Or was it better with the instances like in Guild Wars 1 ?

We're slowly seeing the problems they created a month after launch and on nov 16th start to affect the population.

It's getting to where people just don't want to login anymore. And I can relate. Even the dungeoneers don't want to do the fractals and that i find is most telling.

Instances defined GW1 and are what the game successful, it was the key ingredient in the formula for its success. It had an affect on many gameplay elements that made GW1 a winner that weren't apparent at the time until now when GW2 did the opposite approach. Respawning mobs- immersion killing, zergs - no challenge. For me anyway the things that made GW1 fun arent in GW2 and after 17 hours in 2 days of playing Ive had enough! next.

Originally posted by Caldrin
Open world is the only way an MMORPG should be and thats it.. but GW2 is not a true open world game.. so not sure why its posted in the GW2 section..

I disagree. There are some very valid reasons to make your MMOG 'zoned' over a fully open world. These tend to be technical but the differences are also rather obvious. Let’s compare WoW (a fully open world, accept continent - continent) and Guild Wars 2, a world divided into several dozen 'hard zones'. Now the reasons to have an open world are obvious, no loading screens, the feeling of a seamless world that you can walk across, etc. But there are also downsides to having an open world. Because the loading has to be kept minimal enough to avoid a loading screen, art assets, texture sets, the color palette have to remain largely the same as there is a limited 'budget' for each of these things and without a loading screen very little of it can be dumped between zones. This is why from one zone to the next, little tends to change in WoW. Buildings are re-used, trees look pretty much the same (with different color foliage), the color palette is the same. The game (like all games) has a limited texture and polygon budget and without a full load the constraints are tighter. The only time we see significant changes is if you switch continents, which requires a full load but also allows the game to drop previous assets, and load new ones.

Adversely this is why many games that still use hard zones have such great graphics. GW2 is perhaps most noted for its beauty. Each zone is stunning in its detail. The game requiring a full load each zone means they can use a whole new set of assets, color palettes, textures, etc. Each zone tends to have a fairly unique look (though each region tends to be themed in GW2) and zoning from one to the next can bring significant changes because with each load brings entirely new assets, a new texture and poly budgets, etc.

So it's a trade off. Neither is necessarily the 'only way to go'. Some folks tend to prefer an open world obviously. To me so long as the loading is kept to a minimum, I am 100% fine with hard zones, and in some ways prefer it. GW2 is fantastic in that dept, with loading screens generally under 3 seconds for me accept specific maps like Lion’s Arch.

Originally posted by muffins89
i wouldn't call guild wars 2 open world.  as it's heavily zoned and spereated by loading screens.  i hope to see less of that in games to come.  bring back seemless worlds.

There is a difference between open zones and instances - Instances you are in by yourself and/or your group (think all of GW1 besides the lobby towns and GW2 dungeons and PS). The reason for the zones in GW2 is the areas are pretty large and if the whole world was on one server at once, the server would choke. It is a way to make the servers a little less expensive.

There is no game with fantastic graphics that is not zoned, currently.

Originally posted by botrytis

There is no game with fantastic graphics that is not zoned, currently.

Exactly. See my post above for why that is.

Originally posted by botrytis

There is no game with fantastic graphics that is not zoned, currently.

TERA, brah. Other than swapping continents.

Originally posted by bigtime102

Instances defined GW1 and are what the game successful, it was the key ingredient in the formula for its success. It had an affect on many gameplay elements that made GW1 a winner that weren't apparent at the time until now when GW2 did the opposite approach. Respawning mobs- immersion killing, zergs - no challenge. For me anyway the things that made GW1 fun arent in GW2 and after 17 hours in 2 days of playing Ive had enough! next.

I agree with instances from gw1. Open world take the challenge and the scaling system obviously doesn't work, not as goos as it should be. Its probably not possible to ballance the open world to work, or its extreamly complicated to do so. This is indeed what bothers me the most. But, !!!dungeons!!! are instances for 5 players and still they are way to easy, once you know the fights. Again different from GW1, where dungeons are hard even if you know how to do it, there is still a challenge to them. Why did they made this decision?! At least Dungeons should be hard...

Rift is largely seemless, and has graphics tehcnically as good as GW2, or better (poly counts, textures - disregarding design which is a matter of taste).

Instancing the game world has likely more to do with managing players within that world than an actual limitation of graphics engines; 7 year old consolees can manage high detailed sprawling worlds (RDR, Skyrim, GTA IV, BF3) that hold many more assets than a typical MMORPG does - not counting the variety of player controlled characters (my explanation above).

Originally posted by bigtime102

Or was it better with the instances like in Guild Wars 1 ?

Originally posted by Fion

Originally posted by Caldrin
Open world is the only way an MMORPG should be and thats it.. but GW2 is not a true open world game.. so not sure why its posted in the GW2 section..

 

I disagree. There are some very valid reasons to make your MMOG 'zoned' over a fully open world. These tend to be technical but the differences are also rather obvious. Let’s compare WoW (a fully open world, accept continent - continent) and Guild Wars 2, a world divided into several dozen 'hard zones'. Now the reasons to have an open world are obvious, no loading screens, the feeling of a seamless world that you can walk across, etc. But there are also downsides to having an open world. Because the loading has to be kept minimal enough to avoid a loading screen, art assets, texture sets, the color palette have to remain largely the same as there is a limited 'budget' for each of these things and without a loading screen very little of it can be dumped between zones. This is why from one zone to the next, little tends to change in WoW. Buildings are re-used, trees look pretty much the same (with different color foliage), the color palette is the same. The game (like all games) has a limited texture and polygon budget and without a full load the constraints are tighter. The only time we see significant changes is if you switch continents, which requires a full load but also allows the game to drop previous assets, and load new ones.

Adversely this is why many games that still use hard zones have such great graphics. GW2 is perhaps most noted for its beauty. Each zone is stunning in its detail. The game requiring a full load each zone means they can use a whole new set of assets, color palettes, textures, etc. Each zone tends to have a fairly unique look (though each region tends to be themed in GW2) and zoning from one to the next can bring significant changes because with each load brings entirely new assets, a new texture and poly budgets, etc.

So it's a trade off. Neither is necessarily the 'only way to go'. Some folks tend to prefer an open world obviously. To me so long as the loading is kept to a minimum, I am 100% fine with hard zones, and in some ways prefer it. GW2 is fantastic in that dept, with loading screens generally under 3 seconds for me accept specific maps like Lion’s Arch.

Originally posted by Rimmersman

Originally posted by Fion

Originally posted by Caldrin
Open world is the only way an MMORPG should be and thats it.. but GW2 is not a true open world game.. so not sure why its posted in the GW2 section..

 

I disagree. There are some very valid reasons to make your MMOG 'zoned' over a fully open world. These tend to be technical but the differences are also rather obvious. Let’s compare WoW (a fully open world, accept continent - continent) and Guild Wars 2, a world divided into several dozen 'hard zones'. Now the reasons to have an open world are obvious, no loading screens, the feeling of a seamless world that you can walk across, etc. But there are also downsides to having an open world. Because the loading has to be kept minimal enough to avoid a loading screen, art assets, texture sets, the color palette have to remain largely the same as there is a limited 'budget' for each of these things and without a loading screen very little of it can be dumped between zones. This is why from one zone to the next, little tends to change in WoW. Buildings are re-used, trees look pretty much the same (with different color foliage), the color palette is the same. The game (like all games) has a limited texture and polygon budget and without a full load the constraints are tighter. The only time we see significant changes is if you switch continents, which requires a full load but also allows the game to drop previous assets, and load new ones.

Adversely this is why many games that still use hard zones have such great graphics. GW2 is perhaps most noted for its beauty. Each zone is stunning in its detail. The game requiring a full load each zone means they can use a whole new set of assets, color palettes, textures, etc. Each zone tends to have a fairly unique look (though each region tends to be themed in GW2) and zoning from one to the next can bring significant changes because with each load brings entirely new assets, a new texture and poly budgets, etc.

So it's a trade off. Neither is necessarily the 'only way to go'. Some folks tend to prefer an open world obviously. To me so long as the loading is kept to a minimum, I am 100% fine with hard zones, and in some ways prefer it. GW2 is fantastic in that dept, with loading screens generally under 3 seconds for me accept specific maps like Lion’s Arch.

 

All that you have written does not get away from the fact that GW2 is not an open world, it's full of instancing.

Its actually zoned, with some instances.

The PvP is fully zoned.

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by Rimmersman

Originally posted by Fion

Originally posted by Caldrin
Open world is the only way an MMORPG should be and thats it.. but GW2 is not a true open world game.. so not sure why its posted in the GW2 section..

 

I disagree. There are some very valid reasons to make your MMOG 'zoned' over a fully open world. These tend to be technical but the differences are also rather obvious. Let’s compare WoW (a fully open world, accept continent - continent) and Guild Wars 2, a world divided into several dozen 'hard zones'. Now the reasons to have an open world are obvious, no loading screens, the feeling of a seamless world that you can walk across, etc. But there are also downsides to having an open world. Because the loading has to be kept minimal enough to avoid a loading screen, art assets, texture sets, the color palette have to remain largely the same as there is a limited 'budget' for each of these things and without a loading screen very little of it can be dumped between zones. This is why from one zone to the next, little tends to change in WoW. Buildings are re-used, trees look pretty much the same (with different color foliage), the color palette is the same. The game (like all games) has a limited texture and polygon budget and without a full load the constraints are tighter. The only time we see significant changes is if you switch continents, which requires a full load but also allows the game to drop previous assets, and load new ones.

Adversely this is why many games that still use hard zones have such great graphics. GW2 is perhaps most noted for its beauty. Each zone is stunning in its detail. The game requiring a full load each zone means they can use a whole new set of assets, color palettes, textures, etc. Each zone tends to have a fairly unique look (though each region tends to be themed in GW2) and zoning from one to the next can bring significant changes because with each load brings entirely new assets, a new texture and poly budgets, etc.

So it's a trade off. Neither is necessarily the 'only way to go'. Some folks tend to prefer an open world obviously. To me so long as the loading is kept to a minimum, I am 100% fine with hard zones, and in some ways prefer it. GW2 is fantastic in that dept, with loading screens generally under 3 seconds for me accept specific maps like Lion’s Arch.

 

All that you have written does not get away from the fact that GW2 is not an open world, it's full of instancing.

 

Its actually zoned, with some instances.

The PvP is fully zoned.

Originally posted by The_Korrigan
One would think that 16+ years after the release of the first mainstream graphical MMORPG, all would have understood the difference between zones and instances.

Like I said... it's nothing to do with graphics. It's about keeping track of everything that's currently happening in the zone. Static quest givers can be treated as pieces of terrain, always there with no extra processing required. However with the dynamic events the system has to keep track of every NPC as though they were players... location, state (dead, alive, where in their event chain they are, etc.) and all that. You can't simply load the immediate area someone is in like in an apparently seamless world... when you load into a zone you need to have all the information available for all the events and NPCs in that zone.

Get used to zones, they'll be the norm in the future as more content becomes more and more dynamic.