Mhh except for entering a large City like the Black Citadel or teleporting or being teleported for your personal story, I haven`t seen any loading screens. Can anyone maybe post a vid where there is a zone transition with load screen? Because I haven`t seen one. So I don`t really worry about it that much, especially from all vids i`ve seen that certainly wansn`t one of the things that ever bothered me.
I have not played a game that has been seamless ever, WoW is not seamless, Rift is not seamless, any games with an instance is not seamless. Seamless means 0 load what so ever whell atleast visable loads.
I personaly prefer zones over the background loading because the game is not as graphicly intesnive and you can have the game setting set higher withless lag.
Year 2012AD, seems like new genre of mmo is offering lesser and lesser contents, smaller and smaller world compare to games being release last time.
I will probably never cease to be amazed by things ppl are able to pull out of their ass and gz you amazed me again.
1) world in gw is by all reports from press beta HUGE
2) seamless world is not content, preloading world instead of using loading screens adds exactly ZERO content. Yes its nice immersion thing to not have loading screens but thats it.
I wonder if all ppl for who loading screen is such gamebreaker, better not use fast travel in other games, becouse of loading screens they get.
Contents as in player housing etc...
and.please, barren size zone is anything but huge.
im not saying gw2 sux, just a trend I notice for most mmo . Different players have different things that will make or break for them which from another player pov is nothing. But that doesn't make their view invalid.
Actually, a players view can be invalid, when they forget common sense/logic, and the kind of game thier talking about.
The barrens is huge, its also kind of empty. If you put 200+ players there, the lag will crash even high-end systems. Now, since GW2 is PvP based, with large scale battles and sieges, your going to have the problem with lag.
So, why would any game dev in thier right mind, create a game with one gigantic, seamless world, with 1000's of players battleing it out, and on top of all that, you want immersion, and content flowing all around you. In a word, IMPOSSIBLE!
Its no accident, that single player games, like Skrym, are beautifull to look at, and rich with content, the reason is simple, there arent 1000 other players there creating laggg.
Given the number of innovations (or if that term bothers you, just "duh, of course that's a good idea" features) GW2 has implemented, there can only be one reason why it's not going to be seamless, and that reason is: to piss some people off.
Your kidding right? No way you can be serious!
No game dev is going to waste time pissing people off after spending millions to develop the game, that is just insane.
Tell us which seamless games your reffering too, because we all know WoW is not, and STO isnt, I cant think of any seamless game worlds.
I have not played a game that has been seamless ever, WoW is not seamless, Rift is not seamless, any games with an instance is not seamless. Seamless means 0 load what so ever whell atleast visable loads.
I personaly prefer zones over the background loading because the game is not as graphicly intesnive and you can have the game setting set higher withless lag.
Which exactly is your definition of seamless?
Because if seamless means no loading screen between transition between two areas, then WoW, Rift, LOTRO, Tera (for example) are indeed seamless. How it is done is irrelevant as long as the end result is no loading screens.
And no, just because a transition between huge continents has a loading screen does not invalidate the fact that the games are seamless in the zones that comprise said continents.
Edit: You are wrong about instancing and seamless. For example, WoW right now is pretty much a lobby game where people just teleport from one instance to the next. However, that doesn't mean that the world that is now underused (or not used at all at max level) is not seamless. Same with every game that features group restricted instanced dungeons. The world outside those dungeons can be seamless (Rift) or not (AoC).
What you're looking for is a world without instances, which is something entirely different.
I have not played a game that has been seamless ever, WoW is not seamless, Rift is not seamless, any games with an instance is not seamless. Seamless means 0 load what so ever whell atleast visable loads.
I personaly prefer zones over the background loading because the game is not as graphicly intesnive and you can have the game setting set higher withless lag.
Which exactly is your definition of seamless?
Because if seamless means no loading screen between transition between two areas, then WoW, Rift, LOTRO, Tera (for example) are indeed seamless. How it is done is irrelevant as long as the end result is no loading screens.
And no, just because a transition between huge continents has a loading screen does not invalidate the fact that the games are seamless in the zones that comprise said continents.
Just so I got this straight, is there anything OTHER than immersion, that these loading screens ruin for you?
I have not played a game that has been seamless ever, WoW is not seamless, Rift is not seamless, any games with an instance is not seamless. Seamless means 0 load what so ever whell atleast visable loads.
I personaly prefer zones over the background loading because the game is not as graphicly intesnive and you can have the game setting set higher withless lag.
Which exactly is your definition of seamless?
Because if seamless means no loading screen between transition between two areas, then WoW, Rift, LOTRO, Tera (for example) are indeed seamless. How it is done is irrelevant as long as the end result is no loading screens.
And no, just because a transition between huge continents has a loading screen does not invalidate the fact that the games are seamless in the zones that comprise said continents.
Just so I got this straight, is there anything OTHER than immersion, that these loading screens ruin for you?
It is mostly immersion. I remember how much SWTOR was bashed for similar reasons. For some people i think it is a big deal.
Seamless worlds are really amazing, i actually like traveling in WoW without zoning.
That being said, it's not such a huge game breaker people make it out to be as long as the zones are big enough. Therefor i wont be commenting on this untill i can freely run to from 1 side to the other side.
And to the guy saying Barrens isn´t huge, old barrens was decently sized i´d say
Just so I got this straight, is there anything OTHER than immersion, that these loading screens ruin for you?
You mean if it's immersion killing using a magical teleport stone to move my party to a secluded dungeon in a high fantasy game? What do you think?
Edit: It comes down to how much it is used. So, say you got 12 dungeons in your game and the rest of it is not instances, that's fine. If however every second door is an instanced teleport, then that's ok-ish for a B2P game like GW2 (imo), but not so much for a subscription based game.
Just so I got this straight, is there anything OTHER than immersion, that these loading screens ruin for you?
You mean if it's immersion killing using a magical teleport stone to move my party to a secluded dungeon in a high fantasy game? What do you think?
Edit: It comes down to how much it is used. So, say you got 12 dungeons in your game and the rest of it is not instances, that's fine. If however every second door is an instanced teleport, then that's ok-ish for a B2P game like GW2 (imo), but not so much for a subscription based game.
Considering how GW2 fans are saying that after GW2 release B2P will be the new future, i don't think GW2 should get a free pass on it only because it is B2P. Anet is making a quality MMORPG regardless of its payment model.
Considering how GW2 fans are saying that after GW2 release B2P will be the new future, i don't think GW2 should get a free pass on it only because it is B2P. Anet is making a quality MMORPG regardless of its payment model.
Pretty much almost everyone else at this point is going after a subscription model along with a cash shop on top of it. If the B2P model becomes successful, maybe the rest of the industry will cut down on the cash shop madness, but I doubt it.
Seamless worlds are really amazing, i actually like traveling in WoW without zoning.
That being said, it's not such a huge game breaker people make it out to be as long as the zones are big enough. Therefor i wont be commenting on this untill i can freely run to from 1 side to the other side.
And to the guy saying Barrens isn´t huge, old barrens was decently sized i´d say
I don't think that people understand the problem with a loaded zone world as such. You will hop through hoops and loading screens to do anything and go anywhere.
Besides the articles were quit clear, you not only have these hops to reach a new zone, but per zone there will be X other portal loading screens to go to places in the zones themselves.
Why? because there is no mount system of course.
It is all calculated. Making a seamless background loading world costs too much as each zone needs to be integrated within a bigger part. In seperate pre loading zones, programmers just need to make a seperate 4 cornered zone without worrying about other parts of the world. One sea and 3 (fake 2D) mountains you are never going to explore anyway... PER ZONE.
The same money saving technique is used in the no mount system. By using foot only you have the impression of being in a bigger world. So your zones can be smaller and still look impressive because you don't have fast mounts.
It may not look too game breaking, but at the same time it could, because if people will not have the impression of living in a world, the more GW2 will look like another combat map of COD with X, Y, Z portals to go to.
The fact they can get away with it is due to the free to play nature after purchase. If it is successful, I think there is a huge risk we will no longer see ANY more open world designs.
Even Blizzard is not that masochistic. If people just accept this as such, there is no reason to make seamless worlds anymore.
Honestly, only Anet knows why. You're making alot of assumptions without adequate information, therefore, this is simply your opinion. And, unless you're priveleged to some 'undercover information', we don't know how large these zones are or how frequently we'll see loading screens. At best, your post is nothing more than supposition.
Even Blizzard is not that masochistic. If people just accept this as such, there is no reason to make seamless worlds anymore.
Blizzard has converted their game into a lobby game a long time ago. The open world is there but now underused for the end level. We still have choices regarding open worlds and most games are made under the premise that the worlds are seamless.
