“About half our player base is more interested in playing through the story than playing online!”

One more point. Reading is not a multiplayer experience. This is why story has never played a big role in MMOs. Even the most literate and lore-hungry RPG'er can be seen clicking through most quest dialogs when grouped. Something happens when you are with a group of people and trying to read the same thing together: it's awkward and just doesn't work. No one wants to sit around and wait for someone else to read something, and many people do not want to hold up their groups reading something while everyone else is waiting. Not a good fit. Just try and imagine what it would be like in a classroom with everyone trying to read the same book at once while one person controlled turning the pages.

I myself thoroughly enjoy story in a good single player RPG (I still get emotional when I think of my first run through Planescape: Torment, or System Shock I), and I remain a fastidious consumer of the lore side of my content. But I must confess, when I'm with a group of my friends playing an MMO, I join them in skipping through the dialogs, promising myself I will go back and read them later. Alas, I almost never do. Maybe this game will give me that opportunity.

So mixing story with an MMO is always going to be problematic and hasn't been very successful to date. Perhaps the emphasis on having an offline SP mode is tacit recognition of that fact.

 

I think single player online will work for me for the reasons you describe. I can level at my own pace and still jump over to friends online or MPO and play around if I want to. I aim to do all the content in Single player online first, Thats why I ask the questions I do: Can we do all the content in Single player online? I often get ridiculed for my stances but they are my stances and I am my own man. I do not subscribe to group think to often.

 

Trying to figure this out.

Do you put a live stream of you and your wife in bed on Google Hangouts?

 

I do not know about the rest so I will speak for myself, what attracted me was the Online side.. I never play single mode, Although what would be fun for me if I could go through a single player story mode to end out the story in a MMO. ( This is sort of what Star Citizen will be doing with s42 and the PU ).

There is obviouly a good online side as the pots are a clear indication of that. I hope they can find a way to satisfy all players of this community.

 

I want just a little bit more, I want all content in Single player online to be able to be done. When they pitched this game it was Single player offline, single player online, Friends online OR MPO. The use of the word OR implies that we should be able to do all content in said mode.

 

That's not really the right analogy. Better question would be whether I enjoy sex more with my wife or with my hand. I think you know the answer and, for much the same reasons, duo'ing with her in MMOs is much more fulfilling and fun than sitting in a room by myself playing a SP game. The point is that the best things in life are those we can share with others.

 

Yea, I just think you need to cool it on the analogies a bit, because there were a bunch of mixed messages going on there. On the one hand, humans are social beings that want to share their experiences with all their friends, but on the other hand, you're talking about a private moment that the couple isn't sharing, and the thing that makes it so special is that its private and not shared. They're enjoying the moment because they're not sharing it with others. There are a lot of activities people enjoy doing alone, too, and enjoy them because they're doing them alone. There's a joy to being alone, just like there's pleasure in being with others.

I think its a lot simpler, anyway. Single player games will always be popular for the same reason books, movies, listening to music, going to museums will always be popular. There are things people do alone, and they don't always share what they're doing with others. I mean, I guess there are people who tell everyone what book they're reading; but not everyone does.

And just for the record, I disagree. Humans aren't particularly social beings. What makes humans what they are is that they can choose to be want they want. There are some humans that are particularly social, and there are some humans that are loners. Most I don't fit squarely into either category.

But none of that is really the point. I think its silly to say SotA wouldn't have met funding as a single player game when there have been many single player games funded over Kickstarter and there are many single player games doing well right now on the market. Given that, you sound as if you're creating a sociological model to justify your gaming preferences.

 

I want to be able to experience the story like I have in the past as a solo character. However, I also want to be able to continue the experience online with others when I have the opportunity.

 

I would not compare the MMO experience with having sex, simply for the fact that you are still alone in your room.
Social interaction is more than talking or interacting with people across the internet. Social interaction is also interacting with people eye to eye.
I think this picture demonstrates what I want to say:

 

I disagree.

I consider it 1/2 of the game. I have two characters (leaving aside the 2nd and 3rd alt and thinking in terms of basic $45 adventurer Steam product): one offline, one online.

That's the only two game modes for me.

Single online, friends online, open online are just options for the online mode.

I disagree, strongly.

First because it shows ignorance of true game roots. Before "One Player Age" there was the original PVP age, when computing power was nowhere near being able to implement PVE, AI, or even a basic "game world". Pong, Space War, Combat - all games born to let two players duke it out, and only marginally "play against the computer".

Second because it shows ignorance of what the actual focus of online multiplayer is (or should be). Fostering links with people using games as an excuse. In my not-so-limited experience, I played and keep playing with my family members (dad, mom, bro+inlaw) in online games, and we can play from home, but at the usual lunch at my parents on sunday, the more heated the "gaming week", the more hilarious the interaction between my family of nerds. When we were all playing D2LOD, NWN, WOW (on private server) or D3ROS, were the times we had the best family moments of all our adult (and thus, physically distant) lives.

