I think instancing is being abused by some and taken to higher levels by others.
Originally I believe instancing was created for gameplay reasons. It stopped the PK, kill stealing and spawn camping. For that I commend it and think it should be used in any highly involved spot that is going to funnel a lot of competing players through it.
Then developers figured out they could use it for story. A great thing in my book.
But then developers also figured out they could use it as a way to work around network infrastructure issues and graphical performance. Why is AoC instanced EVERYWHERE? It's so they don't have too many people on your screen slowing your machine down. And it's so they don't have too many people on one server slowing their machine down. Frankly, it kills immersion when taken to that level and for me it's not worth the shiny graphics trade off.
Now they are taking it further with phasing. And for that I once again commend them. Make it seamless and make it advance gameplay without obviously breaking immersion.
I quite agree with most of that. Instancing needs to be used for dungeons as it allows a much deeper story to be told, and also keeps griefers/gankers from ruining others experiences. Those are the REAL "anti social" elements that every game has, and who have to be dealt with in one fashion or another. Phasing(as Blizzards Wrath of the Lich King uses it) is also a very powerful approach to telling an ongoing story. Given the various advantages to be had, one must hold suspect the motivations of those who are obsessively against instancing. One approach to ganking/griefing that I would LOVE to see implimented would be an extended form of the ignore list. That being if you have someone on your ignore list, they are not even rendered on your client and can have no influence on you what so ever. Instancing is also a very useful way of allocating cluster resources, and thus reducing lag to the players involved. Guild Wars does that rather well with their districts. Social interaction is all well and good, but it doesn't have to be "massive" to be enjoyable.
The very best dungeon experiences I had were in public dungeons with contested camps in Everquest (EQ1). The presence of other players actually was sometimes a relief, especially if you were deep inside the dungeon, lost, and fearful of having to make a perilous "corpse run" to get your gear back if you died.
Such dungeons were truly sinister and you were careful in rounding every corner. And if you ever got lost, your heart sank.
The thing about immersion is it makes you feel, be it good, bad, in-between. And sometimes to experience true exhiliration or satisfaction you must balance that with occasional frustration.
These newer toothless instanced MMO's are pretty weak in the immersion department, and I suspect supporters of such designs would be just as happy playing Oblivion offline, or have never had the experience of playing a richly immersive MMO back around 1999 - 2000.
How does waiting in line to kill a quest mob add to immersion?... ^^ How does having your quest mob stolen add to immersion? I've played these games since UO. I MUCH prefer the current approach to the old style. I remember having to keep two or three complete sets of armor and weapons in my vault in Asherons call(One) just to have ANY chance of getting my good set back, after a wipe. Thankfully, most games have moved beyond such an approach. Oblivion was fun(once they patched it enough to keep it from crashing...). I have no problems with *some* aspects of social interaction. But some of the others need to remain in the dust bin of game history where they so richly belong.
Instancing is one of those polarizing things that you never can really get a read on. Is that saying it sucks because he's secretly a greifer? Is that guy saying its great because he's a sociopath? In reality its a good and a bad thing. Dark Age wasn't my first MMO but definitely the one I stuck with longest. My biggest reason for liking instances is the problems that other players cause you. The poster above that claimed reverse-whatever would alleviate the problem has never played an MMO with public dungeons. The exact same thing happens all the time. Group one goes in and another group comes in some time after. While the first group kills off the hordes of mobs on the way to the epic baddy, the second group just coasts behind them. At some point the second group rushes forward attacking the main mob getting the 'link' and the game only lets the lazy people get credit. This always worked in Darkness Falls in DAOC because the group that would be taking the risks can easily be caught fighting enough mobs so that trying to also rush ahead to get the epic mob will always result in suicide.
Funcom solved the problem in an interesting way: The made the game fail so that there weren't enough players around to trigger the instancing.
I just had to quote this because I'm still laughing at it.
Anyway, I agree with what others have said, instancing is fine for "dungeons", "buildings", or whatever structure has quests/missions that you need to complete. in fact, I prefer it nowadays. With the MMO population now mainstream, there are just too many a**hats that spoil the fun for most of us who just want to play and enjoy a game without someone coming along to KS us, or loot something that we needed. However, I do have to say that I have some very fond memories of the beginning days of non-instanced EQ dungeons (LGuk and OS come to mind). Nothing like saving someone who never expected you to show up, or giving someone an unexpected hand deep inside a dungeon who needs it.
But times have changed from the days when one person doing something wrong to many would have consequences. Now, there are practically no repercussions to doing anything wrong in the MMO society. So instancing solves that problem rather nicely. However, I would agree that the main, outside world should have no instancing at all. That bothers me a lot. I don't want to see 50 zones of City Block1 thru 50. In my opinion, that just kind of takes something away from the social aspect of it when you do what to interact with others.
All I know is that so far, there's far too much queuing in CO, even with the repeated zones they spawn, that does allow for a lot of jerky behavior by people who have no business playing any game with a social element. I much prefer the CoX model where anything worth doing outdoors is not so "special" that you see people waiting in line to do it over and over again. Sure, people will want to take down a large mob, and many teams will gang up and get a share of the xp and the badge and such, but that's just a fun diversion, not the core of the game. The core is me and whatever team I join going up against the forces of evil (or good) to accomplish some set goals, and no maladjusted ten year old or embittered thirty-something is going to mess that up. When I get to the main game of CO proper, I sincerely hope that it follows the CoX model more closely than the WoW model, because for me, immersion is found in instances, not in the main world where people are allowed to spread levels of dysfunctional behavior in broadcast chat that would get them pummeled mercilessly in real life.
