The Soloist: Why I do it
by Akela Talamasca 
Nov 19th 2007 at 9:30AM
Filed under: Game mechanics, Guilds, PvP, Raiding, Quests, Grouping, PvE, Opinion, The Soloist, Hands-on
Enough said; excelsior!
Actually, the scene from Oldboy, pictured above (with YouTube link), goes a long way toward explaining a lot of it. Simply put: Doing it yourself makes you a hero. America itself (and bear with me, non-American readers) is founded in great part upon the idea that the individual can make a lasting change in the world simply by utilizing sheer strength of will. You too, lowly and downtrodden peon, can become President (unless, of course, you're foreign-born, according to the Constitution; sorry, Arnold). For the most part, our heroic literature and cinema abounds with tales of the One True Hero who will Make Things Right, from Beowulf to Neo.
In fact, cinema in particular venerates the singular hero: James Bond. Indiana Jones. Snake Plissken. John McClane. Connor MacLeod. Eastwood's The Man with No Name. John Rambo. Eric Draven. Jason Bourne. Oldboy's Dae-su. Ong Bak's Ting. Enter the Dragon's Lee. Once Upon a Time in China's (among many other films) Wong Fei Hung.
And even in those cases where it's ostensibly a group focus, there's still a lead: Robin Hood and His Merry Men. Buckaroo Banzai and the Hong Kong cavaliers. King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Even amid a crowd of heroes, one stands tall. Of course, I'm not going to discount ensemble pieces like Ocean's Eleven, or ... uh ... Mystery Men (which I loved, but didn't strike that resonant chord with mainstream audiences), but if you think for a moment, chances are you love one character in particular in that group, or at least the movie becomes a celebration of the teamwork between unique individuals, and you're back to where we started with this. Going solo isn't just egotistic, it's historical.
That aside, perhaps it's the social aspect you enjoy, the feeling of cameraderie that can only come about when bonding with your fellows over a shared pursuit. True, this is a powerful force, and not to be lightly dismissed. But for me, being social means getting to know people, not their functions. In a pitched battle, everyone focuses on their roles and tasks: you might exist to draw agro, or to heal, or what have you -- that isn't you, that's your function. How much of the real you comes through in combat? Successful raids go by the numbers, by a carefully crafted plan that leaves no room for personality or self-ness. Sure, after a successful run, or even a wipe, there's a lot of chat back and forth -- about the game, not about you. For the good of the goal, you as a person cease to exist.
This is how the military does things, and there's a reason for that: it works. Not only does it allow commanding officers to focus on strategy, instead of worrying over each of his grunts by name, it often engenders a sense of personal sacrifice in the individual soldier. Stories abound of a comrade-in-arms throwing himself upon a live grenade to protect the rest of his unit. This is done for the Good of All, and while it is an act based upon the selflessness of a unique personality, it's the groupmind attitude that allows it to happen at all.
This is all to say that yes, there's a place for feeling part of a larger whole, but it's just not how I choose to spend my time with myself. Having been part of both scenarios, I prefer to lone wolf it. If being social is the reason to group, I've found much more satisfying, enriching ways to do it that don't involve killing things (not that there's anything wrong with that). It's nice to hear 'good job', but then again, it's a job.
As an aside, there is also a larger issue of trust here, and I won't sidestep that. At heart, I know exactly what I'm capable of, and what I'm not. I don't have those reassurances with a group, either a pick-up or an established team that I might decide to join. I don't know the leader well enough to know his choices are sound, and finding out that he's not competent is a lousy way to build faith in the idea of questing with others.
Now let's talk about time management. I have a full-time day job. At the end of my work day, I travel 40 minutes to get home, and as soon as I get there, I'm responsible for my toddler son. This is another full-time activity, ending only once he's asleep, and in many cases, not even then, as he's prone to waking up in the middle of the night for whatever reason, meaning he needs reassurance to get back to sleep. Before that, however, and after his bedtime, I have duties around the house to fulfil, which can take upwards of an hour to complete. After that, I try to write -- either for Massively, or previously, for Second Life Insider, or try to complete my novel. At best, I go to bed by 1 in the morning. At worst, 3 AM. How, in all this, can I possibly schedule a run with teammates? There's just not enough time in the day to do everything I want to do. On the off-chance I get a little extra time to play anything at all, the last thing I want is to be hampered by a scheduled session with cohorts, and that's if they even all show up. I'd much rather have the freedom and flexibility to drop in when I want, and play for as long as I want, without worrying over letting someone down or being annoyed at having to wait for someone else to show.
Finally, you might use the argument that the best reason of all to run with a group is because game designers have set things up that way. You can only get the best loot, advance the better storylines, see the entirety of the game world, by grouping. Unfortunately, that's an argument that eats itself. It's well within the designers' ability to engineer a quest track up to endgame that can be played solo. There's no reason to enforce grouping. And let's remember: I'm paying the same fee flying solo as I do playing with a group. There's no reason to limit what the soloist has access to.
Every life starts out as a solo endeavor. Even as a family member, you are alone in your mind and body. You may travel for a time with companions, but in the end, it's just you and the universe, and whatever comes next, you face it on your own. This is my philosophy, and it's how I play. And I always will.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
goldenwolf said on 4:47PM 2-15-2008
i feel that like alot here there should be solo cantent. i played ad&d for 2 months and quit because you are forced to party up and most parties just want to run thought to the end not explore .wow was the same way find a pickup group and they just want to run though to the end and most of the time they dont talk or if you are new they call you noob if you make mistakes . i now play coh and cov most of the content is solo friendly. i have taken a char to lvl 50 almost totaly solo but you do mis out on the raids and the high end stuff .but i can say i made it to 50 with little help ! i dont have the time restraints or anything i can play 12 hours a day if i like and i am in a guild/super group but i seldom group with them i do talk with them and we chat and laugh and cut up but i mission alone 95% of the time, now my wife is the opposet she almost totaly groups and seldom solos .she preferse to have a group so i see both sides on a dayly bases and we enjoy playing our own styles. in coh you get prestige for the super group even when your soloing so you are helping the group all the time not just in group if other mmos would do something to that effect if might be better
Reply
Hollywood Ron said on 10:16AM 11-19-2007
I also prefer to solo my warrior, if only because if I screw up, it's only my fault. I love instancing with my healer, ironically enough, because it's stressful as hell, yet I don't have to get beaten on by mobs.
