Trending Games | WildStar | World of Warcraft | Elder Scrolls Online | Guild Wars 2

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,638,334 Users Online:0
Games:678  Posts:6,073,349
ArenaNet | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 08/28/12)  | Pub:NCSoft
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download,Retail | Retail Price:$49.99 | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:n/a
System Req: PC Mac | Out of date info? Let us know!

Guild Wars 2 Forum » General Discussion » Open World vs Instances Fail or Future?

3 Pages « 1 2 3 Search
59 posts found
  Bad.dog

Elite Member

Joined: 5/20/10
Posts: 849

12/12/12 3:19:56 PM#41
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by botrytis
Originally posted by Wootloops
Originally posted by botrytis

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

TERA, brah. Other than swapping continents.

Tera is zoned. You cannot run from one are to the other. You fly, which is basically what you do in WoW - that is your zoning. So instead of a loading screen, you see a movie of you flying on Pegasus - potato/potatoe - it is the same thing.

Vanguard doesn't have zones.

Graphics don't really have anything to do with whether or not a game is seamless or instanced.

Vanguard also has no players ...having no zones didn't really help here did it?

  DoomsDay01

Apprentice Member

Joined: 5/14/08
Posts: 774

12/12/12 3:54:20 PM#42
Originally posted by Bad.dog
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by botrytis
Originally posted by Wootloops
Originally posted by botrytis

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

TERA, brah. Other than swapping continents.

Tera is zoned. You cannot run from one are to the other. You fly, which is basically what you do in WoW - that is your zoning. So instead of a loading screen, you see a movie of you flying on Pegasus - potato/potatoe - it is the same thing.

Vanguard doesn't have zones.

Graphics don't really have anything to do with whether or not a game is seamless or instanced.

Vanguard also has no players ...having no zones didn't really help here did it?

Vanguard HAD players. The problem was that there was no support for the game. When sony bought it, all they really did was try to do some bug fixes and balance issues. In doing so, they really did screw up some of the classes that was perfectly fine if people learned how to play them properly, instead of just complaining about how terrible it was to be class X. If sony had really devoted to this game, it could have been really popular.

  User Deleted
12/12/12 4:14:19 PM#43
Originally posted by DoomsDay01

Vanguard HAD players. The problem was that there was no support for the game.

My memory is quite different, and I'm one of the few who enjoyed his time in Vanguard despite its flaws. I actually still have it installed today, so I can visit sometimes since it's F2P now.

My memory is that Vanguard was a bug, and more important, LAG ridden mess since day one. There were invisible "zone" borders where your computer would suddenly "stop" and you needed 30+ seconds to several minutes of waiting before it finished loading. The only difference is that there was no loading screen. The graphic engine performance was sub par, and also very unstable, crashing as soon as someone was farting in the same room than the computer which was running the game (exagerated, but you see the point).

The concept of Vanguard? Great. But theory doesn't always work in reality. The only reason why Vanguard "works" today is because there's barely anyone left to play it, but the game was in no way able, technologically wise, to accept the "normal" population of a MMORPG.

If anything, World of Warcraft was way more successful at providing an almost seamless world than Vanguard - at least at its release in 2004, not now with the dozens of layers of "phasing".

  Xiaoki

Hard Core Member

Joined: 3/07/04
Posts: 2369

12/12/12 4:23:35 PM#44


Originally posted by botrytis

Originally posted by Wootloops

Originally posted by botrytis There is no game with fantastic graphics that is not zoned, currently.
TERA, brah. Other than swapping continents.
Tera is zoned. You cannot run from one are to the other. You fly, which is basically what you do in WoW - that is your zoning. So instead of a loading screen, you see a movie of you flying on Pegasus - potato/potatoe - it is the same thing.


What the heck are you talking about?


In Tera you can walk from 1 zone to another.


Please stop spreading misinformation.

  DoomsDay01

Apprentice Member

Joined: 5/14/08
Posts: 774

12/12/12 4:28:40 PM#45
Originally posted by The_Korrigan
Originally posted by DoomsDay01

Vanguard HAD players. The problem was that there was no support for the game.

My memory is quite different, and I'm one of the few who enjoyed his time in Vanguard despite its flaws. I actually still have it installed today, so I can visit sometimes since it's F2P now.

My memory is that Vanguard was a bug, and more important, LAG ridden mess since day one. There were invisible "zone" borders where your computer would suddenly "stop" and you needed dozens of seconds of waiting before it finished loading. The only difference is that there was no loading screen. The graphic engine performance was sub par, and also very unstable, crashing as soon as someone was farting in the same room than the computer which was running the game (exagerated, but you see the point).