All this talk about instancing effecting immersion is interesting. Personally any world that requires heavy instancing to maintain immersion is poorly designed to begin with and is more of a theme park ride where youre being led by the nose everywhere, just like everyone before you and everyone after you. I wish more games would follow EVE's example and create a world where there is no single quest or item everyone "must" have or a single area path that your character must follow as they develop. To me immersion is being able to play a game the way a character I create and shape would do so. In a well designed game, using targeted small instances helps with this. If the game requires much more than that, its probably not a game Im going to play because i dont like its base design is simply not what im looking for in a game and therefore it doesnt effect me.
Instancing prevents a player's actions from having an effect on a world, so the sandbox crowd is against it. At the same time, the Themepark crowd also like world events, so they like both instances and non-instanced boss fights, etc. I personally don't care that much one way or the other if the instance is presented in a logical way and fun way.
Would be best to provide more current examples of what has worked since the MMO genre is a far different world than what it used to be with Asheron's Call, DAoC, Ultima Online etc. etc.
The technology is rapidly advancing, and yet the games are getting more simplistic and dumbed down every year. Sure, sometimes the graphics are nice, but eyecandy isn't going to keep people subscribing for years. In my opinion, every MMORPG should feature a seamless, persistent world where people from all around the world meet and interact in different ways, since that is what the first MMORPG's used to be.
What's worrying is that nowadays there's so many people who, instead of living a virtual life, meeting and interacting with people, want to lock themselves in isolated rooms and go on some single player or multiplayer adventures with a bunch of people they know and accept. They don't want to play MMORPG's, they want simple multiplayer RPG's, and that is what they're getting (AOC, DDO etc.) Then they have something to whine about, usually lack of endgame, but you can't avoid running out of content in a game that is just a multiplayer extension of a single player RPG.
UO, EQ, AC defined the characteristics of this genre, you don't redefine it to better fit a bunch of hybrid games that don't really fit this or any of the other already existing ones, you make a new one. For instance, NCSoft calls Guild Wars a CORPG (or at least used to when the game was about to release), which stands for Competitive Online Role-Playing Game. Why is it listed here?
Why is AoC instanced EVERYWHERE?
Because FunCom does a piss poor job at developing MMORPG's, that's why. They weaseled their way out of making a true MMORPG by creating a bunch of rooms (zones) and multiplying these rooms to accomodate as many people as necessary (districts). It wouldn't be much of a problem if AOC was a pure PVE game, but since they also have PVP servers, making it possible for someone to simply avoid their enemy by going to a different district of the same zone/area or hide in an instance no one else can enter is simply absurd. Server and client performance was just an excuse, as, despite all the limitations, the client performance was still abysmal, and the districts often lagged and randomly crashed.
All this talk about instancing effecting immersion is interesting. Personally any world that requires heavy instancing to maintain immersion is poorly designed to begin with and is more of a theme park ride where youre being led by the nose everywhere, just like everyone before you and everyone after you. I wish more games would follow EVE's example and create a world where there is no single quest or item everyone "must" have or a single area path that your character must follow as they develop. To me immersion is being able to play a game the way a character I create and shape would do so. In a well designed game, using targeted small instances helps with this. If the game requires much more than that, its probably not a game Im going to play because i dont like its base design is simply not what im looking for in a game and therefore it doesnt effect me.
You do realize that about 2/3 of Eve's player base stays in high sec, and never leaves, don't you? ^^ Theme park games are the current focus of various companies, because thats what appeals to the mass market demographics. Instancing is a tool. Just like any tool it can be misapplied. But people who go on(and on...) about the "massive" aspect of MMO's, either have little experience with what results in sand box type games...Or are part of the problem. ^^ Gankers/griefers will be with us always. That being the case, games need to take actions to minimize the impact such people have on the rest of the player base.
All this talk about instancing effecting immersion is interesting. Personally any world that requires heavy instancing to maintain immersion is poorly designed to begin with and is more of a theme park ride where youre being led by the nose everywhere, just like everyone before you and everyone after you. I wish more games would follow EVE's example and create a world where there is no single quest or item everyone "must" have or a single area path that your character must follow as they develop. To me immersion is being able to play a game the way a character I create and shape would do so. In a well designed game, using targeted small instances helps with this. If the game requires much more than that, its probably not a game Im going to play because i dont like its base design is simply not what im looking for in a game and therefore it doesnt effect me.
You do realize that about 2/3 of Eve's player base stays in high sec, and never leaves, don't you? ^^ Theme park games are the current focus of various companies, because thats what appeals to the mass market demographics. Instancing is a tool. Just like any tool it can be misapplied. But people who go on(and on...) about the "massive" aspect of MMO's, either have little experience with what results in sand box type games...Or are part of the problem. ^^ Gankers/griefers will be with us always. That being the case, games need to take actions to minimize the impact such people have on the rest of the player base.
I could be wrong, but it sounds like you're trying to negate the previous poster when you say "You do realize that about 2/3 of Eve's player base stays in high sec, and never leaves, don't you?" But I don't see how.
I'm not a hardcore gamer but I really don't like instancing much in MMOs.
I think using instances is a cheap fix for poor game design and/or current software limitations. Almost all issues related to "needing" an instance such as overcrowding, griefing, kill stealing etc could be fixed by better game design.
I think if a game has instancing it should have some different title then mmo. I personally despise them and will seek out a game that does not have them or limits them. Even with all of its problem Vanguard is the best guys like me can do right now.
Instancing is great for those that want everything now now now, or don't really want a long term meaningful game experience. Instancing players are there to play a game. Its all about the fun and the fast reward. That's not a bad thing. If that what you want then I say go for it. By having instaces you will avoid all of the problem that all of the previous posters have listed. Instancing really does work to that end. What I am saying is that for alot of us the "problems" listed before add to the meaningful game experience that instance players are trying to avoid.
