Having to wait x amount of time for a respawn is different than being griefed. If you're griefed you report the person and is a different subject. My point is that I think in an MMO is to be played with a "massive" amount of people, just like you do in real life. Along with that can come the same tribulations dealing with people but there is more value IMO if you're part of that rather than playing a game that is all about "me". I don't see the point really but that's just me.
I can see why people don't want to wait for anything and can even use the excuse of playing games to escape real life situations. MMOs are supposed to be different though. I think you are seeing why right now with the "in/out" nature of play. Consume and move on since there is no sentimental value to the time they spent around tons of people because they hardly had to interact.
Long story short I think seperation instancing can be detrimental to an MMO and I'm not talking about revenue.
Oh here we go: "What MMOs should and should not be."
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Benedikt actually no - gw2 (and aoc) "instancing" is a protection against "empty zones" which do happen a lot in most of other mmorpgs when most of the players are already max level - have to say i was not bothered by it in gw2 at all (well mostly at all, i could have live w/o a time it took to transit from overflow to normal zone)
Make leveling meaningfull and actually lasting quite abit of time instead of the 1month level cap rush and all your zones will automaticly be filled by people leveling at slower paces and alts. No need for instanceing
Instancing is modern thing because imagine this. Dungeons are not instanced. Bosses/mobs in a dungeon are available for first come first serve basis. Farming guilds will dominate these dungeons 24/7.
Who wants to play a game like that?
All dungeons are open in AC2 no instance and stil zero farm guilds hehe you should try AC2 or old Darkfall was also no grinding by same in dungeons all open.
Instance are for themeaprks but in sandbox open dungeons work fine as intended.
Only games I do not play (and i guess will never play again): 1st person view only, no dual button mouse press to move and (this one is not so strong on my no-no list) targeting recticle.
Much preferred EQ in it's launch and early expansion state where everything , including major dungeons , were open world.
Zero instancing.
EQ2 was never zero instancing, but yeah it certainly was a lot less back then.
I don't mind zones and a bit of instancing generally, but that game just just a joke of loading screens these days... It seems like the devs have an internat competition on who can put the most into whatever they design.
1.) Provides an environment clean from disruptions allowing a full game experience. This means allowing for players to 'run through' say a dungeon without everything being dead and farmed before the bosses just as a rough example
2.) Allows for challenge fixated aorund a certain number of players. Given others are tossed in, the challenge would be lost.
3.) Allows for 'events' that would be impossible in an MMO setting, allowing for more story to be drive in game much like a Singleplayer game would despite being in a MMO setting that can't do that.
4.) Permits more advanced effects/mechanics that given large numbers of players around, would likely lag most players systems and make it difficult to handle mechanics due to that lag.
Pretty much.
Yeah .. particularly (3). I really enjoy the STO story instances. And i will also add:
5) Have better, more fair, e-sport pvp.
6) Provides clear choices of how/what to play without a lot of extra work (just want to go to dungeon A, don't need to worry about other stuff .. just click and start).
Much preferred EQ in it's launch and early expansion state where everything , including major dungeons , were open world.
Zero instancing.
I kind of enjoy a mix of both open world and instancing. For the most part, I think games should be more open and not have everyone secluded from one another in small groups, or why call it an MMO and not just an MO. However, as Dahkoht points out the original EverQuest in its early expansions, I think games that are all open provide problems for anyone that doesn't play games all day, every day. As a casual gamer (which I consider 4 hours or less per day) you would never see ANY of the end game content. "Hard core" players that play 18 hours a day will block that content all the time. Why would I as a casual player want to pay the same price for only half of the content of the game? Instancing for specific quests and/or bosses is ok in my opinion.
Much preferred EQ in it's launch and early expansion state where everything , including major dungeons , were open world.
Zero instancing.
I kind of enjoy a mix of both open world and instancing. For the most part, I think games should be more open and not have everyone secluded from one another in small groups, or why call it an MMO and not just an MO. However, as Dahkoht points out the original EverQuest in its early expansions, I think games that are all open provide problems for anyone that doesn't play games all day, every day. As a casual gamer (which I consider 4 hours or less per day) you would never see ANY of the end game content. "Hard core" players that play 18 hours a day will block that content all the time. Why would I as a casual player want to pay the same price for only half of the content of the game? Instancing for specific quests and/or bosses is ok in my opinion.
Because it is common usage? If naming is the biggest issue .. then hey .. just change the name of the genre.
Having to wait x amount of time for a respawn is different than being griefed. If you're griefed you report the person and is a different subject. My point is that I think in an MMO is to be played with a "massive" amount of people, just like you do in real life. Along with that can come the same tribulations dealing with people but there is more value IMO if you're part of that rather than playing a game that is all about "me". I don't see the point really but that's just me.
I can see why people don't want to wait for anything and can even use the excuse of playing games to escape real life situations. MMOs are supposed to be different though. I think you are seeing why right now with the "in/out" nature of play. Consume and move on since there is no sentimental value to the time they spent around tons of people because they hardly had to interact.
Long story short I think seperation instancing can be detrimental to an MMO and I'm not talking about revenue.
Yeah but your opinion isn't what matters -- at least not if you can't present a set of logical reasons people are getting value for the cost they pay in fun.
Basically you have three options:
Concede that people by and large don't perceive enough value to the cost in fun they play by sharing a world with others, and that your opinion that MMO stands on its own merits is a niche opinion. (Others don't perceive zero value to a game being MMO, just not enough value.)
Figure out ways of reducing the cost of sharing a world with others, like bosses which are instantly summoned and whose kill credit it shared (WOW does the latter nowadays and it helps considerably; no more "line" for the named mob.)
Figure out ways to increase the value players get by paying that cost. The ideas here will be less refined, as few games really achieve this in their open world. At least not without also increasing their cost for playing and failing to address the main problem.
Because #1 is the reality of the situation right now, and the reason games are shifting away from shared MMO spaces, or at best are shifting towards things like GW2 where it's kinda not an MMO because everything feels the same no matter how many players are with you.
MMOs aren't "supposed" to be anything. Games as a whole WILL be whatever the market pushes them towards. And if a game is poor at delivering fun (the primary purpose of gaming) then it will wither while other games thrive, and more games like the other games will be made.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
MMOs aren't "supposed" to be anything. Games as a whole WILL be whatever the market pushes them towards. And if a game is poor at delivering fun (the primary purpose of gaming) then it will wither while other games thrive, and more games like the other games will be made.
This ^^^. They are just entertainment products, competing with other entertainment products in the market place. The fact that many complains that modern MMO are not "supposed" to be like this .. is proof enough.
Holding onto old, tried and failed ideas .... i suppose .. is human nature. But no matter how hard one screams, if the market doesn to respond, you won't see anything beyond niche.
Much preferred EQ in it's launch and early expansion state where everything , including major dungeons , were open world.
Zero instancing.
I kind of enjoy a mix of both open world and instancing. For the most part, I think games should be more open and not have everyone secluded from one another in small groups, or why call it an MMO and not just an MO. However, as Dahkoht points out the original EverQuest in its early expansions, I think games that are all open provide problems for anyone that doesn't play games all day, every day. As a casual gamer (which I consider 4 hours or less per day) you would never see ANY of the end game content. "Hard core" players that play 18 hours a day will block that content all the time. Why would I as a casual player want to pay the same price for only half of the content of the game? Instancing for specific quests and/or bosses is ok in my opinion.
Because it is common usage? If naming is the biggest issue .. then hey .. just change the name of the genre.
Yes, that was my point you highlighted. I am aware that it's common usage but If a game is all instanced, then I think the name of the genre should be changed. Just my 2 cents. You don't have to agree.
Much preferred EQ in it's launch and early expansion state where everything , including major dungeons , were open world.
Zero instancing.
I kind of enjoy a mix of both open world and instancing. For the most part, I think games should be more open and not have everyone secluded from one another in small groups, or why call it an MMO and not just an MO. However, as Dahkoht points out the original EverQuest in its early expansions, I think games that are all open provide problems for anyone that doesn't play games all day, every day. As a casual gamer (which I consider 4 hours or less per day) you would never see ANY of the end game content. "Hard core" players that play 18 hours a day will block that content all the time. Why would I as a casual player want to pay the same price for only half of the content of the game? Instancing for specific quests and/or bosses is ok in my opinion.
Because it is common usage? If naming is the biggest issue .. then hey .. just change the name of the genre.
Yes, that was my point you highlighted. I am aware that it's common usage but If a game is all instanced, then I think the name of the genre should be changed. Just my 2 cents. You don't have to agree.
Oh i have no problem changing the name. I don't really care about genre names. I care about if a game is fun.
