You guys are seriously delusional if you think Vanguard was seamless. Chunking was anything but, in some cases I could load an entire EQ zone faster then VG would chunk in some areas.
And, of course, whenever you chunked the game would bug out in a number of different ways; such as: losing a monster you just pulled, warping above or below the world, doing a 360 so you walked right back into the chunk, crash to desktop, map bugging out, ping spiking in the thousands and a dozen other reasons I'm forgetting.
Now if Pantheon was seamless like vanilla WoW where you didn't even notice and load screens were few and far between then sure I'm all for it.
Not sure what you ran Vanguard on, but even at launch it didn't take long for me to load over. After I got a solid state, it became almost instantaneous. It was also the fact that there was no load screens at the end and you could see into the next area. The way EQ not only separated zones by little tunnels and didn't allow you to see the next zone and while you were waiting, you were taken to a load screen, was no conducive to immersion.
You guys are seriously delusional if you think Vanguard was seamless. Chunking was anything but, in some cases I could load an entire EQ zone faster then VG would chunk in some areas.
And, of course, whenever you chunked the game would bug out in a number of different ways; such as: losing a monster you just pulled, warping above or below the world, doing a 360 so you walked right back into the chunk, crash to desktop, map bugging out, ping spiking in the thousands and a dozen other reasons I'm forgetting.
Now if Pantheon was seamless like vanilla WoW where you didn't even notice and load screens were few and far between then sure I'm all for it.
Not sure what you ran Vanguard on, but even at launch it didn't take long for me to load over. After I got a solid state, it became almost instantaneous. It was also the fact that there was no load screens at the end and you could see into the next area. The way EQ not only separated zones by little tunnels and didn't allow you to see the next zone and while you were waiting, you were taken to a load screen, was no conducive to immersion.
Lets not kid ourselves, almost no one had SSD's back when VG launched and even many years after. I had an SSD toward the end and I would hardly call it seamless even then. Chunking was still very noticable, at best. Let me guess, the entire game was smooth and flawless on your system and everyone that quit before lv 4 because of hardware requirements are idiots?
Seeing the next area takes a back seat to developers actually finishing those areas, which they didn't. There were many huge parts of the map that were completely empty of anything in VG. At least separate zones imply content instead of chunking into nothingness over and over. There's a reason VG had one dying server and two dead servers in it's prime....
And finally, half the EQ zones, you could see exactly where you were zoning. Just use your amazing nonexistent SSD that makes VG chunking instant and use it on instant zone loading instead eh? The loading screen was your fault anyways since it was completely optional, you could turn it off in the menu.
You guys are seriously delusional if you think Vanguard was seamless. Chunking was anything but, in some cases I could load an entire EQ zone faster then VG would chunk in some areas.
And, of course, whenever you chunked the game would bug out in a number of different ways; such as: losing a monster you just pulled, warping above or below the world, doing a 360 so you walked right back into the chunk, crash to desktop, map bugging out, ping spiking in the thousands and a dozen other reasons I'm forgetting.
Now if Pantheon was seamless like vanilla WoW where you didn't even notice and load screens were few and far between then sure I'm all for it.
Not sure what you ran Vanguard on, but even at launch it didn't take long for me to load over. After I got a solid state, it became almost instantaneous. It was also the fact that there was no load screens at the end and you could see into the next area. The way EQ not only separated zones by little tunnels and didn't allow you to see the next zone and while you were waiting, you were taken to a load screen, was no conducive to immersion.
Lets not kid ourselves, almost no one had SSD's back when VG launched and even many years after. I had an SSD toward the end and I would hardly call it seamless even then. Chunking was still very noticable, at best. Let me guess, the entire game was smooth and flawless on your system and everyone that quit before lv 4 because of hardware requirements are idiots?
Seeing the next area takes a back seat to developers actually finishing those areas, which they didn't. There were many huge parts of the map that were completely empty of anything in VG. At least separate zones imply content instead of chunking into nothingness over and over. There's a reason VG had one dying server and two dead servers in it's prime....