For all of the old school EQ guys out there think about it. The first time you saw someone with an epic weapon did you think oh wow that's an accomplishment, that guy knows what he is doing. Or did you think wow he must have just killed X mob a few hundred times to get that, and walked on. A lot of instancing games are just rinse and repeat scenarios. Keep running the instance till you item drops, or until you collect x number or tokens or coins or whatever. Having it instanced means no waiting instant repeat. Having a spawned mob in an open world makes every attempt meaningful and exciting. You will be more careful when you know you cant try again for an hour or a week. Some instances have lockout timers. That takes away the randomness of having mobs with variable respawn timers. You know you are locked out of the instance for 3 hours, but in a persistant world that dragon you need might respawn in 30 minutes or might be 3 days.
Things are more meaningful to players like me when we feel like they are rare or hard to get/accomplish. If it means waiting a week for a camp to open up or a few hours for a respawn, or any of those "problems" listed then that makes it all the better. I think even to day one would have more bragging rights by saying they were on a Sleeper raid in EQ then any 5 accomplishments in a game like WoW. The Sleeper can only be awakened once. what would happen if a mob was put in a an instanced game like WoW and the thing could only be done once? We all know what would happen. I'm not saying the whole game should be one time actions but the fact that something like that would be seen as game breaking to a lot of people is just another "problem" that would add to a meaningful game experience.
I just wish one company would make one game for the guys like me. then we would fade away and stop bothering all of the rest of you. Sadly those days are over. Today no one has time to play a game like that. now everyone wants it all on demand. Played EQ for 5 years and never made it to level cap. Best game time I ever had. Everything pales in comparison. Honestly instancing has killed it more for me then the other issues I have with games today like spoon fed experience, instant travel, and GPS maps. Sad when a game doesn't really start until you hit the level cap.
Some people say its a game not a job. Well I might be old fashioned but I tend to enjoy things more when I have worked for them. Gimmie a game that's hard work over a welfare game any day.
Coldsteel6d, have you tried Darkfall? It seems to be what you are speaking of. Also Mortal Online may also suit you. Both are full loot PK games with some sand box elements. I personally despise such gankfest games, but they do appeal to a certain limited demographic.
All this talk about instancing effecting immersion is interesting. Personally any world that requires heavy instancing to maintain immersion is poorly designed to begin with and is more of a theme park ride where youre being led by the nose everywhere, just like everyone before you and everyone after you. I wish more games would follow EVE's example and create a world where there is no single quest or item everyone "must" have or a single area path that your character must follow as they develop. To me immersion is being able to play a game the way a character I create and shape would do so. In a well designed game, using targeted small instances helps with this. If the game requires much more than that, its probably not a game Im going to play because i dont like its base design is simply not what im looking for in a game and therefore it doesnt effect me.
A little off topic but I've heard this said a number of times from EVE players and I don't understand it. I've tried EVE for months and what you could do in the game seemed to break down to this:
Combat
Mine
Fly from one station to another (courier)
Play the market
Craft ships and items
Run missions
PvP (more combat really)
Which is all well and good. But here's the thing, here's what I can do in LotRo or Wow:
Combat
Gather resources
Explore
Play the AH market
Craft
Do quests
PvP (few don't have it)
It seems pretty similar. The only difference is that the "theme park" games have a plot to entice should I wish (which is why most entertainment is popular; movies, books, plays, etc.) whereas the "sandbox" games leave me with no real suggestions for something entertaining. I guess that's why most of the popular sandbox games are PvP... because there really is nothing else engaging in them.
So it seems what many are really saying is "I want world PvP with nothing in the way."
Or, maybe I'm just not cut from that cloth and can't get it. Same way I don't quite understand girls and never will
I'm not a hardcore gamer but I really don't like instancing much in MMOs.
I think using instances is a cheap fix for poor game design and/or current software limitations. Almost all issues related to "needing" an instance such as overcrowding, griefing, kill stealing etc could be fixed by better game design.
Agree.
In the end this is all about personal preferences. My personal preferences would be:
1) Open world where each part is one single zone (whether EQ style or chunked). If too many players in the same area causes too much lag then the (a) the world is designed wrong and/or (b) the game's graphics need to be lower quality.
2) Big open chaotic dungeons.
3) Each big open dungeon with a smaller instanced dungeon accessed past the hardest part of the open dungeon with the biggest boss.
4) Mixture of mob-grinding and solo quests with at least some of the quests class specific and some of the class specific quests having small instances for class-specific flavor e.g thief skills or healer quests involving healing.
5) The possibility of player-created DM story quests - maybe instanced.
You can have fun games with instancing, and not fun games without it.
The real issue is gamers judging a game on something like this even before they play it and not based on fun. Just another reason I wouldn't want to make a game for the MMORPG crowd.
Instancing and instanced 'worlds' are an issue I think MMORPG.com should look at seriously IMHO.
As the article says, instancing can be a useful tool for storytelling.
So, that suggests to me that the argument is for appropriate use of instancing?
And here is where we (MMORPG.com members) perhaps need to review the definition of an MMORPG?
Recent design trends seem to suggest designers are relying more and more on instancing - my question is: do they need to?
At what point does your game stop being an MMO and become an "online game with a multiplayer option"?
There are a number of recent threads on this very topic here on MMORPG.com (see below)
The article refers to the "Wagon Wheel" design.
This creates something I refer to as the "Graphical Lobby Game"
That is a game where the entire game is made up of a series of instances - to the point where the game world is essentually only a waiting area (or graphical lobby) where players wait to go into an instance.
And to be honest I was a bit disappointed that it seems that FARM TOWN does apparently count as an MMO based on the rules on MMORPG.com and based on peoples' current understanding of what the term means.
Farm Town, for those that don't know is just a series of instances.
