I'm not sure why anyone would want to pay $$$ for an online game and then expect to be able to play it solo? Wouldn't you be better off with something like Oblivion, Dungeon Siege, NWN, Vampire, etc. as these are all offline games.

Aside from all that, the premise of DDO was group dynamics. Unfortunately, the group system does not work well and many people spend forever trying to pick up a group. Joining a guild is the easy solution.

IMHO if Turbine wants to make DDO successful, they need to return to the roots of D&D and focus on the social aspect of the game. More content, rather than tweaking existing content would help.

Perhaps Turbine should read (or re-read if they ever bothered) the D&D FAQ:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/whatisdnd

I'm afraid they are scrambling because they know in just a few months a monster called Neverwinter Nights 2 is do out that has better graphics, more content then DDO could have in a years time, no monthly fee for free online play and a construction set for the community to make an infinate ammount of extra content.

Besides that, the only thing resembling PnP Dungeons & Dragons in D&DO is the words in it's name.

Yep, NWN2 is what DDO should have been. Make an MMO on the Forgotten Realms utilizing the best aspects of games like WoW, EQ2, et al. and it'll own.


"This is the kind of place God would go to if He had to stop doing blow."
- Peter Griffin

Yeah this game really sucks, its nice to watch them scramble to make players happy after ignoring them during beta testing when it could have been fixed

GG Turbine, your glory days are over

Sad thing....they are also behind Lord of the Rings Online.

I was so looking forward to that game until I saw the doodoo that was DDO.

I'm not sure why anyone would want to pay $$$ for an online game and then expect to be able to play it solo? Wouldn't you be better off with something like Oblivion, Dungeon Siege, NWN, Vampire, etc. as these are all offline games.

I tire of these statements. Onling game does not mean FORCED TO GROUP. Did you group in UO? Didn't think so. EQ is what set this entire facist trip.

How often is Oblivion updated (official), or Dungeon Siege, Vampire? These games are static and stale in short order if you play through them. Diablo 1-2 had a longer shelf life b/c the game randomized the content. Most MMO's have content additions at regular intervals, more so than most any other single player games.

MMORPG's have appeal to those who want to play in another 'world', while having the options or have time-constraints to do what they want. Just because it says "MMO" doesn't mean you HAVE TO GROUP TO PLAY. It means, there are a bunch of other players who are in the game world too! (gasp)

Socializing is not powerleveling through levels 5-10. That's what you may think. People who can't grasp the concept that the EQ layout sucked... need some help.

Vanguard will have similar issues to DDO, simply because the larger market of MMO players are older now, and most of the kiddies play the kidBox 360 online. (Hence the horrible outcome of Oblivion's interface).

Anyway, MMO does not mean you have to group.

It was insane of them to ship without this. Of all the things that could have been pushed to an early-ish patch, this was a singularly poor choice.

(Hence the horrible outcome of Oblivion's interface).

Hence what? A lot of console interfaces are superior to their PC counterparts.

I'm glad I decided to hold out for the MMO, Age of Conan. With the adult content and the single player journey to lev 20 before you can go online, I think this is the MMO to beat this year.

I tire of these statements. Onling game does not mean FORCED TO GROUP. Did you group in UO? Didn't think so. EQ is what set this entire facist trip.

How often is Oblivion updated (official), or Dungeon Siege, Vampire? These games are static and stale in short order if you play through them. Diablo 1-2 had a longer shelf life b/c the game randomized the content. Most MMO's have content additions at regular intervals, more so than most any other single player games.

MMORPG's have appeal to those who want to play in another 'world', while having the options or have time-constraints to do what they want. Just because it says "MMO" doesn't mean you HAVE TO GROUP TO PLAY. It means, there are a bunch of other players who are in the game world too! (gasp)

Socializing is not powerleveling through levels 5-10. That's what you may think. People who can't grasp the concept that the EQ layout sucked... need some help.

Vanguard will have similar issues to DDO, simply because the larger market of MMO players are older now, and most of the kiddies play the kidBox 360 online. (Hence the horrible outcome of Oblivion's interface).

Anyway, MMO does not mean you have to group.

I agree (though in reference to Oblivion, the interface was easy to mod, with a few good ones available)

I enjoy mmo's because I'm in an environment with tons of other folks, and have the choice to mingle...or not.

Although I enjoy adventuring with a good group, I shouldn't be required to have one to progress. I detest bad groups.

I'm glad I decided to hold out for the MMO, Age of Conan. With the adult content and the single player journey to lev 20 before you can go online, I think this is the MMO to beat this year.

I'm thinking after that we're due an Anarchy Online 2.

-------------------------------------------------
our daily interactions with 'real' people are far more scripted than any game. Your behavior at work... every aspect of your life conforms to a social script we all agree to play by.

I tire of these statements. Onling game does not mean FORCED TO GROUP. Did you group in UO? Didn't think so.

Actually, wrong again. I did group in UO. Back when I played, PK'ing was rampant. This was before the virtue system and whatever stuff they have implemented since. You grouped to survive.

Whatever your story, D&D is about group play. (period...emphasis added).

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 07:33.

D&D MMO solo mode = Oblivion?

Whatever your story, D&D is about group play. (period...emphasis added).

Which is fine when a handful of people get together to roll some dice. For an online game however, alienating a large portion of your potential player base is just a bad business decision. Period.

It'll be interesting to see if they pick up any new subscriptions from this or if it's already too late.

If D&D online is purely for grouping and that's been their focus has been from the start, then they must have done something wrong. Because the game will be a failure if it isn't already. Personally I always thought charging monthly fees for something that isn't far from instance only Guild Wars made it a tough sell from the get go.
s{

This comment was edited on Jun 14, 22:39.

"This feature grows the overall scope and quality of the game attempts to compensate for a poor initial design decision."

Fixed that for 'em.