And finally, half the EQ zones, you could see exactly where you were zoning. Just use your amazing nonexistent SSD that makes VG chunking instant and use it on instant zone loading instead eh? The loading screen was your fault anyways since it was completely optional, you could turn it off in the menu.
Aside from the incoherent parts, I agree. Vanguard had plenty of issues, and didn't run perfectly even on the $2k pc I built to play it, but it still felt more open and connected than EQ where thhe majority of zone lines were in small openings in the zone wall between two areas... The option to turn off the load screen didn't always exist in EQ, and for 3 years I played it, loading took quite a while. The fact remains, the disconnect between areas detracts from immersion. Like I said, not game-breaking, but disappointing.
Darkfall uw has the best seamless world I've seen in the genre. It is smooth and I dont notice the chunking load lag that I did in VG. I don't think zone lines matter too much unless the zones feel artificially walled in.
To their credit, WoW did an amazing job with the world rebuild for Cataclysm.
You can walk/fly across pretty much every inch of the continent with zero lag or load times.
The Pantheon webpage images show me a world with similar graphical quality to The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion.
That's what, 2006?
WoW was 2004 with an engine dating back to 2000 or earlier.
Only excuse for zoning and chunking and lag etc. is bad coding, poor optimization.
Sorry, it's the truth.
GW2, made by a company with a GREAT history of writing amazing network code (their founder pretty much wrote battle.net) only was zoned because the game required so much instancing and phasing with the way they did the story-mode stuff.
If GW2 would have scrapped the whole personal story stuff (wouldn't that have been nice?) I promise 100% there wouldn't have been a single zone line. (other than the group-dungeons of course, like WoW)
SWTOR was the same way - really, really crappy engine implementation, terrible optimization and net code. They bought a pre-beta version of the Hero engine and hacked the crap out of it to even get it to work at all for what they were trying to do - again, heavily instanced and phased for story- even the guys behind Hero engine distanced themselves from the wreck that Bioware made with it.
Really surprised no-one is making an MMO utilizing the Frostbite engine. That thing scales nearly infinitely and is made for network function. Same with the Dunia 2 engine used for Farcry 3/4, with features ripped into the Anvil engine for Assassin's Creed: Black Flag and Unity.
I would definitely prefer a seamless world over an instanced one. It's one of the things i liked about WoW, before they began with the increasing use of phasing in the game.
I betaed Vanguard and played it at launch .Loved the game but I shall not gloss over the chunking,that was very bad. In fact so bad almost all my guild quit in short order. It was a good game but for the technical issues the bad was very bad but the open world where you could go to dungeons and there would be different groups in there .That reminded me so much of EQ and I think the open world part was not the issue it was the engine.
Originally posted by cheyane I betaed Vanguard and played it at launch .Loved the game but I shall not gloss over the chunking,that was very bad. In fact so bad almost all my guild quit in short order. It was a good game but for the technical issues the bad was very bad but the open world where you could go to dungeons and there would be different groups in there .That reminded me so much of EQ and I think the open world part was not the issue it was the engine.
For me personal an open world is more a world where the content is spread out much better than for example in WoW. EQ is a great example of that where you can find content for many level ranges in each zone. This lead also that high and low level players met and you could help a low level player with a high level buff so they could feel like a hero for an hour or two while they carried their rusty sword. I also enjoyed VSoH beta. The world felt epic. Sadly the game was far from finished at release.
What I worries about now is that some zones maybe isn't big enough and they feel linear. The trailers I have seen so far shows a mix of the two worlds (open and linear), but as we have only seen little of each zone I hope I am wrong or they change this and make so all zones feels really complex, large and we feel we are playing in a world. I also hope they will just have maybe 20-30 levels (depending on how fast you level) and focus on that as they are a small team. Make also each zone large (epic feeling as you had in VSoH). However in VSoH most areas looked the same on each continent. I hope we will see more different types of zones in Pantheon but with different challanges there regarding mobs and environment (Don't starve challanges but which suits an MMO).