In many cases I think instancing is being used not because it is required (for storytelling or other reasons) but just because it's easier. In other words, it has become a crutch for lazy (or untalented) design teams. Can't think of a way to tie the different elements of your game together? = Just use instancing!
My personal view on this is that the MMORPG.com community needs to review what an MMO is based on current industry trends and technological capabilities and limitations. From that the rules of what games should be listed on MMORPG.com in future need to be reviewed.
Part of the requirements should be "Is instancing really required in this case?".
Where the answer is "Maybe not, but it was the easiest way to do it." then perhaps the games status as an MMO needs review?
I'll never be a fan of instancing, since its against the massive part of MMOs. You can make open stuff dramatic and whatever too, the developers just didnt try it yet.
I agree with a lot of people in saying, instancing = poor game design.
I would like to also add, grievance and help in non instanced game is very important for building a community.
I have a few friends still from my EQ1 days where I met them purely in game by helping each other.
I am afraid the community side is often overlooked by the annoyance and grievance issues with non instanced games.
MMO are suppose to be massively multiplayer online, as in people of all ages and sizes thrown together in a big world, not a single player game where you can invite friends to play occasionally.
Instancing makes a game world to me, feel very artifical and more like a game than a virutal existance.
I am sure WoW and Xbox live have made me the minority here but there is a generation of players who still cry out for this.
Now playing: VG (after a long break from MMORPGS) Played for more than a month: Darkfall online, Vanguard SOH, Everquest, Horizons, WoW, SWG, Everquest II, Eve
Coldsteel6d, have you tried Darkfall? It seems to be what you are speaking of. Also Mortal Online may also suit you. Both are full loot PK games with some sand box elements. I personally despise such gankfest games, but they do appeal to a certain limited demographic.
Yea they would suit me except I don't really go for PvP unless it means something, like DAOC. The RvR with 3 factions is great. So PvP is not something I am hunting for. I don't think I even mentioned it in my post as a matter of fact. I am not looking for a "gankfest" game. I am looking for a meaningful experience. I think you are trying to lump me into the same group as all of the guys that love games like Darkfall and the old UO.
PvP is cool but once again if its fast and easy like in WAR scenarios then its not fun to me. I want to work at taking a keep or fortress. I want to have the risk of playing for a hours and in the end maybe my guys win, maybe we are repulsed. Either way instancing and PvP = weak and pointless.
I have a new definition for a single-player game. A single-player game is an extremely instanced MMO, where each player has his own instance of the whole game. The MMO is so extremely instanced that you don't even need an internet connection for playing it, you can just play it on your disconnected computer or console.
"Instances are the devil's work. Why, scarcity of resources is the source of most fun in history! Imagine all the fun wars and history we would've missed out on with instancing in real life." -Zodium
Its funny that even when asking this before, no one seemed to respond. In regards to all the arguments against instancing, no one has even tried to present another alternative to actually catering to a large mass of players in terms of game play experience without having the players collide on each other or wait in lines etc. Wouldn't that in itself take away from the "immersion" that the people against instancing are trying to use? It sounds counter intuitive. You can't just create a super large world and expect your whole player base to fit within this world. It just doesn't work especially if you are trying to develop a game to cater to many people and trying to meet a deadline on top of that.
Instancing is practical on both ends and because its being used for the most part in theme parks right now, does NOT mean it cannot be used for more creative or persistent purposes. People against instancing want to argue that developers lack imagination and are being "lazy" but at the same time those same people cannot even see other potential in instancing outside of the ways its being used today. Those same people can only say how bad instancing is, but cannot seem to produce an alternative to provide an equal (or close to equal) game experience to the amount of players in a massive multiplayer game (maybe 1 tried in this thread total).
Its one thing to just say how bad instancing is, but can you honestly say you wouldn't use it as a developer? If you honestly think you wouldn't, then what other alternatives would you consider to provide pleasant game experience to many players that are playing your game at once without them colliding on each other or stepping on each others feet? (and I'm not talking about preventing griefing etc. just plain old waiting lines or sitting in the corners of dungeons to hog as many spawn points as possible)
EDIT: I would like to see someone that actually has played in a dungeon during UO, DAOC and similar times to honestly try to argue against this after playing endless hours of just sitting in corners of dungeons and fighting other players just for respawn areas. In UO's case, even fighting for the loot after you kill a hostile.
I think we need to straighten out the definitions and terminology. I suggest the following definitions:
SP - single-player: we all know what that is
MO - multiplayer online: you have a text-chat lobby and instances
MMO - massive multiplayer online: the same as MO but with an extended lobby:
- 3D lobby with avatars
- persistent lobby and avatars
- you can develop avatars (levels, XP points, honor points, achievements ...)
- marketplace
- classes
- professions
- quests (simple and large story driven quests)
- static environment (whatever the players do the world is still the same)
PMMO - pure massive multiplayer online:
- one unified and persistent virtual world (not divided into lobby and instances)
- no levels, XP points, honor points, achievements ...
- no classes
- no proffessions
- just skills which you can develop only with using them and it is impossible to develop all of the skills in a reasonable time for example in 100 years
- no quests
- players can influence the environment (building and destroying cities, roads, dams ...)