The concept of Vanguard? Great. But theory doesn't always work in reality.

If anything, World of Warcraft was way more successful at providing an almost seamless world than Vanguard - at least at its release in 2004, not now with the dozens of layers of "phasing".

My gaming experience was hugely different than yours. I rarely had lag problems in the game. My entire group of friends never had lag problems. Yes we experienced the zoning issues that I even mentioned in this thread earlier but that was the probably the worst issue we ever had with the game. The only other problem which was also related to zoning was if you were flying and you zoned, you had probably a 50/50 chance of not being on your bird when you finally zoned in and you fell to your death. Once you were in an area for more then 30 seconds, our framerates were fine and we played fluidly without all the graphics issues people complained about. Now, we all had high end rigs that we all built ourself and we built them specifically for gaming and we are all in the IT field, so maybe that was one reason we didnt have these problems that lots of other folks did. Crashing to the desktop was also a rare occurance for us. We played daily for hours at a time and we might encounter one of us crashing to the desktop, maybe once-twice a week. That again, didnt seem that bad for a game that was very hardware oriented. We also all played on high graphics settings and what we saw was a beautiful game world with extremely rich detail. The only real complaint I ever had about the characters in the game was their running animation, it was god aweful!

You want to try and compare vanguard to wow? A game that was made for low end machines? Heck I can still remember one of my guildmates in EQ1 that took 5 minutes to zone EVERY time he hit a zone line Yet that same rig would have played wow with little issues.

 

I to still have vanguard installed. I play it once every few weeks or so just for fun. heck I still have EQ1 and EQ2 installed lol.

  kitarad

Advanced Member

Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 855

12/12/12 4:34:28 PM#46
I recall as a necromancer you chunked and your pet poofed. God I have no idea where all this rose tinted glasses came from but boy was Vanguard a buggy mess. It was simply terrible. I did come back months later when almost everyone had left it played better and it was probably because of the lack of population. There were good things like the crafting but the game was very bad at launch almost unplayable at times. That is why people left.

  Rimmersman

Advanced Member

Joined: 10/15/12
Posts: 911

12/12/12 4:44:58 PM#47
Originally posted by The_Korrigan
Originally posted by DoomsDay01

Vanguard HAD players. The problem was that there was no support for the game.

My memory is quite different, and I'm one of the few who enjoyed his time in Vanguard despite its flaws. I actually still have it installed today, so I can visit sometimes since it's F2P now.

My memory is that Vanguard was a bug, and more important, LAG ridden mess since day one. There were invisible "zone" borders where your computer would suddenly "stop" and you needed 30+ seconds to several minutes of waiting before it finished loading. The only difference is that there was no loading screen. The graphic engine performance was sub par, and also very unstable, crashing as soon as someone was farting in the same room than the computer which was running the game (exagerated, but you see the point).

The concept of Vanguard? Great. But theory doesn't always work in reality. The only reason why Vanguard "works" today is because there's barely anyone left to play it, but the game was in no way able, technologically wise, to accept the "normal" population of a MMORPG.

If anything, World of Warcraft was way more successful at providing an almost seamless world than Vanguard - at least at its release in 2004, not now with the dozens of layers of "phasing".

Vanguard has chunking not zoning and ive played for nearly six years and never heard of anyone taking several minutes to chunk. If your going to bs then at least do it convincingly lol.

In the early days chunking was off but then the client was buggy but even then chunking only took up to 30 secs on the crappist PC. Now chunking is hardly noticable taking me two to five secs max, SSD is key to ultra fast chunking.

 

Vanguard does not have zones they are chunks, when you cross a chunk line you do not disappear . If me and you were in a group and i crossed a chunk line i would be able to see you across the other side of that chunk line that how mobs in vanguard can follow you across chunk lines.

 

There is no loading bar and no disappearing from view. Vanguard has no instances and i can go from one end of the world to the other without hitting any walls, it would take more hours than i would like.

 

Its an open world, i can use riftways but i am not forced to use them,i can get to my destination by flying or sailing or land mount. 

http://vanguard.wikia.com/wiki/Chunks

Serveral minutes to chunk, dont make me laugh.

 

 

  muffins89

Hard Core Member

Joined: 10/15/12
Posts: 1247

12/12/12 4:54:26 PM#48
Originally posted by Fion
Originally posted by Rimmersman

 

GW2 may not be as instanced as GW1 but it's still full of instancing, multiple copies of world's and instanced dungeon , it's not an open world.

 

I assume you speak of overflows. This is a common misconception. When you are in an overflow you aren't in another 'instance' of the map you're in, you are actually on an entirely different server, one that takes in extra players from a select group of servers. Don't believe me? Next time you are in an overflow, ask in /map what server everyone is from. :)

And yes it does have instanced dungeons, but frankly what themepark MMOG doesn't these days? lol

just becuase they use the term overflow "server" doesnt mean it's not an instance.

I think the prostitute mod corrupted your game files man. -elhefen

  Rimmersman

Advanced Member

Joined: 10/15/12
Posts: 911

12/12/12 5:10:02 PM#49
Originally posted by botrytis
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by botrytis
Originally posted by Wootloops
Originally posted by botrytis

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

TERA, brah. Other than swapping continents.

Tera is zoned. You cannot run from one are to the other. You fly, which is basically what you do in WoW - that is your zoning. So instead of a loading screen, you see a movie of you flying on Pegasus - potato/potatoe - it is the same thing.

Vanguard doesn't have zones.

Graphics don't really have anything to do with whether or not a game is seamless or instanced.

But Vanguard was a clusterf*&k game in my opinion. Not even worth mentioning. It was also WAY smaller than GW2 - in fact it was way smaller than GW1 which even when though instanced was bigger). You can do open if you have a teeny-tiny world.

Vanguard smaller than GW2 lol, delusional at best.Vanguard is way bigger that GW2  in every way. Come on you can BS better than that surely,Vanguard has more content than GW2, in fact it trumps GW2 for content  and world seize .

 

19 races 15 different starting areas all with their own quest line. You could play Vanguard for two years and not see all content on one character let alone atls.

 

 

16 classes with one class being three in one. It's actually embarrising reading the desperate attemtpts by some GW2 fans trying to convince us that GW2 is an open world.

  Volkon

Advanced Member

Joined: 9/14/10
Posts: 3804

Facts do not require fiction for balance.

12/12/12 5:40:16 PM#50
Originally posted by muffins89
Originally posted by Fion
Originally posted by Rimmersman

 

GW2 may not be as instanced as GW1 but it's still full of instancing, multiple copies of world's and instanced dungeon , it's not an open world.

 

I assume you speak of overflows. This is a common misconception. When you are in an overflow you aren't in another 'instance' of the map you're in, you are actually on an entirely different server, one that takes in extra players from a select group of servers. Don't believe me? Next time you are in an overflow, ask in /map what server everyone is from. :)

And yes it does have instanced dungeons, but frankly what themepark MMOG doesn't these days? lol

just becuase they use the term overflow "server" doesnt mean it's not an instance.

 Do you know what an instance is? Do you know what a server is? I'm not convinced you do at the moment.

Oderint, dum metuant.

  Maelzrael

Advanced Member

Joined: 5/15/12
Posts: 256

Waiting for Wildstar.

12/12/12 5:43:46 PM#51

Loading screens have been a part of video games since before I was born.. do you remember how long you had to wait just to Start the game? You'd tap that A button over and over hopeing to get the to the start screen for damn near 20 minutes it felt like.

So... No I really dont care about loading screens or instances.. to me its whatever.. if it makes the game more stable and run better then its fine by me.

Comparing Gw1 to Gw2 instances though... Gw2 is way better.. because all the other players share them with you.. unlike gw1 where you had to group up b4 hand. That sucked and everyone just used henchman anyways.

  SuprGamerX

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/05/09
Posts: 538

12/12/12 5:46:33 PM#52
If it ain't broke , don't fix it.  GW1 instanced approach was great.  They should of stick to it with GW2 , instances was GW1 signature.   Arenanet screwed up with GW2.  Cheer up ya'll , more upcoming releases are underway !! :)
  HorrorScope

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/04/05
Posts: 609

12/12/12 9:38:34 PM#53
Whatever you want to call GW's larger open area's. I think the game would have done much better if that was all there was PvE wise, no dungeons, keep adding to the world, give real reason for 80's to be in any zone. Give each zone/city some huge reoccuring DE that rotates days. And make each zone a server and overflow from there. That way all players can get to one another, like GW1.
  Kuro1n

Novice Member

Joined: 1/03/07
Posts: 774

12/12/12 9:45:05 PM#54
GW2 is a open world game however not instanced (other than overflow and dungeons etc). There is obviously an audience for this but its not as easy as to say 'fail or future'.
  DoomsDay01

Apprentice Member

Joined: 5/14/08
Posts: 774

12/13/12 12:42:31 AM#55
Originally posted by Kuro1n
GW2 is a open world game however not instanced (other than overflow and dungeons etc). There is obviously an audience for this but its not as easy as to say 'fail or future'.

Sorry but you are wrong. If you have an overflow queue that is an exact copy of the world, then you are an instanced world. Anytime there is a chance for you to be in a copy of an area, that is in fact instancing.

  dimnikar

Novice Member

Joined: 11/06/12
Posts: 277

12/13/12 3:52:27 AM#56
Originally posted by Volkon
Originally posted by muffins89
Originally posted by Fion
Originally posted by Rimmersman

 

GW2 may not be as instanced as GW1 but it's still full of instancing, multiple copies of world's and instanced dungeon , it's not an open world.

 

I assume you speak of overflows. This is a common misconception. When you are in an overflow you aren't in another 'instance' of the map you're in, you are actually on an entirely different server, one that takes in extra players from a select group of servers. Don't believe me? Next time you are in an overflow, ask in /map what server everyone is from. :)

And yes it does have instanced dungeons, but frankly what themepark MMOG doesn't these days? lol

just becuase they use the term overflow "server" doesnt mean it's not an instance.

 Do you know what an instance is? Do you know what a server is? I'm not convinced you do at the moment.

Considering how *ALL* incidental services are run as a separate instance (or thread) of the same process, rather than cold-booting an actual, bolts & circuits dedicated server MACHINE, I'm not surprised at the level of confusion surrounding terms like realms, instances, zones, etc., heavily influenced by marketing and without much basis in what actually goes on at the technical side of things.

At best (or worst, depending how much you understand about virtualization), overflow servers are separate virtual servers spun up as needed - and even then, in it's very essence, that's still an instance.

 

While I'm sure this didn't make much sense to as many people as I'd like, I felt it needed to be said.

http://lyrics.iztok.org/verse/Lynyrd_Skynyrd/Simple_Man/80615

  Rimmersman

Advanced Member

Joined: 10/15/12
Posts: 911

12/13/12 4:57:59 AM#57
Originally posted by Kuro1n
GW2 is a open world game however not instanced (other than overflow and dungeons etc). There is obviously an audience for this but its not as easy as to say 'fail or future'.

Lol, way to contradict yourself.

 

GW2 is an open world not instanced other than the overflow and the instanced dungeons lmfao.

 

 

GW2 is a zoning world where loading between areas is the only way to get around the world. It also has instances,this alone stops it from being an open world mmo. I can't go whereever i like i cant fly over vast mountain ranges, i can't sail the seas to get to the different racial areas.

 

I like your line thought..

 

GW2 is an open world except overflow and instance.

  Volkon

Advanced Member

Joined: 9/14/10
Posts: 3804

Facts do not require fiction for balance.

12/13/12 6:53:11 AM#58
Originally posted by Rimmersman
Originally posted by Kuro1n
GW2 is a open world game however not instanced (other than overflow and dungeons etc). There is obviously an audience for this but its not as easy as to say 'fail or future'.

Lol, way to contradict yourself.

 

GW2 is an open world not instanced other than the overflow and the instanced dungeons lmfao.

 

 

GW2 is a zoning world where loading between areas is the only way to get around the world. It also has instances,this alone stops it from being an open world mmo. I can't go whereever i like i cant fly over vast mountain ranges, i can't sail the seas to get to the different racial areas.

 

I like your line thought..

 

GW2 is an open world except overflow and instance.

 

There's no contradictions here at all. 

 

* The PvE world is open world broken up into zones. The zones are required due to the dynamic content.

* Dungeons are competitive PvP areas are instanced, by design. These are meant to be private instances of these areas for a small group to handle.

* WvW is open world PvP broken up into four zones. 

 

No one is claiming otherwise on any of these. It's a simple fact that when you load into any PvE zone or WvW zone you're entering into an open area with all players that choose to go in there as well. It's also fact that when you load into a dungeon or sPvP match you're in a private instance meant for limited people.

 

Overflows are separate servers that people get shunted off into when the zone on their server is full. Yes, actual servers, not instances as someone ridiculously claimed above. They're open world as well (no PvP or WvW tied to them).

Oderint, dum metuant.

  Kuro1n

Novice Member

Joined: 1/03/07
Posts: 774

12/14/12 12:30:38 AM#59

Indeed Volkon, there is no contradiction they just can't properly read the line. Zoning is not about instancing, it's about seamless or not and while the game has instances it is played as an open world and the overflow is simply to make sure people have a smooth experience instead of camping mobs all day etc. Guess that line is too advanced to grasp though for some people. 

3 Pages « 1 2 3 Search