From the three MMOs that seem to launch this year (Tera, TSW, GW2 in order of launch), only Tera will be seamless. TSW will have zones simply because you can't fit the whole world into a seamless MMO. Of course, it remains to be seen how big these zones are. If they are as small as the SW:TOR "planets", I'll be disappointed. Regarding GW2 I'm not entirely sure I understood the system they used. If it is something similar to GW1, only with less transitions and with people in every zone, I'm fine with it, given the monetary model.
Seamless worlds are really amazing, i actually like traveling in WoW without zoning. That being said, it's not such a huge game breaker people make it out to be as long as the zones are big enough. Therefor i wont be commenting on this untill i can freely run to from 1 side to the other side. And to the guy saying Barrens isn´t huge, old barrens was decently sized i´d say
I don't think that people understand the problem with a loaded zone world as such. You will hop through hoops and loading screens to do anything and go anywhere.
Besides the articles were quit clear, you not only have these hops to reach a new zone, but per zone there will be X other portal loading screens to go to places in the zones themselves.
Why? because there is no mount system of course.
It is all calculated. Making a seamless background loading world costs too much as each zone needs to be integrated within a bigger part. In seperate pre loading zones, programmers just need to make a seperate 4 cornered zone without worrying about other parts of the world. One sea and 3 (fake 2D) mountains you are never going to explore anyway... PER ZONE.
The same money saving technique is used in the no mount system. By using foot only you have the impression of being in a bigger world. So your zones can be smaller and still look impressive because you don't have fast mounts.
It may not look too game breaking, but at the same time it could, because if people will not have the impression of living in a world, the more GW2 will look like another combat map of COD with X, Y, Z portals to go to.
The fact they can get away with it is due to the free to play nature after purchase. If it is successful, I think there is a huge risk we will no longer see ANY more open world designs.
Even Blizzard is not that masochistic. If people just accept this as such, there is no reason to make seamless worlds anymore.
Actually, the world of GW2 is pretty damn big, easily as big as WoW vanilla and LotrO I think. Sounds pretty large to me, so comparison with CoD is kinda unfair and unrealistic. If you wanna compare, then compare with other MMO's that use the same structure like EQ, EQ2, AoC and Aion and such, and from what it looks like the separate areas is larger in GW2 than those other games.
I think for some people, such a thing might be a problem, for others not so much. Each MMO has its dislikes and likes, its pros and cons: some might find WoW's questing lame and its graphics and trinity system archaic and outdated while at the same time liking the controls and responsiveness, others might like Rift's soul system but dislike the small world, while again others might dislike loading screens in GW2 but love its WvWvW and Dynamic Events. No need for drama, or that one feature might 'spell the DOOM of the MMO genre', we're all adults here, no need for hyperbolic exaggerations like that.
There are enough games that have different types of features and mechanics, each person has to decide whether the pros of a game outbalance the cons for him/her.
Originally posted by Xasapis
From the three MMOs that seem to launch this year (Tera, TSW, GW2 in order of launch), only Tera will be seamless. TSW will have zones simply because you can't fit the whole world into a seamless MMO. Of course, it remains to be seen how big these zones are. If they are as small as the SW:TOR "planets", I'll be disappointed. Regarding GW2 I'm not entirely sure I understood the system they used. If it is something similar to GW1, only with less transitions and with people in every zone, I'm fine with it, given the monetary model.
? You mean the starter planets, maybe. The other planets are easily as large as several zones in other MMO's, certainly if you take a look at planets like Hoth, Alderaan, Tatooine and such. There was a hell of a lot of running around long distances on those planets, more so than in regular zones in other MMO's.
From the three MMOs that seem to launch this year (Tera, TSW, GW2 in order of launch), only Tera will be seamless. TSW will have zones simply because you can't fit the whole world into a seamless MMO. Of course, it remains to be seen how big these zones are. If they are as small as the SW:TOR "planets", I'll be disappointed. Regarding GW2 I'm not entirely sure I understood the system they used. If it is something similar to GW1, only with less transitions and with people in every zone, I'm fine with it, given the monetary model.
? You mean the starter planets, maybe. The other planets are easily as large as several zones in other MMO's, certainly if you take a look at planets like Hoth, Alderaan, Tatooine and such. There was a hell of a lot of running around long distances on those planets, more so than in regular zones in other MMO's.
The starter planets shouldn't be called even that. The backyard of the academy and the outskirts of Dromund Kaas doesn't qualify as planet size in any shape or form. The only three "planets" you mention were medium in size, but I didn't have in any of them the feeling that I was exploring a whole planet, nor even a big continent of it. They were just big zones, some of them not even seamless in themselves. But this is not a thread to discuss SW:TOR shortcomings (SW:TOR is a pretty awesome single player game with coop btw), so I'll stop now.
Originally posted by Xasapis From the three MMOs that seem to launch this year (Tera, TSW, GW2 in order of launch), only Tera will be seamless. TSW will have zones simply because you can't fit the whole world into a seamless MMO. Of course, it remains to be seen how big these zones are. If they are as small as the SW:TOR "planets", I'll be disappointed. Regarding GW2 I'm not entirely sure I understood the system they used. If it is something similar to GW1, only with less transitions and with people in every zone, I'm fine with it, given the monetary model.
? You mean the starter planets, maybe. The other planets are easily as large as several zones in other MMO's, certainly if you take a look at planets like Hoth, Alderaan, Tatooine and such. There was a hell of a lot of running around long distances on those planets, more so than in regular zones in other MMO's.
The starter planets shouldn't be called even that. The backyard of the academy and the outskirts of Dromund Kaas doesn't qualify as planet size in any shape or form. The only three "planets" you mention were medium in size, but I didn't have in any of them the feeling that I was exploring a whole planet, nor even a big continent of it. They were just big zones, some of them not even seamless in themselves. But this is not a thread to discuss SW:TOR shortcomings (SW:TOR is a pretty awesome single player game with coop btw), so I'll stop now.
Well, agree to disagree then, I guess. While the planets may have felt to you as small or not larger than an average zone, in actual size they definitely are several zones large, should be most obvious with the open planets. Try running across such planets from one end to the other and the difference with a normal zone becomes even more obvious. Anyway, just saying as a sidenote.
Making a full 3D world out of 40 consistent zones into one seamless world without any loading screen is much more expensive to make than 40 seperate zones with each zone having fake 2D borders and X pre loading data portal systems.
The same goes for the absent mounts. You delete mount movement/combat to cut animation costs and extra engine problems.
In both cases making pre loading data screens is a poor man's solution. A pity, because that's a regression of at least 10 years.
Rendering MMORPG's to a kind of map loading technique seen in FPS without ANY other alternative than jump through hoops.: up to the next fight...
Your logic and reasoning doesn't make you able to divine the reasons why things are done the way they are. Want to call them lazy cheapskates? Feel free, but it's not like you possess some sort of insight the rest of us lack.
Nice, I get it now, if non-seamless games keep out the crazy players looking for an alternate reality, then I like loading screens more than ever! Thats really what this whole argument about immerision is, your looking for another reality, not a game.
I love the point about the pay-model, somehow its ok to have load screens as long as the game is B2P and not subscription..HAHA!
Completly unrealistic most of these opinions are, Im sure the day will come when we can have one server, compeltly seemless, gigantic areas to explore and battle, awsome graphics and 1000's of players all at the same time.
Seamless worlds are really amazing, i actually like traveling in WoW without zoning.
That being said, it's not such a huge game breaker people make it out to be as long as the zones are big enough. Therefor i wont be commenting on this untill i can freely run to from 1 side to the other side.
And to the guy saying Barrens isn´t huge, old barrens was decently sized i´d say
I don't think that people understand the problem with a loaded zone world as such. You will hop through hoops and loading screens to do anything and go anywhere.
Besides the articles were quit clear, you not only have these hops to reach a new zone, but per zone there will be X other portal loading screens to go to places in the zones themselves.
Why? because there is no mount system of course.
It is all calculated. Making a seamless background loading world costs too much as each zone needs to be integrated within a bigger part. In seperate pre loading zones, programmers just need to make a seperate 4 cornered zone without worrying about other parts of the world. One sea and 3 (fake 2D) mountains you are never going to explore anyway... PER ZONE.
The same money saving technique is used in the no mount system. By using foot only you have the impression of being in a bigger world. So your zones can be smaller and still look impressive because you don't have fast mounts.
It may not look too game breaking, but at the same time it could, because if people will not have the impression of living in a world, the more GW2 will look like another combat map of COD with X, Y, Z portals to go to.