- players can permanently influence the behavior of the NPC (humanoids and animals)
- no stories, just a historical background until the moment the game starts and from that moment on the players create the stories and the contemporary history
Its funny that even when asking this before, no one seemed to respond. In regards to all the arguments against instancing, no one has even tried to present another alternative to actually catering to a large mass of players in terms of game play experience without having the players collide on each other or wait in lines etc. Wouldn't that in itself take away from the "immersion" that the people against instancing are trying to use? It sounds counter intuitive. You can't just create a super large world and expect your whole player base to fit within this world. It just doesn't work especially if you are trying to develop a game to cater to many people and trying to meet a deadline on top of that. Instancing is practical on both ends and because its being used for the most part in theme parks right now, does NOT mean it cannot be used for more creative or persistent purposes. People against instancing want to argue that developers lack imagination and are being "lazy" but at the same time those same people cannot even see other potential in instancing outside of the ways its being used today. Those same people can only say how bad instancing is, but cannot seem to produce an alternative to provide an equal (or close to equal) game experience to the amount of players in a massive multiplayer game (maybe 1 tried in this thread total). Its one thing to just say how bad instancing is, but can you honestly say you wouldn't use it as a developer? If you honestly think you wouldn't, then what other alternatives would you consider to provide pleasant game experience to many players that are playing your game at once without them colliding on each other or stepping on each others feet? (and I'm not talking about preventing griefing etc. just plain old waiting lines or sitting in the corners of dungeons to hog as many spawn points as possible) EDIT: I would like to see someone that actually has played in a dungeon during UO, DAOC and similar times to honestly try to argue against this after playing endless hours of just sitting in corners of dungeons and fighting other players just for respawn areas. In UO's case, even fighting for the loot after you kill a hostile.
The best answer to you post is content. In EQ you only waited for a camp or spawn if you wanted to. there was enough to do that you could do something else. But if you were hell bent on getting your JBoots and wanted then today, then you you waited for the camp. Me personally, I would go to Kwdgw or DSP, or Sol, or any of the other hundreds of places. There was always so much to do that you could always have fun, unless you wanted to wait. then that was available to you as well. Same goes for any well made game. Content allows for the hardcore spawn campers and the instant action crowd.
Instancing cuts out the competitive guys that want to spend "countless hours just sitting in corners" waiting for a spawned mob. Some people want to go through that to get the best stuff, those same people dont want to see other casual players having the same stuff for less work.
Comments
I think instancing is being abused by some and taken to higher levels by others.
Originally I believe instancing was created for gameplay reasons. It stopped the PK, kill stealing and spawn camping. For that I commend it and think it should be used in any highly involved spot that is going to funnel a lot of competing players through it.
Then developers figured out they could use it for story. A great thing in my book.
But then developers also figured out they could use it as a way to work around network infrastructure issues and graphical performance. Why is AoC instanced EVERYWHERE? It's so they don't have too many people on your screen slowing your machine down. And it's so they don't have too many people on one server slowing their machine down. Frankly, it kills immersion when taken to that level and for me it's not worth the shiny graphics trade off.
Now they are taking it further with phasing. And for that I once again commend them. Make it seamless and make it advance gameplay without obviously breaking immersion.
I want to see more of that.
The very best dungeon experiences I had were in public dungeons with contested camps in Everquest (EQ1). The presence of other players actually was sometimes a relief, especially if you were deep inside the dungeon, lost, and fearful of having to make a perilous "corpse run" to get your gear back if you died.
Such dungeons were truly sinister and you were careful in rounding every corner. And if you ever got lost, your heart sank.
The thing about immersion is it makes you feel, be it good, bad, in-between. And sometimes to experience true exhiliration or satisfaction you must balance that with occasional frustration.
These newer toothless instanced MMO's are pretty weak in the immersion department, and I suspect supporters of such designs would be just as happy playing Oblivion offline, or have never had the experience of playing a richly immersive MMO back around 1999 - 2000.
How does waiting in line to kill a quest mob add to immersion?... ^^ How does having your quest mob stolen add to immersion? I've played these games since UO. I MUCH prefer the current approach to the old style. I remember having to keep two or three complete sets of armor and weapons in my vault in Asherons call(One) just to have ANY chance of getting my good set back, after a wipe. Thankfully, most games have moved beyond such an approach. Oblivion was fun(once they patched it enough to keep it from crashing...). I have no problems with *some* aspects of social interaction. But some of the others need to remain in the dust bin of game history where they so richly belong.
Instancing is one of those polarizing things that you never can really get a read on. Is that saying it sucks because he's secretly a greifer? Is that guy saying its great because he's a sociopath? In reality its a good and a bad thing. Dark Age wasn't my first MMO but definitely the one I stuck with longest. My biggest reason for liking instances is the problems that other players cause you. The poster above that claimed reverse-whatever would alleviate the problem has never played an MMO with public dungeons. The exact same thing happens all the time. Group one goes in and another group comes in some time after. While the first group kills off the hordes of mobs on the way to the epic baddy, the second group just coasts behind them. At some point the second group rushes forward attacking the main mob getting the 'link' and the game only lets the lazy people get credit. This always worked in Darkness Falls in DAOC because the group that would be taking the risks can easily be caught fighting enough mobs so that trying to also rush ahead to get the epic mob will always result in suicide.
I just had to quote this because I'm still laughing at it.
Anyway, I agree with what others have said, instancing is fine for "dungeons", "buildings", or whatever structure has quests/missions that you need to complete. in fact, I prefer it nowadays. With the MMO population now mainstream, there are just too many a**hats that spoil the fun for most of us who just want to play and enjoy a game without someone coming along to KS us, or loot something that we needed. However, I do have to say that I have some very fond memories of the beginning days of non-instanced EQ dungeons (LGuk and OS come to mind). Nothing like saving someone who never expected you to show up, or giving someone an unexpected hand deep inside a dungeon who needs it.
But times have changed from the days when one person doing something wrong to many would have consequences. Now, there are practically no repercussions to doing anything wrong in the MMO society. So instancing solves that problem rather nicely. However, I would agree that the main, outside world should have no instancing at all. That bothers me a lot. I don't want to see 50 zones of City Block1 thru 50. In my opinion, that just kind of takes something away from the social aspect of it when you do what to interact with others.
