Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Sandbox / Instance et al ?
Breezeycouk
Member Posts: 82
Sorry Everyone !!! - Clicked wrong bit of the page...
So - To try again...
Here is a simple poll to see what people are looking for from their games...
(Payment to follow in another poll..)
Simples...
Comments
you forgot one:
instanced sandbox!(i know it doesnt exist yet!)
Sandbox with Instances.
I want an open world, seamless world to play around in for the majority of the time, but for structured PvE and PvP content I prefer instancing as it allows the developers to create a controlled environment and balance their encounters accordingly.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Sandbox with Instances-- a) it's novel, b) it's not like every other rail grind out there, c) its innovative at some level
If we can move on from there lets go skill based (as in skill points) instead of level based too.
Shadus
I don't mind instances as long as they're not too intrusive. For instance (hah), instanced zones - entire zones - annoy me. See Champions Online and AoC. But instanced dungeons or encounters are fine. They're an evolution of the genre due to some buttheads running in and stealing your kill that you were waiting days for while ignoring your family, your hygiene, and your job (aka HARDCORE!). Those who don't realize this are lost in nostalgia, in my opinion.
"But... but... I like the risk! The risk that my kill may be stolen!" That's all well and good, but the majority of us don't. Instances provide private encounters, where you feel like an adventurer or a hero, especially with a group. Let's just traverse this deadly, zombie-infested dungeon to fight the Necrombination Megathraxis that is waiting at the bottom of the Pit of You'reScrewedForEternity. Oh no! Someone already got here first! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Wouldn't that suck just a little bit?
Most people say that sandboxes don't have instances, and that's true. But I wouldn't mind if they did. Honestly, having an open world is great, and I like the freedom sandboxes usually provide. But privatized encounters aren't evil, even if they're separate from the rest of the world. I will mention, though, that I enjoyed Darkness Falls in DAoC, but only because it had RvR tied in with PvE, not because it wasn't instanced.
Edit: Yeah, Ilvaldyr pretty much said what I was thinking, except he didn't have a fancy scenario.
Umm
Whats the difference between Instanced Sandbox and Sandbox with instances ?
The latter is a large room with lots of little rooms behind doors.
The former is a little room with lots of large rooms behind doors.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
The latter is a large room with lots of little rooms behind doors.
The former is a little room with lots of large rooms behind doors.
<Bows>
(But not sure if either are for me?? - Is it a question of programming / presentation or hardware constrants?)
<Bows>
(But not sure if either are for me?? - Is it a question of programming / presentation or hardware constrants?)
Dunno, I'm not a programmer.
Instanced sandbox is logically the more intensive model; keeping track of many instances of complete sandbox worlds has got to be heavy on the hardware and, if I'm honest, sounds 'orrible to me anyway. I can't imagine why I'd want an entire sandbox world instanced specifically to myself and/or my group.
It'd be like playing a single-player or small scale co-op game.
Sandbox with instances is far more attractive; populated world, private instances.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
The whole instance argument has gone on forever.
Myself it is an obvious choice,and depends on weather the developer has any brains.
An instance SHOULD ONLY be a gimmick/mechanic when you have some form or REASON to EARN your way to that zone.Without the EARN factor,then anyone can go in,so why bother to make it an instance at all?No you do NOT need instances for sake of "don't bother me and my boss" or LAG or whatever, a GOOD solid developer can make it all work no problem at all.
The reason you need the EARN status for an instance ,is IF you attach some rarity to items dropped in there OR it is needed to fulfill some mission/Quest.If anyone can just click their mouse button and enter,that is really making a cheap ass game and removes the RARE effect of any item in the game.
An example of a good idea was many of course done by you guessed it the master of content >>>FFXI.
They had forms of earning GIL to buy your way into an instance,earning SEALS [Beastmen/kindred]the infamous LEVEL lock,FFXI even managed to LOCK levels to JUST that level,no 75 allowed into a 50 instance.There is also other unique ideas like earning keys,or fighting your way up levels,instead of just a one way ticket to the boss.FFXI had their Quest/Mission system that opened up new zones witch are the same thing as an instance BTW,in case anyone at this day in age is not aware of how games are made.You might also need to fight certain mobs to earn a DROP that allows access,you can have lock out timers so players cannot over play the RARITY factor again,tons of ways to make instancing reasonable besides just clicking your mouse to enter.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I gotta say, if the best we can offer the devs as feedback for future games is 'instanced' or 'not instanced' then it really implies games have reached a point where not much more can be done creatively.
