Originally posted by gainesvilleg

Originally posted by aSynchro

ANet are without a doubt skilled coders & designers...

I really have no idea why people keep saying this.  You did play GW1 right?  I would say they are skilled game theorists but definately NOT skilled coders.  I honestly believe the GW1 interface was technicallly one of the poorest interfaces of that time.  If there is one thing that keeps me skeptical of this game it is I have very little confidence in their coding skill.  I actually think they will get the theory down right, with good balance and gameplay features.  But I fear their lack of coding skill will be the potential dissapointing aspect of this.  This will manifest itself as clunky performance, graphical anomalies, poor control scheme, subpar graphics, etc.  The youtube clips certainly don't give me much more confidence either to be honest.  The features of the game sound pretty fun though...

you're kidding right? gW has still one of the best ui's abong mmos. When it was released it had incredible graphics (even on this very forum in news sections they were writing that screenshots are actualy in game b/c ppl didn;t believe them.. search and you will find it) and it run incredibly even on weak pcs. o_O

Originally posted by gainesvilleg

Originally posted by aSynchro

ANet are without a doubt skilled coders & designers...

I really have no idea why people keep saying this.  You did play GW1 right?  I would say they are skilled game theorists but definately NOT skilled coders.  I honestly believe the GW1 interface was technicallly one of the poorest interfaces of that time.  If there is one thing that keeps me skeptical of this game it is I have very little confidence in their coding skill.  I actually think they will get the theory down right, with good balance and gameplay features.  But I fear their lack of coding skill will be the potential dissapointing aspect of this.  This will manifest itself as clunky performance, graphical anomalies, poor control scheme, subpar graphics, etc.  The youtube clips certainly don't give me much more confidence either to be honest.  The features of the game sound pretty fun though...

You do realize the interface has a lot more to do w/ their UI designers than w/ their coders, right? Their coding has more to do with how smooth the game runs, how many bugs there are at release, and how fast both of these issues get addressed. I dunno how your GW1 experience was, but in mine I can honestly say they were pretty on point about all 3 of those things.

Originally posted by TwilightEdge

Originally posted by gainesvilleg

Originally posted by aSynchro

ANet are without a doubt skilled coders & designers...

I really have no idea why people keep saying this.  You did play GW1 right?  I would say they are skilled game theorists but definately NOT skilled coders.  I honestly believe the GW1 interface was technicallly one of the poorest interfaces of that time.  If there is one thing that keeps me skeptical of this game it is I have very little confidence in their coding skill.  I actually think they will get the theory down right, with good balance and gameplay features.  But I fear their lack of coding skill will be the potential dissapointing aspect of this.  This will manifest itself as clunky performance, graphical anomalies, poor control scheme, subpar graphics, etc.  The youtube clips certainly don't give me much more confidence either to be honest.  The features of the game sound pretty fun though...

you're kidding right? gW has still one of the best ui's abong mmos. When it was released it had incredible graphics (even on this very forum in news sections they were writing that screenshots are actualy in game b/c ppl didn;t believe them.. search and you will find it) and it run incredibly even on weak pcs. o_O

I am more inclined to go with that poster. The fact stands: Tera has seamless, why does not GW2?

Originally posted by TwilightEdge

Originally posted by gainesvilleg

Originally posted by aSynchro

ANet are without a doubt skilled coders & designers...

I really have no idea why people keep saying this.  You did play GW1 right?  I would say they are skilled game theorists but definately NOT skilled coders.  I honestly believe the GW1 interface was technicallly one of the poorest interfaces of that time.  If there is one thing that keeps me skeptical of this game it is I have very little confidence in their coding skill.  I actually think they will get the theory down right, with good balance and gameplay features.  But I fear their lack of coding skill will be the potential dissapointing aspect of this.  This will manifest itself as clunky performance, graphical anomalies, poor control scheme, subpar graphics, etc.  The youtube clips certainly don't give me much more confidence either to be honest.  The features of the game sound pretty fun though...

you're kidding right? gW has still one of the best ui's abong mmos. When it was released it had incredible graphics (even on this very forum in news sections they were writing that screenshots are actualy in game b/c ppl didn;t believe them.. search and you will find it) and it run incredibly even on weak pcs. o_O

LOL.  One of the best UI's???  So I guess having the camera peg down so you couldn't see into the distance whenever you were on even a slight incline was great coding?  Having invisible walls everywhere, even to the point where you couldn't drop down a 3 foot cliff or hop a small fence was great coding?  Not even having the ability to jump at all was great coding (seriously might be the only avatar basd game post 1990 that didn't even support jumping)?  And even the visuals, although ok in detail, were completely static and were technically dated regarding environmental effects.  I really don't want to rehash this argument though as GW2 is a whole new game.  I just am skeptical because I thought their coding skills were very poor.  I give them credit as game theorists though so hopefully for GW2 they expanded their team with some more technical talent...

