Aion

Originally posted by SoSilencer

Originally posted by Sharajat

"Is a large, varied game world with thousands of things to see and do a good thing?"

If it is a good thing, then you are arguing against yourself.  The larger the game world, see, the less you are forced to interact with others.  The less you get a feeling of massive, since 5,000 people online in a game world that is 400 square miles is a lot less forced interaction than 5,000 people online in 40 square miles. 

I disagree. It isn't about FORCING interaction it's about the POSSIBILITY of it. If you have an instance it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to interact with other players because you are in a totally seperate world that nobody else has access to.

For example...

I used to play Asherons Call 1. For those not familiar this was an EQ1 era game and was a HUGE open world with no zones. Although the game had portals for quick travel between towns you COULD run anywhere if you wanted to.

I like to explore so I would often run between towns or to distant areas on the map just to see what was there. Some areas were populated with a lot of cities fairly close together and running around in these areas meant a decent amount of players to encounter. Other more difficult areas near the far ends of the map were nearly empty. Sometimes you could run for an hour and not see anyone.

You imply that this can make a world feel empty and less massive but in my opinion it makes it feel full and more massive. There are so many more places to visit and explore, places that not everybody knows about. You can go visit a place that only a few players have ever seen and it makes the world feel so big when compared to a small world game where everyone has been everywhere and knows about everything. Or when you go to a popular town and see hundreds of players... in a big open world it makes it feel like there are tons of players in the world because there are so many people just in this one town yet there are so many other towns and so many other places where other people are. In a small game world you know that the town is full simply because there is nowhere else to go.
 

 

I agree 100%!  I love big, open worlds.

What I think people don't see is the vast amounts of advantages instances can give.  LotRO really took them somewhere different, turning them into a semi-cinematic adventure that you have to overcome.  WoW, despite the hatred, created some very tuned, interesting, difficult encounters (and despite the whining from people so anti-social they couldn't find 4 others who could stomach them, nevermind 24 or 39, they were difficult).  Would Asheron's Call been a worse game if it had those TOO?  

Replacing content with instances isn't something I agree with, but if both types of content are there, what's the big deal?

Originally posted by Sharajat

...
Replacing content with instances isn't something I agree with, but if both types of content are there, what's the big deal?

The core of the question to me is that using or not the instancing in the main objectives is leading to a two very different kind of play experience because they will promote a very different kinds of community interaction.

I'm not going to say here that one is better than the other because its just a question of what do you would prefere, or in other words what do you ask to a MMO to have to give you fun.

May be if i come with two examples i experienced it will be more clear (i have to apologise but my english i know is not enough when it comes to talk about feelings and perceptions).

In LotRO or WoW to use this model as the first example. Instancing is used as the main (really the only one) method to get in the so called "end game" where are the best rewards and going further where is the unique possibility to advance. Instances are the main field PvE side (WoW and LotRO have more than one game in their whole packages. Btw a thing that is not of my taste). There is no comunity contest in this field other than who is the first to kill "The Big One" there is no place to create hate, love, friends and enemies. PvP point of view its something similar, being instanced and limited in numbers  there is no place for alliances, betrayals, and all this kind of drama. In consequence the community interaction there is in a different step than in a non instanced game (main goals instanced).

I'll use LIneage II as my second and opposite example because is a "linear" game too. There is no instancing you have to fight for all the resources available Bosses, Castles and so. There is a lot of drama coming from the competition. You can try as individual or as a small clan to avoid the drama, but you will fail, sooner or later if you play enough long you will be forced to go in. And in consequence the level of the comunity interaction (for the good or for the bad) its way more intensive than in the instanced model.

This is the big deal to me .

I can guess uses of instancing that aren't going to interfere in the model of the game and can help to add fun to any kind of game. Story related, individual achievements, like skill exams,...
I loved the way LotRO used the instancing in the Epic Book quests.

Originally posted by sandboxy

Originally posted by Sharajat

Originally posted by toddze

Originally posted by Sharajat

Does everyone remember what a huge step forward instancing was when it was introduced?  

There are just some places that need to be instanced.

 

What how is Instancing a step foward? IMO it should only be used for something like a "destiny quest" or if a main story line is present can be used for that in some parts. Major content should never, I repeat never have instances.

First:
Zerging.  Zerging renders encounters into nonsense.  Remember "Oh we can't kill the dragon because we could only muster 120 people?"  Yeah, that's bull.  

Second, actual dungeon content.  Remember how immersive the dungeon of 1800 people grinding various mobs and sitting around waiting to kill a boss was?  Yeah, right.  

Third, you can balance an encounter.  Five, 6, 8, 10 people whatever.  You can actually get it so it's a challenge, without it being stupid.  Challenge with 5?  Bring 8!  

So overall, dungeon-style instances make PvE encounters much more epic and interesting.  I don't particularly think it helps for PvP, but if you want 100% PvP all the goddamn time, go play Darkfall or some other game like that.   

 

IMO end game content is classified as major content.

Yeah, it's also pretty much where instancing is at its best.

Now I have a question for you:  Do you seriously not remember how most everyone thought instancing was cool and awesome when it was introduced?

 

That's so much bullshit I can actually smell it through the screen. Instancing is NOT an improvement, it's a shortcut for developers who can't create an environment where such bottlenecks don't exist. It's a cheap/lazy way to handle problems and only shows lack of professionalism. It breaks the immersion and takes the MMO part out of MMORPG.
 

I'm sure everyone would loved to see how a game you created turns out.  You copping out with your argument.

