You can choose to solo and you can choose to play a a team.  Funny enough, just like an MMO.

So I agree with the definition of muliplayer, it just means you can, you have the opportunity for group play. 

No the difference is that you CAN play the singple player campaign but it will always be nothing more than single player. If you chose to play multiplayer in CoD it can never be anything else but multiplayer. It is the same as if I was to chose a private game on battle net in Diablo 2 while playing alone. Yes battle net enables multiplayer but if I am playing in my own game I am still playing single player even if it is online.

 

Multiplayer has and always will mean that another player(s) is directly involved in your gameplay experience. In the same way you cant PvP solo you cant group or raid PvE solo and thats just the way it is. You cant have multiplayer without it dictating that other players are directly involved.

 

You can play single player in CoD campaign but it will always be single player, it wont be multiplayer untill you go online and join matches. The same waya  MMORPG is and always wills be a multiplayer game with groups and raids, you can solo some quests and what not but soloing in a MMORPG will never be multiplayer gameplay.

I agree with this post.

Originally posted by phantomghost

I think the best method is catering to group play first.

 

I say this because it is an MMO.  If you want solo play go play a RPG.  Although I agree there are other aspects of an MMORPG that are beneficial for example you may not enjoy farming for tradeskill items but you do like to tradeskill so buying from other players is beneficial.  But in general, I don't think that is why we choose to play many games... maybe Sims Online I could understand that logic for?

 

But at the same time there needs to be a means of solo content.  However, soloing should be much less efficient and rewarding.  IMO it should be what somebody would do when they are

1. Well geared/skilled and can do content the less geared/skilled players need groups for.

2. Are LFG.

3. Do not have time to search for a group but need something to do in the mean time.

4.  Need a break from grouping.

/agree