Originally posted by Quizzical Here we go again. The proper question isn't whether an MMORPG should be instanced, but how. To not use any sort of instancing whatsoever would require such wildly inefficient programming techniques that the game would surely be vaporware.
And yet every old school MMO did I without fail.
Unless you are confusing instancing with zoning....which is quite possibly since so many here confuse definitions. For the record, an instance is a place where only you or your friends can enter, and when you leave the instanced is closed never to appear. A zone is an area that is always active and people can enter freely at their discretion and will remain persistent.
WoW dungeons are instanced. GW2's WvW areas are zoned (their small so easy to confuse but their zones nonetheless).
And its very easy to do everything within a zoned world but the game still remains open.
Most oldschool games seperated Zones through loading, so instancing wasn't needed. Besides, you're comparing how they
Originally posted by Quizzical Here we go again. The proper question isn't whether an MMORPG should be instanced, but how. To not use any sort of instancing whatsoever would require such wildly inefficient programming techniques that the game would surely be vaporware.
And yet every old school MMO did I without fail.
Unless you are confusing instancing with zoning....which is quite possibly since so many here confuse definitions. For the record, an instance is a place where only you or your friends can enter, and when you leave the instanced is closed never to appear. A zone is an area that is always active and people can enter freely at their discretion and will remain persistent.
WoW dungeons are instanced. GW2's WvW areas are zoned (their small so easy to confuse but their zones nonetheless).
And its very easy to do everything within a zoned world but the game still remains open.
Most oldschool games seperated Zones through loading, so instancing wasn't needed. Besides, you're comparing how they
Many games today have instanced zones.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
Instancing solely major throne rooms/boss/raid encounters, much like EQ2 did to some extent.
Keeps dungeons open and sociable, but also prevents the issue of groups/guilds camping and kill stealing over the same spawn.
agreed.. I would like to see about 98% open world zones and dungeons as i twas in EQ.. Toss in some GW2 dynamic events and some Rift zone invasions, and I would be happy.. The other 2% would be little mini instanced rooms that might house a quest mob or similar..
Originally posted by Quizzical Here we go again. The proper question isn't whether an MMORPG should be instanced, but how. To not use any sort of instancing whatsoever would require such wildly inefficient programming techniques that the game would surely be vaporware.
And yet every old school MMO did I without fail.
Unless you are confusing instancing with zoning....which is quite possibly since so many here confuse definitions. For the record, an instance is a place where only you or your friends can enter, and when you leave the instanced is closed never to appear. A zone is an area that is always active and people can enter freely at their discretion and will remain persistent.
WoW dungeons are instanced. GW2's WvW areas are zoned (their small so easy to confuse but their zones nonetheless).
And its very easy to do everything within a zoned world but the game still remains open.
Most oldschool games seperated Zones through loading, so instancing wasn't needed. Besides, you're comparing how they
The only one I can think of that did that was EQ. UO, SWG, AC, DAoC did not.
Only through instances you can guarantee that players will find a fitting challenge. Example: 25 man raids are tuned for 25 people, and 10v10 battlegrounds are tuned to pit 10 players against 10 others.
What wouldn't be fun? A 25 man boss zerged by 800 players, or a battleground where a 87 player team abuses of a 12 player opposition.
To me anything that doesn't maintain that kind of fairness and challenge isn't even worth downloading for free. And that fairness and challenge can only be achieved through instances.
My opinion is my own. I respect all other opinions and views equally, but keep in mind that my opinion will always be the best for me. That's why it's my opinion.
I wasn't really on the MMO scene when games like Everquest came out and the whole world was open and explorable with secrets, even dungeons. I started with Runes of Magic, where all the dungeons were instanced based and just for your party. It's not the most interesting method, but I believe it works best for everyone.
Now open dungeons sound really awesome. Like stumbling on a cave and discovering that its a large area with boss battles and treasure to be found. But on the other hand, I believe that they could be broken when higher level players camp inside the dungeons and continue to kill the boss over and over without giving other players a chance. I can imagine that would work if it was set up sort of like Guild Wars 2 (not the dungeons but the open world content) where if you stumble upon that dungeon you can fight the creatures inside and help everyone else who is doing the dungeon and each get your own reward.
I voted for the old school open dungeons. However, my experience was with EQ, so they were in zones, but not instances. Anyone could eneter the zone, but the zone itself was not "in the world". Some were, like Befallen in Eastern Commonlands, but most were in their own zones, like Castle Mistmoore or Crushbone.
I see "Instanced Dungeons" as "Storyline Dungeons" where your specific instance of the dungeon is able to change to further your own specific storyline. I may incorrect in my thinking here
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Quizzical Here we go again. The proper question isn't whether an MMORPG should be instanced, but how. To not use any sort of instancing whatsoever would require such wildly inefficient programming techniques that the game would surely be vaporware.
And yet every old school MMO did I without fail.
And Darkfall did it, with no loading screens, AND real time FPS combat on a massive scale.
it was a big fail in EQ1 before Kunark launched when lower guk was camped 24/7 on my server, every named had a waiting list that was hours long during peak hours. Huge fail - this would never fly today.
Darkfall is still niche - I wouldnt call it massive, 100vs100 is nothing try 500vs500 in one small area that'd be massive.
Thats because before Kunark, Lower Guk had some of the better items in the game.
Thats like saying before Starbucks came to my neighborhood, coffee and slurpees at my local 7-11 were camped 24/7...
Originally posted by Quizzical Here we go again. The proper question isn't whether an MMORPG should be instanced, but how. To not use any sort of instancing whatsoever would require such wildly inefficient programming techniques that the game would surely be vaporware.
And yet every old school MMO did I without fail.
And Darkfall did it, with no loading screens, AND real time FPS combat on a massive scale.
it was a big fail in EQ1 before Kunark launched when lower guk was camped 24/7 on my server, every named had a waiting list that was hours long during peak hours. Huge fail - this would never fly today.
That was definitely a downfall of open dungeons (waiting and camping). I do not know what is the better trade-off, though, from what we have available now.
While City of Heroes did not have "dungeons", they did have "missions" that took place indoors, like in warehouses, office buildings, and such. This allowed a couple of things to happen. 1) Players could set their own difficulty for the missions. 2) It gave the players the run of the place, usually connected to them by a story.
The downfall was you could not just to open any door in the game and enter. You HAD to have a mission to enter these instances or be in a group where someone had that specific mission.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Quizzical Here we go again. The proper question isn't whether an MMORPG should be instanced, but how. To not use any sort of instancing whatsoever would require such wildly inefficient programming techniques that the game would surely be vaporware.
And yet every old school MMO did I without fail.
And Darkfall did it, with no loading screens, AND real time FPS combat on a massive scale.
it was a big fail in EQ1 before Kunark launched when lower guk was camped 24/7 on my server, every named had a waiting list that was hours long during peak hours. Huge fail - this would never fly today.
Darkfall is still niche - I wouldnt call it massive, 100vs100 is nothing try 500vs500 in one small area that'd be massive.
EQ had design problems, subsequent MMOs did not. Stop pointing at the game that did it wrong and screaming it as if it justifies what you're saying. "Somebody one time choked on a french fry, so all fries should be illegal!".
There are about 10k per server in Darkfall, and it has 2 servers. You get more than 100vs100 fights quite a lot.
And on top of that, 100vs100 is STILL a FUCK TON more than MMos with instances can handle.
On top of THAT, PS2, which isn't niche, handles real time massive scale combat too.
So in conclusion, your argument has been destroyed. You'd have better luck arguing the merits of instances if you never brought up camping or performance.
Instanced content is just better. It's higher quality due to its nature.
It's the distinct game mechanics which make encounters interesting in games.
With instancing, the game's development team is focused on creating new interesting mechanics. That's all they do.
With open world, the dev team must spend additional effort making those mechanics dynamically self-adjust to the number of players. Intricate game mechanics would tend to require more effort to make dynamic. This creates drag. Instead of a dev team moving full speed with 100% of effort put into making new game mechanics, they must spend a non-trivial amount of time adapting those mechanics.
Either that or no dynamic is applied and a fight which is interesting with a 6-man party becomes completely trivial when another 6 players show up -- which is really boring.
Instanced content is not just better. A lot of the dungeons in WoW are smaller more linear hallway-boss-hallway design. Everquest with Kunark and Sebilis blew away any dungeon in the Burning Crusade as far as dungeon design.
Thats because before Kunark, Lower Guk had some of the better items in the game.
That right there is the problem with how EQ did open world dungeons. There was not enough of them and the higher end dungeons had the better/best loot.
Its why there is an 'end game' to MMOs. There is no reason to ever visit the older dungeons or content because they don't have the best loot or anything that can contribute to getting better loot.
Its slightly off topic but what I think needs to be added to this discussion is why open-world dungeons work/dont work vrs instanced dungeons and what are the reasons your opinion on why they work.
So far what I have read of the thread against open-world dungeons is griefers and boss mobs being camped. Wouldn't this problem be solved if those bosses were not the only means to the best gear in the game? Wouldn't it help if the best gear was crafted, or the boss dropped more rare loot/materials than other mobs and was not the only mob to have a chance of dropping the loot/materials?
I just think many of the issues people have with MMOs need to be looked at at a different perspective than directly at the debate. That other mechanics in the game influence the way people play the game and its not a simple solution of instancing vrs open-world but whats causing this debate.
Instanced content is not just better. A lot of the dungeons in WoW are smaller more linear hallway-boss-hallway design. Everquest with Kunark and Sebilis blew away any dungeon in the Burning Crusade as far as dungeon design.
This image rings true for a lot of the instanced dungeons compared to open world ones.
The dev team is just focusing on new interesting mechanics because of instancing. Yea like dunegons that are hallways.
Measuring games purely by their size and linearity is a pretty shallow way to compare things:
Non-linearity doesn't guarantee game depth. In fact mazes (non-linear dungeon layouts) are one of the shallower types of challenges to throw at a player. Either they're a dull problem (keep trying paths til you find the right one) or an unnecessary hassle (keep checking the map online so you always take the right path.)
And when multiple dungeons are all mazes, you repeat the same problem, compounding those issues. Players like experiencing new challenges, not being hammered by the same identical problem (in this case mazes.)
Size is only relevant if the content is of similar quality. I didn't play EQ1 so I can't speak to its dungeons, but certainly the dungeons of the ~10 other early MMORPGs I tried weren't anywhere close to the quality of dungeons I've experienced in the better instanced-dungeon MMORPGs.
The best content doesn't have to be non-linear, it just has to be a new and interesting problem to solve. Getting stuck on the same old problem (mazes) would create shallow games compared to spending the design effort creating new puzzles (and then arraying them rather linearly, since trial and error mazes aren't exactly the best way to discover new content.) Although admittedly the interesting problems (new boss mechanics) themselves are a form of nonlinearity as players have a certain freedom inside each boss fight to explore their options -- it's just not the surface level (shallow) non-linearity which is more obvious to players, like mazes.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Instanced content is not just better. A lot of the dungeons in WoW are smaller more linear hallway-boss-hallway design. Everquest with Kunark and Sebilis blew away any dungeon in the Burning Crusade as far as dungeon design.
This image rings true for a lot of the instanced dungeons compared to open world ones.
The dev team is just focusing on new interesting mechanics because of instancing. Yea like dunegons that are hallways.
Measuring games purely by their size and linearity is a pretty shallow way to compare things:
Non-linearity doesn't guarantee game depth. In fact mazes (non-linear dungeon layouts) are one of the shallower types of challenges to throw at a player. Either they're a dull problem (keep trying paths til you find the right one) or an unnecessary hassle (keep checking the map online so you always take the right path.)
And when multiple dungeons are all mazes, you repeat the same problem, compounding those issues. Players like experiencing new challenges, not being hammered by the same identical problem (in this case mazes.)
Size is only relevant if the content is of similar quality. I didn't play EQ1 so I can't speak to its dungeons, but certainly the dungeons of the ~10 other early MMORPGs I tried weren't anywhere close to the quality of dungeons I've experienced in the better instanced-dungeon MMORPGs.
First.. I didn't hear or get the feeling that Nilden was saying only size counts.. What I got from his post, since I did play EQ starting in 1999, was that open world dungeons/zones were more versatile in play.. Even WoW has completely changed their way of doing instanced dungeons.. When I first started playing WoW, dungeons were a decent size taking TIME to be able to complete them, such as Blackrock.. Then as each expansion came out the instanced zones became smaller and smaller.. At the time I left towards the end of the LK, those last 3 mini instances were a joke..
Now as for your comments such as saying huge dungeon mazes such as Old Seb or "the guks" are shallow is just baffling.. Getting lost in a maze dungeon is FUN, and is part of the adventure.. Sure the first few times in there you'll be overwelmed by the size and detail of it, but oh well.. That is what I paid for.. Finding the hand room in Kanor's Castle was scarey the first time or two, but far from dull..
Second comment.. I find it ironic that you speaking about being "hammered" to death about a repeating problem.. YET you excuse the modern day hammering of GEAR GRIND of repeating the same dungeon over and over a hundred times.. HELLO!!!!.. That is my problem and I know I'm not alone in that feeling.. As for the 3rd part, I would love to hear what MMO you feel has awesome instance dungeons.. I'm hoping that RIFT, TOR or WoW aren't your examples..
Instanced content is not just better. A lot of the dungeons in WoW are smaller more linear hallway-boss-hallway design. Everquest with Kunark and Sebilis blew away any dungeon in the Burning Crusade as far as dungeon design.
This image rings true for a lot of the instanced dungeons compared to open world ones.
The dev team is just focusing on new interesting mechanics because of instancing. Yea like dunegons that are hallways.
Measuring games purely by their size and linearity is a pretty shallow way to compare things:
Non-linearity doesn't guarantee game depth. In fact mazes (non-linear dungeon layouts) are one of the shallower types of challenges to throw at a player. Either they're a dull problem (keep trying paths til you find the right one) or an unnecessary hassle (keep checking the map online so you always take the right path.)
And when multiple dungeons are all mazes, you repeat the same problem, compounding those issues. Players like experiencing new challenges, not being hammered by the same identical problem (in this case mazes.)
Size is only relevant if the content is of similar quality. I didn't play EQ1 so I can't speak to its dungeons, but certainly the dungeons of the ~10 other early MMORPGs I tried weren't anywhere close to the quality of dungeons I've experienced in the better instanced-dungeon MMORPGs.
First.. I didn't hear or get the feeling that Nilden was saying only size counts.. What I got from his post, since I did play EQ starting in 1999, was that open world dungeons/zones were more versatile in play.. Even WoW has completely changed their way of doing instanced dungeons.. When I first started playing WoW, dungeons were a decent size taking TIME to be able to complete them, such as Blackrock.. Then as each expansion came out the instanced zones became smaller and smaller.. At the time I left towards the end of the LK, those last 3 mini instances were a joke..
Now as for your comments such as saying huge dungeon mazes such as Old Seb or "the guks" are shallow is just baffling.. Getting lost in a maze dungeon is FUN, and is part of the adventure.. Sure the first few times in there you'll be overwelmed by the size and detail of it, but oh well.. That is what I paid for.. Finding the hand room in Kanor's Castle was scarey the first time or two, but far from dull..
Second comment.. I find it ironic that you speaking about being "hammered" to death about a repeating problem.. YET you excuse the modern day hammering of GEAR GRIND of repeating the same dungeon over and over a hundred times.. HELLO!!!!.. That is my problem and I know I'm not alone in that feeling.. As for the 3rd part, I would love to hear what MMO you feel has awesome instance dungeons.. I'm hoping that RIFT, TOR or WoW aren't your examples..
A strawman. No one is promoting gear grind, or farming dungeons, or bad dungeon design in general.
Instances have advantages are in:
adjustable challenge
customized content
enables the use of more profound effects without disrupting the larger world or other players
better performance
immune to some of the adverse effects in multiplayer (e.g. griefing)
It is also crucial for competitive PvP and, so far, the best PvE content in a game has always been instanced.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Instanced content is not just better. A lot of the dungeons in WoW are smaller more linear hallway-boss-hallway design. Everquest with Kunark and Sebilis blew away any dungeon in the Burning Crusade as far as dungeon design.
This image rings true for a lot of the instanced dungeons compared to open world ones.
The dev team is just focusing on new interesting mechanics because of instancing. Yea like dunegons that are hallways.
Measuring games purely by their size and linearity is a pretty shallow way to compare things:
Non-linearity doesn't guarantee game depth. In fact mazes (non-linear dungeon layouts) are one of the shallower types of challenges to throw at a player. Either they're a dull problem (keep trying paths til you find the right one) or an unnecessary hassle (keep checking the map online so you always take the right path.)
And when multiple dungeons are all mazes, you repeat the same problem, compounding those issues. Players like experiencing new challenges, not being hammered by the same identical problem (in this case mazes.)
Size is only relevant if the content is of similar quality. I didn't play EQ1 so I can't speak to its dungeons, but certainly the dungeons of the ~10 other early MMORPGs I tried weren't anywhere close to the quality of dungeons I've experienced in the better instanced-dungeon MMORPGs.
The best content doesn't have to be non-linear, it just has to be a new and interesting problem to solve. Getting stuck on the same old problem (mazes) would create shallow games compared to spending the design effort creating new puzzles (and then arraying them rather linearly, since trial and error mazes aren't exactly the best way to discover new content.) Although admittedly the interesting problems (new boss mechanics) themselves are a form of nonlinearity as players have a certain freedom inside each boss fight to explore their options -- it's just not the surface level (shallow) non-linearity which is more obvious to players, like mazes.
I find large/labyrinth style dungeons are actually anything but shallow. You can have different stories/mobs/bosses going on in different parts of the dungeons, making multiple run throughs a lot more viable and exciting than doing the same short run again and again. You can argue it inevitably ends up this way once you do explore the whole dungeon, but the labyrinth style dungeons of EQ1 offered more content and variety than they do today.
I don't really understand how you can suggest linear scripted instances don't become repetitive in their attempt to challenge players? There is only one path/way to do them by design.
You know what instance dungeons remind me of.. Police Shooting simulations like the one in Dirty Harry.. You see the track ahead of you, you know the path to take.. Harry already knew where the targets were going to pop.. BAM BAM.. reload.. The only difference was that at times the pop could of been a bad guy or good guy...... but in an instance dungeons they are ALL bad guys, so no surprise there.. LOL
First.. I didn't hear or get the feeling that Nilden was saying only size counts.. What I got from his post, since I did play EQ starting in 1999, was that open world dungeons/zones were more versatile in play.. Even WoW has completely changed their way of doing instanced dungeons.. When I first started playing WoW, dungeons were a decent size taking TIME to be able to complete them, such as Blackrock.. Then as each expansion came out the instanced zones became smaller and smaller.. At the time I left towards the end of the LK, those last 3 mini instances were a joke..
Now as for your comments such as saying huge dungeon mazes such as Old Seb or "the guks" are shallow is just baffling.. Getting lost in a maze dungeon is FUN, and is part of the adventure.. Sure the first few times in there you'll be overwelmed by the size and detail of it, but oh well.. That is what I paid for.. Finding the hand room in Kanor's Castle was scarey the first time or two, but far from dull..
Second comment.. I find it ironic that you speaking about being "hammered" to death about a repeating problem.. YET you excuse the modern day hammering of GEAR GRIND of repeating the same dungeon over and over a hundred times.. HELLO!!!!.. That is my problem and I know I'm not alone in that feeling.. As for the 3rd part, I would love to hear what MMO you feel has awesome instance dungeons.. I'm hoping that RIFT, TOR or WoW aren't your examples..
He pointed out the dungeons were smaller. Maybe it was subtle commentary on size mattering, maybe it wasn't. I just wanted to make it clear that it wouldn't matter in either event.
Mazes aren't completely shallow, it's just that trial-and-error (or look-it-up-online) tends to be a shallower form of decision-making than actually adapting to dynamic game elements such as those found in a good boss fight. While mazes appeal to newer gamers, they're mostly old and boring to older ones who are like, "Yeah, trial-and-error. I get it. Give me something new."
Claiming I "excuse" the modern grind is just putting words into my mouth. Grind will always exist in long-form progression games (RPGs designed to be played more than 200 hours.) But that fact of RPGs is why what I'm saying is important: because with x dev hours expended on implementing the gameplay in a game, you certainly want devs spending their time on the most interesting mechanics, and avoiding the ones known to be shallow.
The only real argument which can be made for maze-like open world dungeons is that what little depth they add actually comes quite cheaply. It doesn't take a lot of iteration, the level designer simply makes a maze and bam: it's a maze. But again, there are generally just better mechanics you want players reaching sooner. This is especially true if the mechanics interact with other game mechanics in interesting ways, like how a threat system is pretty straightforward on its own, but when different fights create adds or manipulate aggro in unique ways, the threat system ends up adding a pretty high amount of depth over the course of all the ways other systems can interact with it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
First.. I didn't hear or get the feeling that Nilden was saying only size counts.. What I got from his post, since I did play EQ starting in 1999, was that open world dungeons/zones were more versatile in play.. Even WoW has completely changed their way of doing instanced dungeons.. When I first started playing WoW, dungeons were a decent size taking TIME to be able to complete them, such as Blackrock.. Then as each expansion came out the instanced zones became smaller and smaller.. At the time I left towards the end of the LK, those last 3 mini instances were a joke..
Now as for your comments such as saying huge dungeon mazes such as Old Seb or "the guks" are shallow is just baffling.. Getting lost in a maze dungeon is FUN, and is part of the adventure.. Sure the first few times in there you'll be overwelmed by the size and detail of it, but oh well.. That is what I paid for.. Finding the hand room in Kanor's Castle was scarey the first time or two, but far from dull..
Second comment.. I find it ironic that you speaking about being "hammered" to death about a repeating problem.. YET you excuse the modern day hammering of GEAR GRIND of repeating the same dungeon over and over a hundred times.. HELLO!!!!.. That is my problem and I know I'm not alone in that feeling.. As for the 3rd part, I would love to hear what MMO you feel has awesome instance dungeons.. I'm hoping that RIFT, TOR or WoW aren't your examples..
If that is what he was getting at, his post is incredibly biased and based on a faulty premise. He compares one of the best developed Open Worlds to one of the Worst offenders of Instances. When you do that, of course instances will look bad.
But that is still completely besides the point. His claim that Open World is more versatile and Instances are linear is completely unfounded and nonsensicle. An Openworld with only 1 entrance and 1 exit is still pretty epicly linear, no matter how big of a zone it is. An Instance where you can complete areas at any given order is versatile. If anyone inherently things that Open World is automatically versatile and instances are automatically linear clearly isn't thinking at all.
Getting lost in a maze is fun for you. Don't make a blanket statement that everyone finds that fun, because I can assure you that getting lost in a maze is enough to make me quit a game completely. Mazes are not fun in MMORPG's for me. If I wanted to solve a puzzle, I'd pick up a puzzle.
Just because you are repeating two tasks doesn't make it the same thing. I drive to school every day, that doesn't equate that to me breathing every day. People typically don't mind dungeon grinding repeatedly because it's expected to come with the territory of MMORPG. People mind having trial and error puzzles because it's typically considered lowbrow and just an obnoxious festival for both the participant and the designer.
If that is what he was getting at, his post is incredibly biased and based on a faulty premise. He compares one of the best developed Open Worlds to one of the Worst offenders of Instances. When you do that, of course instances will look bad.
But that is still completely besides the point. His claim that Open World is more versatile and Instances are linear is completely unfounded and nonsensicle. An Openworld with only 1 entrance and 1 exit is still pretty epicly linear, no matter how big of a zone it is. An Instance where you can complete areas at any given order is versatile. If anyone inherently things that Open World is automatically versatile and instances are automatically linear clearly isn't thinking at all.
Getting lost in a maze is fun for you. Don't make a blanket statement that everyone finds that fun, because I can assure you that getting lost in a maze is enough to make me quit a game completely. Mazes are not fun in MMORPG's for me. If I wanted to solve a puzzle, I'd pick up a puzzle.
Just because you are repeating two tasks doesn't make it the same thing. I drive to school every day, that doesn't equate that to me breathing every day. People typically don't mind dungeon grinding repeatedly because it's expected to come with the territory of MMORPG. People mind having trial and error puzzles because it's typically considered lowbrow and just an obnoxious festival for both the participant and the designer.
Faulty premise? Everquest is the best developed open world and WoW is the worst offender for instances? The only one here being completly unfounded and nonsensicle here is you. I linked maps for Everquest Sebilis and Burning Crusade because they were both the second expansions for the respective games and you can clearly see by comparing dungeon maps the difference. I then for dramatic effect added the FPS design image. You should also make a sign that says "Dungeons should not have puzzles or mazes." That's a really great design idea right there /SARCASM<---
A strong dynamic open world, with a huge part of that dedicated to PvP..
Lots of open world dungeon areas that work however more dynamic then what we used to see.
Phasing and instancing for the main story quests (solo), done smart so people dont loose immersion when entering these parts of the game. this tool helps really well for immersion and getting back ground information and fleshing out the story. Works much better for immersion then all those people standing around the mainquesthub while having silent conversations with an NPC.
Instanced Dungeons ... i dont know ... i like them, they can be quite challenging, as long as there is story involved, i think it works, but just as quick dungeonruns from the gogogo crowd, i dont like them, we dont need anything thats non dynamic and needs to be repeated over and over again to finally get that drop.
Instanced PvP? No. any instanced PvP can be done in the open world, just join a team when you are around and PvP (would work like dynamic events with PvP implemented) or choose to stay out of the conflict and PvE only.
Both instancing and open world have their strong points, and i am really waiting for the developers that balances them both. (phasing is also a form of Instancing) But still the world really needs that open world feeling, go anywhere do what you want join what and who you want.
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)
Comments
Most oldschool games seperated Zones through loading, so instancing wasn't needed. Besides, you're comparing how they
Many games today have instanced zones.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
Open/public dungeons and areas for the most part.
Instancing solely major throne rooms/boss/raid encounters, much like EQ2 did to some extent.
Keeps dungeons open and sociable, but also prevents the issue of groups/guilds camping and kill stealing over the same spawn.
agreed.. I would like to see about 98% open world zones and dungeons as i twas in EQ.. Toss in some GW2 dynamic events and some Rift zone invasions, and I would be happy.. The other 2% would be little mini instanced rooms that might house a quest mob or similar..
The only one I can think of that did that was EQ. UO, SWG, AC, DAoC did not.
Only through instances you can guarantee that players will find a fitting challenge. Example: 25 man raids are tuned for 25 people, and 10v10 battlegrounds are tuned to pit 10 players against 10 others.
What wouldn't be fun? A 25 man boss zerged by 800 players, or a battleground where a 87 player team abuses of a 12 player opposition.
To me anything that doesn't maintain that kind of fairness and challenge isn't even worth downloading for free. And that fairness and challenge can only be achieved through instances.
My opinion is my own. I respect all other opinions and views equally, but keep in mind that my opinion will always be the best for me. That's why it's my opinion.
I wasn't really on the MMO scene when games like Everquest came out and the whole world was open and explorable with secrets, even dungeons. I started with Runes of Magic, where all the dungeons were instanced based and just for your party. It's not the most interesting method, but I believe it works best for everyone.
Now open dungeons sound really awesome. Like stumbling on a cave and discovering that its a large area with boss battles and treasure to be found. But on the other hand, I believe that they could be broken when higher level players camp inside the dungeons and continue to kill the boss over and over without giving other players a chance. I can imagine that would work if it was set up sort of like Guild Wars 2 (not the dungeons but the open world content) where if you stumble upon that dungeon you can fight the creatures inside and help everyone else who is doing the dungeon and each get your own reward.
On the eternal quest for that one perfect MMO.
I voted for the old school open dungeons. However, my experience was with EQ, so they were in zones, but not instances. Anyone could eneter the zone, but the zone itself was not "in the world". Some were, like Befallen in Eastern Commonlands, but most were in their own zones, like Castle Mistmoore or Crushbone.
I see "Instanced Dungeons" as "Storyline Dungeons" where your specific instance of the dungeon is able to change to further your own specific storyline. I may incorrect in my thinking here
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Thats because before Kunark, Lower Guk had some of the better items in the game.
Thats like saying before Starbucks came to my neighborhood, coffee and slurpees at my local 7-11 were camped 24/7...
While City of Heroes did not have "dungeons", they did have "missions" that took place indoors, like in warehouses, office buildings, and such. This allowed a couple of things to happen.
1) Players could set their own difficulty for the missions.
2) It gave the players the run of the place, usually connected to them by a story.
The downfall was you could not just to open any door in the game and enter. You HAD to have a mission to enter these instances or be in a group where someone had that specific mission.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Or, through good AI programming.
The DAoC dragon would wipe the floor with 300 people using the wrong tactics, and it would change its behavior.
Meanwhile, a 45 man group knowing the best tactics could beat said dragon.
But if you really want scripted, linear, gimmicky encounters, just play Diablo or something.
EQ had design problems, subsequent MMOs did not. Stop pointing at the game that did it wrong and screaming it as if it justifies what you're saying. "Somebody one time choked on a french fry, so all fries should be illegal!".
There are about 10k per server in Darkfall, and it has 2 servers. You get more than 100vs100 fights quite a lot.
And on top of that, 100vs100 is STILL a FUCK TON more than MMos with instances can handle.
On top of THAT, PS2, which isn't niche, handles real time massive scale combat too.
So in conclusion, your argument has been destroyed. You'd have better luck arguing the merits of instances if you never brought up camping or performance.
Instanced content is not just better. A lot of the dungeons in WoW are smaller more linear hallway-boss-hallway design. Everquest with Kunark and Sebilis blew away any dungeon in the Burning Crusade as far as dungeon design.
http://www.wowhead.com/zones=2.1
http://www.steveprutz.com/eq/seb.htm
This image rings true for a lot of the instanced dungeons compared to open world ones.
The dev team is just focusing on new interesting mechanics because of instancing. Yea like dunegons that are hallways.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/That right there is the problem with how EQ did open world dungeons. There was not enough of them and the higher end dungeons had the better/best loot.
Its why there is an 'end game' to MMOs. There is no reason to ever visit the older dungeons or content because they don't have the best loot or anything that can contribute to getting better loot.
Its slightly off topic but what I think needs to be added to this discussion is why open-world dungeons work/dont work vrs instanced dungeons and what are the reasons your opinion on why they work.
So far what I have read of the thread against open-world dungeons is griefers and boss mobs being camped. Wouldn't this problem be solved if those bosses were not the only means to the best gear in the game? Wouldn't it help if the best gear was crafted, or the boss dropped more rare loot/materials than other mobs and was not the only mob to have a chance of dropping the loot/materials?
I just think many of the issues people have with MMOs need to be looked at at a different perspective than directly at the debate. That other mechanics in the game influence the way people play the game and its not a simple solution of instancing vrs open-world but whats causing this debate.
Same.
Measuring games purely by their size and linearity is a pretty shallow way to compare things:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
First.. I didn't hear or get the feeling that Nilden was saying only size counts.. What I got from his post, since I did play EQ starting in 1999, was that open world dungeons/zones were more versatile in play.. Even WoW has completely changed their way of doing instanced dungeons.. When I first started playing WoW, dungeons were a decent size taking TIME to be able to complete them, such as Blackrock.. Then as each expansion came out the instanced zones became smaller and smaller.. At the time I left towards the end of the LK, those last 3 mini instances were a joke..
Now as for your comments such as saying huge dungeon mazes such as Old Seb or "the guks" are shallow is just baffling.. Getting lost in a maze dungeon is FUN, and is part of the adventure.. Sure the first few times in there you'll be overwelmed by the size and detail of it, but oh well.. That is what I paid for.. Finding the hand room in Kanor's Castle was scarey the first time or two, but far from dull..
Second comment.. I find it ironic that you speaking about being "hammered" to death about a repeating problem.. YET you excuse the modern day hammering of GEAR GRIND of repeating the same dungeon over and over a hundred times.. HELLO!!!!.. That is my problem and I know I'm not alone in that feeling.. As for the 3rd part, I would love to hear what MMO you feel has awesome instance dungeons.. I'm hoping that RIFT, TOR or WoW aren't your examples..
A strawman. No one is promoting gear grind, or farming dungeons, or bad dungeon design in general.
Instances have advantages are in:
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I find large/labyrinth style dungeons are actually anything but shallow. You can have different stories/mobs/bosses going on in different parts of the dungeons, making multiple run throughs a lot more viable and exciting than doing the same short run again and again. You can argue it inevitably ends up this way once you do explore the whole dungeon, but the labyrinth style dungeons of EQ1 offered more content and variety than they do today.
I don't really understand how you can suggest linear scripted instances don't become repetitive in their attempt to challenge players? There is only one path/way to do them by design.
Can I get details on this please.. All I'm reading is a car sales commercial, with no numbers and facts..
True Wolf..
You know what instance dungeons remind me of.. Police Shooting simulations like the one in Dirty Harry.. You see the track ahead of you, you know the path to take.. Harry already knew where the targets were going to pop.. BAM BAM.. reload.. The only difference was that at times the pop could of been a bad guy or good guy...... but in an instance dungeons they are ALL bad guys, so no surprise there.. LOL
He pointed out the dungeons were smaller. Maybe it was subtle commentary on size mattering, maybe it wasn't. I just wanted to make it clear that it wouldn't matter in either event.
Mazes aren't completely shallow, it's just that trial-and-error (or look-it-up-online) tends to be a shallower form of decision-making than actually adapting to dynamic game elements such as those found in a good boss fight. While mazes appeal to newer gamers, they're mostly old and boring to older ones who are like, "Yeah, trial-and-error. I get it. Give me something new."
Claiming I "excuse" the modern grind is just putting words into my mouth. Grind will always exist in long-form progression games (RPGs designed to be played more than 200 hours.) But that fact of RPGs is why what I'm saying is important: because with x dev hours expended on implementing the gameplay in a game, you certainly want devs spending their time on the most interesting mechanics, and avoiding the ones known to be shallow.
The only real argument which can be made for maze-like open world dungeons is that what little depth they add actually comes quite cheaply. It doesn't take a lot of iteration, the level designer simply makes a maze and bam: it's a maze. But again, there are generally just better mechanics you want players reaching sooner. This is especially true if the mechanics interact with other game mechanics in interesting ways, like how a threat system is pretty straightforward on its own, but when different fights create adds or manipulate aggro in unique ways, the threat system ends up adding a pretty high amount of depth over the course of all the ways other systems can interact with it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If that is what he was getting at, his post is incredibly biased and based on a faulty premise. He compares one of the best developed Open Worlds to one of the Worst offenders of Instances. When you do that, of course instances will look bad.
But that is still completely besides the point. His claim that Open World is more versatile and Instances are linear is completely unfounded and nonsensicle. An Openworld with only 1 entrance and 1 exit is still pretty epicly linear, no matter how big of a zone it is. An Instance where you can complete areas at any given order is versatile. If anyone inherently things that Open World is automatically versatile and instances are automatically linear clearly isn't thinking at all.
Getting lost in a maze is fun for you. Don't make a blanket statement that everyone finds that fun, because I can assure you that getting lost in a maze is enough to make me quit a game completely. Mazes are not fun in MMORPG's for me. If I wanted to solve a puzzle, I'd pick up a puzzle.
Just because you are repeating two tasks doesn't make it the same thing. I drive to school every day, that doesn't equate that to me breathing every day. People typically don't mind dungeon grinding repeatedly because it's expected to come with the territory of MMORPG. People mind having trial and error puzzles because it's typically considered lowbrow and just an obnoxious festival for both the participant and the designer.
Faulty premise? Everquest is the best developed open world and WoW is the worst offender for instances? The only one here being completly unfounded and nonsensicle here is you. I linked maps for Everquest Sebilis and Burning Crusade because they were both the second expansions for the respective games and you can clearly see by comparing dungeon maps the difference. I then for dramatic effect added the FPS design image. You should also make a sign that says "Dungeons should not have puzzles or mazes." That's a really great design idea right there /SARCASM<---
@Axehilt
Are you seriously trying to argue that a small instanced hallway is better than a large open maze when it comes to dungeon design?
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/How about a mix of all of these...
A strong dynamic open world, with a huge part of that dedicated to PvP..
Lots of open world dungeon areas that work however more dynamic then what we used to see.
Phasing and instancing for the main story quests (solo), done smart so people dont loose immersion when entering these parts of the game. this tool helps really well for immersion and getting back ground information and fleshing out the story. Works much better for immersion then all those people standing around the mainquesthub while having silent conversations with an NPC.
Instanced Dungeons ... i dont know ... i like them, they can be quite challenging, as long as there is story involved, i think it works, but just as quick dungeonruns from the gogogo crowd, i dont like them, we dont need anything thats non dynamic and needs to be repeated over and over again to finally get that drop.
Instanced PvP? No. any instanced PvP can be done in the open world, just join a team when you are around and PvP (would work like dynamic events with PvP implemented) or choose to stay out of the conflict and PvE only.
Both instancing and open world have their strong points, and i am really waiting for the developers that balances them both. (phasing is also a form of Instancing) But still the world really needs that open world feeling, go anywhere do what you want join what and who you want.
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)