Originally posted by Sharajat

What I think people don't see is the vast amounts of advantages instances can give.  LotRO really took them somewhere different, turning them into a semi-cinematic adventure that you have to overcome.  WoW, despite the hatred, created some very tuned, interesting, difficult encounters (and despite the whining from people so anti-social they couldn't find 4 others who could stomach them, nevermind 24 or 39, they were difficult).  Would Asheron's Call been a worse game if it had those TOO?  

Replacing content with instances isn't something I agree with, but if both types of content are there, what's the big deal?

The problem is that you can't have everything. Games are developed in the real world using real time and real money. Every feature or bit of content that you do add means that you are not going to add some other feature or bit of content due to a lack of resources. This leads us to the situation we are in today...

You can make an MMO that uses a lot of instances and tries to focus a lot on storyline, quests and specific game content or you can make an MMO that is more open and free and is more of a sandbox environment.

Recently a lot of MMO games have been trying the first option and recently a lot of MMO games have been failing because of it. People are quickly blowing through the carefully crafted storyline quests and then realizing that their is either no end-game content or that the end-game content doesn't work because the developers chose to take the easy route of using instances instead of putting resources into making a game world and rule set that "works" in different situations and with the randomness of other players.

Other MMO games, such as Asherons Call 1 or Eve Online go for the sandbox approach. They use an open and free world where they focus on a game world and rule set that (for the most part) works for everyone in all situations. The storyline and quests usually aren't as good because the content is more generalized but because the world "works" the players become much more involved in the game and stay for years and years. In the case of Asherons Call 1 they even had monthly updates to progress the storyline and maintain the interest of everyone and it worked very well.

In the end, instances are something of a short cut. It is the cheap and easy route for developers. It can make a great game but the game ends up not having the same long-lasting appeal that a non-instanced sandbox style game has.

Originally posted by SoSilencer

Originally posted by Sharajat

What I think people don't see is the vast amounts of advantages instances can give.  LotRO really took them somewhere different, turning them into a semi-cinematic adventure that you have to overcome.  WoW, despite the hatred, created some very tuned, interesting, difficult encounters (and despite the whining from people so anti-social they couldn't find 4 others who could stomach them, nevermind 24 or 39, they were difficult).  Would Asheron's Call been a worse game if it had those TOO?  

Replacing content with instances isn't something I agree with, but if both types of content are there, what's the big deal?

 

The problem is that you can't have everything. Games are developed in the real world using real time and real money. Every feature or bit of content that you do add means that you are not going to add some other feature or bit of content due to a lack of resources. This leads us to the situation we are in today...

You can make an MMO that uses a lot of instances and tries to focus a lot on storyline, quests and specific game content or you can make an MMO that is more open and free and is more of a sandbox environment.

Seriously, repeat this until it sinks in - Economics is not a zero sum game.  Neither are MMOs.  If you attract 300,000 subscribers by having one set of features, and 200,000 subscribers with another set of features, you have income from 500,000 subscribers.  You can then spend that on developing content for the 300,000 and the 200,000.  The 200 aren't stealing the 300's money, that money WOULD NOT BE THERE if they weren't there.  Period.   The 300 would get no more content, and would actually LOSE FEATURES if it wasn't for the other features that they "Don't care about much" being added to the game. 

You are using lousy math to justify your opinion.  

Recently a lot of MMO games have been trying the first option and recently a lot of MMO games have been failing because of it. People are quickly blowing through the carefully crafted storyline quests and then realizing that their is either no end-game content or that the end-game content doesn't work because the developers chose to take the easy route of using instances instead of putting resources into making a game world and rule set that "works" in different situations and with the randomness of other players.

Other MMO games, such as Asherons Call 1 or Eve Online go for the sandbox approach. They use an open and free world where they focus on a game world and rule set that (for the most part) works for everyone in all situations. The storyline and quests usually aren't as good because the content is more generalized but because the world "works" the players become much more involved in the game and stay for years and years. In the case of Asherons Call 1 they even had monthly updates to progress the storyline and maintain the interest of everyone and it worked very well.

In the end, instances are something of a short cut. It is the cheap and easy route for developers. It can make a great game but the game ends up not having the same long-lasting appeal that a non-instanced sandbox style game has.

The problem is, even ignoring WoW, we don't see any particular success of the 'sandbox' genre.   SWG was losing players even before they gutted their own game.  Ryzom is dead.  Shadowbane?    Dark and Light?  

Considering the successful non-WoW games on the market, we have:

Lineage - semisandboxish, old

LotRO - Non-sandbox

Eve - Sandbox

Warhammer - PvP game

Guild Wars - Non-sandbox, non-subscription

That's it.  Those are the only games I'd seriously look at if I was listing successful MMOs currently on the market (besides the 800 pound gorilla in the room).  And of them, we have one sandbox.  One.   

In this case your idea of sacrificing all your other content (which as I pointed out does not detract from money focused at other concerns) to throw everything into making a 100% sandbox MMO looks less insightful and more, well... insane.  

All instancing sucks and most of the ills that instancing supposedly solves, can be fixed thru creative mechanics and coding but it requires more work and developers are lazy. Instancing also adds new problems such as the ability for farmers to farm non stop without competition which leads to a damaged economy. Just say not to games with instancing.

Originally posted by Samuraisword

Instancing also adds new problems such as the ability for farmers to farm non stop without competition which leads to a damaged economy. Just say not to games with instancing.

And the opposite is true. This problem has nothing to do with instancing.