It's been known for quite a while. But they have said it will take about 15 minutes to run from one side of a zone to the other. So the areas are pretty big. While I would also like a completely seamless world it's not that big of a deal to separate them.
It is been speculated for quite a while. But I have never seen a developer interview that says there will definitely be load screen between zones at lunch. Unless you guys can link that interview, it is still just a theory until the game launches and we play the game.
They have never came out and said it true, or at least I haven't read it. They have really danced around it but they have also said it wasn't seamless. I think it was one of ArenaNet CM's that said it on GW2guru. I'll see if I can look it up.
Seriously...are seemless games better than zoned games (retorical question)?...no
anyways, why is it that I am not surprised to see this topic come up NOW...after whats been going on in the WvWvW thread...sigh, and the discussion moves on.
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
I'm thinking this might just be a temporary portal blocking out a part of the world that simply isn't finished. When that part of the map is done they might remove it... or maybe not. Either way it doesn't bother me.
Edit: Or the link from above post just answeres the question :P
Just as long as there's no phasing of public areas. That would spoil it for me.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
It's not really secret that the world of Guild Wars 2 won't be seamless and ANet have mentioned that the persistent world will be divided up into zones (like almost every other MMO) and you will experience a short loading screen between zones. I personally don't see the big deal regarding loading screens in-between. Sure I'd prefer it if they did some background loading as I approached a portal, to give me that illusion of a seamless world but it's not something I plan to b*tch about. I've experienced the ridiculously long, immersion breaking, loading screens of Mass Effect 2 (about 1-2min long) and still loved that game. So seeing how the loading screens of GW2 look to be about 5-10secs long, I really don't see it as an issue.
I'd rather experience a game like GW2 that is full of loading screens than any other MMO at this point, because everything else it plans on doing, simply outshines any other MMO I know about.
It's not really secret that the world of Guild Wars 2 won't be seamless and ANet have mentioned that the persistent world will be divided up into zones (like almost every other MMO) and you will experience a short loading screen between zones. I personally don't see the big deal regarding loading screens in-between. Sure I'd prefer it if they did some background loading as I approached a portal, to give me that illusion of a seamless world but it's not something I plan to b*tch about. I've experienced the ridiculously long, immersion breaking, loading screens of Mass Effect 2 (about 1-2min long) and still loved that game. So seeing how the loading screens of GW2 look to be about 5-10secs long, I really don't see it as an issue.
I'd rather experience a game like GW2 that is full of loading screens than any other MMO at this point, because everything else it plans on doing, simply outshines any other MMO I know about.
I dont mind having loadingscreens as long as there is no World PvP... and in some games, like in EQ they actually added something to the gameplay (safepoint from trains)
But creating the background laoding thing as they did in WoW surely can't be that hard...
Still i think what we saw is vanguard tough is unparalelled, tough there certainly are zoningtimes inthere too..
The devs only told us that there will be huge open zones in the world, they never told that those zones would be connected seemless... So just imagine it to be like EQ.
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
GW2 does not have a seamless world. GW2 has zones. City zones are zones. Instances are zones.
Why do you think that city zones use a different loading procedure than other zones? Why would someone use preloading on zone change but take it out for city zones? And even if there is preloading you will still see a loading screen on zone change with an older PC/low amount of RAM etc. And GW2 is designed to run on older PCs. Preloading does not exclude load screens. It can milder them and so can fast drives/reduced texture size etc.
It is a simple logical conclusion based on industry standards for games using zones. Go read some books on game engines or logical thinking if you still dont get it.
But your logical conclusion and your books on the theory of game design do not make loading screens between zones a fact in GW2. You can say it makes since, but you cannot say it is a fact, unless you are a developer or you are testing the game right now.
So I will put this plainly as I can! We have not seen this occur in game yet, so we can make theories about what we think the game will be like, but in the end we do not have proof either way right now. Even in this thread that everyone points to, there is not a developer or even a CM post confirming what the fans are speculating. And that is exactly what it is speculation since none of them work for ANet.
So unless you are an ANet employee stop saying what you think you know is a fact! As I said earlier if someone can link an interview with the developers saying that there will be loading screens between zones, then and only then will I believe that the game will be that way at launch. I am not going to put my faith in a bunch of fans theory crafting about how the game works.