Originally posted by nomss

Originally posted by TwilightEdge

Originally posted by gainesvilleg

Originally posted by aSynchro

ANet are without a doubt skilled coders & designers...

I really have no idea why people keep saying this.  You did play GW1 right?  I would say they are skilled game theorists but definately NOT skilled coders.  I honestly believe the GW1 interface was technicallly one of the poorest interfaces of that time.  If there is one thing that keeps me skeptical of this game it is I have very little confidence in their coding skill.  I actually think they will get the theory down right, with good balance and gameplay features.  But I fear their lack of coding skill will be the potential dissapointing aspect of this.  This will manifest itself as clunky performance, graphical anomalies, poor control scheme, subpar graphics, etc.  The youtube clips certainly don't give me much more confidence either to be honest.  The features of the game sound pretty fun though...

you're kidding right? gW has still one of the best ui's abong mmos. When it was released it had incredible graphics (even on this very forum in news sections they were writing that screenshots are actualy in game b/c ppl didn;t believe them.. search and you will find it) and it run incredibly even on weak pcs. o_O

I am more inclined to go with that poster. The fact stands: Tera has seamless, why does not GW2?

I think it has got something with the engine that is being used, it is after all a heavily modified version of the GW1 engine. What also matters is the fact that TERA's world is rather static, compared to the world of GW2 (dynamic events and such) and allows less interactions between characters and the environment.

Originally posted by Somsbal

Originally posted by Bunks

Originally posted by someforumguy

In how many zones is Kryta divided up in GW2? I dont mean cities btw. In the videos so far I mainly saw loading screens for personal story instances and entering/leaving city.

You can walk across the whole world and never hit one, so long as you dont fast travel or enter a city/dungeon.

Which is why this whole thread is just silly nonsense.

False

Link please?

from GW2 wiki itself:

Are there going to be loading screens? Is it a completely seamless world?

There are loading screens when you travel between waypoints within a zone (this is because the player's computer has to load the environment at once, rather than gradually as the player's character approaches the destination). Between some zones there are portals which will trigger a loading screen like those in Guild Wars. Aside from access to cities and outposts, portals are rare.

Like I said, silly thread

Originally posted by nomss

Originally posted by TwilightEdge

Originally posted by gainesvilleg

Originally posted by aSynchro

ANet are without a doubt skilled coders & designers...

I really have no idea why people keep saying this.  You did play GW1 right?  I would say they are skilled game theorists but definately NOT skilled coders.  I honestly believe the GW1 interface was technicallly one of the poorest interfaces of that time.  If there is one thing that keeps me skeptical of this game it is I have very little confidence in their coding skill.  I actually think they will get the theory down right, with good balance and gameplay features.  But I fear their lack of coding skill will be the potential dissapointing aspect of this.  This will manifest itself as clunky performance, graphical anomalies, poor control scheme, subpar graphics, etc.  The youtube clips certainly don't give me much more confidence either to be honest.  The features of the game sound pretty fun though...

you're kidding right? gW has still one of the best ui's abong mmos. When it was released it had incredible graphics (even on this very forum in news sections they were writing that screenshots are actualy in game b/c ppl didn;t believe them.. search and you will find it) and it run incredibly even on weak pcs. o_O

I am more inclined to go with that poster. The fact stands: Tera has seamless, why does not GW2?

Because of PvP lag. Anet wants to put 100's of players into one zone, with sieges and multiple points of control. That zone has 4 maps, so by instancing them you can get smoother game play.

If you kept the zone open, there would be some 300+ players along with dozens of siege weapons and several towers and other control points.

Does TERA have this? NO, thats why they can be a bit more "seamless".

Remind me why it matters...  would travelling to a different continent in WOW in 2 hours with no loading screens be better than the 30 second trip with loading screens somehow?

What is it about no loading screens that makes the same boring old, grindy gameplay better than superior features with loading screens?

Tera looks absolutely gorgeous but I see all the signs of a standard run of the mill MMO. GW2 on the other hand may have loading screens but I'm about 20 times more interested in it because they are doing the things that actually matter in new and inovative ways.

GW2 also doesn't have lightsabres, does that mean that SWTOR is better? You guys are confusing me

Originally posted by Iselin

 

GW2 also doesn't have lightsabres, does that mean that SWTOR is better? You guys are confusing me

LOL.  Although, the Asura might have pokeballs that might be a plus 1 for some...

Originally posted by gainesvilleg

LOL.  One of the best UI's???  So I guess having the camera peg down so you couldn't see into the distance whenever you were on even a slight incline was great coding?  Having invisible walls everywhere, even to the point where you couldn't drop down a 3 foot cliff or hop a small fence was great coding?  Not even having the ability to jump at all was great coding 

UI = User Interface = Buttons, action bars, health bars, windows look, minimap etc.

