Very few forced mplayer games really really work well to avoid toxic communities. Deep Rock Galactic seems to be a magical game where everyone comes together. But the reality is that most games end up with toxic people.

My fiance definitely prefers SPGs over mplayer, mainly because she never has to consider dealing with this BS or playing on someone else's time. And she gets sadder and sadder every time she is forced into some mplayer experience when she just wants to enjoy a game alone. And I can completely empathize.

I've gone mostly single player as I got older. Even stuff like Monster Hunter World I will struggle against Behemoth instead of just teaming up. Other people are just added complexity I don't want to deal with.

That said game design and moderation can help alleviate the toxicity. FFXIV is fairly decent for this, as raids tend to have zero setup so at worst you just waste time attempting them. Contrast with other MMOs where you have to earn entry or face significant costs to attempt, then more costs when you fail, that's understandably a recipe for toxicity even in a supposedly cooperative game.

> Deep Rock Galactic seems to be a magical game where everyone comes together.

Team Fortress 2 also comes to mind, what a beautiful community.

They're technically not forced multiplayer (though they're intended to be played as such), but games like Journey and Death Stranding seem to show that limiting actual interaction between players can really foster positive qualities in people.

Journey goes to a lot of trouble both to make the 'matchmaking' entirely seamless, and to limit player interaction to constructive/team actions.

They spent a lot of time tuning those mechanics with the stated intent of making multiplayer that was cooperative and positive.

I think what they achieved is generally quite impressive.

> Deep Rock Galactic seems to be a magical game where everyone comes together.

I do continue to see this mentioned on Reddit. I've got hundreds and hundreds of hours in DRG and it's all solo aside from literally 5-10 games I played with friends-only (but none of them play regularly). I'm so glad DRG support single player, gives you a bonus (Bosco), scales the game, and lets you pause. I'm glad the multiplayer is good, I'm happier that I don't have to deal with it at all if I don't want to.

It's been really sad to see my favorite franchises slowly go online/multiplayer (Elder Scrolls/Fallout) and I constantly worry that the games I've been playing for over a decade (like Oblivion, Skyrim, FO3, FO:LV, FO4, ME1, ME2, ME3) are the last of their breed. For me even having multiplayer/online (more specifically, a recurring revenue stream) taints a game in the same way that IAP taints mobile games (with the exception of "remove ads", "full unlock", or "unlock level pack", if I see "500 gems" I run in the other direction). It skews incentives and ruins games. No matter how much you swear up one side and down the other that it doesn't, it's not true. PvZ 2+ was ruined by IAP and EA even went back and ruined PvZ 1 (even for people who bought it). "Where's The Water?" was also a great game that was littered with IAP in the second version, Angry Birds as well has fallen. It makes me incredibly mad and sad that there are so few good single player games and the ones that do exist aren't coming from AAA studios/big names. DRG is a good example, so is something like Factorio (which does have multiplayer, but don't monetize it). Cosmetic-only DLC/IAP seems to be pretty safe overall but I still worry how much longer it can last when assholes like the CEO of Unity thinks anyone not prioritizing monetization are "Fucking Idiots" (His "apology" is meaningless, he meant what he said and fully believes it).

It just feels like we will never see something as pure, wonderful, and buggy :) as Skyrim again. Even that game has the shitty "Creation Club" or whatever they called it trying to monetize mods. ES:O/FO:76 are garbage compared to their predecessors. Indie games are great and seem to be the only place you see a real desire to create something fun, not just something that will print money, but I yearn for the kinds of games we just don't see from indies (again, ES/FO/ME to name a few I've loved, if you know of any like this please let me know).

I desperately hope I'm wrong and we see a resurgence of games that try to be fun instead of casinos in disguise. Until then I'll keep playing my old games and the few indies that make me happy instead of feeling like a second job.

Nintendo has mostly not fallen into this problem, at least on their consoles (their mobile games are a different story...). Some of them have paid DLC, but I haven't seen any Switch games with IAP or required multiplayer.

I'm actually worried about the look of the new Fire Emblem announced yesterday. Looks like it's perfectly made to be gacha, collecting the old heroes. Hopefully I'm wrong, or if it's gatcha it's in-game only (.i. you can't pay for it), with DLC just adding more heroes. But I'm worried they're taking way too much from FE Heroes, which has, apparently, outsold the rest of the series combined.

God that's depressing. I haven't touched the new Fable game (that was in beta, I stopped following it after I saw what it was like) for the same reasons. I loved FE growing up but FE Heroes had zero interest for me.

A few, that i liked recently are monster hunter world and rise.

Is more of an action rpg, but its also has very satisfying crafting system.

They have a lot of DLC's but all of them are just gestures and skins for your various npcs.

IAP ruins basically every app it touches, with the exceptions of the sort of functionality you mention. This goes far beyond games. I’m sure others have said it better but I miss the days of simple freemium models.

IMHO, Paid upgrades are better than IAP or subscription models from a user perspective. Moreover, they encourage innovation rather than revenue stream cultivation.