You couldn't be more wrong about this. For allot of gamers it is the definitive element of a living breathing world. Its a huge undertaking which is why so few developers even attempt it. But it's really a game changer from an immersion perspective but I wouldn't expect everyone to understand. Especially those raised on console and arcade games. You wouldn't happen to fall into that category by chance would you?
If by console games you mean Atari 2600, then guilty as charged.
But for MMO's, I started with EQ and still play EQ2. Both games use zoning mechanics and while I would not mind a seamless world like Rift, it really is not that big a deal.
Heck, I am still playing EQ2 instead of Rift or WoW, both of which are seamless.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
After listening to the hour long very informative round table do you think the zoned world will hinder this game at all come release?
Nope, well.. Not for me anyhow.
I don't mind zones at all and, in all honesty, I have never understood the drama about a short load screen now and again.
If this is actually a sizable factor in anyone's decision to play this game in the end then... I'm not sure what to say about them.
I know exactly what to tell them.
Pantheon is a niche game being built as the spiritual successor to a very specific pair of games by and for the people that enjoyed those games. This game is not intended for everyone.
Simple, polite and to the point.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
Obviously from an immersion standpoint there is nothing like looking out over the country from a mountainside. Although, I could do that in AC 15 years ago. On the other hand zones are kind of important if you have unleashed mobs. You have to have some border they respect so you can get away from them somehow. I guess that is a fancy way of saying they open up some different strategic opportunities.
Personally I am completely fine with it being zoned, and thats not for a lack of experience with 'seamless' games or mmos either. It just genuinely doesn't bother me and in some respects it even does some things better (usually because of limitations for some reason, rather than it being impossible to do seamless).
It's both an advantage and disadvantage todo seamless zoning. I think we will have more diverse zones if they are not seam-less. However I hope they are larger than what we had in EQ.
Actually i can think of bigger drawbacks then positive points. Seemless as a feature is one of those that bring very little to the game, but do cost A LOT of effort on the coding side. Not only effort but also ressources that could be used for more valuable features.
But i honestly don't care (much) either way. If i had to choose id say leave zoning in, it is fine. Give me other features insteat.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
For example, zoning between different biomes and temperature zones may seem more natural than gradually change the landscape. It never feels very natural to transition change the landscape does it? That is also one of the essential problems with Themepark, unnatural close chunks of different themed (style, biome, etc) chunks - It contradicts the world feeling.
Anyways, as long as zones are big.. correction huge (like the biggest zones in eq), I think it wont matter much to the target audience.
Actually i can think of bigger drawbacks then positive points. Seemless as a feature is one of those that bring very little to the game, but do cost A LOT of effort on the coding side. Not only effort but also ressources that could be used for more valuable features.
This would be my stance as well. The amount of effort needed to code seamless zones and then design all the art assets around them, just doesn't seem worth it given the other things a developer could be putting that effort into.
Well if done like a typical zoned world then no it can even help,but the way they are doing it,makes the game look budget and yes that will hurt the game.
In general zones only have about 3 topics of concern,wait times on loading ,exploiting,immersion.
Wait times imo have never been THAT BAD in any game that would make me want to auto quit.
As for exploiting,you can look at it like adding another level of skill playing.A perfect example i have seen used a LOT,is putting a DOT on a creature then zoning to heal up,rest up,then reentering before the DOT wears to reapply.It is not THAT easy to pull off if the game's systems are done well,example partial resistances and DOT's possibly wearing off sooner than expected.It also adds a LOT of time to a fight,but also allows a player or two to get a needed kill when not having a full group.It can also allow a weaker player the ability to get that kill that would not if standing in and facing the creature head on.SO yes it is a debate on exploitation over adding a skill level to a game.
Immersion is always a factor,the world does not seem real if you are walking through say a jungle then all a sudden after a loading screen you are in a stone covered futuristic city.So devs need to make sure that transition is well done to keep the immersion.Another example would be you go from super cold conditions needing gear to protect yourself,then take one step into a new zone and all that cold disappears,it looks fake then,an immersion ruining effect.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Lets turn question on it's head. If it were a tradeoff between more content and a seamless world, where is the tradeoff for you. What percentage of a developers budget is worth it to spend on a seamless world, assuming it means you get that percentage less content. Would you trade 20% less content for a seamless world? What about 10% or 5%?
Assuming that the content would come later in expansions, I'd probably take 10% less if it meant a seamless world. I am really a fan of no zone lines, but its not the most important feature by a long shot. Pantheon is making the game that so many people have been talking about since EQ 1 and whether or not the world is seamless isn't going to stop people from playing it.
The reason I asked about less content, was that back in a Q&A with Brad, I think, he mentioned that it was easier and faster to develop content for a zoned world. That being the case the logical conclusion is that it is not "do you want a seamless world if it is free." The question is what content are you willing to loose to gain a seamless world.
Comments
Not sure what you ran Vanguard on, but even at launch it didn't take long for me to load over. After I got a solid state, it became almost instantaneous. It was also the fact that there was no load screens at the end and you could see into the next area. The way EQ not only separated zones by little tunnels and didn't allow you to see the next zone and while you were waiting, you were taken to a load screen, was no conducive to immersion.
Lets not kid ourselves, almost no one had SSD's back when VG launched and even many years after. I had an SSD toward the end and I would hardly call it seamless even then. Chunking was still very noticable, at best. Let me guess, the entire game was smooth and flawless on your system and everyone that quit before lv 4 because of hardware requirements are idiots?
Seeing the next area takes a back seat to developers actually finishing those areas, which they didn't. There were many huge parts of the map that were completely empty of anything in VG. At least separate zones imply content instead of chunking into nothingness over and over. There's a reason VG had one dying server and two dead servers in it's prime....
And finally, half the EQ zones, you could see exactly where you were zoning. Just use your amazing nonexistent SSD that makes VG chunking instant and use it on instant zone loading instead eh? The loading screen was your fault anyways since it was completely optional, you could turn it off in the menu.
Aside from the incoherent parts, I agree. Vanguard had plenty of issues, and didn't run perfectly even on the $2k pc I built to play it, but it still felt more open and connected than EQ where thhe majority of zone lines were in small openings in the zone wall between two areas... The option to turn off the load screen didn't always exist in EQ, and for 3 years I played it, loading took quite a while. The fact remains, the disconnect between areas detracts from immersion. Like I said, not game-breaking, but disappointing.
To their credit, WoW did an amazing job with the world rebuild for Cataclysm.
You can walk/fly across pretty much every inch of the continent with zero lag or load times.
The Pantheon webpage images show me a world with similar graphical quality to The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion.
That's what, 2006?
WoW was 2004 with an engine dating back to 2000 or earlier.
Only excuse for zoning and chunking and lag etc. is bad coding, poor optimization.
Sorry, it's the truth.
GW2, made by a company with a GREAT history of writing amazing network code (their founder pretty much wrote battle.net) only was zoned because the game required so much instancing and phasing with the way they did the story-mode stuff.
If GW2 would have scrapped the whole personal story stuff (wouldn't that have been nice?) I promise 100% there wouldn't have been a single zone line. (other than the group-dungeons of course, like WoW)
SWTOR was the same way - really, really crappy engine implementation, terrible optimization and net code. They bought a pre-beta version of the Hero engine and hacked the crap out of it to even get it to work at all for what they were trying to do - again, heavily instanced and phased for story- even the guys behind Hero engine distanced themselves from the wreck that Bioware made with it.
Really surprised no-one is making an MMO utilizing the Frostbite engine. That thing scales nearly infinitely and is made for network function. Same with the Dunia 2 engine used for Farcry 3/4, with features ripped into the Anvil engine for Assassin's Creed: Black Flag and Unity.
Nope, well.. Not for me anyhow.
I don't mind zones at all and, in all honesty, I have never understood the drama about a short load screen now and again.