What you're describing are coding limitations or design choices but have nothing to do with UI.

Originally posted by Bunks

Originally posted by Somsbal

Originally posted by Bunks

Originally posted by someforumguy

In how many zones is Kryta divided up in GW2? I dont mean cities btw. In the videos so far I mainly saw loading screens for personal story instances and entering/leaving city.

You can walk across the whole world and never hit one, so long as you dont fast travel or enter a city/dungeon.

Which is why this whole thread is just silly nonsense.

False

Link please?

from GW2 wiki itself:

Are there going to be loading screens? Is it a completely seamless world?

There are loading screens when you travel between waypoints within a zone (this is because the player's computer has to load the environment at once, rather than gradually as the player's character approaches the destination). Between some zones there are portals which will trigger a loading screen like those in Guild Wars. Aside from access to cities and outposts, portals are rare.

 

Like I said, silly thread

You said you could walk the whole world without hitting a loading screen once (except when teleporting or entering a city)

I said this was not true, and then you come here claiming you're right, EVEN after you just posted in red how there ARE portals between zones? Don't act like such a fanboy and just admit you were wrong.

You made it sound like there are only loading screens when entering a city or teleporting, wich is false.

Originally posted by Somsbal

Originally posted by Bunks

Originally posted by Somsbal

Originally posted by Bunks

Originally posted by someforumguy

In how many zones is Kryta divided up in GW2? I dont mean cities btw. In the videos so far I mainly saw loading screens for personal story instances and entering/leaving city.

You can walk across the whole world and never hit one, so long as you dont fast travel or enter a city/dungeon.

Which is why this whole thread is just silly nonsense.

False

Link please?

from GW2 wiki itself:

Are there going to be loading screens? Is it a completely seamless world?

There are loading screens when you travel between waypoints within a zone (this is because the player's computer has to load the environment at once, rather than gradually as the player's character approaches the destination). Between some zones there are portals which will trigger a loading screen like those in Guild Wars. Aside from access to cities and outposts, portals are rare.

 

Like I said, silly thread

You said you could walk the whole world without hitting a loading screen once (except when teleporting or entering a city)

I said this was not true, and then you come here claiming you're right, EVEN after you posted in red how there ARE portals between zones? Rare or not, they're still there. Don't spread false info.

You made it sound like there are only loading screens when entering a city or teleporting.

What's a portal?

Originally posted by nomss

Originally posted by Somsbal

Originally posted by Bunks

Originally posted by Somsbal

Originally posted by Bunks

Originally posted by someforumguy

In how many zones is Kryta divided up in GW2? I dont mean cities btw. In the videos so far I mainly saw loading screens for personal story instances and entering/leaving city.

You can walk across the whole world and never hit one, so long as you dont fast travel or enter a city/dungeon.

Which is why this whole thread is just silly nonsense.

False

Link please?

from GW2 wiki itself:

Are there going to be loading screens? Is it a completely seamless world?

There are loading screens when you travel between waypoints within a zone (this is because the player's computer has to load the environment at once, rather than gradually as the player's character approaches the destination). Between some zones there are portals which will trigger a loading screen like those in Guild Wars. Aside from access to cities and outposts, portals are rare.

 

Like I said, silly thread

You said you could walk the whole world without hitting a loading screen once (except when teleporting or entering a city)

I said this was not true, and then you come here claiming you're right, EVEN after you posted in red how there ARE portals between zones? Rare or not, they're still there. Don't spread false info.

You made it sound like there are only loading screens when entering a city or teleporting.

What's a portal?

Pretty much what everyone in this thread is talking about?

When going from one zone to another, you'll have to go through a portal (or a loading screen)

There are loading screens between waypoints when you map teleport, this is because the game has to load the area all at once. Otherwise it gradually loads. Asura gates allow for travel between cities and so it's a similar thing. I think it's just the cities that are broken up into loading areas, though many can be avoided by going a longer route around...just what i have noticed watching the game play videos.

---

Originally posted by cali59
After the first time you go into a new zone, you're going to teleport there every future time anyway, so it's not like not being seamless will affect much of anything.  If your game is based on teleportation, then it can't preload.
GW2 is said to be as big as GW1 plus all three of its expansions.  It's a little muddled because it's not directly talking about size of landmass as much as amount of content, but we should be able to gather that GW2's zones are very large.  In GW2, there's 25 zones.  In GW1, just the first three expansions have 120 explorable areas.  In GW1, you could run directly across a sizeable area in only a few minutes if the mobs didn't bother you.  I'm never going to be able to find it, but I'm pretty sure the quote was something like "15 minutes to run across but that was stopping for all the fights I couldn't avoid."  Whatever that means.  The point is that it's not like you're going to be hitting loading screens all the time.
With this new Overflow idea, I don't think they could make it seamless anyway.  It's going to stop and ask you if you want to travel to the overflow server or if you're going to want to wait and be notified when that zone in your server is below the limit. 

---

I don't know why this is so contentious. Sure, seamless is good, and adds to the world, but it isn't the most important thing. If there is a good reason to not have seamlessness in the same was as a game like WoW, then we shouldn't have it. There are any number of reasons why that might be the case. How the information for DEs and their states is used and stored. The overflow system is also a great reason to not have this seamlessness, and I think it is a much better thing to have, because it means you will never be forced to wait to play. How many times has that happened to you in WoW, for queues or server downtime. That won't happen in GW2, just as it didn't in GW1.

I do want to add, about the interview in your link, they say "From a sheer content perspective, volume of game space and stuff you can do, the first Guild Wars with all the expansion packs is about the same size as Guild Wars 2 will be on release – it’s massive."
Think, "volume of game space." Guild Wars was at the beginning a very, very large game. I imagine GW2 will be one of the largest game worlds, if not the largest game world, we've yet seen. With perhaps the most content.

3.) Massive World, But Not Seamless

The zones are absolutely huge, and there are so many of them it will take hundreds of hours to fully explore everything.  But before you ask, no… Tyria is not seamless like Azeroth.  It’s far less instanced and “walled in” than something like SWTOR, but you’ll still have to “zone” between zones.  The good news is that you won’t be doing this often at first, as the zones are absolutely huge.

Originally posted by Hycoo

3.) Massive World, But Not Seamless

The zones are absolutely huge, and there are so many of them it will take hundreds of hours to fully explore everything.  But before you ask, no… Tyria is not seamless like Azeroth.  It’s far less instanced and “walled in” than something like SWTOR, but you’ll still have to “zone” between zones.  The good news is that you won’t be doing this often at first, as the zones are absolutely huge.

 

I'd take zoning from time to time and have actually dynamic content in a live world than not zone and have a pathetic, static world any day of the week.

Originally posted by XAleX360

Originally posted by Hycoo

3.) Massive World, But Not Seamless

The zones are absolutely huge, and there are so many of them it will take hundreds of hours to fully explore everything.  But before you ask, no… Tyria is not seamless like Azeroth.  It’s far less instanced and “walled in” than something like SWTOR, but you’ll still have to “zone” between zones.  The good news is that you won’t be doing this often at first, as the zones are absolutely huge.

 

I'd take zoning from time to time and have actually dynamic content in a live world than not zone and have a pathetic, static world any day of the week.

Yes we all have our preferences. I just saw a lot of pages about if it was seamless or not and the answer was on this very website.

Originally posted by Adalwulff

 

 

Just so I got this straight, is there anything OTHER than immersion, that these loading screens ruin for you?

just so I got this straight, is there anything OTHER than the lack of oxygen that ruins breathing for you?

- Just a way of saying being 'immersed' in a simulated world is kinda the point of mmo's.

Originally posted by Leodious

---

Originally posted by cali59
After the first time you go into a new zone, you're going to teleport there every future time anyway, so it's not like not being seamless will affect much of anything.  If your game is based on teleportation, then it can't preload.
GW2 is said to be as big as GW1 plus all three of its expansions.  It's a little muddled because it's not directly talking about size of landmass as much as amount of content, but we should be able to gather that GW2's zones are very large.  In GW2, there's 25 zones.  In GW1, just the first three expansions have 120 explorable areas.  In GW1, you could run directly across a sizeable area in only a few minutes if the mobs didn't bother you.  I'm never going to be able to find it, but I'm pretty sure the quote was something like "15 minutes to run across but that was stopping for all the fights I couldn't avoid."  Whatever that means.  The point is that it's not like you're going to be hitting loading screens all the time.
With this new Overflow idea, I don't think they could make it seamless anyway.  It's going to stop and ask you if you want to travel to the overflow server or if you're going to want to wait and be notified when that zone in your server is below the limit. 

---

I don't know why this is so contentious. Sure, seamless is good, and adds to the world, but it isn't the most important thing. If there is a good reason to not have seamlessness in the same was as a game like WoW, then we shouldn't have it. There are any number of reasons why that might be the case. How the information for DEs and their states is used and stored. The overflow system is also a great reason to not have this seamlessness, and I think it is a much better thing to have, because it means you will never be forced to wait to play. How many times has that happened to you in WoW, for queues or server downtime. That won't happen in GW2, just as it didn't in GW1.

I do want to add, about the interview in your link, they say "From a sheer content perspective, volume of game space and stuff you can do, the first Guild Wars with all the expansion packs is about the same size as Guild Wars 2 will be on release – it’s massive."
Think, "volume of game space." Guild Wars was at the beginning a very, very large game. I imagine GW2 will be one of the largest game worlds, if not the largest game world, we've yet seen. With perhaps the most content.