The fact they can get away with it is due to the free to play nature after purchase. If it is successful, I think there is a huge risk we will no longer see ANY more open world designs.
Even Blizzard is not that masochistic. If people just accept this as such, there is no reason to make seamless worlds anymore.
Honestly, only Anet knows why. You're making alot of assumptions without adequate information, therefore, this is simply your opinion. And, unless you're priveleged to some 'undercover information', we don't know how large these zones are or how frequently we'll see loading screens. At best, your post is nothing more than supposition.
The logic and reasoning is very clear.
Making a full 3D world out of 40 consistent zones into one seamless world without any loading screen is much more expensive to make than 40 seperate zones with each zone having fake 2D borders and X pre loading data portal systems.
The same goes for the absent mounts. You delete mount movement/combat to cut animation costs and extra engine problems.
In both cases making pre loading data screens is a poor man's solution. A pity, because that's a regression of at least 10 years.
Rendering MMORPG's to a kind of map loading technique seen in FPS without ANY other alternative than jump through hoops.: up to the next fight...
Actually, I disagree. The lack of a seamless world is not a regression, it's simply one area in which GW2 is not innovating. The vast majority of MMOs on the market do not feature seamless worlds with zero loading screens. You could make the regression assertion if the majority of existing MMOs featured seamless worlds and GW2 did not.
Why is everyone comparing GW2 to WOW for a seamless world? They are two completely different games. One was made many many many years ago, the other is brand new.
Look at how much difference in graphics quality there is - in WOW, textures are low, models are low poloygons. Now compare that with GW2 - textures are higher, models have more polys in them. It's always going to be easier to make a seamless world in WOW if (and i'm using this as an example) to switch zones it has to load say 50MB worth of data, compared to GW2 which might have to load 200-300MB of data with the larger textures and quality models in connection with also the number of people in said zones as well that it needs to account for and load in. It's just a design choice by the developers.
Final Fantasy XIV developers came out and said that to make their zones which are amazingly detailed in terms of textures that they had to 'Copy and Paste' the terrain to make the world seamless. They have now admitted that this was not the way to go as it meant the zones were repetitive and dull, so they are now switching to zoned off areas to make the zones more detailed and varied. This is due to the graphics they are using.
Reading through the recent previews from the press and also getting to play it at Eurogamer, the zones are MASSIVE already, so typically were not going to see the loading screens too often anyway. And who cares if i see a loading screen for 5-10 seconds?
So stop comparing the game to WOW - it wasn't the first or last MMO created. GW2 is trying to be different! I would rather they spent the time trying to make a 'seamless' world and put that into adding content and refining what they already have.
Besides, if they did have seamless worlds you would only have all the trolls here saying "OMG WOW clone - they have seamless worlds like WOW"!!
Sorry, but the "textures are high" excuse doesn't fly when you have games like Tera and Archage coming out and blow graphics wise any other game out of the water while having a seamless world.
I'm more willing to forgive a company that due to the subscription model relies on less server farms to keep players happy than the excuse that high graphics and seamless worlds can't be done. It can be done, two companies at least already done it (I could add Blade and Soul from NCsoft to the list) and they actually run smoother than some medium graphics quality AAA MMOs out there.
Sorry, but the "textures are high" excuse doesn't fly when you have games like Tera and Archage coming out and blow graphics wise any other game out of the water while having a seamless world.
I'm more willing to forgive a company that due to the subscription model relies on less server farms to keep players happy than the excuse that high graphics and seamless worlds can't be done. It can be done, two companies at least already done it (I could add Blade and Soul from NCsoft to the list) and they actually run smoother than some medium graphics quality AAA MMOs out there.
I really like the features that TERA and ArchAge are going for, but...
Neither TERA or Archage is seemless, and they both are not offering large scale PvP battles. Anyone who has done large scale PvP battles knows, that high textures and other graphic enhancments, create lots of lag.
Until the technology gets better, we cannot have both large scale player battles with all the fluff, something has to give. Its also very interesting that we are not hearing these complaints from PvPers, but from mostly PvE players, when GW2 has always been advertised as a PvP game.
All people mean by seamless: "Is there a load screen or can you walk from A-Z without it. (minus dungeons)
SO in that regard. yes WoW and Tera are. There is no such thing as a seamless game because everything is being loaded/buffered. So if you are one of the trolls saying no tera and wow are NOT seemless. You are being to literal and wasting ur comments here.