But the issue, of course, is what to call them, and how do you convince others to use the new term.
Much preferred EQ in it's launch and early expansion state where everything , including major dungeons , were open world.
Zero instancing.
I kind of enjoy a mix of both open world and instancing. For the most part, I think games should be more open and not have everyone secluded from one another in small groups, or why call it an MMO and not just an MO. However, as Dahkoht points out the original EverQuest in its early expansions, I think games that are all open provide problems for anyone that doesn't play games all day, every day. As a casual gamer (which I consider 4 hours or less per day) you would never see ANY of the end game content. "Hard core" players that play 18 hours a day will block that content all the time. Why would I as a casual player want to pay the same price for only half of the content of the game? Instancing for specific quests and/or bosses is ok in my opinion.
Because it is common usage? If naming is the biggest issue .. then hey .. just change the name of the genre.
Yes, that was my point you highlighted. I am aware that it's common usage but If a game is all instanced, then I think the name of the genre should be changed. Just my 2 cents. You don't have to agree.
What does MMO stand for? Massively Multiplayer Online. Regardless if a game is all instanced, It's still an MMO. 1. its online. 2. its multiplayer even if you can play as single player also. 3. its a massive amount of multiplayer action going on.
There is no discussion. You're splitting hairs over something stupid.
Originally posted by GroovyFlower
Originally posted by Sephiroso
Originally posted by xeniar
Originally posted by Benedikt actually no - gw2 (and aoc) "instancing" is a protection against "empty zones" which do happen a lot in most of other mmorpgs when most of the players are already max level - have to say i was not bothered by it in gw2 at all (well mostly at all, i could have live w/o a time it took to transit from overflow to normal zone)
Make leveling meaningfull and actually lasting quite abit of time instead of the 1month level cap rush and all your zones will automaticly be filled by people leveling at slower paces and alts. No need for instanceing
Instancing is modern thing because imagine this. Dungeons are not instanced. Bosses/mobs in a dungeon are available for first come first serve basis. Farming guilds will dominate these dungeons 24/7.
Who wants to play a game like that?
All dungeons are open in AC2 no instance and stil zero farm guilds hehe you should try AC2 or old Darkfall was also no grinding by same in dungeons all open.
Instance are for themeaprks but in sandbox open dungeons work fine as intended.
Im guessing AC2 is sandbox also? See the thing is, sandbox games are small niche games. They don't attract the same type of players(and nowhere near the same amount of players) as a themepark game. So you don't get the type of players that will grief others or the farming guilds that will be there all day err day farming(assuming they drop good gear and stuff which they should, its a fuckin dungeon). And if you do, again its nowhere near the same numbers as a themepark game.
Much preferred EQ in it's launch and early expansion state where everything , including major dungeons , were open world.
Zero instancing.
I kind of enjoy a mix of both open world and instancing. For the most part, I think games should be more open and not have everyone secluded from one another in small groups, or why call it an MMO and not just an MO. However, as Dahkoht points out the original EverQuest in its early expansions, I think games that are all open provide problems for anyone that doesn't play games all day, every day. As a casual gamer (which I consider 4 hours or less per day) you would never see ANY of the end game content. "Hard core" players that play 18 hours a day will block that content all the time. Why would I as a casual player want to pay the same price for only half of the content of the game? Instancing for specific quests and/or bosses is ok in my opinion.
Because it is common usage? If naming is the biggest issue .. then hey .. just change the name of the genre.
Yes, that was my point you highlighted. I am aware that it's common usage but If a game is all instanced, then I think the name of the genre should be changed. Just my 2 cents. You don't have to agree.
What does MMO stand for? Massively Multiplayer Online. Regardless if a game is all instanced, It's still an MMO. 1. its online. 2. its multiplayer even if you can play as single player also. 3. its a massive amount of multiplayer action going on.
There is no discussion. You're splitting hairs over something stupid.
Not really sure why you're getting upset over my opinion on this matter, lol. If you want to consider a game an MMO because of the points you listed, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine, even if you think it's stupid. I do agree that instances have their place in MMOs but if the game is heavily or fully instanced, I do not consider it an MMO.
Not really sure why you're getting upset over my opinion on this matter, lol. If you want to consider a game an MMO because of the points you listed, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine, even if you think it's stupid. I do agree that instances have their place in MMOs but if the game is heavily or fully instanced, I do not consider it an MMO.