That said, I think we can do A LOT better than instanced vs. not. What about different genres other than just fantasy for example? I would take instanced any day if the game was innovative enough in other areas.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It's the best solution; no-one can deny that it completely axes camping/killstealing.
I don't see why people are so opposed to instancing; it solves a few problems and has no tangible downside. One could argue that it, in some ethereal way, detracts from the immersive feeling of the game, but I don't think that argument carries much weight. Most game mechanics in MMOs require significant suspension of disbelief. Respawning, for one.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
It's the best solution; no-one can deny that it completely axes camping/killstealing.
I don't see why people are so opposed to instancing; it solves a few problems and has no tangible downside. One could argue that it, in some ethereal way, detracts from the immersive feeling of the game, but I don't think that argument carries much weight. Most game mechanics in MMOs require significant suspension of disbelief. Respawning, for one.
But the problem for me with instances is threefold:
1. The whole respawn thing - It's Fricking Dead - I killed it - I've got its head over my fireplace - Why are you running around with its feet as your slippers ? !!! - NOw if you want to "pause it" and then let some other Boss / Creature / NPC creep in then thats fine - Nature abhors a vaccum...
2. They don't affect the game world - "Hey Buddy - I Got this really tough Quest - Your level 15 and you've done it before can you help me ???" Or "Dude Alt No 2 - We know you wiped out the dirty space aliens intent on turning your Mum / Girlfriend / insert significant other in to goo yesterday at Space Station Whatever when you were learning the game but... Hell the dirty little critters have turned up again and we were caught with our pants down again - Humanity needs you Dude "
3. What??? - Soooo 500,000 people get the same quest from the same quest giver and there is no race to the Magic Sword of Blah or the Super Cronic Blue Flashly Light I even put my hand on the hilt and you gonna die Sucker Pistol / Long range rifle / Small Nuclear Device / Noisy Cricket (Insert Weapon of choice / class / genre / whatever - we've got your money) - Where's the realism ???????????????????????????????
why people want sandbox?because of player number avail
if they had the same number as a sandbox but in an instanced environement(less lag)
everybody would be happy
true it wouldnt be the countless number of a sandbox but
a 4 digit number (say a minimum of 1000 player per map,instance,phaze,jita or watchemacallit.)
would be a proper number of player for an instanced sandbox!
Respawning isn't specific to instances. Things respawn in the open world too.
Nor is the lack of world impact. If I kill 10 kobolds, they respawn for the next guy.
Realism is not as important as functioning game mechanics. Dragons aren't real, remember.
I don't believe that immersion (as most people seem to use the term) exists in MMOs. I've never encountered a situation where the events happening on-screen felt real or important.
The only form of immersion I recognise is when the player is having so much fun that they lose track of time in the real world .. and that's not dependant on the games level of realism.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
The latter is a large room with lots of little rooms behind doors.
The former is a little room with lots of large rooms behind doors.
(But not sure if either are for me?? - Is it a question of programming / presentation or hardware constrants?)
IMO its neither, its a question of game design and logistic contraints. Such that no hardware or programming will fix it without ruining the game in some other fashion in an even worse way.
I'll play anything as long as the core gameplay (the activities I'm doing from moment to moment) is fun.
Core gameplay is most consistently fun in instanced games. It's not impossible to keep the player doing fun/interesting things in non-instanced games, but the actual sandboxes I've tried haven't had a very consistent record in that regard.
Haven & Hearth and ATITD are basically the two non-instanced sandbox-ish games I've played where gameplay was (mostly) consistently enjoyable -- because once you found a plot of land with sufficient resources you could simply build up an enjoyable developed plot of land to call home, and the activities involved in doing so were enjoyable.
Games like EVE and DF are somewhat tragic to me, as each has some individually excellent systems (the combat in both is solid) but other systems within each game totally ruin the experience (and limit how often you get to experience the excellent systems.)
Any of the OP's poll options can work, as long as players consistently have access to fun activities and degenerative gameplay is prevented by the game's design.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In Games that lean strongest toward sandbox game play, the game doesn't try to keep the player doing anything. The Goal is for players to determine the path of the game, both for themselves and others.
I think this usually involves players interacting with one another to do fun/interesting things, and not relying on developed content. This isn't to say that there is no content in these games, only that players work together to determine its value. It isn't presented to the player and may have a very different meaning or purpose for different players.
I do think this often presents players, that aren't use to it, with real problems. These games really do put the responsibility on the players to develop content, instead of having it provided.
In the end, I think it's a question of personal preference.