If this is actually a sizable factor in anyone's decision to play this game in the end then... I'm not sure what to say about them.
For me personal an open world is more a world where the content is spread out much better than for example in WoW. EQ is a great example of that where you can find content for many level ranges in each zone. This lead also that high and low level players met and you could help a low level player with a high level buff so they could feel like a hero for an hour or two while they carried their rusty sword. I also enjoyed VSoH beta. The world felt epic. Sadly the game was far from finished at release.
What I worries about now is that some zones maybe isn't big enough and they feel linear. The trailers I have seen so far shows a mix of the two worlds (open and linear), but as we have only seen little of each zone I hope I am wrong or they change this and make so all zones feels really complex, large and we feel we are playing in a world. I also hope they will just have maybe 20-30 levels (depending on how fast you level) and focus on that as they are a small team. Make also each zone large (epic feeling as you had in VSoH). However in VSoH most areas looked the same on each continent. I hope we will see more different types of zones in Pantheon but with different challanges there regarding mobs and environment (Don't starve challanges but which suits an MMO).
If by console games you mean Atari 2600, then guilty as charged.
But for MMO's, I started with EQ and still play EQ2. Both games use zoning mechanics and while I would not mind a seamless world like Rift, it really is not that big a deal.
Heck, I am still playing EQ2 instead of Rift or WoW, both of which are seamless.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
I know exactly what to tell them.
Pantheon is a niche game being built as the spiritual successor to a very specific pair of games by and for the people that enjoyed those games. This game is not intended for everyone.
Simple, polite and to the point.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
I don't really see seemless as an advantage.
Actually i can think of bigger drawbacks then positive points. Seemless as a feature is one of those that bring very little to the game, but do cost A LOT of effort on the coding side. Not only effort but also ressources that could be used for more valuable features.
But i honestly don't care (much) either way. If i had to choose id say leave zoning in, it is fine. Give me other features insteat.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
You could choose to see zoning as a positive.
For example, zoning between different biomes and temperature zones may seem more natural than gradually change the landscape. It never feels very natural to transition change the landscape does it? That is also one of the essential problems with Themepark, unnatural close chunks of different themed (style, biome, etc) chunks - It contradicts the world feeling.
Anyways, as long as zones are big.. correction huge (like the biggest zones in eq), I think it wont matter much to the target audience.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
It's not a deal-breaker, but seamless worlds make the environment more immersive. That's the real issue many people have with non-seamless worlds.
Segmented zones with loading screens makes it feel more artificial.
Well if done like a typical zoned world then no it can even help,but the way they are doing it,makes the game look budget and yes that will hurt the game.
In general zones only have about 3 topics of concern,wait times on loading ,exploiting,immersion.
Wait times imo have never been THAT BAD in any game that would make me want to auto quit.
As for exploiting,you can look at it like adding another level of skill playing.A perfect example i have seen used a LOT,is putting a DOT on a creature then zoning to heal up,rest up,then reentering before the DOT wears to reapply.It is not THAT easy to pull off if the game's systems are done well,example partial resistances and DOT's possibly wearing off sooner than expected.It also adds a LOT of time to a fight,but also allows a player or two to get a needed kill when not having a full group.It can also allow a weaker player the ability to get that kill that would not if standing in and facing the creature head on.SO yes it is a debate on exploitation over adding a skill level to a game.
Immersion is always a factor,the world does not seem real if you are walking through say a jungle then all a sudden after a loading screen you are in a stone covered futuristic city.So devs need to make sure that transition is well done to keep the immersion.Another example would be you go from super cold conditions needing gear to protect yourself,then take one step into a new zone and all that cold disappears,it looks fake then,an immersion ruining effect.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Lets turn question on it's head. If it were a tradeoff between more content and a seamless world, where is the tradeoff for you. What percentage of a developers budget is worth it to spend on a seamless world, assuming it means you get that percentage less content. Would you trade 20% less content for a seamless world? What about 10% or 5%?