Strange, huh?
Reply
Ryan said on 10:48AM 11-19-2007
Honestly I've pretty much always solo'd in WoW. Not because I didn't have RL/in game friends or w.e. But it's kinda for the soul fact that I like to be able to go here and do this and come back and not have to wait for someone to catch up or, "oh wait, let me repair really fast." Previously to 2.3 my gf and I rerolled alts and have lvl'd together for the most part... Let me clue you... Warrior and Mage aren't really the best combo... Esp if the war isn't prot lol.
But I do agree that there really needs to be a huge amount of "soloable" stuff for the people that only have a short amount of time to play, or that just hates grp'n, unless they have to for instances.
Reply
Gr1zz said on 11:00AM 11-19-2007
I solo for 2 reasions, I have no friends, and would rather not split the xp after doing all/none of the work.
Reply
Scopique said on 12:08PM 11-19-2007
Amen, brother!
I just got through the first in-game instance in LotRO the other night with some random people... no one spoke, and when it was done, everyone just dropped from the group and ran off. I fail to see how that's intended to be the "preferred" style of gameplay. It just reinforced my desire to play alone.
While devs CAN create more soloable content, they seemingly refuse to do so. I don't understan why, unless of course they're under the impression that the only reason people play MMOs is for the social aspects (and judging by the LotRO party mentioned above, I use that term loosly). I play MMOs because of their open ended nature.
Reply
GRT said on 12:31PM 11-19-2007
Another solo-er. For me it's about 90% time related. I get so annoyed when, even after you schedule a group a week ahead of time, someone is always 30-45 minutes late. ALWAYS. And I'm talking about 5-man instances, even!!
Also, as a previous commenter, I prefer MMO's over single player games because of their open ended nature.
I do also like the social aspects when I'm in town or whatever. Having other people in the game gives the world an unpredictable quality that you'll never find in a single player game. I will form a quick temporary group if I run into someone else trying to take down a particularly tough mob or bigger-than-usual group, and I enjoy randomly helping people.
"Forced grouping" is the main reason I've left games in the past. I figure if the developers don't want my money, that's their choice.
Reply
Green Armadillo said on 12:35PM 11-19-2007
I love to solo in MMORPG's for the challenge factor. In most single player RPG's, content is balanced around the expectation of how well the "average" player is doing at that point in the game. I.e. the only reward for doing well - getting the best gear, etc - is a game that's too easy. In an MMORPG, there's always higher level content that you can skip ahead to, and there's little more satisfying that going after content intended for a group and actually pulling off the win.
Reply
woeye said on 12:53PM 11-19-2007
I hope that you will be there for you son when he needs you and that he will never have to feel like it's just him and the universe.
Reply
Akela Talamasca said on 1:43PM 11-19-2007
My son is the reason I'm alive. I made a promise to myself that he'll never go through what my father put me through. Thank you all for the comments, and especially this one.
Reply
Rick said on 3:06PM 11-20-2007
Your paragraph about work, commuting, coming home, working and spending time with your family and trying to get your son to sleep, that pretty much mirrors my life. My daughter was born 9 months after Everquest launched, and that was the end of my raiding days in EQ. It was impossible to delve deep into a dungeon, playing a druid and being responsible for evacs when thing went wrong (and they invariably went wrong :) ), and have to get up each time my daughter needed me.
Family first, games second, and that's why I usually find a way to solo in most mmorpg's I play. There's a limited number of players who can dedicate hours a week to raiding, or even just to instances. I'm not one of those players, and I'm glad there are mmorpg's with options for soloing. I don't miss EQ and the hefty grouping requirements, or the terrible downtime if you soloed.
Nollind Whachell said on 12:03AM 11-30-2007
"It's well within the designers' ability to engineer a quest track up to endgame that can be played solo. There's no reason to enforce grouping."
Totally agree. Right now most MMO's require enforced grouping to achieve larger objectives and it doesn't have to be this way. If the game mechanics were designed differently, solo players could easily be incorporated.
As I mentioned in another post on a similar topic to this, when I used to play Warbirds (a WWII flight sim), the game allowed you to take part in large community goals without having to forcibly group up or be a part of a squadron (guild). If you saw a sortie of fighters and bombers from your country heading to try to take over an enemy airfield (i.e. realm vs realm battles), you had the choice to individually contribute however you felt best. Or not even to contribute at all, if you wanted to take off somewhere less hectic and work on your dogfighting skills. The game gave you the choice to do whatever you wanted and contribute how you saw fit.
With WoW, it was designed with raiding as the end game in a very structured way with very specific roles. Therefore if that formula isn't followed, there is very little chance for success. The funny thing is that people found 40 man raids too big and thus they went smaller. Interestingly enough, I wonder what would happen if you blew past raids and went into larger world conflicts of like 100 to 200 people over a wider area with ever changing border zones, resources, and towns. These are the type of conflicts that would allow the solo player to contribute and do so effectively (i.e. courier, assassin, scout, etc). The game just has to be designed that way from the start.
Reply