Now what would you call those games that the industry consider as MMOs but you don't? We do need a term for clear communication.
Not really sure why you're getting upset over my opinion on this matter, lol. If you want to consider a game an MMO because of the points you listed, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine, even if you think it's stupid. I do agree that instances have their place in MMOs but if the game is heavily or fully instanced, I do not consider it an MMO.
Now what would you call those games that the industry consider as MMOs but you don't? We do need a term for clear communication.
They're multiplayer games that are played online. It's not more complicated than that.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I've played PWI (yes that old outdated etc game) for some time now and assumed that the open world style was the norm. Then having jumped on the GW2 bandwagon I was very confused by the gameplay style.
So this is 'instanced' where you have a small area to quest in, then (at least back when it started) you wait in line to get into the next area? I must admit I was baffled. I dont have a lot of MMO experience and suddenly this super new game seems like a whole bunch of small games linked together by portals.
How is it that this is even accepted by the gaming community. Like seriously, am I the only one that thinks the 'instanced' style of GW2 really sucks - I mean REALLY. I was extremely disappointed to say the least and it actually made me feel claustrophobic playing GW2.
(as a sideline I didnt play GW2 for long because my computer wont play it for pvp but thats my problem)
I guess I'm interested to hear others opinions on 'instancing'. Does anyone out there actually like it - and if so why? Is instancing a result of developers trying to cramb so much into each small area that it cant be done in an open world format?
My troll senses are ringing, but I'll bite lol
It's a modern development for 2 reasons...
1) New Technology allows for it to be more seamlessly intergrated into the other perpetual parts of the game. As a matter of fact, there are several kinds of instancing.
Your standard run of the mill instance works like the dungeons you find in WOW or GW2. Jump through a portal and you & your group have your very own version of that environment. When your done, you jump out.
A more modern derivitive of that is called "phasing". These usually apply to a seamless transition (no loading screen) to a specific area in the open world where you (and maybe a small number of others) are in 1 "instance" of that area...usually acompanied with some sort of interactive event or storyline.
2) It provides more protection of the game developer's vision of the player's experiences in the game.....particularly for the casual gamer that is focused more on the action gameplay than the whole massive social interaction aspect of MMOs.
The new kind of MMOs are very linear & scripted, and provide for a much different dungeon crawler type experience.
Dungeons in traditional persistant world games typically serve nothing more than a place where higher difficulty monsters (with better loot) spawn. The experience for gamers in these types of games usually involve camping a particular room or spawn point and farm it over & over to gain wealth & gear.
Dungeons in new instanced games are more of a start to finish event, where players start at point A, then progress in a linear fashion to point B.....taking down bosses along the way. This experience isn't compatible with an open world environment because other players would be able to jump in and interfear with the progression of a group.
The problem isn't that Instance is an Modern development technique.
The problem is that when Nodes and Resources aren't instanced, people complain, and they complain with their wallets.
When people complain with Wallets, Instances gets put in. It was an necessary Evil in a sense of the word.
In FFXI, when I found an Node not already taken, it was awesome, I feel a small achievement that propels me forward and looking for more of the nodes. But when it was camped 24/7 it started to become tedious and boring and it makes me angry.
There should be balances in them, yet many developers takes the Instance way out. Because its easier, and its fault proof.
In FFXI , Named Mobs are also camped, but when you do get 1 and managed to kill it and still receive no loot, yes, it was tedious and it angers many.
The key is balance, and balance takes time, and resources to find.
So why not take the easier, proven way out, and just make stuff instanced, so everyone can get to it.
I prefer Balance , the balance between Anger and happiness. But really who would spend the time to do it.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
Not really sure why you're getting upset over my opinion on this matter, lol. If you want to consider a game an MMO because of the points you listed, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine, even if you think it's stupid. I do agree that instances have their place in MMOs but if the game is heavily or fully instanced, I do not consider it an MMO.
Now what would you call those games that the industry consider as MMOs but you don't? We do need a term for clear communication.
They're multiplayer games that are played online. It's not more complicated than that.
They are also RPG. Some features like an AH can be massive. So do you call a game with a massive AH MMO?
How about one with a massive lobby, and all instanced pve? How about one with massive world pvp but only instanced pve?
Or we can talk about specific games. That would have zero confusion.
The problem isn't that Instance is an Modern development technique.
