Brad McQuaid On Instancing

heartless_ writes "The man behind Everquest and now Vanguard:Saga of Heroes has responded to a Gamergod.com article about chasing that old loving feeling from MMORPGs of the past. He goes off on a long dissertation on Instancing in Massively Multiplayer Roleplaying Games. From the articles 'Let's start with the old school: perhaps the designers are big time original D&D players (or at least AD&D - that's what I played - hey I'm not that old). D&D wasn't massively multiplayer - it was you, your group, and the DM. No one would argue that setup created some great times, great experiences, and great memories. I sure have them. And if that is what you think back on mostly, what you cherish, what you are trying to re-create, then having multiple groups around is a problem.'"

Comments

Not really.

[Short Circuit]

then having multiple groups around is a problem.

Running into competitors in a D&D game makes for a great potential villain. Or at least a comparable entity that alternates between friend and foe.

Good for gameplay and storyline.

Re:Not really.

[Meagermanx]

MMOs are like all that is boring extracted from a traditional RPG, and shoved into a small space with thousands of people trying to have fun in the same area.
 
Three major factors in MMOs, combat, finance and stats, are the three most boring and time consuming parts of RPGs.
In RPGs it's better to have half a dozen fights in two dozen rooms, and have the rest of the rooms be cool treasure areas, trapped areas, puzzles, and the occasional NPC. Shove monsters in the remaining rooms (in interesting positions: sleeping, playing cards, and other exploitable situations), and you've got a dungeon. A cliche dungeon, but a fun one to play in, none the less.
MMOs just take the monster-smashing, stick the monsters in random areas and make you fight them 200 times before you get to move on.
RPGs make you earn your gold and treasure and then go back to town and reap your rewards with cool weapons and armor and spells. That's fun.
MMOs are so boring in the treasure-grabbing department that people are willing to pay actual money for in-game credits. We're not going to even get into "town runs".
RPGs make you sort out your own stats, which is necessary. But once you get your equipment set up, you're good to go until you level up or get something cool, in which case you're more than glad to fiddle with the rules. It makes math fun.
MMOs make you constantly min-max. They have plenty of items, but they're all the same. A spear works the same as a short sword works the same as a mace. Boring.
 
If you like those aspects of MMOs, go ahead and play 'em. I recommend a good RPG any day.
I've recently started an RPG forum with some friends. We play with the rules of the game (All Flesh Must Be Eaten), there's a 24 hour chance to give your orders, and it gives me plenty of time to work up flavor text and look up rules. I'm having more fun than I've ever had with an MMO.

Different balances for different tastes.

[Durinthal]

I've managed to play a good bit of three games that take completely different approaches to using instances: Asheron's Call (no instances, last I checked), World of Warcraft (only large dungeons are instanced), and Guild Wars (everything outside of towns/outposts is instanced). Asheron's Call, at its height, had many crowded dungeons and people waiting in line for spawns, though this always gave you a chance to meet others. Guild Wars, on the other hand, feels empty, though you will always find that creature waiting for you.
I think that Blizzard's done it best, where you can still randomly run into another player in the middle of nowhere (which can be fun for explorers like myself), but you don't have to wait for a boss to respawn at the end of that long dungeon.

Re:Different balances for different tastes.

[fatboyslack]

Yeah, I quite like WoW's balance. It is fun to meet random players and have a bit of PvP action, but sometimes it is good to concentrate on a 'remote dungeon' and fight with just you and your buddies. Of course, end game for WoW is now all constant running through instances or constant PvPing in.... 'instances' against the Horde. As Tycho said recently on www.pennyarcade.com, I've also become an 'altoholic'. But I digress.

From 0 - 59 the balance in WoW is a delight. At 60 your pretty much stuck with instances or farming.

Preference for real-life RPGs

[bradbeattie]

There are some aspects of D&D (or any other in-person RPG) that online games just don't have.