All I know is that so far, there's far too much queuing in CO, even with the repeated zones they spawn, that does allow for a lot of jerky behavior by people who have no business playing any game with a social element. I much prefer the CoX model where anything worth doing outdoors is not so "special" that you see people waiting in line to do it over and over again. Sure, people will want to take down a large mob, and many teams will gang up and get a share of the xp and the badge and such, but that's just a fun diversion, not the core of the game. The core is me and whatever team I join going up against the forces of evil (or good) to accomplish some set goals, and no maladjusted ten year old or embittered thirty-something is going to mess that up. When I get to the main game of CO proper, I sincerely hope that it follows the CoX model more closely than the WoW model, because for me, immersion is found in instances, not in the main world where people are allowed to spread levels of dysfunctional behavior in broadcast chat that would get them pummeled mercilessly in real life.
All this talk about instancing effecting immersion is interesting. Personally any world that requires heavy instancing to maintain immersion is poorly designed to begin with and is more of a theme park ride where youre being led by the nose everywhere, just like everyone before you and everyone after you. I wish more games would follow EVE's example and create a world where there is no single quest or item everyone "must" have or a single area path that your character must follow as they develop. To me immersion is being able to play a game the way a character I create and shape would do so. In a well designed game, using targeted small instances helps with this. If the game requires much more than that, its probably not a game Im going to play because i dont like its base design is simply not what im looking for in a game and therefore it doesnt effect me.
Instancing prevents a player's actions from having an effect on a world, so the sandbox crowd is against it. At the same time, the Themepark crowd also like world events, so they like both instances and non-instanced boss fights, etc. I personally don't care that much one way or the other if the instance is presented in a logical way and fun way.
Would be best to provide more current examples of what has worked since the MMO genre is a far different world than what it used to be with Asheron's Call, DAoC, Ultima Online etc. etc.
The technology is rapidly advancing, and yet the games are getting more simplistic and dumbed down every year. Sure, sometimes the graphics are nice, but eyecandy isn't going to keep people subscribing for years. In my opinion, every MMORPG should feature a seamless, persistent world where people from all around the world meet and interact in different ways, since that is what the first MMORPG's used to be.
What's worrying is that nowadays there's so many people who, instead of living a virtual life, meeting and interacting with people, want to lock themselves in isolated rooms and go on some single player or multiplayer adventures with a bunch of people they know and accept. They don't want to play MMORPG's, they want simple multiplayer RPG's, and that is what they're getting (AOC, DDO etc.) Then they have something to whine about, usually lack of endgame, but you can't avoid running out of content in a game that is just a multiplayer extension of a single player RPG.
UO, EQ, AC defined the characteristics of this genre, you don't redefine it to better fit a bunch of hybrid games that don't really fit this or any of the other already existing ones, you make a new one. For instance, NCSoft calls Guild Wars a CORPG (or at least used to when the game was about to release), which stands for Competitive Online Role-Playing Game. Why is it listed here?
Why is AoC instanced EVERYWHERE?
Because FunCom does a piss poor job at developing MMORPG's, that's why. They weaseled their way out of making a true MMORPG by creating a bunch of rooms (zones) and multiplying these rooms to accomodate as many people as necessary (districts). It wouldn't be much of a problem if AOC was a pure PVE game, but since they also have PVP servers, making it possible for someone to simply avoid their enemy by going to a different district of the same zone/area or hide in an instance no one else can enter is simply absurd. Server and client performance was just an excuse, as, despite all the limitations, the client performance was still abysmal, and the districts often lagged and randomly crashed.
multiple edits: tags.
You do realize that about 2/3 of Eve's player base stays in high sec, and never leaves, don't you? ^^ Theme park games are the current focus of various companies, because thats what appeals to the mass market demographics. Instancing is a tool. Just like any tool it can be misapplied. But people who go on(and on...) about the "massive" aspect of MMO's, either have little experience with what results in sand box type games...Or are part of the problem. ^^ Gankers/griefers will be with us always. That being the case, games need to take actions to minimize the impact such people have on the rest of the player base.
You do realize that about 2/3 of Eve's player base stays in high sec, and never leaves, don't you? ^^ Theme park games are the current focus of various companies, because thats what appeals to the mass market demographics. Instancing is a tool. Just like any tool it can be misapplied. But people who go on(and on...) about the "massive" aspect of MMO's, either have little experience with what results in sand box type games...Or are part of the problem. ^^ Gankers/griefers will be with us always. That being the case, games need to take actions to minimize the impact such people have on the rest of the player base.
I could be wrong, but it sounds like you're trying to negate the previous poster when you say "You do realize that about 2/3 of Eve's player base stays in high sec, and never leaves, don't you?" But I don't see how.
I'm not a hardcore gamer but I really don't like instancing much in MMOs.
I think using instances is a cheap fix for poor game design and/or current software limitations. Almost all issues related to "needing" an instance such as overcrowding, griefing, kill stealing etc could be fixed by better game design.
I think if a game has instancing it should have some different title then mmo. I personally despise them and will seek out a game that does not have them or limits them. Even with all of its problem Vanguard is the best guys like me can do right now.
Instancing is great for those that want everything now now now, or don't really want a long term meaningful game experience. Instancing players are there to play a game. Its all about the fun and the fast reward. That's not a bad thing. If that what you want then I say go for it. By having instaces you will avoid all of the problem that all of the previous posters have listed. Instancing really does work to that end. What I am saying is that for alot of us the "problems" listed before add to the meaningful game experience that instance players are trying to avoid.