To the OP: Guild Wars 2 sadly seems heavily load screen oriented. It probably does have everything to do with how they wanted to make the game. OR limitations in the engine/coding.
We play unrealistic fantasy games so im not as bothered by load screens as i used to be....BUT and a big BUT...i sure miss what EQOA for the ps2 did. NO and i mean NO dungeons!!!! They were open world dungeons and games that strive to do that get a +1 out of me.
Hero Evermore Guild Master of Dragonspine since 1982. Playing Path of Exile and deeply in love with it.
Comments
Mhh except for entering a large City like the Black Citadel or teleporting or being teleported for your personal story, I haven`t seen any loading screens. Can anyone maybe post a vid where there is a zone transition with load screen? Because I haven`t seen one. So I don`t really worry about it that much, especially from all vids i`ve seen that certainly wansn`t one of the things that ever bothered me.
I have not played a game that has been seamless ever, WoW is not seamless, Rift is not seamless, any games with an instance is not seamless. Seamless means 0 load what so ever whell atleast visable loads.
I personaly prefer zones over the background loading because the game is not as graphicly intesnive and you can have the game setting set higher withless lag.
Actually, a players view can be invalid, when they forget common sense/logic, and the kind of game thier talking about.
The barrens is huge, its also kind of empty. If you put 200+ players there, the lag will crash even high-end systems. Now, since GW2 is PvP based, with large scale battles and sieges, your going to have the problem with lag.
So, why would any game dev in thier right mind, create a game with one gigantic, seamless world, with 1000's of players battleing it out, and on top of all that, you want immersion, and content flowing all around you. In a word, IMPOSSIBLE!
Its no accident, that single player games, like Skrym, are beautifull to look at, and rich with content, the reason is simple, there arent 1000 other players there creating laggg.
Your kidding right? No way you can be serious!
No game dev is going to waste time pissing people off after spending millions to develop the game, that is just insane.
Tell us which seamless games your reffering too, because we all know WoW is not, and STO isnt, I cant think of any seamless game worlds.
Which exactly is your definition of seamless?
Because if seamless means no loading screen between transition between two areas, then WoW, Rift, LOTRO, Tera (for example) are indeed seamless. How it is done is irrelevant as long as the end result is no loading screens.
And no, just because a transition between huge continents has a loading screen does not invalidate the fact that the games are seamless in the zones that comprise said continents.
Edit: You are wrong about instancing and seamless. For example, WoW right now is pretty much a lobby game where people just teleport from one instance to the next. However, that doesn't mean that the world that is now underused (or not used at all at max level) is not seamless. Same with every game that features group restricted instanced dungeons. The world outside those dungeons can be seamless (Rift) or not (AoC).
What you're looking for is a world without instances, which is something entirely different.
Just so I got this straight, is there anything OTHER than immersion, that these loading screens ruin for you?
It is mostly immersion. I remember how much SWTOR was bashed for similar reasons. For some people i think it is a big deal.
Bite Me
Seamless worlds are really amazing, i actually like traveling in WoW without zoning.
That being said, it's not such a huge game breaker people make it out to be as long as the zones are big enough. Therefor i wont be commenting on this untill i can freely run to from 1 side to the other side.
And to the guy saying Barrens isn´t huge, old barrens was decently sized i´d say
You mean if it's immersion killing using a magical teleport stone to move my party to a secluded dungeon in a high fantasy game? What do you think?
Edit: It comes down to how much it is used. So, say you got 12 dungeons in your game and the rest of it is not instances, that's fine. If however every second door is an instanced teleport, then that's ok-ish for a B2P game like GW2 (imo), but not so much for a subscription based game.
Considering how GW2 fans are saying that after GW2 release B2P will be the new future, i don't think GW2 should get a free pass on it only because it is B2P. Anet is making a quality MMORPG regardless of its payment model.
Bite Me
Pretty much almost everyone else at this point is going after a subscription model along with a cash shop on top of it. If the B2P model becomes successful, maybe the rest of the industry will cut down on the cash shop madness, but I doubt it.
If a loading screen has elevator music, then everything is fine.
Honestly, only Anet knows why. You're making alot of assumptions without adequate information, therefore, this is simply your opinion. And, unless you're priveleged to some 'undercover information', we don't know how large these zones are or how frequently we'll see loading screens. At best, your post is nothing more than supposition.