• Face to face contact. Talking with the other players, making funny voices, facial gestures and generally socializing
• A human DM that adjusted things to the tastes of the group, fudged die rolls, provided a changing storyline that you really, honestly had an impact on.
• Imagination. Limiting graphics to at most a general diagram can inspire. I'm not saying online games can't do this, but the imagination isn't necessary.
• No online fee to play besides the inital gaming materials (that will still be usable 10 years from now).

Yeah, MMOs have a certain flair (no need to schedule a game with friends, automationing most of the game mechanics), but they lose appeal quickly. D&D, Shadowrun, World of Darkness, Toon, etc. Gimme those over MMOs any day.

In my Experiences.

[Doctor Tesla]

Instancing can be a great tool in a game, especially to guard against annoying behavior like loot stealing, dishonorable PVP, and spawn camping. But for the most part, I find the normal MMO atmosphere much more enjoyable. The idea of being out in the wilderness, and that being the same wilderness as everyone elses - the idea that I could run into anyone else at any moment - that is the true fun.

I remember my favorite all time moment in gaming was during Final Fantasy XI (not an altogether wonderful game, but regardless) while I rested at a campfire. I saw someone else run past at full speed, with an orc following. I quickly ran over and helped him, we formed a party, and that was the beginning of a beautiful gaming partnership. Guild Wars may earn a lot of people through its lack of monthly fees, but a lot of people are still going to be turned off by the fact that it's not really a true MMO as they know and wish it to be.

Do Instances harm MMO communities?

[1inthestink]

As a veteran of a few MMOG's (WoW and City of Heroes most recently), I thought Brad's comments were mostly on the mark. I was surprised at how even-handed his remarks about World of Warcraft were, although he did allow himself a few cheap shots.

I definitely think that he exaggerates the impact of instancing on speed of leveling. City of Heroes is a highly instanced game, in fact, the majority of missions take place in an instance, whereas very little of World of Warcraft takes place in instanced areas. But there's no question that the speed of leveling is dramatically faster in WoW. He gives some great analysis of the thought process behind designing a faster leveling game, but the statement that more instances = faster advancement is demonstrably false.

Furthermore, I think that instancing is just one aspect of an MMOG that can either work for or against community-building. The biggest factor in my mind is content soloability. If you don't NEED a group to defeat the vast majority of a game's content, a lot of people won't bother. You can pretty much solo your way to max level in WoW, but trying to do so in EQ or any traditional MMOG would be damn near impossible. This fits in with WoW's more casual-friendly atmosphere, but it means that unless you plan on joining a guild, you're unlikely to make many new friends.

Not that you'd really want to if you've spent any time listening to the General Chat channel in the Barrens. "OMFG Trollz r gayzor!!111!"

Very true -- the GW alternative

[Morgaine]

Different balances for different tastes.

Very true. After "completing" two conventional grind-based MMOGs to max level over several years of pain, I now adore the Guild Wars approach. Its designers completely threw out the MMOG rulebook, and created an amazing breath of fresh air amid the tedium of traditional MMOGs.

The "emptiness" of zones that you speak of is the challange: it's you and your friends against the whole zone, without any of the annoyances of shared zones. It also means no dying to trains created by inept or uncaring players, no waiting for spawns, no camping, no kill stealing, etc etc etc. All of the fun, none of the pain. Just you and your chosen colleagues, which can of course be AI henchmen, against the whole world. It's excellent.

But as you say, tastes vary, and some people like the pain of old MMOGs, the drudgery of waiting, and being at the mercy of others.

Re:Very true -- the GW alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, but how is that massively multiplayer?

It's as MMO as traditional MMOGs in practice, because you still get to choose your playmates from the thousands of people online, out of the millions of registered subscribers. And 99% of the time, that's what people do and want in traditional MMOGs.

The only thing that it doesn't allow is the unsolicited presence of people whom you did not invite and who 99% of the time do nothing but ruin the game for you.

Shared zones sound good, until you realize that you've suffered enough because of them, and that almost everything that they introduce is bad.

It's not that GW is perfect of course. For example, it should allow a teammate who is leaving to be replaced by another, warped into the instance --- maybe NCsoft will add that some day. It's damn good as it stands though, compared to EQ and similar games that use shared zones a lot.