Also instances are not the same as zones, GW1 was an instance game and GW2 is not going to be like GW1. Do you believe Everquest was exactly like GW1 since EQ used zones and GW1 used instances? I really would love to see the book that says EQ and GW1 are exactly the same game design.
Originally posted by chadatog
It might not be hard, but they have said that it is needed to have "zones/loading screens" for skill tiers to level down for lower level content.
As I observed, however, I cannot think of any other existing MMO with both the level of content, art style, and detail GW2 purports to have that does not have some way of chunking/zoning separate maps.
I can but that's besides the point. If the Havoc engine can support the game without the use of heavy instancing then I would expect that they would not do it. One thing they may do is "channeling" in high traffic area's that can be scalable depending on the population.
First, please, do name those MMOs, so I can be playing them! I've tried every one available in the NA market save Darkfall and they were all lacking in some sense or another, so if you know of one that somehow isn't on the market, I'd seriously love to know about it!
Second, zoning != instancing.
Third, I believe I have read an interview in which Eric Flannum hinted that they would not have channels (a la AoC, Aion, Champions and Star Trek Online) because the population cap was high enough to not be reached.
Ah, here is the quote: "Each map within a world does have a player limit, but it is high enough that we expect it to be rarely if ever reached." (source)
Finally, my point is that I do not believe ANet has gone with the zoning/portal approach simply because it hadn't occurred to them to try not to. I only say this because we haven't gotten any answers out of ANet that weren't reasoned out in some way. I would, in fact, like to know their reasoning rather than try to speculate, but I am going to go ahead and assume that there's a reason.
So the real question is, what happens when the map limit is reached? Is the player told the map is full and made to wait (like EVE does in Jita) or is the player routed to another server. If the latter its just an alternate form of instancing in my eyes.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Yes it was pretty obvious to me the first time i saw how easily they go in and out with the map feature. Its a shame i love seamless maps, i can't even understand how a mmo cannot have such feature, its like having a computer without keyboard to me; i mean footboards are nice too, but it just doesn't feel right.
But your logical conclusion and your books on the theory of game design do not make loading screens between zones a fact in GW2. You can say it makes since, but you cannot say it is a fact, unless you are a developer or you are testing the game right now.
So I will put this plainly as I can! We have not seen this occur in game yet, so we can make theories about what we think the game will be like, but in the end we do not have proof either way right now. Even in this thread that everyone points to, there is not a developer or even a CM post confirming what the fans are speculating. And that is exactly what it is speculation since none of them work for ANet.
So unless you are an ANet employee stop saying what you think you know is a fact! As I said earlier if someone can link an interview with the developers saying that there will be loading screens between zones, then and only then will I believe that the game will be that way at launch. I am not going to put my faith in a bunch of fans theory crafting about how the game works.
Uuh, I think there is a video where u actually do see some kind of loading screen. It was discussed before and it is not sure if it will be like that when the game releases. But I can tell you with quite some certainty that there will be zones. Also, it has been made very clear by Anet that a least the personal storyline and the www-pvp will involve instancing. Also Anet said in some interview something about the size of zones if I recall correctly.
I was actually surprised by this whole OP. I have followed GW2 quite closely and am looking forward to it a lot, and I always knew/suspected that the GW2 world wouldn't be 100% seamless. Anet has never made a secret about it, although they may have not gone into much detail either.
I do not see why you insist so much on people here giving you prove. Nobody is trying to convince you as people dont genuinely care whether you are convinced or not, since most of them are not bothered by there being zoning/instancing anyway. There are no stakes here.
But creating the background laoding thing as they did in WoW surely can't be that hard...
It might not be hard, but they have said that it is needed to have "zones/loading screens" for skill tiers to level down for lower level content.
That would be a severe sacrifice for a feature which doesn't appeal to me that much at all. V_V
I really wished that it would be an open world without portals / loading screens, etc. in order for it to feel 'whole' and consistent. And that is kind of what they promised all along. So I am real curious how many of these loading screens and portals we will encounter out there.
I'm hoping that it just concerns the cities (which would be a likely candidate considering the home instances and general high amount of eye candy and other stuff to load) but I am not all too sure of that.
I recall seeing a video where the devs said the world was seamless, except for dungeons and personal story lines...ohh and WvWvW , I also think I remeber hearing that the loading screens were for the demo. Maybe I heard it wrong. Can we get a clarification from Anet, or mmorpg with a link to the info?
To the caterpillar it is the end of the world, to the master, it is a butterfly.
But creating the background laoding thing as they did in WoW surely can't be that hard...
It might not be hard, but they have said that it is needed to have "zones/loading screens" for skill tiers to level down for lower level content.
You can have both zones and seemless loading, its just needs a bit more time and technical knowledge, but it can be done...
Tough i think the problem might be the technical engine that doesn't support it, and reprogramming engines is something not done to lighthearted as it most often is exteral code
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
That would be a severe sacrifice for a feature which doesn't appeal to me that much at all. V_V
I really wished that it would be an open world without portals / loading screens, etc. in order for it to feel 'whole' and consistent. And that is kind of what they promised all along. So I am real curious how many of these loading screens and portals we will encounter out there.
I'm hoping that it just concerns the cities (which would be a likely candidate considering the home instances and general high amount of eye candy and other stuff to load) but I am not all too sure of that.
Well ANet said "Guild Wars 2 provides a massive, online persistent world", not a fully seamless persistent world. So no one can accuse ANet of lying or failing to fulfil 1 of their promises (yet), as they never promised such a feature; just like they never promised us mounts, or a FFA gankfest around our dynamic events. As for the frequency of the loading screens, it all depends on how long you are willing to remain in a map/zone doing DEs and stuff, without porting.
Would have been nice if they explained the nature of their "maps" better, before people started getting the wrong impression of Guild Wars 2's open world. Also if turning Guild Wars 2 into a fully seamless MMO is such an easy task, they probably would have done it already. So there must have been some issues with their proprietary engine tech that just didn't allow it, however maybe they'll patch it in eventually.
Well ANet said "Guild Wars 2 provides a massive, online persistent world", not a fully seamless persistent world.
Yeah you are right in that. I think the 'perpsistent' bit tricked me into thinking it would be seamless while they only used it to describe the fact that the main world is the same for everyone. Sad thing is that this could mean they might have put all zones behind portals. V_V
Originally posted by keinohr
Where's the problem? WoW and any other MMORPG has their portals and instances. SWTOR use Portals too.
There is a big difference between a world like for instance AoC, with loading screens between all the public zones and WOW or Lotro, which have seamless zones: you can travel from one map to another without interuption: this makes the world realistic and whole rather than fractured and getting the feeling that zones are 'instanced'.
Having portals / loading screens for instanced content like dungeons, battlegrounds, or fast traveling etc, is something else and a generally accepted mechanic.
Also if turning Guild Wars 2 into a fully seamless MMO is such an easy task, they probably would have done it already. So there must have been some issues with their proprietary engine tech that just didn't allow it, however maybe they'll patch it in eventually.
I don't think it's done because of the engine, I believe I heard that they choose for portals because it was cheaper. Having a seamless persistant world like WoW costs more because you need more servers (buffers).
Servers ain't cheap, so that's probably why they choose for the portals and zone loading... else they might needed subscriptions to get the money back from the extra hardware.
The weird part about all this is that I distinctly remember ArenaNet at one Q&A saying this:
The world is seamless as you're walking through it, it caches the world in the background as you move. Certain areas that need to be instanced are instanced, because they change based on your character's choices, such as your city quarter, story dungeons, or the office of the Destiny's Edge character of your chosen race (Ex: Eir, Rytlock, Logan, Zojja, and Caithe). The only other time you will ever be forced to see a loading screen is if you teleport to a distance outside of hte preloaded chunks. Say you're in the Black Citadel and you teleport to a waypoint not far from it, then you won't see a loading screen, but if you're in the Black Citadel and you teleport to the Hoelbrak, you will, because that won't be loaded in the background.
Now back to me, no longer reciting what I recall from memory, now.
It's also possible that cities might be instanced, as the only other aspect that is instanced, and I'll get to the reason for this in a moment. Stick with me, here.
This makes sense if you think about it. I don't know how much experience any of you have had with Gamebryo, Bethesda's engine that they use in all their games, but if you have any then you might be aware of how seamless worlds work in their games, yeah? Now, if you use a teleport cheat via the console to go from one location to another in the seamless aspect of the world, you see a loading screen, but if you walked there or went there on horse, you wouldn't see a single loading screen.
Now, they might also instance cities, I'm not saying they will but they might. A reason for this is because cities are very graphically busy areas, with a lot going on. In Oblivion, if you used the open cities mod, it would absolutely kill the framerate of lower end computers. This is the reason that Bethesda instanced cities in the first place, because the same thing happened in Morrowind - lower end computers would see framerate hits. This would also be true of the consoles as well, and framerate hits on consoles are unacceptable, just as they are in MMORPGs accoding to the feelings of most people.
