Almost all MMORPGS are instanced. Its just a matter of degree. EQ for instance had instances. They called them 'servers'. So i played on the Bristlebane instance, but other played on different instances.
An instance is a copy of a single zone, not a copy of the game itself. To call servers instances is completely incorrect, however it is a perfect example of how far the posters here will go to make something fit their definition.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Shadewalker People often get their knickers in a twist over what "massively multiplayer" means. Some argue that a game with that description on the box cannot and must not in any circumstances be soloed as that is a clear breach of the core design, others argue that if a game has even just one instance it cannot be considered as falling into that category. For some it signifies their entire social life. For others it's just a computer game which they play sitting alone at their computer and in which they may or may not interract with others as the mood takes them. Fact is, all "massively multiplayer" means is that you will play the game on a server with a lot of other people. To what extent you interract with them in and out of combat, in and out of the same area, socially or otherwise, is entirely up to you. Instancing makes no difference to that whatsoever.
I agree and yet some of these people believe "Massive" equals rubbing elbows in the over-flooded cities (which involve massive lag as well) and waiting in line for your turn to complete your quest only to get whatever mob(s) you were looking for to get stolen by 5 or 6 other people. And these people want to argue against instancing due immersion yet lack the capacity to be able to envision what the game would be like (or maybe even remember games like UO) without any form of instancing. I say let them have it and then let them complain about how bad the idea was when they get their completely un-instanced worlds.
Instances suck. If you can only play with a few people at once please tell me how it is a MMO. They should just be called MO's (multiplayer online). STO is a MO, GW is a MO, Champions is a MO, etc....so is it false advertising to call these games MMO's? I think so and it should be stopped. Just advertise your games as TRULY MASSIVE or NOT. No more B.S.
i agree and lot of gamer have been singing that tune too
i suggest we rename that part of the market,since mmo and mo are all and the same
come up with a new term to describe this
minimum of a 1500 player/map,phaze,node,jita,instance,dungeon or whatever they want to call them!
I believe we already have such a term. When GW's first came out they referred to it themselves as a Cooperative Online Role Playing Game. (CORPG).
The term suits heavily instanced games like it quite well.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I don't mind some instancing in games. It may even be necessary in some games, but I hate over instancing. Prime example of this is STO, with a player limit per "instance" of about 50 people. I think this kills immersion and an "open-world" feel. STO, in my opinion, is more of a co-op rpg, rather than an MMO, because of the over-instancing used.
Instances suck. If you can only play with a few people at once please tell me how it is a MMO. They should just be called MO's (multiplayer online). STO is a MO, GW is a MO, Champions is a MO, etc....so is it false advertising to call these games MMO's? I think so and it should be stopped. Just advertise your games as TRULY MASSIVE or NOT. No more B.S.
The alternative would be to compete for spawns, being put on "lists". As much as I hate instancing I don't think they can make a game big enough to avoid spawn hogging, kill stealing or lists.
I remember EQ and DAOC you had to check to see if people were camping certain areas in case you wanted to fight in that area. If taken you had to find something else to do. I don't know about you but I dislike paying a monthly fee only to be dictated on where I can and can't go because an area is "busy"
Well some instancing is good espicially for raids and such. After all if you had 4 raid groups show up to kill the same boss you could have an issue.
However were do you draw the line on instancing, as it limits the number of folks wo are in a group.
MMORPG = Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Gaming. So the more instances you have the less massive it is.
I think games like DDO and STO are not MMORPG's they are co-opts basicly RPG with many folks playing in small groups, nothing massive about it. Turbine has taken it one step futher with LOTRO and the skimish system, turning lotro the game into tons of small instances, something turbine loves is isntances we say that with the original ddo and now with the new ddo and now lotro is headed that way, and that is why lotro has lost it's appeal for me.
To much instancing is bad and to me it ruins the game, and wll there goes the online experiance.
I have to ask this question, why pay a fee for an online game and not have the social abilities. I mean I could buy dragons age or something and play it on the xbox and not pay a monthly fee if I wanted to solo everything.
I guess it is up to everybody to figure out how much interaction they need, if your just going to solo everything out then why pay a fee?
Almost all MMORPGS are instanced. Its just a matter of degree. EQ for instance had instances. They called them 'servers'. So i played on the Bristlebane instance, but other played on different instances.
An instance is a copy of a single zone, not a copy of the game itself. To call servers instances is completely incorrect, however it is a perfect example of how far the posters here will go to make something fit their definition.
Eh, usually its a seperate copy of an area. Not necessarily a zone, though it could be. They come in all sizes.
Instances are really just copies of areas in general. And it has been argued, but not by me, that there shouldn't be multiple servers.
But i just want to make the point that most people don't care about really large instances, its the tiny ones they care about.