Out and out capitalism does not optimize for the value to the consumer - that is merely a constraint to be minimized in the name of cost control and revenue maximization, I would contend.

Greed ruins a lot of things, as does the notion that everything can be sacrificed for growth; the logical conclusion of quantity over quality is everything sucks.

I only play single player games. I'm interested in a good story and game play, not online play. I like the simplicity of this approach.

I'm more or less the same. If i wanted to deal with people I'd be out doing something, not playing a video game.

my exception is dark souls, where I happen to really enjoy the pvp approach, and doesn't really give players much of a way to be toxic other than literally throwing dung at each other.

I feel it makes raid groups pointless. If they're not organized then they're mostly just background noise.

But usually there's other options if you want to be specific about who you invite. Clans/Guilds are moderated (require approval) and parties are (accept invite) so a raid group is just a lump of parties together for a goal. This, I support. Having to "lfrg bleh bleh" sucks and is never an effective use of your time in a game. Raid Finders (like Party Finders) promised to deliver a better experience but failed for the most part as people continue to restrict who they play with.

How would you solve raid groups NOT being pointless while also making sure that players who want to participate, can, without having to play the "pick me for your team" game?

I would just do NPCs if you want to imply you're part of a group. This has the added advantage of making everyone unique even if there's a boring 3 unit meta amongst a giant roster of classes or characters or whatever.

Most co-op gameplay in MMO types of games is really bad. Consisting of either mindless support roles that just cast buffs or heals on a recurring timer without too much consideration of anything else; or of brutally picky metas that require specific movement patterns that you're just screwed on if you don't know them. Especially if there's no communication features.

If you just meet some randoms, don't really talk to them, and just kind of hope they don't kill the run, then forget about them, that's a bad experience. Good multiplayer requires you to interact with other people. Carefully orchestrated raid team crafting is an option without much mass appeal but it is an option. Since it's not really possible to expect coordination among strangers, and there's a high demand for gameplay with strangers, I would say the game needs to be highly reactive. That is to say, your optimal gameplay can't be pre determined. It depends on what they do, and randomness.

The general idea that its ok to just drop into a random group and give it a try implies that the content has to be really easy otherwise people will get frustrated. It depends on the game.

I briefly did top tier raiding and even that doesn’t expect actual coordination among players beyond hitting the correct meta. It all ends up as everyone playing slightly different mini games as people eventually memorize whatever line dance is needed to get the loot piñata to pop. Swap people between different parties or even equivalent guilds and there’s basically zero learning curve.

I don’t think this is an issue with MMO games, I think it’s a problem where teamwork is hard. Even just consistently getting a large group together at the same time and not breaking down due to interpersonal conflict is a heavy hurdle. Expecting people to then follow complex plans while also filling the basic roles of the game and not standing in fire is just more than most groups could do.

> Expecting people to then follow complex plans while also filling the basic roles of the game and not standing in fire is just more than most groups could do.

But it is interesting, and I would say your experience described was not. Large complex team plans are probably not a great model for most games.

I would like to see a situation that required tight coordination among a very small group of 2-3 and light coordination across these groups. Even sweeter if there's only communication between group leaders and intra group.

The top is extremely challenging which is it’s own kind of fun. People don’t fail raids 50 times in a row because they are playing around. Everyone is trying their best and doing micro optimizations to get just a tiny bit better until finally you succeed.

So it is interesting in it’s own way.

> How would you solve raid groups NOT being pointless while also making sure that players who want to participate, can, without having to play the "pick me for your team" game?

Allow someone to create a raid/party and define filters on who is allowed. Ideally there would be an LFR system they're exposed to, as well as a filter on who is allowed to join the raid so that anyone can invite anyone. If you meet the criteria, you can join the raid without asking.

I think the underlying issue is trying to be inclusive of everyone (hardcore people don't want to play with casual people, and often vice versa), and exposing simplistic interfaces to people who are okay with complexity.

I think TradeSkill Master is a good example for WoW. People love that. Give two interfaces; one is a casual interface with basic but useful options, and the other is a complicated "whatever you need" interface. Let the hardcore people use advanced filters with complicated interactions, and let the casual people use a basic "I just want people with enough gear to theoretically clear it" interface.

The problem is the balance though. If no coordination is viable then what's the purpose of coordination? Higher difficulties aren't a great solution. People always want to do the hardest and will complain if their typical strat of joining randos doesn't work

Pay-to-win mechanics only work in multiplayer, so expect a lot more pressure for settings where conspicuous consumption flourishes. The worm will eventually turn, but not until there is a pretty massive shift in the public consciousness - which would have a far greater impact than just wiping out loot crates and $1.99 cosmetic reskins.

Both kinds of games are good. When forced cooperation works, such as in early WoW and even more so with early Everquest, it can be a very magical thing. The combination of high time investment to get things done, often needing other classes to do those things, and no cross-server play builds a server community in a very special way. Other classes needing skills only yours has also means you have other people coming to you for help often, you can sell your skills, and your class feels more fun and unique.

Of course, these games have other massive issues. Particularly the leveling experience on servers past the initial rush.