Third because it shows true ignorance of how interacting with people all over the world, focusing on a common goal and/or against a common enemy (either human or programmed), and eventually meeting them in person (at conventions, meet ups, fanfests, or simply all the people of the same city going out for a pizza) is the true motivator of some of the most incredible moments of the history of videogames, that no other offline/single/limited multi experience can offer.

Listen to these voices (real, unedited ones, I've been in an humongus lot of similar ones, and they ARE what that game is really about), and tell me the "social fun" is absent:

 

Ah. You always get me with eve trailers.
Always.

 

The very point is: that's not a trailer.

 

I know that.
No worries ;-)

 

The sexual analogies here are entirely inappropriate. It should be clear why. Maybe if you spent more time alone thinking through them, you'd realize why....

 

"About half our player base is more interested in playing through the story than playing online!"

All social interactions and especially online interactions have the potential, no matter how small, to be negative.
In light of that, most people would choose to reduce their risk, if that's a viable option.
And no, multi-player with strangers is not always better or more fun. It may be more rewarding in the monetary/skinner-box sense, but not always in the human interaction sense.
PUG's are notorious, for the same reason a D20 is notorious.

 

Actually, that's not true here in Australia. If the item I've paid for doesn't match the final product, I get every dollar back...

I've already had one $160 AUD Kickstarter completely refunded when the final product was a complete failure and was missing half the promised items and features.

Not that I'm planning that here, but that option is very real.

 

Those of you who are getting hung up on the "inappropriate" sexual analogies might want to stop and consider why it bothers you. Anyway, if sex is too volatile a topic to bring up, forget I mentioned it and just consider the underlying point. Many of the things we do alone are indeed fun, duh. But there is something magical about sharing fun with others. Of course human beings are social, any anthropologist will tell you that. We congregate and tell stories to each other and love to perform. Dancing on tables is not done alone, and player events are non existent in Skyrim. Yes, we enjoy a good book, we will always pay a premium for convenience, but I think a case could be made that most people (not all, to be sure) enjoy a movie a lot more. As a whole, we prefer to eat with others, to go out with others, and to game with others. Multiplayer gaming is a categorically different experience than single player gaming. Both have their benefits and downsides, but I don't think they are so interchangeable that you could launch a Kickstarter to create a multiplayer game and then deliver a single player only and expect to have it greeted with the same enthusiasm.

Garriot's experience is unique because he has such a large and loyal fanbase of players who grew up on his single player games so, yes, there are plenty who would be entirely happy with a SP only game. But who here really thinks they could get away with that in this context? No, they are committed at this point to delivering a multiplayer gaming experience that most would agree will be called an MMO and will have many of the features that an MMOs has.

And Dean78, Ok, in Australia your Kickstarter investment is refundable. That's besides the point because the fact that you can get a refund does not equate to Portalarium being "bound" to create an MMO. They can take money for an MMO and deliver a SP game if they want and they may be subject to refunds and complaints but, under existing the Kickstarter terms that I'm familiar with, they are not obligated to deliver what they originally described. They may be subject to fraud charges if it can be proved that they set out to defraud backers but, barring that, the whole point of Kickstarter is to give developers the freedoms to innovate at their own pace and in their own way, in a way that publishing houses would never tolerate. With that freedom comes the freedom to choose to change course, with no legal recourse. In Australia and probably other places maybe a few refunds will occur, that will simply be the cost of their choice, which they remain able to make at will.

 

I don't have a 'problem' with the sexual analogies, but I do disagree with them. However many people you can point to and say, 'they prefer sexual orgies over masturbation', I could point to at least as many, probably more, who prefer masturbation alone over sex in large numbers.

It all comes down to personal preference, and I don't think anyone can argue that humanity as a whole prefers one over the other, so the basis of this argument seems flawed. I haven't seen any statistics that show extroverts outnumber introverts or vice-versa.. all I know is they both exist, and most of us are a bit of each. I also believe both are important, and neither experience is better than the other. So I'm glad SotA is catering to both. Let's not argue over which is better or which will make Portalarium more money. Well, that's my take on it anyhow. I prefer to agree with the OP & title, 50/50. That keeps it fair. Thanks for your time.

 

Actually, reading through the Kickstarter page and the comments there (and also reading Garriotts own words that half of the player base is here for the story and playing alone) made me think that many pledged because they thought that SotA would (also) be a spiritual successor to Ultima 7. So if SotA would now just be a MMO and the offline single player part would either be cut or made into an afterthought, many would be disappointed and angry.
Maybe they could not get their money back in some countries but there would be huge backlash on the internet. I am sure that even gaming websites would report about this in a negative way. So I think it would be a really bad idea if Portalarium would not create a true and deep single player experience, too.

 

And why shouldn't they?
There are already unique scenes for it.