For all of the old school EQ guys out there think about it. The first time you saw someone with an epic weapon did you think oh wow that's an accomplishment, that guy knows what he is doing. Or did you think wow he must have just killed X mob a few hundred times to get that, and walked on. A lot of instancing games are just rinse and repeat scenarios. Keep running the instance till you item drops, or until you collect x number or tokens or coins or whatever. Having it instanced means no waiting instant repeat. Having a spawned mob in an open world makes every attempt meaningful and exciting. You will be more careful when you know you cant try again for an hour or a week. Some instances have lockout timers. That takes away the randomness of having mobs with variable respawn timers. You know you are locked out of the instance for 3 hours, but in a persistant world that dragon you need might respawn in 30 minutes or might be 3 days.
Things are more meaningful to players like me when we feel like they are rare or hard to get/accomplish. If it means waiting a week for a camp to open up or a few hours for a respawn, or any of those "problems" listed then that makes it all the better. I think even to day one would have more bragging rights by saying they were on a Sleeper raid in EQ then any 5 accomplishments in a game like WoW. The Sleeper can only be awakened once. what would happen if a mob was put in a an instanced game like WoW and the thing could only be done once? We all know what would happen. I'm not saying the whole game should be one time actions but the fact that something like that would be seen as game breaking to a lot of people is just another "problem" that would add to a meaningful game experience.
I just wish one company would make one game for the guys like me. then we would fade away and stop bothering all of the rest of you. Sadly those days are over. Today no one has time to play a game like that. now everyone wants it all on demand. Played EQ for 5 years and never made it to level cap. Best game time I ever had. Everything pales in comparison. Honestly instancing has killed it more for me then the other issues I have with games today like spoon fed experience, instant travel, and GPS maps. Sad when a game doesn't really start until you hit the level cap.
Some people say its a game not a job. Well I might be old fashioned but I tend to enjoy things more when I have worked for them. Gimmie a game that's hard work over a welfare game any day.
Coldsteel6d, have you tried Darkfall? It seems to be what you are speaking of. Also Mortal Online may also suit you. Both are full loot PK games with some sand box elements. I personally despise such gankfest games, but they do appeal to a certain limited demographic.
A little off topic but I've heard this said a number of times from EVE players and I don't understand it. I've tried EVE for months and what you could do in the game seemed to break down to this:
Which is all well and good. But here's the thing, here's what I can do in LotRo or Wow:
It seems pretty similar. The only difference is that the "theme park" games have a plot to entice should I wish (which is why most entertainment is popular; movies, books, plays, etc.) whereas the "sandbox" games leave me with no real suggestions for something entertaining. I guess that's why most of the popular sandbox games are PvP... because there really is nothing else engaging in them.
So it seems what many are really saying is "I want world PvP with nothing in the way."
Or, maybe I'm just not cut from that cloth and can't get it. Same way I don't quite understand girls and never will
Agree.
In the end this is all about personal preferences. My personal preferences would be:
1) Open world where each part is one single zone (whether EQ style or chunked). If too many players in the same area causes too much lag then the (a) the world is designed wrong and/or (b) the game's graphics need to be lower quality.
2) Big open chaotic dungeons.
3) Each big open dungeon with a smaller instanced dungeon accessed past the hardest part of the open dungeon with the biggest boss.
4) Mixture of mob-grinding and solo quests with at least some of the quests class specific and some of the class specific quests having small instances for class-specific flavor e.g thief skills or healer quests involving healing.
5) The possibility of player-created DM story quests - maybe instanced.
I judge a game by one criteria - fun.
You can have fun games with instancing, and not fun games without it.
The real issue is gamers judging a game on something like this even before they play it and not based on fun. Just another reason I wouldn't want to make a game for the MMORPG crowd.
Interesting article and interesting feedback.
Instancing and instanced 'worlds' are an issue I think MMORPG.com should look at seriously IMHO.
As the article says, instancing can be a useful tool for storytelling.
So, that suggests to me that the argument is for appropriate use of instancing?
And here is where we (MMORPG.com members) perhaps need to review the definition of an MMORPG?
Recent design trends seem to suggest designers are relying more and more on instancing - my question is: do they need to?
At what point does your game stop being an MMO and become an "online game with a multiplayer option"?
There are a number of recent threads on this very topic here on MMORPG.com (see below)
The article refers to the "Wagon Wheel" design.
This creates something I refer to as the "Graphical Lobby Game"
That is a game where the entire game is made up of a series of instances - to the point where the game world is essentually only a waiting area (or graphical lobby) where players wait to go into an instance.
PotBS was a good example of this.
PotBS (Graphical Lobby Game)
Main World (chat only - no trade) = The Main Lobby
Sea Battle instances (PvP)
Towns (chat and trade - no Av Com) = The Secondary Lobbies
Fencing instances (PvP)
Mission instances
And to be fair - if this sort of design still qualifies as an MMO then why don't games like FARM TOWN also qualify as MMOs?
That is an issue I raised here:
FARM TOWN vs. MMORPG.com (http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/247530/page/1)
And to be honest I was a bit disappointed that it seems that FARM TOWN does apparently count as an MMO based on the rules on MMORPG.com and based on peoples' current understanding of what the term means.
Farm Town, for those that don't know is just a series of instances.
In many cases I think instancing is being used not because it is required (for storytelling or other reasons) but just because it's easier. In other words, it has become a crutch for lazy (or untalented) design teams. Can't think of a way to tie the different elements of your game together? = Just use instancing!
My personal view on this is that the MMORPG.com community needs to review what an MMO is based on current industry trends and technological capabilities and limitations. From that the rules of what games should be listed on MMORPG.com in future need to be reviewed.
Part of the requirements should be "Is instancing really required in this case?".
Where the answer is "Maybe not, but it was the easiest way to do it." then perhaps the games status as an MMO needs review?
Related threads:
An attempt to define "instance"
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/246307/page/1
What's so bad about instancing?