The problem is that when Nodes and Resources aren't instanced, people complain, and they complain with their wallets.
When people complain with Wallets, Instances gets put in. It was an necessary Evil in a sense of the word.
In FFXI, when I found an Node not already taken, it was awesome, I feel a small achievement that propels me forward and looking for more of the nodes. But when it was camped 24/7 it started to become tedious and boring and it makes me angry.
There should be balances in them, yet many developers takes the Instance way out. Because its easier, and its fault proof.
In FFXI , Named Mobs are also camped, but when you do get 1 and managed to kill it and still receive no loot, yes, it was tedious and it angers many.
The key is balance, and balance takes time, and resources to find.
So why not take the easier, proven way out, and just make stuff instanced, so everyone can get to it.
I prefer Balance , the balance between Anger and happiness. But really who would spend the time to do it.
It's important to understand who your target audience is, and what is the mission statement of your project.
For instance, Lineage 2 is an open world, instanceless (for the most part) game with an open PvP system. It's also a very resource dependent game (monster loot). Because there isn't a private instanced zone that drops materials needed to craft a particular weapon, players have to compete over that territory.
Because clans are stronger than the singluar, players gather and form clans to increase their ability to compete for said territory. Sometimes competeing clans will join as an alliance & set up fair agreements on who gets to farm there and when.....sometimes they fight over it. Either way, it creates social interaction, and dynamic player generated content.....things that will hold you to a game much longer than running the same instance 50 times to complete a set of armor. (IF thats the kind of game your looking for)
However, if you have a game that doesn't focus on the social element, and more towards action combat....then the scenario you present will cause issues (if there is no supporting subsystems to take advantage of that resource constraint)
1.) Provides an environment clean from disruptions allowing a full game experience. This means allowing for players to 'run through' say a dungeon without everything being dead and farmed before the bosses just as a rough example
...
3.) Allows for 'events' that would be impossible in an MMO setting, allowing for more story to be drive in game much like a Singleplayer game would despite being in a MMO setting that can't do that.
...
I was just reviewing the thread and thought I would comment a bit more on these two points.
These are often points raised by Devs to justify instancing - but IMHO they are not always valid.
It is possible to have open world dungeons (non-instanced) and locations where the monsters aren't all dead and players do get the 'full experience'.
It's a question of "Player Density" and that is something that can be planned and controlled (to a degree) by good design.
What that means is making sure that no one area or questline is overpopulated. You can do this by not focusing on a single story line which brings all players to the same location at the same time or character level. Quest hubs and the demand for shorter travel times (with fast travel options provided) only serve to increase player density.
Players who have ever played 'open' games will notice that at certain population levels the game seems to 'work' and have a better feel about it?
For example The Chronicles of Spellborn in the last year (?) before it closed had a player density that meant you could move a bit away from the towns and feel like you were in the wilderness. In the PvP zones the number of players meant that encounters were rare enough to be exciting - not frustrating. The game had open world dungeons and the player density when I played was at the point where you would sometimes meet other players and parties but it wasn't a certainty. Sometimes you would walk in on a fight and could assist people from other groups and different houses under an unofficial truce. It really had a wild west feel to it.
Vanguard at the moment also feels about right to me (although I haven't traveled far yet)
If you travel to zones like Evendim or Forochel in LotRO you get the same experience.
You find quest lines off the main story and locations that aren't being stomped on by all the powerlevelers just trying to get to level X-ty nine.
I have heard that in WoW there are some old locations and quest lines about that offer the same feel (don't play WoW - but some story about a haunted town and the ghost of a little girl?)
So, to me it's a question of design. If you plan to have a large open world and encourage players to write their own story - not all simply follow a single quest line like lemmings - then you can reduce the pressure on dungeons and locations.
MMOs aren't "supposed" to be anything. Games as a whole WILL be whatever the market pushes them towards. And if a game is poor at delivering fun (the primary purpose of gaming) then it will wither while other games thrive, and more games like the other games will be made.
This ^^^. They are just entertainment products, competing with other entertainment products in the market place. The fact that many complains that modern MMO are not "supposed" to be like this .. is proof enough.
Holding onto old, tried and failed ideas .... i suppose .. is human nature. But no matter how hard one screams, if the market doesn to respond, you won't see anything beyond niche.