Sorroe, Human Mesmer
Jade Quarry Server
Blizzard has converted their game into a lobby game a long time ago. The open world is there but now underused for the end level. We still have choices regarding open worlds and most games are made under the premise that the worlds are seamless.
From the three MMOs that seem to launch this year (Tera, TSW, GW2 in order of launch), only Tera will be seamless. TSW will have zones simply because you can't fit the whole world into a seamless MMO. Of course, it remains to be seen how big these zones are. If they are as small as the SW:TOR "planets", I'll be disappointed. Regarding GW2 I'm not entirely sure I understood the system they used. If it is something similar to GW1, only with less transitions and with people in every zone, I'm fine with it, given the monetary model.
I don't think that people understand the problem with a loaded zone world as such. You will hop through hoops and loading screens to do anything and go anywhere.
Besides the articles were quit clear, you not only have these hops to reach a new zone, but per zone there will be X other portal loading screens to go to places in the zones themselves.
Why? because there is no mount system of course.
It is all calculated. Making a seamless background loading world costs too much as each zone needs to be integrated within a bigger part. In seperate pre loading zones, programmers just need to make a seperate 4 cornered zone without worrying about other parts of the world. One sea and 3 (fake 2D) mountains you are never going to explore anyway... PER ZONE.
The same money saving technique is used in the no mount system. By using foot only you have the impression of being in a bigger world. So your zones can be smaller and still look impressive because you don't have fast mounts.
It may not look too game breaking, but at the same time it could, because if people will not have the impression of living in a world, the more GW2 will look like another combat map of COD with X, Y, Z portals to go to.
The fact they can get away with it is due to the free to play nature after purchase. If it is successful, I think there is a huge risk we will no longer see ANY more open world designs.
Even Blizzard is not that masochistic. If people just accept this as such, there is no reason to make seamless worlds anymore.
Actually, the world of GW2 is pretty damn big, easily as big as WoW vanilla and LotrO I think. Sounds pretty large to me, so comparison with CoD is kinda unfair and unrealistic. If you wanna compare, then compare with other MMO's that use the same structure like EQ, EQ2, AoC and Aion and such, and from what it looks like the separate areas is larger in GW2 than those other games.
I think for some people, such a thing might be a problem, for others not so much. Each MMO has its dislikes and likes, its pros and cons: some might find WoW's questing lame and its graphics and trinity system archaic and outdated while at the same time liking the controls and responsiveness, others might like Rift's soul system but dislike the small world, while again others might dislike loading screens in GW2 but love its WvWvW and Dynamic Events. No need for drama, or that one feature might 'spell the DOOM of the MMO genre', we're all adults here, no need for hyperbolic exaggerations like that.
There are enough games that have different types of features and mechanics, each person has to decide whether the pros of a game outbalance the cons for him/her.
? You mean the starter planets, maybe. The other planets are easily as large as several zones in other MMO's, certainly if you take a look at planets like Hoth, Alderaan, Tatooine and such. There was a hell of a lot of running around long distances on those planets, more so than in regular zones in other MMO's.The starter planets shouldn't be called even that. The backyard of the academy and the outskirts of Dromund Kaas doesn't qualify as planet size in any shape or form. The only three "planets" you mention were medium in size, but I didn't have in any of them the feeling that I was exploring a whole planet, nor even a big continent of it. They were just big zones, some of them not even seamless in themselves. But this is not a thread to discuss SW:TOR shortcomings (SW:TOR is a pretty awesome single player game with coop btw), so I'll stop now.
? You mean the starter planets, maybe. The other planets are easily as large as several zones in other MMO's, certainly if you take a look at planets like Hoth, Alderaan, Tatooine and such. There was a hell of a lot of running around long distances on those planets, more so than in regular zones in other MMO's.The starter planets shouldn't be called even that. The backyard of the academy and the outskirts of Dromund Kaas doesn't qualify as planet size in any shape or form. The only three "planets" you mention were medium in size, but I didn't have in any of them the feeling that I was exploring a whole planet, nor even a big continent of it. They were just big zones, some of them not even seamless in themselves. But this is not a thread to discuss SW:TOR shortcomings (SW:TOR is a pretty awesome single player game with coop btw), so I'll stop now.
Well, agree to disagree then, I guess. While the planets may have felt to you as small or not larger than an average zone, in actual size they definitely are several zones large, should be most obvious with the open planets. Try running across such planets from one end to the other and the difference with a normal zone becomes even more obvious. Anyway, just saying as a sidenote.Your logic and reasoning doesn't make you able to divine the reasons why things are done the way they are. Want to call them lazy cheapskates? Feel free, but it's not like you possess some sort of insight the rest of us lack.
Nice, I get it now, if non-seamless games keep out the crazy players looking for an alternate reality, then I like loading screens more than ever! Thats really what this whole argument about immerision is, your looking for another reality, not a game.
I love the point about the pay-model, somehow its ok to have load screens as long as the game is B2P and not subscription..HAHA!
Completly unrealistic most of these opinions are, Im sure the day will come when we can have one server, compeltly seemless, gigantic areas to explore and battle, awsome graphics and 1000's of players all at the same time.
But, were about 20 years away from that.
Actually, I disagree. The lack of a seamless world is not a regression, it's simply one area in which GW2 is not innovating. The vast majority of MMOs on the market do not feature seamless worlds with zero loading screens. You could make the regression assertion if the majority of existing MMOs featured seamless worlds and GW2 did not.
Sorroe, Human Mesmer
Jade Quarry Server
Why is everyone comparing GW2 to WOW for a seamless world? They are two completely different games. One was made many many many years ago, the other is brand new.
Look at how much difference in graphics quality there is - in WOW, textures are low, models are low poloygons. Now compare that with GW2 - textures are higher, models have more polys in them. It's always going to be easier to make a seamless world in WOW if (and i'm using this as an example) to switch zones it has to load say 50MB worth of data, compared to GW2 which might have to load 200-300MB of data with the larger textures and quality models in connection with also the number of people in said zones as well that it needs to account for and load in. It's just a design choice by the developers.
Final Fantasy XIV developers came out and said that to make their zones which are amazingly detailed in terms of textures that they had to 'Copy and Paste' the terrain to make the world seamless. They have now admitted that this was not the way to go as it meant the zones were repetitive and dull, so they are now switching to zoned off areas to make the zones more detailed and varied. This is due to the graphics they are using.
Reading through the recent previews from the press and also getting to play it at Eurogamer, the zones are MASSIVE already, so typically were not going to see the loading screens too often anyway. And who cares if i see a loading screen for 5-10 seconds?
So stop comparing the game to WOW - it wasn't the first or last MMO created. GW2 is trying to be different! I would rather they spent the time trying to make a 'seamless' world and put that into adding content and refining what they already have.
Besides, if they did have seamless worlds you would only have all the trolls here saying "OMG WOW clone - they have seamless worlds like WOW"!!
Sorry, but the "textures are high" excuse doesn't fly when you have games like Tera and Archage coming out and blow graphics wise any other game out of the water while having a seamless world.
I'm more willing to forgive a company that due to the subscription model relies on less server farms to keep players happy than the excuse that high graphics and seamless worlds can't be done. It can be done, two companies at least already done it (I could add Blade and Soul from NCsoft to the list) and they actually run smoother than some medium graphics quality AAA MMOs out there.
I really like the features that TERA and ArchAge are going for, but...
Neither TERA or Archage is seemless, and they both are not offering large scale PvP battles. Anyone who has done large scale PvP battles knows, that high textures and other graphic enhancments, create lots of lag.
Until the technology gets better, we cannot have both large scale player battles with all the fluff, something has to give. Its also very interesting that we are not hearing these complaints from PvPers, but from mostly PvE players, when GW2 has always been advertised as a PvP game.
I find that very odd.
All people mean by seamless: "Is there a load screen or can you walk from A-Z without it. (minus dungeons)
SO in that regard. yes WoW and Tera are. There is no such thing as a seamless game because everything is being loaded/buffered. So if you are one of the trolls saying no tera and wow are NOT seemless. You are being to literal and wasting ur comments here.
To the OP: Guild Wars 2 sadly seems heavily load screen oriented. It probably does have everything to do with how they wanted to make the game. OR limitations in the engine/coding.
We play unrealistic fantasy games so im not as bothered by load screens as i used to be....BUT and a big BUT...i sure miss what EQOA for the ps2 did. NO and i mean NO dungeons!!!! They were open world dungeons and games that strive to do that get a +1 out of me.
Hero Evermore
Guild Master of Dragonspine since 1982.
Playing Path of Exile and deeply in love with it.
Where?