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/246215/page/1
Global Agenda, Huxley Online, CrimeCraft are NOT MMOs!!!
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/240096
What defines a true MMO?
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/240346/page/1
MMORPG - small instanced zones or huge and seamless world
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/237825/page/1
My definition of a Graphical Lobby Game
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/2898536#2898536
Your Solultion To The "Zerg"
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/246723/page/1
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
I'll never be a fan of instancing, since its against the massive part of MMOs. You can make open stuff dramatic and whatever too, the developers just didnt try it yet.
I agree with a lot of people in saying, instancing = poor game design.
I would like to also add, grievance and help in non instanced game is very important for building a community.
I have a few friends still from my EQ1 days where I met them purely in game by helping each other.
I am afraid the community side is often overlooked by the annoyance and grievance issues with non instanced games.
MMO are suppose to be massively multiplayer online, as in people of all ages and sizes thrown together in a big world, not a single player game where you can invite friends to play occasionally.
Instancing makes a game world to me, feel very artifical and more like a game than a virutal existance.
I am sure WoW and Xbox live have made me the minority here but there is a generation of players who still cry out for this.
Now playing: VG (after a long break from MMORPGS)
Played for more than a month: Darkfall online, Vanguard SOH, Everquest, Horizons, WoW, SWG, Everquest II, Eve
Yea they would suit me except I don't really go for PvP unless it means something, like DAOC. The RvR with 3 factions is great. So PvP is not something I am hunting for. I don't think I even mentioned it in my post as a matter of fact. I am not looking for a "gankfest" game. I am looking for a meaningful experience. I think you are trying to lump me into the same group as all of the guys that love games like Darkfall and the old UO.
PvP is cool but once again if its fast and easy like in WAR scenarios then its not fun to me. I want to work at taking a keep or fortress. I want to have the risk of playing for a hours and in the end maybe my guys win, maybe we are repulsed. Either way instancing and PvP = weak and pointless.
I have a new definition for a single-player game. A single-player game is an extremely instanced MMO, where each player has his own instance of the whole game. The MMO is so extremely instanced that you don't even need an internet connection for playing it, you can just play it on your disconnected computer or console.
For all of you who hate instancing as I do, check out this MMOG called Dawntide. www.dawntide.net/
and what the developers think about instancing. forums.dawntide.net/showthread.php
Q: Will there be instancing?
"Instances are the devil's work. Why, scarcity of resources is the source of most fun in history! Imagine all the fun wars and history we would've missed out on with instancing in real life." -Zodium
Its funny that even when asking this before, no one seemed to respond. In regards to all the arguments against instancing, no one has even tried to present another alternative to actually catering to a large mass of players in terms of game play experience without having the players collide on each other or wait in lines etc. Wouldn't that in itself take away from the "immersion" that the people against instancing are trying to use? It sounds counter intuitive. You can't just create a super large world and expect your whole player base to fit within this world. It just doesn't work especially if you are trying to develop a game to cater to many people and trying to meet a deadline on top of that.
Instancing is practical on both ends and because its being used for the most part in theme parks right now, does NOT mean it cannot be used for more creative or persistent purposes. People against instancing want to argue that developers lack imagination and are being "lazy" but at the same time those same people cannot even see other potential in instancing outside of the ways its being used today. Those same people can only say how bad instancing is, but cannot seem to produce an alternative to provide an equal (or close to equal) game experience to the amount of players in a massive multiplayer game (maybe 1 tried in this thread total).
Its one thing to just say how bad instancing is, but can you honestly say you wouldn't use it as a developer? If you honestly think you wouldn't, then what other alternatives would you consider to provide pleasant game experience to many players that are playing your game at once without them colliding on each other or stepping on each others feet? (and I'm not talking about preventing griefing etc. just plain old waiting lines or sitting in the corners of dungeons to hog as many spawn points as possible)
EDIT: I would like to see someone that actually has played in a dungeon during UO, DAOC and similar times to honestly try to argue against this after playing endless hours of just sitting in corners of dungeons and fighting other players just for respawn areas. In UO's case, even fighting for the loot after you kill a hostile.
I think we need to straighten out the definitions and terminology. I suggest the following definitions:
SP - single-player: we all know what that is
MO - multiplayer online: you have a text-chat lobby and instances
MMO - massive multiplayer online: the same as MO but with an extended lobby:
- 3D lobby with avatars
- persistent lobby and avatars
- you can develop avatars (levels, XP points, honor points, achievements ...)
- marketplace
- classes
- professions
- quests (simple and large story driven quests)
- static environment (whatever the players do the world is still the same)
PMMO - pure massive multiplayer online:
- one unified and persistent virtual world (not divided into lobby and instances)
- no levels, XP points, honor points, achievements ...
- no classes
- no proffessions
- just skills which you can develop only with using them and it is impossible to develop all of the skills in a reasonable time for example in 100 years
- no quests
- players can influence the environment (building and destroying cities, roads, dams ...)
- players can permanently influence the behavior of the NPC (humanoids and animals)
- no stories, just a historical background until the moment the game starts and from that moment on the players create the stories and the contemporary history
The best answer to you post is content. In EQ you only waited for a camp or spawn if you wanted to. there was enough to do that you could do something else. But if you were hell bent on getting your JBoots and wanted then today, then you you waited for the camp. Me personally, I would go to Kwdgw or DSP, or Sol, or any of the other hundreds of places. There was always so much to do that you could always have fun, unless you wanted to wait. then that was available to you as well. Same goes for any well made game. Content allows for the hardcore spawn campers and the instant action crowd.
Instancing cuts out the competitive guys that want to spend "countless hours just sitting in corners" waiting for a spawned mob. Some people want to go through that to get the best stuff, those same people dont want to see other casual players having the same stuff for less work.