The market is responding by the wave of "old, tried and failed ideas" coming
Having to wait x amount of time for a respawn is different than being griefed. If you're griefed you report the person and is a different subject. My point is that I think in an MMO is to be played with a "massive" amount of people, just like you do in real life. Along with that can come the same tribulations dealing with people but there is more value IMO if you're part of that rather than playing a game that is all about "me". I don't see the point really but that's just me.
I can see why people don't want to wait for anything and can even use the excuse of playing games to escape real life situations. MMOs are supposed to be different though. I think you are seeing why right now with the "in/out" nature of play. Consume and move on since there is no sentimental value to the time they spent around tons of people because they hardly had to interact.
Long story short I think seperation instancing can be detrimental to an MMO and I'm not talking about revenue.
Yeah but your opinion isn't what matters -- at least not if you can't present a set of logical reasons people are getting value for the cost they pay in fun.
Basically you have three options:
Concede that people by and large don't perceive enough value to the cost in fun they play by sharing a world with others, and that your opinion that MMO stands on its own merits is a niche opinion. (Others don't perceive zero value to a game being MMO, just not enough value.)
Figure out ways of reducing the cost of sharing a world with others, like bosses which are instantly summoned and whose kill credit it shared (WOW does the latter nowadays and it helps considerably; no more "line" for the named mob.)
Figure out ways to increase the value players get by paying that cost. The ideas here will be less refined, as few games really achieve this in their open world. At least not without also increasing their cost for playing and failing to address the main problem.
Because #1 is the reality of the situation right now, and the reason games are shifting away from shared MMO spaces, or at best are shifting towards things like GW2 where it's kinda not an MMO because everything feels the same no matter how many players are with you.
MMOs aren't "supposed" to be anything. Games as a whole WILL be whatever the market pushes them towards. And if a game is poor at delivering fun (the primary purpose of gaming) then it will wither while other games thrive, and more games like the other games will be made.
Those are really well thought out points but don't apply. I'm not saying people cannot or should not play a game the way they want to, I want people to enjoy their time in game. I'm also not going to try and quantify how many people want what and/or convince them something is more valuable than they think it is. Value is subjective of course and there are plenty of people who like to play with a large amount of others already and do in titles that offer it, to those people there is value. WoW might have a huge amount of players but that doesn't make thier model the "best" and doesn't change the medium an MMO offers.
I am speaking about the intention of MMOs and how ignoring keystone aspects, like the overuse of instacing, is a detriment to this intention. The technological structure of them allows for a "massive" amount of people to play together. Not 4, 5, 10 or just 40 people and if this was the case early on developers would have saved a LOT of time and heartache. I think there is a lot traded with the removal of "MMO" features. The graphics are better and additional systems have been added but the core capability ignored. My opinion of what "MMOs are supposed to be" is not due to my own want, it has to do with the capability of the technology and is completly unrelated to the business aspect of things. It has nothing to do with popularity. If it did I would bring up the change in developing MMOs we see now .
Again, I don't care how a person plays any game nor do I care that millions of people do exactly the same thing. Hundreds of thousands like to play another way, at some point it becomes silly to use popularity as a crutch to justify a personal stance.
Instancing is not a modern development, it is a developer's crutch that they fall back on when they lack creativity... Or, when developer's want to cut millions from their budget!
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
Comments
Oh here we go: "What MMOs should and should not be."
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
All dungeons are open in AC2 no instance and stil zero farm guilds hehe you should try AC2 or old Darkfall was also no grinding by same in dungeons all open.
Instance are for themeaprks but in sandbox open dungeons work fine as intended.
As long as game is FUN I could not care less.
Only games I do not play (and i guess will never play again): 1st person view only, no dual button mouse press to move and (this one is not so strong on my no-no list) targeting recticle.
EQ2 was never zero instancing, but yeah it certainly was a lot less back then.
I don't mind zones and a bit of instancing generally, but that game just just a joke of loading screens these days... It seems like the devs have an internat competition on who can put the most into whatever they design.
Yeah .. particularly (3). I really enjoy the STO story instances. And i will also add:
5) Have better, more fair, e-sport pvp.
6) Provides clear choices of how/what to play without a lot of extra work (just want to go to dungeon A, don't need to worry about other stuff .. just click and start).