Yes, a MMO can have multiple instances. But I've never found one fun that instances EVERYTHING. Dungeons or PvP areas need to have instances at times. I simply won't wait around for people to finish in order for me to have my turn. I think the vast majority of people don't haver patience for that. It was acceptable back in 2002. Not now. Most people don't pay monthly fees to wait around, unless they're pathetically bored;)
Of course they can. If anything instancing is a mechanic that allows a linear game to be playable even with a massive amount of players. I don't like linear online games, so I don't play a lot of instanced MMORPGs. Use of instancing does nothing to remove one of the M's from MMORPG, though. The amount of players you can interact with in a play session is usually about the same in instanced and non-instanced games. They just have different ways to avoid player congestion.
Comments
An instance is a copy of a single zone, not a copy of the game itself. To call servers instances is completely incorrect, however it is a perfect example of how far the posters here will go to make something fit their definition.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
OP is full of fail.
Ofc it can be called a mmo, aslong there is a world with players in it. CoD and BF is not mmos.
The only good mmos i've played had instances.
OP is full of win,
The only good mmo's i've played did not have instances
OP is full of win,
The only good mmo's i've played did not have instances
OP is not the one to decide what a mmo is.
I agree and yet some of these people believe "Massive" equals rubbing elbows in the over-flooded cities (which involve massive lag as well) and waiting in line for your turn to complete your quest only to get whatever mob(s) you were looking for to get stolen by 5 or 6 other people. And these people want to argue against instancing due immersion yet lack the capacity to be able to envision what the game would be like (or maybe even remember games like UO) without any form of instancing. I say let them have it and then let them complain about how bad the idea was when they get their completely un-instanced worlds.
with op's logic, is movies with 3d effecfs in it not a real movie.
No1 new about mmo's untill a certian game with instances came out(hint hint wow).
i agree and lot of gamer have been singing that tune too
i suggest we rename that part of the market,since mmo and mo are all and the same
come up with a new term to describe this
minimum of a 1500 player/map,phaze,node,jita,instance,dungeon or whatever they want to call them!
I believe we already have such a term. When GW's first came out they referred to it themselves as a Cooperative Online Role Playing Game. (CORPG).
The term suits heavily instanced games like it quite well.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I don't mind some instancing in games. It may even be necessary in some games, but I hate over instancing. Prime example of this is STO, with a player limit per "instance" of about 50 people. I think this kills immersion and an "open-world" feel. STO, in my opinion, is more of a co-op rpg, rather than an MMO, because of the over-instancing used.
The alternative would be to compete for spawns, being put on "lists". As much as I hate instancing I don't think they can make a game big enough to avoid spawn hogging, kill stealing or lists.
I remember EQ and DAOC you had to check to see if people were camping certain areas in case you wanted to fight in that area. If taken you had to find something else to do. I don't know about you but I dislike paying a monthly fee only to be dictated on where I can and can't go because an area is "busy"
Well some instancing is good espicially for raids and such. After all if you had 4 raid groups show up to kill the same boss you could have an issue.
However were do you draw the line on instancing, as it limits the number of folks wo are in a group.
MMORPG = Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Gaming. So the more instances you have the less massive it is.
I think games like DDO and STO are not MMORPG's they are co-opts basicly RPG with many folks playing in small groups, nothing massive about it. Turbine has taken it one step futher with LOTRO and the skimish system, turning lotro the game into tons of small instances, something turbine loves is isntances we say that with the original ddo and now with the new ddo and now lotro is headed that way, and that is why lotro has lost it's appeal for me.
To much instancing is bad and to me it ruins the game, and wll there goes the online experiance.
I have to ask this question, why pay a fee for an online game and not have the social abilities. I mean I could buy dragons age or something and play it on the xbox and not pay a monthly fee if I wanted to solo everything.
I guess it is up to everybody to figure out how much interaction they need, if your just going to solo everything out then why pay a fee?
An instance is a copy of a single zone, not a copy of the game itself. To call servers instances is completely incorrect, however it is a perfect example of how far the posters here will go to make something fit their definition.
Eh, usually its a seperate copy of an area. Not necessarily a zone, though it could be. They come in all sizes.
Instances are really just copies of areas in general. And it has been argued, but not by me, that there shouldn't be multiple servers.
But i just want to make the point that most people don't care about really large instances, its the tiny ones they care about.
Yes.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Yes, a MMO can have multiple instances. But I've never found one fun that instances EVERYTHING. Dungeons or PvP areas need to have instances at times. I simply won't wait around for people to finish in order for me to have my turn. I think the vast majority of people don't haver patience for that. It was acceptable back in 2002. Not now. Most people don't pay monthly fees to wait around, unless they're pathetically bored;)
Of course they can. If anything instancing is a mechanic that allows a linear game to be playable even with a massive amount of players. I don't like linear online games, so I don't play a lot of instanced MMORPGs. Use of instancing does nothing to remove one of the M's from MMORPG, though. The amount of players you can interact with in a play session is usually about the same in instanced and non-instanced games. They just have different ways to avoid player congestion.
Purists... Labels...
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky