For me, i prefer open-ended worlds, where i can do whatever i want, run where ever i want. No loading for every zone and such. Which is why i prefer Pre-NGE and even NGE SWG over AoC, because i can just spend time and enjoy my self travelling, going to player cities and seeing other people in open-ended pvp. I dont like being confined to zones.
Also something else about graphics. The graphics are beautiful. But one thing i dislike is even though there is supposely an indepth character creation (yeah right), you wont ever bother to notice or see other characters, let alone your self. Such as peoples hair/faces.
Unlike SWG where you could be fat, tiny, huge, tall, buff, skinny. SWG graphics are still pretty good and they have good character creation and customization. Shit, im about to go install SWG again = P
Questing in World of Warcraft helps lend a sense of purpose to all your hunting and exploring.
Among other things, this is what lent a lot of accessibility to the game and gave a lot of players a sense of accomplishment and fun. The current trend in a lot of games is achievement badges, which amounts to a lot of the same thing: a purpose for the "mindless" activity of grinding.
Personally, I like grinding from time to time. I don't want to always have to be chasing down some acorn somewhere or kill x of y...I'd just like to commmit genocide on a tribe of creatures somewhere and hope for a nice drop or two. But that's me.
And in the end, the key to all of these games is that no one game is ever going to appeal to everyone. The more diversity of options there are, the better every future release is going to be.
AoC - is there any limit to the depth this genre can plummet to?
We had seamless worlds in 1997 with UO, in 2000'ish with AC, not long after with DAoC, and then the immense SWG.
Planetside with its up to 300 people in the same battle, I heard that Runescape can have 1000vs1000 (can that be true??) in the same battle. DAoC had easily several hundred in the same battle as well.
Now AoC has hit with such a huge success. What the hell is happening? How can the players accept the freedom being taken away from them? How can they accept being confined with technology more limiting than the singleplayer game Oblivion?
Battles confined to instanced battlegrounds chopped off from the world's reality? 48vs48 in each battle - slightly more than Battlefield2 and ALOT less than Joint Operations?
Heavy instancing of the main world, making it totally inconsistent, and allowing for such artifacts as people fleeing combat by switching instance? Two people being at the same spot in the world, but cannot see each other? A nightmare of inconsistency and immersion-breaking, while at the same time crippling (supposedly) important elements like PvP. Proceeding in the world by talking to an NPC, so you can be transported to one of a number of instances of the next area instead of just simply walking there?
Are the players really willingly sitting there, as the developers chip pellet after pellet away on the very foundation of Massive Multiplayer?
The mainstreamification of this genre looks more and more like a curse.
OKAY, Lets get Funcom to get rid of ALL the instances... That way even the best alien ware system will not be able to run the game, and all you will get is complaints about people's graphic cards blowing up!!! GOOD IDEA. You half to look at the reality of this, ask yourself, Why would funcom do super instancing??? 1 Reason, PERFORMANCE, Nobody could play if this where completely open, Especially the 48vs48 which is WAY more than Bf2... 64 players BF2 and it seemed HUGE, now make 96 people and that is going to fill your screen with effects, especially since the seige area is way smaller than the large battlfields on BF2. You should be extremely lucky to not have a guildwars setting, where you half to group up to see ANYBODY in the zones. Face it, you may as well be telling everyone they are retarded for no having 5000 dollar computers.
The issue I have is when people come along to say things such as are inferred and stated by the OP: "MMO gaming is going downhill because there are too many instances/zones in AoC." That's an absurd leap to make, and just doesn't hold up to any trend analysis or comparison. But then, I suppose my fault is looking for some level-headedness in this discussion. Instead, I see a whole lot of grandstanding and exaggeration. Honestly, I don't know why I even bother to reply.
Hmm, interesting, and actually could have been a valid argument. But I do have alot of experience with MMO's, having played since the dawn of the genre, and I do see the trend. AoC ALONE is not to blame, but as it stands right now, it stands for an all-time low in the genre. It has continued all the worst trends seen over the last 4-odd years, and that is what brings me out to discuss this.
The problem is not WoW or AoC alone, the problem is as much the success they obtain, because it means that future games must follow in their footsteps or not get funded at all. It has even resulted in old games being rewamped and destroyed. UO was largely EQ'ified with Age of Shadows, and SWG I believe everyone knows the story of.
I think AoC deserves every bit of bashing it is getting. The argument has been framed perfectly to justify every bit of it. AoC is the culmination of elements that make up the neo-MMORPG, or rather- the lack of elements. It's been said many times before- but if you don't see the regression in MMORPGs now, it is because you are Ray Charles.
Questing in World of Warcraft helps lend a sense of purpose to all your hunting and exploring.
Among other things, this is what lent a lot of accessibility to the game and gave a lot of players a sense of accomplishment and fun. The current trend in a lot of games is achievement badges, which amounts to a lot of the same thing: a purpose for the "mindless" activity of grinding.
Personally, I like grinding from time to time. I don't want to always have to be chasing down some acorn somewhere or kill x of y...I'd just like to commmit genocide on a tribe of creatures somewhere and hope for a nice drop or two. But that's me.
And in the end, the key to all of these games is that no one game is ever going to appeal to everyone. The more diversity of options there are, the better every future release is going to be.
You make some good points. And if that is what the majority of gamers want, to have game designers hold their hand all the way to max level via quest after quest after quest, well...that is a depressing thought.
To each his own I guess. I think that more money coming into the industry can only help. It will encourage more game companies to make mmo's and perhaps attract more programmers and artists into the development process. One of those games in the future might be The One.
Yes and scaling avatars down to a single textured box IS sacrificing the quality of graphics. It is noticable ingame, and was obviously something the devs for AOC were wanting to avoid. I personally also dislike dynamic scaling so agree with the devs.
On a related note for those saying the game is much more directed then your standard MMO, again this may not seem it but also comes down to graphics. As focusing on smaller areas allows for locations to be much more enriched in terms of visual content. Personally I've been waiting for a game such as AOC which actually focuses its time and effort on smaller areas.
I was completely sick and tired of MMOs that have flat-fields and a tree and rock every-so-often, with maybe a hill, and this was termed a region. Here 100s of players could battle it out and it would be like awesome. Personally I have never understood people who are content with that, sure you can make up your own game in this 'world', but I hardly recognise it as a world.
Most MMOs are very dull to look at, and I appluade AOC for actually taking the risk and doing something completely different in creating zones. You can argue for your 'seamless' worlds yet as I said they are hardly worlds, there are a couple of hubs which are concentrated on, then the rest of the world is made quickly and the terrain and details are often sorely lacking.
It goes entirely to the idea of different strokes for different folks as another has said I geuss.
Originally posted by Rasputin The problem is not WoW or AoC alone, the problem is as much the success they obtain, because it means that future games must follow in their footsteps or not get funded at all. It has even resulted in old games being rewamped and destroyed. UO was largely EQ'ified with Age of Shadows, and SWG I believe everyone knows the story of.
But not every game that is released follows these patterns. No doubt, any release forthcoming will have some component that you don't like. That is 100% inevitable.
The main question, from my perspective, is do I have options to play the way I want to play with the myriad of games on the market? I do not expect a single game to cater to every aspect of my interests...because then that would be a game made for one person: me. I recognize that my interests are not shared by everyone, and I don't demand that developers cater solely to my interests.
So when I want some hardcore economy-based gaming I play EVE. When I want hardcore raiding I play EQ. When I want connect-the-dots lootfests gaming I play WoW. When I want some oldschool "I am everything" gaming I play UO. Now I can add AoC to the list for when I want some combo-button combat brutality. AoC fills a niche. Hooray! That's one more type of game I can play when that mood strikes me.
So what do I need of a game that does everything I want it to do? Probably only half a dozen other people will play it, and the game will fail and fold. Considering how absolutely demanding and picky people are about the features they expect, you better believe that any game that caters to any one individual's interests will fail as well.
And if it doesn't cater to some individual's interests? Some accept that and move on...some stop playing, some keep playing. But some more still come into forums and exaggerate the failings of the game until they can convince everyone else that it's not worth their time. It's foolish at best and selfish at worst.
So that's the brunt of my issue with these posts. It's not that people don't like instancing...it's that the implication is that this kind of feature is a downward trend for the whole genre. Hell, Funcom invented instancing in Anarchy Online...why wouldn't they use it in AoC as well?
I really doubt anyone can make an argument for any game being completely seamless.
From a game design point of view it would be extremely difficult and from a logistics point of view very technically challenging.
But I do see the point and understand some feelings of disappointment. It's been what? 11 years since we saw UO launch and while, in my opinion, we've seen some great feature adds, we haven't seen a ton of game design changes.
We're talking TWO MS Windows Cycles here and not a whole bunch to show for it. For those who may be a little excited about some big leaps in the genre, I totally get how you can start to feel like we're NOT moving forward terribly well.
You make some good points. And if that is what the majority of gamers want, to have game designers hold their hand all the way to max level via quest after quest after quest, well...that is a depressing thought.
And that is the curse of the mainstreamification: A new breed of gamers dominate the genre. ADD console type gamers, that have 20 minutes to spend between coming home from school/work and leaving for sports/whatever.
To cater to this kind of gamer, you need to alter the gameplay, and that is what has happened the last 4-odd years. The problem is then, that the new player population, who likes that kind of gameplay (in fact, they probably wouldn't have played unless it had been that way) dwarfs that of the old population, and since money is involved, it is not hard to put two and two together to see where the genre inevitably must go.
However, no matter how this matter is twisted, it is undeniable that Massive Multiplayer aspect of these games is under heavy pressure, having plunged the entire genre into a dark ages.
Originally posted by Terranah One of those games in the future might be The One.
Reconsider your point of view here.
"The One" is going to be another World of Warcraft: appealing to the many.
Or perhaps you mean "The One I really like", in which case you should be applauding niche evolutionary development. If this is what you're looking for, then every time a game releases with some new features, even if you don't like other features it has, it's a good thing. Eventually, one of those games will stumble on the unique combination that makes you happy.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of people are looking for "The One" that millions of others will play. Good luck finding such a game that isn't "dumbed down".
Questing in World of Warcraft helps lend a sense of purpose to all your hunting and exploring.
Among other things, this is what lent a lot of accessibility to the game and gave a lot of players a sense of accomplishment and fun. The current trend in a lot of games is achievement badges, which amounts to a lot of the same thing: a purpose for the "mindless" activity of grinding.
Personally, I like grinding from time to time. I don't want to always have to be chasing down some acorn somewhere or kill x of y...I'd just like to commmit genocide on a tribe of creatures somewhere and hope for a nice drop or two. But that's me.
And in the end, the key to all of these games is that no one game is ever going to appeal to everyone. The more diversity of options there are, the better every future release is going to be.
People are definately entitled to their own opinion and playstyle, but...I honestly dont get it
To me, questing has always felt just as pointless as grinding mobs. You kill mob after mob and they just keep respawning. Or you do quest after quest and absolutely nothing changes. I just cant understand how players feel a sense of purpose there. Anyway, this is basically why I dont like instancing. Instanced quests and scripted encounters just arent that entertaining or interesting to me.
Your point about diversity is right on though. If we had more diverse, quality options in the genre, there wouldnt be nearly as much hate directed towards specific MMOs. Unfortunately, we might be waiting for a while for that one to pan out...
Yes and scaling avatars down to a single textured box IS sacrificing the quality of graphics. It is noticable ingame, and was obviously something the devs for AOC were wanting to avoid. I personally also dislike dynamic scaling so agree with the devs. On a related note for those saying the game is much more directed then your standard MMO, again this may not seem it but also comes down to graphics. As focusing on smaller areas allows for locations to be much more enriched in terms of visual content. Personally I've been waiting for a game such as AOC which actually focuses its time and effort on smaller areas. I was completely sick and tired of MMOs that have flat-fields and a tree and rock every-so-often, with maybe a hill, and this was termed a region. Here 100s of players could battle it out and it would be like awesome. Personally I have never understood people who are content with that, sure you can make up your own game in this 'world', but I hardly recognise it as a world. Most MMOs are very dull to look at, and I appluade AOC for actually taking the risk and doing something completely different in creating zones. You can argue for your 'seamless' worlds yet as I said they are hardly worlds, there are a couple of hubs which are concentrated on, then the rest of the world is made quickly and the terrain and details are often sorely lacking. It goes entirely to the idea of different strokes for different folks as another has said I geuss.
Why aren't you just playing singleplayer games then? If you don't like the Massive Multiplayer aspect, why are you here playing them?
Crysis still looks better than AoC. So does S.T.A.L.K.E.R, and Oblivion and Bioshock is up there. Why did you choose Massive Multiplayer when what you want is a beautiful singleplayer experience? These games won't do that better than dedicated singleplayer games, you know.
I can only say what I want and like. I like the open world. I had one for the most part in SWG. We didn't have a lot of 'content', but the game mechanics were in place so that we could make our own content. That's what I want. Let me make up my own story and live my own adventures. I don't need to be hand held through the game quest to quest till I hit max level.
Players today seem like if they run out of quests they don't know what to do with themselves. It's a shame. But really is it their fault? From day one when you enter a modern mmo you are bombarded by quests. Immediately the player is forced into a passive role, going from quest to quest to quest. And some quests are good, don't get me wrong. But really I think game designers have gone overboard. They could fix this by not penalizing people for grouping and adding decent drops to the loot tables instead of restricting it mostly to quest rewards.
This is how I feel too. Sandbox games are the way to go. Sadly, most MMOs on the horizon seem to be everything but a sandbox
Until you cancel your subscription, you are only helping to continue the cycle of mediocrity.
Originally posted by Tatum If we had more diverse, quality options in the genre, there wouldnt be nearly as much hate directed towards specific MMOs. Unfortunately, we might be waiting for a while for that one to pan out...
And we always have been waiting a long time. The release cycle of a MMOG is roughly 5 years. We get maybe 4 of them in a single year.
It's always going to be that way unless people want simpler games. I don't like that idea much at all, I want depth in my MMO gaming. So I will wait.
Since people are confusing instancing with zoning, lets clarify or at least establish a sense of scale.
Yes games like SWG and UO have instances, but in the context of specific dungeons or areas. Mostly zones were shared by all players of the specific server occupying that same zone. For example, when I went to Coronet on the Kettemoor server I was joined by all the other Kettemoor players in Coroent at that moment.
Conversely, when I enter Conal Valley in AoC I'm placed in one of many instances (or copies) of the Conal Valley zone. I can have a friend on my server be in the same zone as me, but in a different instance of that zone.
When I see people debating the Seamless World issue, I read the argument as MMOs implementing zoned instances . Games like UO and SWG have instances, but again, only in the context of specific areas of a zone, not the entire zone itself.
Ico Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.
And we always have been waiting a long time. The release cycle of a MMOG is roughly 5 years. We get maybe 4 of them in a single year. It's always going to be that way unless people want simpler games. I don't like that idea much at all, I want depth in my MMO gaming. So I will wait.
I agree with you on that point. Depth is more important than quantity.
So, I guess there are two big problems: 1) MMOs are getting WAY too expensive and time consuming, which limits the number of releases 2) many of the MMOs that do release are mostly just more of the same stuff in a different wrapper.
Since people are confusing instancing with zoning, lets clarify or at least establish a sense of scale. Yes games like SWG and UO have instances, but in the context of specific dungeons or areas. Mostly zones were shared by all players of the specific server occupying that same zone. For example, when I went to Coronet on the Kettemoor server I was joined by all the other Kettemoor players in Coroent at that moment. Conversely, when I enter Conal Valley in AoC I'm placed in one of many instances (or copies) of that zone. I can have a friend on my server be in the same zone as me, but in a different instance of that zone. When I see people debating the seamless world issue, I read the argument as AoC and similar games as not being seamless because they use instances (of the same zone). Games like UO and SWG have instances, but again, only in the context of specific areas of a zone, not the entire zone itself.
UO, DAoC, SB, SWG, PS and probably many others have no instances, so I believe it is you who is confused. And UO was 100% seamless upon release and two-three years forward (until T2A, where you had to load into a new area).
Instancing has a negative ring to it, and Funcom has tried to "rebrand" it to zones. But it is still instancing, no matter how you turn it.
Really? I wonder...what was that screen I saw when I moved from one planet to another? Or when I launched into space?
And what were those loading screens I recall seeing entering/exiting dungeons in DAoC?
I swear, nostalgia puts blinders on people.
Your right, I should be able to run across the planet of Tatooine and upon reaching the edge of the map continue jogging straight into Naboo. I forgot the two planets were combined, silly me.
Every single planet is seamless itself, but for obvious reasons you cannot jump from one to another.
Originally posted by Zorndorf In ALL MMORPG games (except Conan and GW) the reason for instances is gameplay (a closed dungeon, a balanced scenario or battleground).
Add to that list the following:
EverQuest II <---exactly the same mechanics as AoC Tabula Rasa <---exactly the same mechanics as AoC
This isn't a new development in MMOG development. It's been around since 2004.
Numerous MMOGs use instances or heavy zoning to ensure that heavy graphic lag doesn't make the game unplayable. Try zoning into the Jita system in EVE on a weekend...bring a book, the lag is absurd.
Planetside with its up to 300 people in the same battle, I heard that Runescape can have 1000vs1000 (can that be true??) in the same battle. DAoC had easily several hundred in the same battle as well.
Planetside has up to 1000 in the same battle, but routinely handles around 500. It's also a fps, which requires to servers to upload more data (multiple bullets per second and their trajectory and such).
MMO games played or tested: EQ, DAoC, Archlord, Auto Assault, CoH, CoV, EQ2, EVE, Guild Wars, Hellgate: London, Linneage II, LOTRO, MxO, Planetside, SWG, Sword of the New World, Tabula Rasa, Vanguard, WWIIOL, WOW, Age of Conan
Since people are confusing instancing with zoning, lets clarify or at least establish a sense of scale. Yes games like SWG and UO have instances, but in the context of specific dungeons or areas. Mostly zones were shared by all players of the specific server occupying that same zone. For example, when I went to Coronet on the Kettemoor server I was joined by all the other Kettemoor players in Coroent at that moment. Conversely, when I enter Conal Valley in AoC I'm placed in one of many instances (or copies) of the Conal Valley zone. I can have a friend on my server be in the same zone as me, but in a different instance of that zone. When I see people debating the Seamless World issue, I read the argument as MMOs implementing zoned instances . Games like UO and SWG have instances, but again, only in the context of specific areas of a zone, not the entire zone itself.
Yeah that's an important distinction to make.
And off topic, I am a BIG Ico fan by the way. I loved that game! It's up there with my all time favorites
Comments
For me, i prefer open-ended worlds, where i can do whatever i want, run where ever i want. No loading for every zone and such. Which is why i prefer Pre-NGE and even NGE SWG over AoC, because i can just spend time and enjoy my self travelling, going to player cities and seeing other people in open-ended pvp. I dont like being confined to zones.
Also something else about graphics. The graphics are beautiful. But one thing i dislike is even though there is supposely an indepth character creation (yeah right), you wont ever bother to notice or see other characters, let alone your self. Such as peoples hair/faces.
Unlike SWG where you could be fat, tiny, huge, tall, buff, skinny. SWG graphics are still pretty good and they have good character creation and customization. Shit, im about to go install SWG again = P
But it's what they want. That's one of the reasons WoW was so successful. I remember reading GameSpot's review when it talked about it. I'll quote:
From World of Warcraft Review, specifically page 2 image inset:
Among other things, this is what lent a lot of accessibility to the game and gave a lot of players a sense of accomplishment and fun. The current trend in a lot of games is achievement badges, which amounts to a lot of the same thing: a purpose for the "mindless" activity of grinding.
Personally, I like grinding from time to time. I don't want to always have to be chasing down some acorn somewhere or kill x of y...I'd just like to commmit genocide on a tribe of creatures somewhere and hope for a nice drop or two. But that's me.
And in the end, the key to all of these games is that no one game is ever going to appeal to everyone. The more diversity of options there are, the better every future release is going to be.
OKAY, Lets get Funcom to get rid of ALL the instances... That way even the best alien ware system will not be able to run the game, and all you will get is complaints about people's graphic cards blowing up!!! GOOD IDEA. You half to look at the reality of this, ask yourself, Why would funcom do super instancing??? 1 Reason, PERFORMANCE, Nobody could play if this where completely open, Especially the 48vs48 which is WAY more than Bf2... 64 players BF2 and it seemed HUGE, now make 96 people and that is going to fill your screen with effects, especially since the seige area is way smaller than the large battlfields on BF2. You should be extremely lucky to not have a guildwars setting, where you half to group up to see ANYBODY in the zones. Face it, you may as well be telling everyone they are retarded for no having 5000 dollar computers.
Hmm, interesting, and actually could have been a valid argument. But I do have alot of experience with MMO's, having played since the dawn of the genre, and I do see the trend. AoC ALONE is not to blame, but as it stands right now, it stands for an all-time low in the genre. It has continued all the worst trends seen over the last 4-odd years, and that is what brings me out to discuss this.
The problem is not WoW or AoC alone, the problem is as much the success they obtain, because it means that future games must follow in their footsteps or not get funded at all. It has even resulted in old games being rewamped and destroyed. UO was largely EQ'ified with Age of Shadows, and SWG I believe everyone knows the story of.
I think AoC deserves every bit of bashing it is getting. The argument has been framed perfectly to justify every bit of it. AoC is the culmination of elements that make up the neo-MMORPG, or rather- the lack of elements. It's been said many times before- but if you don't see the regression in MMORPGs now, it is because you are Ray Charles.
Really? I wonder...what was that screen I saw when I moved from one planet to another? Or when I launched into space?
And what were those loading screens I recall seeing entering/exiting dungeons in DAoC?
I swear, nostalgia puts blinders on people.
But it's what they want. That's one of the reasons WoW was so successful. I remember reading GameSpot's review when it talked about it. I'll quote:
From World of Warcraft Review, specifically page 2 image inset:
Among other things, this is what lent a lot of accessibility to the game and gave a lot of players a sense of accomplishment and fun. The current trend in a lot of games is achievement badges, which amounts to a lot of the same thing: a purpose for the "mindless" activity of grinding.
Personally, I like grinding from time to time. I don't want to always have to be chasing down some acorn somewhere or kill x of y...I'd just like to commmit genocide on a tribe of creatures somewhere and hope for a nice drop or two. But that's me.
And in the end, the key to all of these games is that no one game is ever going to appeal to everyone. The more diversity of options there are, the better every future release is going to be.
You make some good points. And if that is what the majority of gamers want, to have game designers hold their hand all the way to max level via quest after quest after quest, well...that is a depressing thought.
To each his own I guess. I think that more money coming into the industry can only help. It will encourage more game companies to make mmo's and perhaps attract more programmers and artists into the development process. One of those games in the future might be The One.
Yes and scaling avatars down to a single textured box IS sacrificing the quality of graphics. It is noticable ingame, and was obviously something the devs for AOC were wanting to avoid. I personally also dislike dynamic scaling so agree with the devs.
On a related note for those saying the game is much more directed then your standard MMO, again this may not seem it but also comes down to graphics. As focusing on smaller areas allows for locations to be much more enriched in terms of visual content. Personally I've been waiting for a game such as AOC which actually focuses its time and effort on smaller areas.
I was completely sick and tired of MMOs that have flat-fields and a tree and rock every-so-often, with maybe a hill, and this was termed a region. Here 100s of players could battle it out and it would be like awesome. Personally I have never understood people who are content with that, sure you can make up your own game in this 'world', but I hardly recognise it as a world.
Most MMOs are very dull to look at, and I appluade AOC for actually taking the risk and doing something completely different in creating zones. You can argue for your 'seamless' worlds yet as I said they are hardly worlds, there are a couple of hubs which are concentrated on, then the rest of the world is made quickly and the terrain and details are often sorely lacking.
It goes entirely to the idea of different strokes for different folks as another has said I geuss.
But not every game that is released follows these patterns. No doubt, any release forthcoming will have some component that you don't like. That is 100% inevitable.
The main question, from my perspective, is do I have options to play the way I want to play with the myriad of games on the market? I do not expect a single game to cater to every aspect of my interests...because then that would be a game made for one person: me. I recognize that my interests are not shared by everyone, and I don't demand that developers cater solely to my interests.
So when I want some hardcore economy-based gaming I play EVE. When I want hardcore raiding I play EQ. When I want connect-the-dots lootfests gaming I play WoW. When I want some oldschool "I am everything" gaming I play UO. Now I can add AoC to the list for when I want some combo-button combat brutality. AoC fills a niche. Hooray! That's one more type of game I can play when that mood strikes me.
So what do I need of a game that does everything I want it to do? Probably only half a dozen other people will play it, and the game will fail and fold. Considering how absolutely demanding and picky people are about the features they expect, you better believe that any game that caters to any one individual's interests will fail as well.
And if it doesn't cater to some individual's interests? Some accept that and move on...some stop playing, some keep playing. But some more still come into forums and exaggerate the failings of the game until they can convince everyone else that it's not worth their time. It's foolish at best and selfish at worst.
So that's the brunt of my issue with these posts. It's not that people don't like instancing...it's that the implication is that this kind of feature is a downward trend for the whole genre. Hell, Funcom invented instancing in Anarchy Online...why wouldn't they use it in AoC as well?
I really doubt anyone can make an argument for any game being completely seamless.
From a game design point of view it would be extremely difficult and from a logistics point of view very technically challenging.
But I do see the point and understand some feelings of disappointment. It's been what? 11 years since we saw UO launch and while, in my opinion, we've seen some great feature adds, we haven't seen a ton of game design changes.
We're talking TWO MS Windows Cycles here and not a whole bunch to show for it. For those who may be a little excited about some big leaps in the genre, I totally get how you can start to feel like we're NOT moving forward terribly well.
Important Information regarding Posting and You
And that is the curse of the mainstreamification: A new breed of gamers dominate the genre. ADD console type gamers, that have 20 minutes to spend between coming home from school/work and leaving for sports/whatever.
To cater to this kind of gamer, you need to alter the gameplay, and that is what has happened the last 4-odd years. The problem is then, that the new player population, who likes that kind of gameplay (in fact, they probably wouldn't have played unless it had been that way) dwarfs that of the old population, and since money is involved, it is not hard to put two and two together to see where the genre inevitably must go.
However, no matter how this matter is twisted, it is undeniable that Massive Multiplayer aspect of these games is under heavy pressure, having plunged the entire genre into a dark ages.
Reconsider your point of view here.
"The One" is going to be another World of Warcraft: appealing to the many.
Or perhaps you mean "The One I really like", in which case you should be applauding niche evolutionary development. If this is what you're looking for, then every time a game releases with some new features, even if you don't like other features it has, it's a good thing. Eventually, one of those games will stumble on the unique combination that makes you happy.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of people are looking for "The One" that millions of others will play. Good luck finding such a game that isn't "dumbed down".
But it's what they want. That's one of the reasons WoW was so successful. I remember reading GameSpot's review when it talked about it. I'll quote:
From World of Warcraft Review, specifically page 2 image inset:
Among other things, this is what lent a lot of accessibility to the game and gave a lot of players a sense of accomplishment and fun. The current trend in a lot of games is achievement badges, which amounts to a lot of the same thing: a purpose for the "mindless" activity of grinding.
Personally, I like grinding from time to time. I don't want to always have to be chasing down some acorn somewhere or kill x of y...I'd just like to commmit genocide on a tribe of creatures somewhere and hope for a nice drop or two. But that's me.
And in the end, the key to all of these games is that no one game is ever going to appeal to everyone. The more diversity of options there are, the better every future release is going to be.
People are definately entitled to their own opinion and playstyle, but...I honestly dont get it
To me, questing has always felt just as pointless as grinding mobs. You kill mob after mob and they just keep respawning. Or you do quest after quest and absolutely nothing changes. I just cant understand how players feel a sense of purpose there. Anyway, this is basically why I dont like instancing. Instanced quests and scripted encounters just arent that entertaining or interesting to me.
Your point about diversity is right on though. If we had more diverse, quality options in the genre, there wouldnt be nearly as much hate directed towards specific MMOs. Unfortunately, we might be waiting for a while for that one to pan out...
Crysis still looks better than AoC. So does S.T.A.L.K.E.R, and Oblivion and Bioshock is up there. Why did you choose Massive Multiplayer when what you want is a beautiful singleplayer experience? These games won't do that better than dedicated singleplayer games, you know.
This is how I feel too. Sandbox games are the way to go. Sadly, most MMOs on the horizon seem to be everything but a sandbox
Until you cancel your subscription, you are only helping to continue the cycle of mediocrity.
And we always have been waiting a long time. The release cycle of a MMOG is roughly 5 years. We get maybe 4 of them in a single year.
It's always going to be that way unless people want simpler games. I don't like that idea much at all, I want depth in my MMO gaming. So I will wait.
Since people are confusing instancing with zoning, lets clarify or at least establish a sense of scale.
Yes games like SWG and UO have instances, but in the context of specific dungeons or areas. Mostly zones were shared by all players of the specific server occupying that same zone. For example, when I went to Coronet on the Kettemoor server I was joined by all the other Kettemoor players in Coroent at that moment.
Conversely, when I enter Conal Valley in AoC I'm placed in one of many instances (or copies) of the Conal Valley zone. I can have a friend on my server be in the same zone as me, but in a different instance of that zone.
When I see people debating the Seamless World issue, I read the argument as MMOs implementing zoned instances . Games like UO and SWG have instances, but again, only in the context of specific areas of a zone, not the entire zone itself.
Ico
Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.
I agree with you on that point. Depth is more important than quantity.
So, I guess there are two big problems: 1) MMOs are getting WAY too expensive and time consuming, which limits the number of releases 2) many of the MMOs that do release are mostly just more of the same stuff in a different wrapper.
UO, DAoC, SB, SWG, PS and probably many others have no instances, so I believe it is you who is confused. And UO was 100% seamless upon release and two-three years forward (until T2A, where you had to load into a new area).
Instancing has a negative ring to it, and Funcom has tried to "rebrand" it to zones. But it is still instancing, no matter how you turn it.
Really? I wonder...what was that screen I saw when I moved from one planet to another? Or when I launched into space?
And what were those loading screens I recall seeing entering/exiting dungeons in DAoC?
I swear, nostalgia puts blinders on people.
Your right, I should be able to run across the planet of Tatooine and upon reaching the edge of the map continue jogging straight into Naboo. I forgot the two planets were combined, silly me.
Every single planet is seamless itself, but for obvious reasons you cannot jump from one to another.
STOP WHINING!
Add to that list the following:
EverQuest II <---exactly the same mechanics as AoC
Tabula Rasa <---exactly the same mechanics as AoC
This isn't a new development in MMOG development. It's been around since 2004.
Numerous MMOGs use instances or heavy zoning to ensure that heavy graphic lag doesn't make the game unplayable. Try zoning into the Jita system in EVE on a weekend...bring a book, the lag is absurd.
LOTRO is the best MMO out currently and in the near future. Just takes a bit of time to get into it, similar to a good book.
Planetside has up to 1000 in the same battle, but routinely handles around 500. It's also a fps, which requires to servers to upload more data (multiple bullets per second and their trajectory and such).
MMO games played or tested: EQ, DAoC, Archlord, Auto Assault, CoH, CoV, EQ2, EVE, Guild Wars, Hellgate: London, Linneage II, LOTRO, MxO, Planetside, SWG, Sword of the New World, Tabula Rasa, Vanguard, WWIIOL, WOW, Age of Conan
And off topic, I am a BIG Ico fan by the way. I loved that game! It's up there with my all time favorites
Get over yourselfes. If you don't like it don't play it.
A shitload of us actualy have some imagination and we can look beyond the instancing/zoning.
Alot of people here seem so desperate to see this game fail, well my friends to bad it wont happen.