So let's do a list of when you might see a loading screen:
Entering/Leaving the office of the higher ranking officer of your race.
Entering/Leaving your personal city district.
Entering/Leaving a story dungeon.
Entering/Leaving a city.
Teleporting over a large distance.
This is how I think it'll work, just like Bethesda's games, and all that I can remember them saying fits this idea. Why cities? WoW didn't have instancing for cities, right? Well... in all fairness, a 'city' in WoW amounts to a village in Guild Wars 2 from all we've seen, and this even counts the primary city of each race. And a town/village in WoW amounts to a collection of houses which barely make up an outpost. The reason for this is because WoW is an old game, so Guild Wars 2 is on a completely different scale, we expect that of a modern game. We're all tired of tiny cities, I think?
But I suspect that the only way they could make that work, keeping the cities as large, beautiful, detailed, and full of fun activities as they are without causing framerate hits due to having to deal with stuff inside and outside of the cities is by having them instanced. This is why we saw an instance door at the front of Divinity's Reach, and I think that's there to stay, the same is true for all the other cities. But to be honest, I don't know about you, but for the benefits I think this level of instancing is okay. I'd prefer truly expansive, detailed cities with some instancing compared to WoW-like cities which are seamless.
If you look at Everquest II, that had amazing cities, expansive, marvellous cities which I absolutely loved, but every single district of those cities was instanced. That's a shame. I don't think Guild Wars 2 will have that insane degree of instancing though because I don't think it needs it, I think they're better at optimising than Sony are to be honest (EQ II was horribly unoptimised and it took them years and years to sort that out). Still, if you haven't, you need to see the cities in Everquest II to understand the size of the sorts of cities that ArenaNet are trying to create.
After reading your "wall" I think that you hit the nail on the head.
Because the DE's have the ability to change parts/huge chunks of the maps, they might have decided to let you load the content instead of making the world seamless. Makes sense!
Comments
They have never came out and said it true, or at least I haven't read it. They have really danced around it but they have also said it wasn't seamless. I think it was one of ArenaNet CM's that said it on GW2guru. I'll see if I can look it up.
Seriously...are seemless games better than zoned games (retorical question)?...no
anyways, why is it that I am not surprised to see this topic come up NOW...after whats been going on in the WvWvW thread...sigh, and the discussion moves on.
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
If some of you want to dive further into this question, here is a thread from guru to start with
http://www.guildwars2guru.com/forum/one-continuous-worldi-t16338.html?t=16338&highlight=seamless
I'm thinking this might just be a temporary portal blocking out a part of the world that simply isn't finished. When that part of the map is done they might remove it... or maybe not. Either way it doesn't bother me.
Edit: Or the link from above post just answeres the question :P
Just as long as there's no phasing of public areas. That would spoil it for me.
You mean to tell me that...GW2 is....like other MMOs???? It has any similarity with other MMOs? I can smell the copy paste sauce already!
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
It's not really secret that the world of Guild Wars 2 won't be seamless and ANet have mentioned that the persistent world will be divided up into zones (like almost every other MMO) and you will experience a short loading screen between zones. I personally don't see the big deal regarding loading screens in-between. Sure I'd prefer it if they did some background loading as I approached a portal, to give me that illusion of a seamless world but it's not something I plan to b*tch about. I've experienced the ridiculously long, immersion breaking, loading screens of Mass Effect 2 (about 1-2min long) and still loved that game. So seeing how the loading screens of GW2 look to be about 5-10secs long, I really don't see it as an issue.
I'd rather experience a game like GW2 that is full of loading screens than any other MMO at this point, because everything else it plans on doing, simply outshines any other MMO I know about.
I dont mind having loadingscreens as long as there is no World PvP... and in some games, like in EQ they actually added something to the gameplay (safepoint from trains)
But creating the background laoding thing as they did in WoW surely can't be that hard...
Still i think what we saw is vanguard tough is unparalelled, tough there certainly are zoningtimes inthere too..
The devs only told us that there will be huge open zones in the world, they never told that those zones would be connected seemless... So just imagine it to be like EQ.
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
I am not fond of multiple instances of the same location. But what is the alternative if there are a ton of players there?
It might not be hard, but they have said that it is needed to have "zones/loading screens" for skill tiers to level down for lower level content.
But your logical conclusion and your books on the theory of game design do not make loading screens between zones a fact in GW2. You can say it makes since, but you cannot say it is a fact, unless you are a developer or you are testing the game right now.
So I will put this plainly as I can! We have not seen this occur in game yet, so we can make theories about what we think the game will be like, but in the end we do not have proof either way right now. Even in this thread that everyone points to, there is not a developer or even a CM post confirming what the fans are speculating. And that is exactly what it is speculation since none of them work for ANet.
So unless you are an ANet employee stop saying what you think you know is a fact! As I said earlier if someone can link an interview with the developers saying that there will be loading screens between zones, then and only then will I believe that the game will be that way at launch. I am not going to put my faith in a bunch of fans theory crafting about how the game works.
Also instances are not the same as zones, GW1 was an instance game and GW2 is not going to be like GW1. Do you believe Everquest was exactly like GW1 since EQ used zones and GW1 used instances? I really would love to see the book that says EQ and GW1 are exactly the same game design.
Please provide a link of a developer saying this!
So the real question is, what happens when the map limit is reached? Is the player told the map is full and made to wait (like EVE does in Jita) or is the player routed to another server. If the latter its just an alternate form of instancing in my eyes.
I"ll still be giving it a go regardless.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Yes it was pretty obvious to me the first time i saw how easily they go in and out with the map feature. Its a shame i love seamless maps, i can't even understand how a mmo cannot have such feature, its like having a computer without keyboard to me; i mean footboards are nice too, but it just doesn't feel right.
Uuh, I think there is a video where u actually do see some kind of loading screen. It was discussed before and it is not sure if it will be like that when the game releases. But I can tell you with quite some certainty that there will be zones. Also, it has been made very clear by Anet that a least the personal storyline and the www-pvp will involve instancing. Also Anet said in some interview something about the size of zones if I recall correctly.
I was actually surprised by this whole OP. I have followed GW2 quite closely and am looking forward to it a lot, and I always knew/suspected that the GW2 world wouldn't be 100% seamless. Anet has never made a secret about it, although they may have not gone into much detail either.
I do not see why you insist so much on people here giving you prove. Nobody is trying to convince you as people dont genuinely care whether you are convinced or not, since most of them are not bothered by there being zoning/instancing anyway. There are no stakes here.
That would be a severe sacrifice for a feature which doesn't appeal to me that much at all. V_V
I really wished that it would be an open world without portals / loading screens, etc. in order for it to feel 'whole' and consistent. And that is kind of what they promised all along. So I am real curious how many of these loading screens and portals we will encounter out there.
I'm hoping that it just concerns the cities (which would be a likely candidate considering the home instances and general high amount of eye candy and other stuff to load) but I am not all too sure of that.
My brand new bloggity blog.
I recall seeing a video where the devs said the world was seamless, except for dungeons and personal story lines...ohh and WvWvW , I also think I remeber hearing that the loading screens were for the demo. Maybe I heard it wrong. Can we get a clarification from Anet, or mmorpg with a link to the info?
To the caterpillar it is the end of the world, to the master, it is a butterfly.
You can have both zones and seemless loading, its just needs a bit more time and technical knowledge, but it can be done...
Tough i think the problem might be the technical engine that doesn't support it, and reprogramming engines is something not done to lighthearted as it most often is exteral code
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Well ANet said "Guild Wars 2 provides a massive, online persistent world", not a fully seamless persistent world. So no one can accuse ANet of lying or failing to fulfil 1 of their promises (yet), as they never promised such a feature; just like they never promised us mounts, or a FFA gankfest around our dynamic events. As for the frequency of the loading screens, it all depends on how long you are willing to remain in a map/zone doing DEs and stuff, without porting.
Would have been nice if they explained the nature of their "maps" better, before people started getting the wrong impression of Guild Wars 2's open world. Also if turning Guild Wars 2 into a fully seamless MMO is such an easy task, they probably would have done it already. So there must have been some issues with their proprietary engine tech that just didn't allow it, however maybe they'll patch it in eventually.
Where's the problem? WoW and any other MMORPG has their portals and instances. SWTOR use Portals too.
Yeah you are right in that. I think the 'perpsistent' bit tricked me into thinking it would be seamless while they only used it to describe the fact that the main world is the same for everyone. Sad thing is that this could mean they might have put all zones behind portals. V_V
There is a big difference between a world like for instance AoC, with loading screens between all the public zones and WOW or Lotro, which have seamless zones: you can travel from one map to another without interuption: this makes the world realistic and whole rather than fractured and getting the feeling that zones are 'instanced'.
Having portals / loading screens for instanced content like dungeons, battlegrounds, or fast traveling etc, is something else and a generally accepted mechanic.
My brand new bloggity blog.
I don't think it's done because of the engine, I believe I heard that they choose for portals because it was cheaper. Having a seamless persistant world like WoW costs more because you need more servers (buffers).
Servers ain't cheap, so that's probably why they choose for the portals and zone loading... else they might needed subscriptions to get the money back from the extra hardware.
The weird part about all this is that I distinctly remember ArenaNet at one Q&A saying this:
The world is seamless as you're walking through it, it caches the world in the background as you move. Certain areas that need to be instanced are instanced, because they change based on your character's choices, such as your city quarter, story dungeons, or the office of the Destiny's Edge character of your chosen race (Ex: Eir, Rytlock, Logan, Zojja, and Caithe). The only other time you will ever be forced to see a loading screen is if you teleport to a distance outside of hte preloaded chunks. Say you're in the Black Citadel and you teleport to a waypoint not far from it, then you won't see a loading screen, but if you're in the Black Citadel and you teleport to the Hoelbrak, you will, because that won't be loaded in the background.
Now back to me, no longer reciting what I recall from memory, now.
It's also possible that cities might be instanced, as the only other aspect that is instanced, and I'll get to the reason for this in a moment. Stick with me, here.
This makes sense if you think about it. I don't know how much experience any of you have had with Gamebryo, Bethesda's engine that they use in all their games, but if you have any then you might be aware of how seamless worlds work in their games, yeah? Now, if you use a teleport cheat via the console to go from one location to another in the seamless aspect of the world, you see a loading screen, but if you walked there or went there on horse, you wouldn't see a single loading screen.
Now, they might also instance cities, I'm not saying they will but they might. A reason for this is because cities are very graphically busy areas, with a lot going on. In Oblivion, if you used the open cities mod, it would absolutely kill the framerate of lower end computers. This is the reason that Bethesda instanced cities in the first place, because the same thing happened in Morrowind - lower end computers would see framerate hits. This would also be true of the consoles as well, and framerate hits on consoles are unacceptable, just as they are in MMORPGs accoding to the feelings of most people.
So let's do a list of when you might see a loading screen:
Entering/Leaving the office of the higher ranking officer of your race.
Entering/Leaving your personal city district.
Entering/Leaving a story dungeon.
Entering/Leaving a city.
Teleporting over a large distance.
This is how I think it'll work, just like Bethesda's games, and all that I can remember them saying fits this idea. Why cities? WoW didn't have instancing for cities, right? Well... in all fairness, a 'city' in WoW amounts to a village in Guild Wars 2 from all we've seen, and this even counts the primary city of each race. And a town/village in WoW amounts to a collection of houses which barely make up an outpost. The reason for this is because WoW is an old game, so Guild Wars 2 is on a completely different scale, we expect that of a modern game. We're all tired of tiny cities, I think?
But I suspect that the only way they could make that work, keeping the cities as large, beautiful, detailed, and full of fun activities as they are without causing framerate hits due to having to deal with stuff inside and outside of the cities is by having them instanced. This is why we saw an instance door at the front of Divinity's Reach, and I think that's there to stay, the same is true for all the other cities. But to be honest, I don't know about you, but for the benefits I think this level of instancing is okay. I'd prefer truly expansive, detailed cities with some instancing compared to WoW-like cities which are seamless.
If you look at Everquest II, that had amazing cities, expansive, marvellous cities which I absolutely loved, but every single district of those cities was instanced. That's a shame. I don't think Guild Wars 2 will have that insane degree of instancing though because I don't think it needs it, I think they're better at optimising than Sony are to be honest (EQ II was horribly unoptimised and it took them years and years to sort that out). Still, if you haven't, you need to see the cities in Everquest II to understand the size of the sorts of cities that ArenaNet are trying to create.
Right. That's that, then. Wall of text ends.
After reading your "wall" I think that you hit the nail on the head.
Because the DE's have the ability to change parts/huge chunks of the maps, they might have decided to let you load the content instead of making the world seamless. Makes sense!