I kind of enjoy a mix of both open world and instancing. For the most part, I think games should be more open and not have everyone secluded from one another in small groups, or why call it an MMO and not just an MO. However, as Dahkoht points out the original EverQuest in its early expansions, I think games that are all open provide problems for anyone that doesn't play games all day, every day. As a casual gamer (which I consider 4 hours or less per day) you would never see ANY of the end game content. "Hard core" players that play 18 hours a day will block that content all the time. Why would I as a casual player want to pay the same price for only half of the content of the game? Instancing for specific quests and/or bosses is ok in my opinion.
Because it is common usage? If naming is the biggest issue .. then hey .. just change the name of the genre.
Yeah but your opinion isn't what matters -- at least not if you can't present a set of logical reasons people are getting value for the cost they pay in fun.
Basically you have three options:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This ^^^. They are just entertainment products, competing with other entertainment products in the market place. The fact that many complains that modern MMO are not "supposed" to be like this .. is proof enough.
Holding onto old, tried and failed ideas .... i suppose .. is human nature. But no matter how hard one screams, if the market doesn to respond, you won't see anything beyond niche.
Yes, that was my point you highlighted. I am aware that it's common usage but If a game is all instanced, then I think the name of the genre should be changed. Just my 2 cents. You don't have to agree.
Oh i have no problem changing the name. I don't really care about genre names. I care about if a game is fun.
But the issue, of course, is what to call them, and how do you convince others to use the new term.
What does MMO stand for? Massively Multiplayer Online. Regardless if a game is all instanced, It's still an MMO. 1. its online. 2. its multiplayer even if you can play as single player also. 3. its a massive amount of multiplayer action going on.
There is no discussion. You're splitting hairs over something stupid.
Im guessing AC2 is sandbox also? See the thing is, sandbox games are small niche games. They don't attract the same type of players(and nowhere near the same amount of players) as a themepark game. So you don't get the type of players that will grief others or the farming guilds that will be there all day err day farming(assuming they drop good gear and stuff which they should, its a fuckin dungeon). And if you do, again its nowhere near the same numbers as a themepark game.Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Not really sure why you're getting upset over my opinion on this matter, lol. If you want to consider a game an MMO because of the points you listed, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine, even if you think it's stupid. I do agree that instances have their place in MMOs but if the game is heavily or fully instanced, I do not consider it an MMO.
Now what would you call those games that the industry consider as MMOs but you don't? We do need a term for clear communication.
They're multiplayer games that are played online. It's not more complicated than that.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
My troll senses are ringing, but I'll bite lol
It's a modern development for 2 reasons...
1) New Technology allows for it to be more seamlessly intergrated into the other perpetual parts of the game. As a matter of fact, there are several kinds of instancing.
Your standard run of the mill instance works like the dungeons you find in WOW or GW2. Jump through a portal and you & your group have your very own version of that environment. When your done, you jump out.
A more modern derivitive of that is called "phasing". These usually apply to a seamless transition (no loading screen) to a specific area in the open world where you (and maybe a small number of others) are in 1 "instance" of that area...usually acompanied with some sort of interactive event or storyline.
2) It provides more protection of the game developer's vision of the player's experiences in the game.....particularly for the casual gamer that is focused more on the action gameplay than the whole massive social interaction aspect of MMOs.
The new kind of MMOs are very linear & scripted, and provide for a much different dungeon crawler type experience.
Dungeons in traditional persistant world games typically serve nothing more than a place where higher difficulty monsters (with better loot) spawn. The experience for gamers in these types of games usually involve camping a particular room or spawn point and farm it over & over to gain wealth & gear.
Dungeons in new instanced games are more of a start to finish event, where players start at point A, then progress in a linear fashion to point B.....taking down bosses along the way. This experience isn't compatible with an open world environment because other players would be able to jump in and interfear with the progression of a group.
The problem isn't that Instance is an Modern development technique.
The problem is that when Nodes and Resources aren't instanced, people complain, and they complain with their wallets.
When people complain with Wallets, Instances gets put in. It was an necessary Evil in a sense of the word.
In FFXI, when I found an Node not already taken, it was awesome, I feel a small achievement that propels me forward and looking for more of the nodes. But when it was camped 24/7 it started to become tedious and boring and it makes me angry.
There should be balances in them, yet many developers takes the Instance way out. Because its easier, and its fault proof.
In FFXI , Named Mobs are also camped, but when you do get 1 and managed to kill it and still receive no loot, yes, it was tedious and it angers many.
The key is balance, and balance takes time, and resources to find.
