Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Wildstar has instanced zones. How can it be called a MMORPG?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
You two need to go back and read what I describe as instancing. It's what other people have gone on to call channeling. Several copies of the persistant world. Spreading the population between multiple copies of the continent instance.
Whoever defends this statement has no idea what they're talking about. Instancing and phasing doesn't mean there's less work involved, in some cases it can mean more work...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Deal with the fact that WoW doesn't instance and is AAA.
I think WoW deserves a fourth A. It's that successful.
The thing I don't like about instancing/channels is that you get a different crop of players every time you go somewhere. EQ was incredible because you ran into the same people all the time. Reputation mattered, and friendships were abundant.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
I think that all depends on how the channels are done. In a lot of eastern MMOs, the channels are visible and easily switchable. Just as you would log into your favorite server, players of other games log in and jump to their favorite channel. The advantage to the channels is that you don't have to reroll to go join a different community if you want to change the crowd you are in.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Asheron's call also had horrible issues with porting players out of towns that were trading/meeting/questing hubs.
Also, it's a game with graphics barely better than super nintendo.
Wow is much the same way. the zones are open world but it's also highly cartoony non-realistic, limited lighting game.
Age of Conan tried for realistic graphics. it had instanced/gated zones.
there's a clear difference those in terms of phased, or instanced zones. and game zones that are mainly segregated from towns or each other.
in GW1 you left town. and only people in a zone were those you brought with you. that is a bigger issue.
in some of the more recent games trying mega server tech. you log into the game ( people always vastly exagerate wait times) the phase you're in may not contain your friends. or even that many people.
but it's better than having to close servers, merge players and have people rage over naming issues and guild problems. and dying servers.
so cool it with the QQ
It depends on how they do the instancing. If they allow a city to populate enough, it's fine. OP brings up WoW and that's all great but when you get 150 people in the same area there are client performance issues as well as the area looks horrid with half the characters inside of each other, covering up vendors and stuff. If it's a player-collision game, it's even worse as you can't move around.
There is a fine balance and mechanics to swap instances when needed need to be solid and work flawlessly. The game also needs to detect guild-mates and party members need to automatically group people in the same instance as well as the maximum population of instances needs to be flexible. Some type of auto-no-loading phasing tech would be nice and can probably work by phasing those outside of the players view/draw-distance so it seems seamless.
I fully agree with your entire post, but I wanted to point out that AC did (does) in fact have one large seamless, non-instanced, non-phased world.
EQ had zones, but no instances or phasing. EQ did this because the graphics were superior and this allowed them to only load into memory the mob and terrain textures for each zone at a time.
AC was one huge, seamless world and everyone was in the same one. The game was very light on meshes and most likely textures, but it was indeed as stated.
Please Note: I'm done arguing with unreasonable people with an agenda and/or those that fail to see logic.
Argue if you must, discount my post with anti-logic and/or Hyperbole. I won't be responding any longer.
Games with barely any physics will be able to have bigger zones.
Still in WoW, a game with barely any physics and pretty bare zones, continents are still in a different instance.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
It's a 10 year old game...
There is no incentive for them to rewrite what probably is a core game engine component, especially since it wouldn't change the overall quality of the gameplay.
This have been a good conversation
Lol, what are you talking about? MMO means Massively Multiplayer Online so any game that has more than {x} number of players online that can interact with one another in one way or another and without a way to guarantee non-interaction, it's an MMO or some type...whether it be MMORPG, MMOG or MMOFPS.
The only thing you can really argue about is what type of MMO it is and what the value of {x} is.
That sounds cool. Griefers would have a much easier time, though.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
This is my thinking as well. Weather or not the game has phases or instances? That's a different story all togather tbh.
Don't think there is a rule saying there must x amount of players in a zone to class it as an MMO.
And if you (OP) don't like phasing, thats fair enough, but there must be reasons why games use it more often. Some people have thought up reasons and i bet there are loads more.
That has proven not to be the case for years now, with the NA/EU version of Wizardry Online being one of the few exception. At that point, is it an issue with the mechanic or an issue with the players?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It is a weird topic. For example GW2 have servers before, but now they merged all the server and only create "instance" if there are too many people in the zone.
So GW2 was mmorpg before but not now?
I think it is kind of playing with word, basically calling games which can't move between servers as mmorpg, but now you can move between server not, since that is hte only difference.
and do most people even care about a strict definition that much?
Destiny is clearly not a MMO in any traditional sense, but was called one in multiple gaming press.
May be the old kind of MMO is not that popular anymore, and the definition is changing to be more inclusive.
In fact, so what if GW2 is not a MMO. The real question is .. is it fun?
Uh many old games have had open worlds... L2 and SWG (planets were big) swg even had player housing and still managed it. WoW is pretty close...like how L1 was close.
DF:UW right now is the best non-instanced game.
WoW was AAA 10 years ago, even then when it released it had low graphics compared to Lineage II which was already released back then... also every aspect of its gameplay it's in instances for PvP (arenas battle grounds) cause it failed hard to manage more than 200 ppl in the same area ... even that game's top aspect (raids) are only in instances ..
continue your argument about MMORPGs it seems you know a lot .
True.
WoW is one of the most instanced games out there, they just hide it well.
You can fly from one zone to another seamlessly but you are effectively changing instances or loading the next zone on the fly.
Also the devs have been on record many a time and said that events like AQ back in the day crashed the servers because too many players were in the same area at once.
Hence the reason to split up the players in "instances" so that will never happen again.
SWTOR is another example as well, i think they limited it to around 100 players per instance because any more than that would render the game unplayable.
It all comes down to tech. In 10 years there might be server technology that allows 5000+ people to be in the same instance at the same time but for now it doesn't work for AAA games with massive amounts of HD data to load.
I'm very tired of these instanced MMOS. I guess the only reason they can call it an MMO is because of the global chat?
Lets hope in the future that new MMORGPS dont have instaced maps, but more open and free worlds because that is what the players wants!