To SE please read.

[BlackShroudMercs]

Well I don't think you should be able to solo the whole game either, but I think allowing a couple solo boss fights that don't give you the BEST gear couldn't hurt anything. I mean don't expect tomes but hey maybe some nice stuff that's not endgame quality ..and duos were really fun, yet people can't even hear him on that.

I get it, MMO means multiplayer but to be so rude to the guy for asking a simple question?

[aswedishtiger]

I was gonna say something clever and witty, but alas most of the other posters already destroyed the OP and proved him incorrect in both his assumptions, wishes and demands

[Pharazon]

Would it be too much to ask that you add more single player focused content to break the massive partying up a little bit, like a single player version of all 3 primals and have the scions of fate help you out.

First off what you are asking for would be the equivalent of buying a First Person Shooter like COD or BF4 and saying "I really wish they had an option to play 3rd person". You should know when you buy a game that is in the MMO genre that most of the content will be multi-player

And even though this is an MMO it provides the single player experience through crafting and more often then not the leveling quests and story. The only time you are compelled to be in a group is when you need to run a dungeon to advance your story. And to offset that you have the quests that can only be complete solo. So you leveled all the way up doing the single player content you seem to think is missing.

[Pharazon]

I have no problem with solo content in an MMO as a distraction but it has to be just that. SE is going to be adding on to the story and introducing dailies and some other odds and ends that will add a bit more for the solo player to do so you are getting even more solo content but stop asking to see the hardest content be soloable. MMO's hardest bosses and dungeons should be for groups of players and not accessible to solo players since that is the core of what an mmo is. Its about heroic characters banding together to overcome obstacles that they cant individually. You want to play Rambo (one man army) stick to single player games.

[MercurialZero]

For all of you masters of the English language who are trying to spell out what Massively Multiplayer Online means, I've got a revelation for you. No where in those words is there an indication of cooperation. Multiplayer does not equate to teaming up with other players. That's just the direction the MMORPG genre has taken over the past 15 or so years. Think back to original Ultima Online, sure there were benefits to teaming up with others to fight harder content or gank some poor noob. However, you could also go it alone, completely rogue.

I'll give one more example: Imagine someone made a Running Man style MMO game where a thousand players are trying to get to the end of a gauntlet dungeon, gladiator-style, every man for himself. This would certainly fit the criteria of Massively Multiplayer and Online, but there would be no need for a party system for it to fit that criterion.

[Conradus]

For all of you masters of the English language who are trying to spell out what Massively Multiplayer Online means, I've got a revelation for you. No where in those words is there an indication of cooperation. Multiplayer does not equate to teaming up with other players. That's just the direction the MMORPG genre has taken over the past 15 or so years. Think back to original Ultima Online, sure there were benefits to teaming up with others to fight harder content or gank some poor noob. However, you could also go it alone, completely rogue.

I'll give one more example: Imagine someone made a Running Man style MMO game where a thousand players are trying to get to the end of a gauntlet dungeon, gladiator-style, every man for himself. This would certainly fit the criteria of Massively Multiplayer and Online, but there would be no need for a party system for it to fit that criterion.

Indeed, you could make an MMO like that. Might even be interesting. But it wouldn't be Final Fantasy. Because Final Fantasy has always, *always*, from the very first one on the Famicom to the present day, been, competely and solely, about the party. If you're not interested in the party, it's certainly your right. Nobody's going to force you to want to focus on the party. But it means that Final Fantasy isn't for you. Nothing's for everybody, and Final Fantasy is for people who are interested in the party.

[sheepysheepy]

Imagine someone made a Running Man style MMO game

*braingasm*

[MercurialZero]

Because Final Fantasy has always, *always*, from the very first one on the Famicom to the present day, been, competely and solely, about the party. If you're not interested in the party, it's certainly your right. Nobody's going to force you to want to focus on the party. But it means that Final Fantasy isn't for you.

While Final Fantasy has always been party based, that doesn't have anything to do with my point that multiplayer doesn't equal team-oriented. Bringing up the old console RPGs seems contrary to the point you are making in that all of those games are singleplayer. Are you saying people in this game should be able to control a full party? There are clearly instances in the story of this game where your "party" is filled out by NPCs, I believe the OP is just looking for more of that type of content. The irony being the hostile responses on this thread are a perfect example of why someone might want to play alone every now and then.

[Vodomir]

For all of you masters of the English language who are trying to spell out what Massively Multiplayer Online means, I've got a revelation for you. No where in those words is there an indication of cooperation. Multiplayer does not equate to teaming up with other players. That's just the direction the MMORPG genre has taken over the past 15 or so years. Think back to original Ultima Online, sure there were benefits to teaming up with others to fight harder content or gank some poor noob. However, you could also go it alone, completely rogue.

I'll give one more example: Imagine someone made a Running Man style MMO game where a thousand players are trying to get to the end of a gauntlet dungeon, gladiator-style, every man for himself. This would certainly fit the criteria of Massively Multiplayer and Online, but there would be no need for a party system for it to fit that criterion.

The thing is in any Multiplayer game out there the term multiplayer is always connected to some form of interactivity with the other players, may that be cooperative or by fighting the other player (e.g. Multiplayer Shooters). What's the point of playing a multiplayer game if you don't want to interact with the other players? They could as well just be NPCs then. Why do people who don't want to interact with other players buy a multiplayer game in the first place? I don't get it. I knew beforehand that the term "multiplayer" includes interaction with other players. If you don't like to interact with other player just play a single player game, as an MMO is clearly not suited for you. Please stop demanding that MMOs need more solo content, if at all, they need more group content.

[Pharazon]

snipped for posting purposes

I think the point was more about the fact that when you have an already established IP like FF, which has always been about a single player controlled party, then when you move it into the MMO genre you are simply going to replace the single player with multi-player and end up with a multi-player controlled party. Its not some grand jump in logic.

I'm not bashing on the idea of having some single player things to do but I definitely don't want to see the multi-player content at the end game which is based on the idea of multiple heroes banding together to defeat a challenge greater than themselves as individuals turned into single player content just so people can experience it.