So why not take the easier, proven way out, and just make stuff instanced, so everyone can get to it.
I prefer Balance , the balance between Anger and happiness. But really who would spend the time to do it.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
They are also RPG. Some features like an AH can be massive. So do you call a game with a massive AH MMO?
How about one with a massive lobby, and all instanced pve? How about one with massive world pvp but only instanced pve?
Or we can talk about specific games. That would have zero confusion.
It's important to understand who your target audience is, and what is the mission statement of your project.
For instance, Lineage 2 is an open world, instanceless (for the most part) game with an open PvP system. It's also a very resource dependent game (monster loot). Because there isn't a private instanced zone that drops materials needed to craft a particular weapon, players have to compete over that territory.
Because clans are stronger than the singluar, players gather and form clans to increase their ability to compete for said territory. Sometimes competeing clans will join as an alliance & set up fair agreements on who gets to farm there and when.....sometimes they fight over it. Either way, it creates social interaction, and dynamic player generated content.....things that will hold you to a game much longer than running the same instance 50 times to complete a set of armor. (IF thats the kind of game your looking for)
However, if you have a game that doesn't focus on the social element, and more towards action combat....then the scenario you present will cause issues (if there is no supporting subsystems to take advantage of that resource constraint)
I was just reviewing the thread and thought I would comment a bit more on these two points.
These are often points raised by Devs to justify instancing - but IMHO they are not always valid.
It is possible to have open world dungeons (non-instanced) and locations where the monsters aren't all dead and players do get the 'full experience'.
It's a question of "Player Density" and that is something that can be planned and controlled (to a degree) by good design.
What that means is making sure that no one area or questline is overpopulated. You can do this by not focusing on a single story line which brings all players to the same location at the same time or character level. Quest hubs and the demand for shorter travel times (with fast travel options provided) only serve to increase player density.
Players who have ever played 'open' games will notice that at certain population levels the game seems to 'work' and have a better feel about it?
For example The Chronicles of Spellborn in the last year (?) before it closed had a player density that meant you could move a bit away from the towns and feel like you were in the wilderness. In the PvP zones the number of players meant that encounters were rare enough to be exciting - not frustrating. The game had open world dungeons and the player density when I played was at the point where you would sometimes meet other players and parties but it wasn't a certainty. Sometimes you would walk in on a fight and could assist people from other groups and different houses under an unofficial truce. It really had a wild west feel to it.
Vanguard at the moment also feels about right to me (although I haven't traveled far yet)
If you travel to zones like Evendim or Forochel in LotRO you get the same experience.
You find quest lines off the main story and locations that aren't being stomped on by all the powerlevelers just trying to get to level X-ty nine.
I have heard that in WoW there are some old locations and quest lines about that offer the same feel (don't play WoW - but some story about a haunted town and the ghost of a little girl?)
So, to me it's a question of design. If you plan to have a large open world and encourage players to write their own story - not all simply follow a single quest line like lemmings - then you can reduce the pressure on dungeons and locations.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
....Being Banned from MMORPG's forums since 2010, for Trolling the Trolls!!!
The market is responding by the wave of "old, tried and failed ideas" coming
Those are really well thought out points but don't apply. I'm not saying people cannot or should not play a game the way they want to, I want people to enjoy their time in game. I'm also not going to try and quantify how many people want what and/or convince them something is more valuable than they think it is. Value is subjective of course and there are plenty of people who like to play with a large amount of others already and do in titles that offer it, to those people there is value. WoW might have a huge amount of players but that doesn't make thier model the "best" and doesn't change the medium an MMO offers.
I am speaking about the intention of MMOs and how ignoring keystone aspects, like the overuse of instacing, is a detriment to this intention. The technological structure of them allows for a "massive" amount of people to play together. Not 4, 5, 10 or just 40 people and if this was the case early on developers would have saved a LOT of time and heartache. I think there is a lot traded with the removal of "MMO" features. The graphics are better and additional systems have been added but the core capability ignored. My opinion of what "MMOs are supposed to be" is not due to my own want, it has to do with the capability of the technology and is completly unrelated to the business aspect of things. It has nothing to do with popularity. If it did I would bring up the change in developing MMOs we see now
.
Again, I don't care how a person plays any game nor do I care that millions of people do exactly the same thing. Hundreds of thousands like to play another way, at some point it becomes silly to use popularity as a crutch to justify a personal stance.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon