I think im the only sandbox fan that doesnt mind instances or zoning lol. Seriously I never understood the reason so many people bitch about it. Certain games do zoning and instancing really well. Only time instancing bothers me is when I try to get into pvp zone and I die while im still in the loading screen due to campers. Other then that I don't mind little houses being instanced or players having their own copies of dungeons. Instanced pvp minigames dont bother me either as long as they don't totally own a MMOs open world pvp. Not once while playing guild wars did i lose my immersive feeling, that game had a great storyline and I teamed up with friends all the time. It didnt bother us once that we were the only group on the map. I think people get too crazy with the "immersion" thing. a loading screen breaks your immersion? go get yourself checked for A.D.D.
i think you're confusing zoned vs. seamless with instanced vs. non-instanced. 2 very seperate things,
i DETEST ALL instancing. one of the worst things to happen to MMOs.
i don't care about zoning. seamless is nice, but zoning doesn't break immersion.
what breaks immersion is when you arrive at a dungeon, and see a group of people at the entrance buffing up, then they enter the dungeon right before you do. and when you get in, you see no people or any signs that anyone's been there. it just seems so dead and lifeless & it just drives home the fact you aren't in a virtual world at all, THAT's what breaks immersion. its painfully obvious you were in an overland/terrain 3D chat lobby that connects the seperate small- scale multiplayer dungeons. but instead of conveniently choosing from a list of rooms/servers in a menu browser, you walk around (sometimes great distances, and taking a bit of time) before you cana enter your own little server/room.
hybrid games are inherently immersion breaking. if the game was totally small-scale mp everywhere, it'd be consistent and could be immersive.
World of Warcraft doesn't have loading maps because it is constantly loading the next zone in the background. There is a zone wall in the game and anyone who has had their character freeze up for a second while flying has seen it.
The game isn't seemless.
Asheron's Call 1 and Lineage 2 are two of the games I can think of that were totally zone free. Especially AC1 (Which I played for 4+ years, I only got to 40 or 50 on Lineage 2) which made use of dungeons (that were not seperate instances) but otherwise everything on the top of the world was real and you were able to get there. (Mountains, buildings, etc).
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
World of Warcraft doesn't have loading maps because it is constantly loading the next zone in the background. There is a zone wall in the game and anyone who has had their character freeze up for a second while flying has seen it. The game isn't seemless.
Asheron's Call 1 and Lineage 2 are two of the games I can think of that were totally zone free. Especially AC1 (Which I played for 4+ years, I only got to 40 or 50 on Lineage 2) which made use of dungeons (that were not seperate instances) but otherwise everything on the top of the world was real and you were able to get there. (Mountains, buildings, etc).
None of these games are really seemless. Some just fake it better than others. It is a complete resource waste to keep the entire world loaded and updated. The trick is to decide on how much you will keep in memory at a time and when to swap out that data as the character moves through the world.
SWG had a relatively small zone around the character that it would keep updated. You simply did not register anything that was just outside that zone. This naturally made long range sniping impossible.
WoW keeps a much large area of the world loaded so you can spot things at distances that are 'realistic'. The changover from zone to zone however, requires a much bigger swap of graphics and data files so they put in the empty border areas that you travel through as you switch zones. That allows them to do the quick swap of passive world elements without interference from the loading of active elements.
wow almost plays only in instances, the "open world" is just a meeting point for the next instance run, so no big point. All interesting stuff is instanced
Instancing is the best invention for MMO. Would you prefer a campfest that you have to take a number to kill & loot the boss? That campfest, take-a-number mentality is the primary reason why I quit EQ many years ago. Instancing is the right way to solve the problem.
instancing is the small scale multiplayer (NOT MMO) way to solve the "problem". i don't play bastardized MMO/small-scale games like WoW, Guild Wars, D&DO. never will. and D&DO has the best combat, and some of the best dungeons. doesn't matter, i won't play those kinds of games.
yes, i want dungeons to be MMO also.
why are you even playing MMOs?
why if instancing is so great, why aren't the overland zones in your games instanced too? you hate to camp and take a number in dungeons..... but its perfectly fine in overland zones?
Unless you was in line camping the Roster in Lower Guk for EQ days on end you will never understand how great instancing is. Seriously from what your saying servers should be completely open world no instancing, which would mean the population would have to be around 20 people per server to avoid over camping. If WoW was your first MMO you have no right to cry about instancing LOL
Unless you was in line camping the Roster in Lower Guk for EQ days on end you will never understand how great instancing is. Seriously from what your saying servers should be completely open world no instancing, which would mean the population would have to be around 20 people per server to avoid over camping. If WoW was your first MMO you have no right to cry about instancing LOL
Why is it people must exaggerate 100X to make their point. I played EQ and am well aware of the lower Guk issue. Life expectancy of most MOBS in Guk was often in the seconds. But 20 people per server, com on. In any case instancing is a way to solve the problem for sure. However another way is to simply make the world very large with many different attractions.
Unless you was in line camping the Roster in Lower Guk for EQ days on end you will never understand how great instancing is. Seriously from what your saying servers should be completely open world no instancing, which would mean the population would have to be around 20 people per server to avoid over camping. If WoW was your first MMO you have no right to cry about instancing LOL
Why is it people must exaggerate 100X to make their point. I played EQ and am well aware of the lower Guk issue. Life expectancy of most MOBS in Guk was often in the seconds. But 20 people per server, com on. In any case instancing is a way to solve the problem for sure. However another way is to simply make the world very large with many different attractions.
So basically your talking about vanguard, where u see a person every couple hours or so. Sounds like a good solo play but gez transportation in that game would be just silly. Plus that would be asking the companies to dump HUGE amounts of money into developing a quality gaming experience instead of some giant arid wasteland of a couple people per cubic mile in-game that doesnt cost a dime compared to something that would be worth a crap.
Unless you was in line camping the Roster in Lower Guk for EQ days on end you will never understand how great instancing is. Seriously from what your saying servers should be completely open world no instancing, which would mean the population would have to be around 20 people per server to avoid over camping. If WoW was your first MMO you have no right to cry about instancing LOL
Why is it people must exaggerate 100X to make their point. I played EQ and am well aware of the lower Guk issue. Life expectancy of most MOBS in Guk was often in the seconds. But 20 people per server, com on. In any case instancing is a way to solve the problem for sure. However another way is to simply make the world very large with many different attractions.
So basically your talking about vanguard, where u see a person every couple hours or so. Sounds like a good solo play but gez transportation in that game would be just silly. Plus that would be asking the companies to dump HUGE amounts of money into developing a quality gaming experience instead of some giant arid wasteland of a couple people per cubic mile in-game that doesnt cost a dime compared to something that would be worth a crap.
You are arguing against yourself. First it's too crowded. Then it's too sparse. Which is it? The key is the have points of interest such as cities where people meet an then you go find a dungeon to raid. If it's too full you find another one. Transportation can be taken care of in a zillion ways so I won’t even touch that. As for development time, that's where I come in. What I'm working on is functional content. That means everything isn't hand designed. You have algorithms. With good algorithms you can generate massive amounts of content with a lot less work. You also won't need different servers (shards). You can have the game big enough so it's supports everyone on a single shard. In my view it's the next generation. But I don't expect anyone to buy into it until they can see it for themselves so it’s hard to argue about it now.
Instancing is the best invention for MMO. Would you prefer a campfest that you have to take a number to kill & loot the boss? That campfest, take-a-number mentality is the primary reason why I quit EQ many years ago. Instancing is the right way to solve the problem.
instancing is the small scale multiplayer (NOT MMO) way to solve the "problem". i don't play bastardized MMO/small-scale games like WoW, Guild Wars, D&DO. never will. and D&DO has the best combat, and some of the best dungeons. doesn't matter, i won't play those kinds of games.
yes, i want dungeons to be MMO also.
why are you even playing MMOs?
why if instancing is so great, why aren't the overland zones in your games instanced too? you hate to camp and take a number in dungeons..... but its perfectly fine in overland zones?
Who cares what you call it. Instancing makes the GAME fun. It is much much better to have 5 people going through a dungeon going throu encounters DESIGNED for 5, instead of having lots of unwanted people around.
I am GLAD you are not getting what you want. That would be BAD for making a game fun.
I have no problem if the overland zones are also instanced. In fact, GW is like that except in big cities. In fact, I would LIKE that. May be instancing when the population reach a certain point. I *hate* camping the SAME mobs for daily quests with others. They should have instanced those (or make the respawn faster).
The game did not support open world pvp at all, were you there for the hillsbrad foothill zergs? It's an instanced claustrophobic item hunting game, no real RP element, it just feels like a multiplayer match-making game, not a MMORPG.
Which is great. I don't have to pvp if I don't want to. If i jsut want to go from point A to B to complete some quest, it would be a chore to go thru a war zone.
Battleground is the right idea to do pvp. It is much better control .. and hence more fun.
Instancing makes the GAME fun. It is much much better to have 5 people going through a dungeon going throu encounters DESIGNED for 5, instead of having lots of unwanted people around.
I have to disagree. In my book, thats called a single-player game of which I hate paying $15/month for. Instancing breaks immersion and retards and semblance of a multi-player populated, influenced and enjoyable world imho.
The game did not support open world pvp at all, were you there for the hillsbrad foothill zergs? It's an instanced claustrophobic item hunting game, no real RP element, it just feels like a multiplayer match-making game, not a MMORPG.
Which is great. I don't have to pvp if I don't want to. If i jsut want to go from point A to B to complete some quest, it would be a chore to go thru a war zone.
Battleground is the right idea to do pvp. It is much better control .. and hence more fun.
Mmmm...I disagree. Some of the greatest PvP moments in my PvP history were in the open world.
Now to answer everyone. I don't mind the instanced dungeons. Yah sure...I'd like a variety of different dungeons, but I don't mind instanced dungeons. What I'm talking about is being able to run from STV all the way to EPL without hitting one loading zone in WoW. Why is that so hard for new games to do? Especially with the growing technology out there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Guys! I'm hopelessly lost in a mountain of mole hills! Them damn moles!
Completely wrong. A TM/SS raid would still crash WoW servers I am pretty certain. WAR is finding out that it cannot take Fortress sieges without its server going Chernobyl.
You are certainly WRONG. I was raiding Orgrimmar with two full raid groups ( 80 people ) and various Horde coming to attack.
Quite a bit of lag, although I think that was client side, but no crashes.
To clarify, anyway:
I think what the OP was more referring to was the EQ 1/2, WAR, AoC etc zoning wherein every SINGLE ZONE has to have a loading screen, which makes the game feel rather clunky and you can just zoom from themed zone to themed zone without really matching them up, whereas in WoW and similar games, you usually have a smoother transition.
Instancing is probably the worst feature ever made for MMO's. And its amazing how naive and ridiculous people are, that the only way they can imagine how a game would be without instances, would be to take an existing game like WoW, and remove the instances from it and think that's how it would be...if the game is designed around open world events, PvE, PvP, etc...there's no need for instances....people are stupid.
If you really hate all instancing so much, you'd better pick a game with a small playerbase. Otherwise they end up with a bunch of different servers. What are different servers but different instances of the same game world?
What most people who say they hate instancing mean is that they hate some types of instancing.
I personally like a combo of both. I liked how DDO made your dungeon yours. Like you accomplished the tasks you were given. However, I like when your running around with everyone else also. Ahhh the good ol days of "STOP KSing!!!"
WoW has no loading screens? You've never switched continents, you mean? That not only has a loading screen, but often drops you back on the wrong side of it, so that if you're lucky, you just have to wait several minutes to try again. If not so lucky, you die, and it takes a lot longer than several minutes to try again.
WoW has loading screens for continents/regions and dungeons but it has much fewer than some MMORPGs. Also having played WoW for years, you rarely (very rarely) have a problem switching continents. That's a huge exaggeration.
I believe WOW is the most seamless mmo I've played..you can walk/swim virtually anywhere within reason. Except of course the blimps or boats. kinda glad they are instanced. I mean ..do you really want them to play out months of travel time. What kind of content would they provide? Your Orc warlock reclining on a deck chair with his imp serving him drinks...while you watch NPCs and other players develope scurvey or get sea sick...hell..maybe some diseased rats spread the black plague..and there no healer on board..yikes. As far as mis-drops from a boat or airship...I've never had that happen...and I've played many servers and characters. No one else I know has either..unless they didn't bother to double-check the destination with the info-goblin that stands at the platforms. I don't think that problem is very widespread. have to agree with polypterus on this point. I do like the open feel on non-instanced towns..where you can just walk into open buildings. However..I also like Lotro instanced buildings and rooms..because the detail within is amazing...and graphic quality can be maintained with minimal graphic lag.
WoW has no loading screens? You've never switched continents, you mean? That not only has a loading screen, but often drops you back on the wrong side of it, so that if you're lucky, you just have to wait several minutes to try again. If not so lucky, you die, and it takes a lot longer than several minutes to try again. As for Guild Wars in particular, it's a different type of game that some people like and some don't. I, for one, sometimes like that I can kill something and have it stay dead, rather than respawning on top of me in ten minutes.
Go play AoC sometime...you'll never think WoW has too many loading screens again.
What are you smoking? Instancing is the best invention for MMO. Would you prefer a campfest that you have to take a number to kill & loot the boss? That campfest, take-a-number mentality is the primary reason why I quit EQ many years ago. Instancing is the right way to solve the problem.
This is the correct answer.
Oh those long nights in the Desert of Ro *shudders*.
MMO Played-EQ, EQ2, WOW, DDO, GW, COH, Vanguard, WAR
WoW has no loading screens? You've never switched continents, you mean? That not only has a loading screen, but often drops you back on the wrong side of it, so that if you're lucky, you just have to wait several minutes to try again. If not so lucky, you die, and it takes a lot longer than several minutes to try again. As for Guild Wars in particular, it's a different type of game that some people like and some don't. I, for one, sometimes like that I can kill something and have it stay dead, rather than respawning on top of me in ten minutes.
Go play AoC sometime...you'll never think WoW has too many loading screens again.
I don't think WoW has too many loading screens. For that matter, Guild Wars has a lot more than WoW, and I don't think Guild Wars has too many, either. (It does help that Guild Wars' loading screens more reliably do what they're supposed to than WoW's.) I don't get the obsession with avoiding loading screens that are at worst a minor nuisance, and eat up maybe 0.2% of your playing time.
It's just that if someone is really insistant on avoiding loading screens at all costs, WoW strikes me as an odd model to cite.
Comments
i think you're confusing zoned vs. seamless with instanced vs. non-instanced. 2 very seperate things,
i DETEST ALL instancing. one of the worst things to happen to MMOs.
i don't care about zoning. seamless is nice, but zoning doesn't break immersion.
what breaks immersion is when you arrive at a dungeon, and see a group of people at the entrance buffing up, then they enter the dungeon right before you do. and when you get in, you see no people or any signs that anyone's been there. it just seems so dead and lifeless & it just drives home the fact you aren't in a virtual world at all, THAT's what breaks immersion. its painfully obvious you were in an overland/terrain 3D chat lobby that connects the seperate small- scale multiplayer dungeons. but instead of conveniently choosing from a list of rooms/servers in a menu browser, you walk around (sometimes great distances, and taking a bit of time) before you cana enter your own little server/room.
hybrid games are inherently immersion breaking. if the game was totally small-scale mp everywhere, it'd be consistent and could be immersive.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
World of Warcraft doesn't have loading maps because it is constantly loading the next zone in the background. There is a zone wall in the game and anyone who has had their character freeze up for a second while flying has seen it.
The game isn't seemless.
Asheron's Call 1 and Lineage 2 are two of the games I can think of that were totally zone free. Especially AC1 (Which I played for 4+ years, I only got to 40 or 50 on Lineage 2) which made use of dungeons (that were not seperate instances) but otherwise everything on the top of the world was real and you were able to get there. (Mountains, buildings, etc).
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
None of these games are really seemless. Some just fake it better than others. It is a complete resource waste to keep the entire world loaded and updated. The trick is to decide on how much you will keep in memory at a time and when to swap out that data as the character moves through the world.
SWG had a relatively small zone around the character that it would keep updated. You simply did not register anything that was just outside that zone. This naturally made long range sniping impossible.
WoW keeps a much large area of the world loaded so you can spot things at distances that are 'realistic'. The changover from zone to zone however, requires a much bigger swap of graphics and data files so they put in the empty border areas that you travel through as you switch zones. That allows them to do the quick swap of passive world elements without interference from the loading of active elements.
wow almost plays only in instances, the "open world" is just a meeting point for the next instance run, so no big point. All interesting stuff is instanced
He's talking about world zones not dungeons. WoW has its instanced dungeons by design, not due to lack of client/server technology.
So sayeth the pot.
instancing is the small scale multiplayer (NOT MMO) way to solve the "problem". i don't play bastardized MMO/small-scale games like WoW, Guild Wars, D&DO. never will. and D&DO has the best combat, and some of the best dungeons. doesn't matter, i won't play those kinds of games.
yes, i want dungeons to be MMO also.
why are you even playing MMOs?
why if instancing is so great, why aren't the overland zones in your games instanced too? you hate to camp and take a number in dungeons..... but its perfectly fine in overland zones?
Unless you was in line camping the Roster in Lower Guk for EQ days on end you will never understand how great instancing is. Seriously from what your saying servers should be completely open world no instancing, which would mean the population would have to be around 20 people per server to avoid over camping. If WoW was your first MMO you have no right to cry about instancing LOL
Why is it people must exaggerate 100X to make their point. I played EQ and am well aware of the lower Guk issue. Life expectancy of most MOBS in Guk was often in the seconds. But 20 people per server, com on. In any case instancing is a way to solve the problem for sure. However another way is to simply make the world very large with many different attractions.
Why is it people must exaggerate 100X to make their point. I played EQ and am well aware of the lower Guk issue. Life expectancy of most MOBS in Guk was often in the seconds. But 20 people per server, com on. In any case instancing is a way to solve the problem for sure. However another way is to simply make the world very large with many different attractions.
So basically your talking about vanguard, where u see a person every couple hours or so. Sounds like a good solo play but gez transportation in that game would be just silly. Plus that would be asking the companies to dump HUGE amounts of money into developing a quality gaming experience instead of some giant arid wasteland of a couple people per cubic mile in-game that doesnt cost a dime compared to something that would be worth a crap.
Why is it people must exaggerate 100X to make their point. I played EQ and am well aware of the lower Guk issue. Life expectancy of most MOBS in Guk was often in the seconds. But 20 people per server, com on. In any case instancing is a way to solve the problem for sure. However another way is to simply make the world very large with many different attractions.
So basically your talking about vanguard, where u see a person every couple hours or so. Sounds like a good solo play but gez transportation in that game would be just silly. Plus that would be asking the companies to dump HUGE amounts of money into developing a quality gaming experience instead of some giant arid wasteland of a couple people per cubic mile in-game that doesnt cost a dime compared to something that would be worth a crap.
You are arguing against yourself. First it's too crowded. Then it's too sparse. Which is it? The key is the have points of interest such as cities where people meet an then you go find a dungeon to raid. If it's too full you find another one. Transportation can be taken care of in a zillion ways so I won’t even touch that. As for development time, that's where I come in. What I'm working on is functional content. That means everything isn't hand designed. You have algorithms. With good algorithms you can generate massive amounts of content with a lot less work. You also won't need different servers (shards). You can have the game big enough so it's supports everyone on a single shard. In my view it's the next generation. But I don't expect anyone to buy into it until they can see it for themselves so it’s hard to argue about it now.
instancing is the small scale multiplayer (NOT MMO) way to solve the "problem". i don't play bastardized MMO/small-scale games like WoW, Guild Wars, D&DO. never will. and D&DO has the best combat, and some of the best dungeons. doesn't matter, i won't play those kinds of games.
yes, i want dungeons to be MMO also.
why are you even playing MMOs?
why if instancing is so great, why aren't the overland zones in your games instanced too? you hate to camp and take a number in dungeons..... but its perfectly fine in overland zones?
Who cares what you call it. Instancing makes the GAME fun. It is much much better to have 5 people going through a dungeon going throu encounters DESIGNED for 5, instead of having lots of unwanted people around.
I am GLAD you are not getting what you want. That would be BAD for making a game fun.
I have no problem if the overland zones are also instanced. In fact, GW is like that except in big cities. In fact, I would LIKE that. May be instancing when the population reach a certain point. I *hate* camping the SAME mobs for daily quests with others. They should have instanced those (or make the respawn faster).
Which is great. I don't have to pvp if I don't want to. If i jsut want to go from point A to B to complete some quest, it would be a chore to go thru a war zone.
Battleground is the right idea to do pvp. It is much better control .. and hence more fun.
I have to disagree. In my book, thats called a single-player game of which I hate paying $15/month for. Instancing breaks immersion and retards and semblance of a multi-player populated, influenced and enjoyable world imho.
Which is great. I don't have to pvp if I don't want to. If i jsut want to go from point A to B to complete some quest, it would be a chore to go thru a war zone.
Battleground is the right idea to do pvp. It is much better control .. and hence more fun.
Mmmm...I disagree. Some of the greatest PvP moments in my PvP history were in the open world.
Now to answer everyone. I don't mind the instanced dungeons. Yah sure...I'd like a variety of different dungeons, but I don't mind instanced dungeons. What I'm talking about is being able to run from STV all the way to EPL without hitting one loading zone in WoW. Why is that so hard for new games to do? Especially with the growing technology out there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guys! I'm hopelessly lost in a mountain of mole hills! Them damn moles!
haha~~~that's the proof of success of WOW
You are certainly WRONG. I was raiding Orgrimmar with two full raid groups ( 80 people ) and various Horde coming to attack.
Quite a bit of lag, although I think that was client side, but no crashes.
To clarify, anyway:
I think what the OP was more referring to was the EQ 1/2, WAR, AoC etc zoning wherein every SINGLE ZONE has to have a loading screen, which makes the game feel rather clunky and you can just zoom from themed zone to themed zone without really matching them up, whereas in WoW and similar games, you usually have a smoother transition.
Instancing is probably the worst feature ever made for MMO's. And its amazing how naive and ridiculous people are, that the only way they can imagine how a game would be without instances, would be to take an existing game like WoW, and remove the instances from it and think that's how it would be...if the game is designed around open world events, PvE, PvP, etc...there's no need for instances....people are stupid.
If you really hate all instancing so much, you'd better pick a game with a small playerbase. Otherwise they end up with a bunch of different servers. What are different servers but different instances of the same game world?
What most people who say they hate instancing mean is that they hate some types of instancing.
I personally like a combo of both. I liked how DDO made your dungeon yours. Like you accomplished the tasks you were given. However, I like when your running around with everyone else also. Ahhh the good ol days of "STOP KSing!!!"
-Almerel
Hello my old friend.
WoW has loading screens for continents/regions and dungeons but it has much fewer than some MMORPGs. Also having played WoW for years, you rarely (very rarely) have a problem switching continents. That's a huge exaggeration.
I believe WOW is the most seamless mmo I've played..you can walk/swim virtually anywhere within reason. Except of course the blimps or boats. kinda glad they are instanced. I mean ..do you really want them to play out months of travel time. What kind of content would they provide? Your Orc warlock reclining on a deck chair with his imp serving him drinks...while you watch NPCs and other players develope scurvey or get sea sick...hell..maybe some diseased rats spread the black plague..and there no healer on board..yikes. As far as mis-drops from a boat or airship...I've never had that happen...and I've played many servers and characters. No one else I know has either..unless they didn't bother to double-check the destination with the info-goblin that stands at the platforms. I don't think that problem is very widespread. have to agree with polypterus on this point. I do like the open feel on non-instanced towns..where you can just walk into open buildings. However..I also like Lotro instanced buildings and rooms..because the detail within is amazing...and graphic quality can be maintained with minimal graphic lag.
Go play AoC sometime...you'll never think WoW has too many loading screens again.
This is the correct answer.
Oh those long nights in the Desert of Ro *shudders*.
MMO Played-EQ, EQ2, WOW, DDO, GW, COH, Vanguard, WAR
MMOs Playing-LOTRO
Go play AoC sometime...you'll never think WoW has too many loading screens again.
I don't think WoW has too many loading screens. For that matter, Guild Wars has a lot more than WoW, and I don't think Guild Wars has too many, either. (It does help that Guild Wars' loading screens more reliably do what they're supposed to than WoW's.) I don't get the obsession with avoiding loading screens that are at worst a minor nuisance, and eat up maybe 0.2% of your playing time.
It's just that if someone is really insistant on avoiding loading screens at all costs, WoW strikes me as an odd model to cite.
The day you play a game that has good graphics, and a huge, open, zone-less world, is the day your computer dies.