Aich said:Discussed Here.
http://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/10133/instance-vs-open-world
Because it uses the word "open world" doesn't mean it's the very same topic. Here the OP is asking "what we define as open world", not if we prefer instances over open world.
for me an open world has 2 main characteristics
1 there is only 1 world for everyone and everyone is affected by what others do or happens in the world
examples
if 200 people go to an area and you go there you see those 200 people no channels or fragments of 50 people are created
if you have the mission of getting the fang to the raging wild boar and someone killed him you will have to wait for the time of reappearance if the one who killed him does not loot it you could loot it and get the fang
if someone activates an event on a mission line or something that 100 orcs attack a city and you are there you will see the event and you can participate if you wish if the orcs beat and kill the city guards and the npcs and you pass over there later you will not see npcs for the planned time although you have not participated in the event
conclusion there is only one world and everything that happens affects you whether or not you are involved
2 there are no invisible rules and walls that prevent you from doing the things that are allowed to be done in the game
examples
if you can see it you can go there to certain logical points if you see a tower of the magician in the distance you would have to go to the tower and enter it but you would also see the roof of the tower and if there is no access to it you could not get on the roof
there are no boss blocks in the plan I kill a dragon and it reappears after 30 minutes but I can't interact with it until the block is removed after 7 days but the rest of the world can interact with it
that I go to the dwarf zone and don't give me missions because I didn't do the elf zone missions before
I do not talk about the mission lines but mission nuclei that are not activated if you did not do the previous one when the missions do not have any relationship between them that force you to follow an invisible path
although I think the question of the op is very complex for example I would say that the world of EQ1 was an open world but from the northern karanas to the southern karanas divided by a river and that river had an invisible wall
you could only go from one area to the other by the bridge or by the river just below the bridge
also if you fell off a ship crossing the continents you could not change the swimming area you could swim freely until you reach an invisible wall
these examples would give rise to affirm that the world of EQ1 was not an open world from my prestective and yet I affirm that if it is an open world
pd: when I refer to EQ it is vanilla and the first expansions
An Open World is a world that you can explore to the fullest. Every nook and every cranny. The tallest mountain to the deepest ocean (or lake/river). You aren't hindered by invisible walls preventing you from reaching certain places. You see something and it should be reachable.
It has _nothing_ to do with instanced, zoning or anything else for that matter. Those does not limit or define what an Open World is. If you have to zone to reach a mountain peak you saw, but still you can reach it - it is still an Open World.
- This is what I think Pantheon will feature. A world fully explorable by the players.
A Sandbox World is a World you create or participate in creating - typically they do no have a linear progression (no hand holding - you choose your path of discovery.)
- Pantheon will never be a Sandbox. You cannot tame the rivers and change their directions, you won't be able to deforest areas, ore veins won't run out of materials (they will simply despawn for a time). You won't make lasting impacts on the terrain - at best we will be able to build up and maintain Outposts.
When you think Sandbox - always think MineCraft. That is the epitomy of a true Sandbox game.
Elki said:for me an open world has 2 main characteristics
1 there is only 1 world for everyone and everyone is affected by what others do or happens in the world
examples
if 200 people go to an area and you go there you see those 200 people no channels or fragments of 50 people are created
if you have the mission of getting the fang to the raging wild boar and someone killed him you will have to wait for the time of reappearance if the one who killed him does not loot it you could loot it and get the fang
if someone activates an event on a mission line or something that 100 orcs attack a city and you are there you will see the event and you can participate if you wish if the orcs beat and kill the city guards and the npcs and you pass over there later you will not see npcs for the planned time although you have not participated in the event
conclusion there is only one world and everything that happens affects you whether or not you are involved
2 there are no invisible rules and walls that prevent you from doing the things that are allowed to be done in the game
examples
if you can see it you can go there to certain logical points if you see a tower of the magician in the distance you would have to go to the tower and enter it but you would also see the roof of the tower and if there is no access to it you could not get on the roof
there are no boss blocks in the plan I kill a dragon and it reappears after 30 minutes but I can't interact with it until the block is removed after 7 days but the rest of the world can interact with it
that I go to the dwarf zone and don't give me missions because I didn't do the elf zone missions before
I do not talk about the mission lines but mission nuclei that are not activated if you did not do the previous one when the missions do not have any relationship between them that force you to follow an invisible path
although I think the question of the op is very complex for example I would say that the world of EQ1 was an open world but from the northern karanas to the southern karanas divided by a river and that river had an invisible wall
you could only go from one area to the other by the bridge or by the river just below the bridge
also if you fell off a ship crossing the continents you could not change the swimming area you could swim freely until you reach an invisible wall
these examples would give rise to affirm that the world of EQ1 was not an open world from my prestective and yet I affirm that if it is an open world
pd: when I refer to EQ it is vanilla and the first expansions
What “Open World” means to me is the ability to do anything, as an example:
Rint
I sort of envision open world as "Anybody Anytime." But along with that comes death if you are ill equipped, for example. Even a one-shot death.
But, I also wouldn't mind having a solo instanced aspect to the game such as when you are with your trainer (if that will be a thing). Someplace where you are interacting with your trainer for advancement or a refresher course. This is an aspect of the game that I am okay with an instanced aspect. But that could get to be a drain on resources if everyone on the server decided to visit their trainer at the same time - all of a sudden having 2000 instances.
For me, a truly "open" world means you can cross an entire continent without a loading screen - WoW, Rift, WildStar, the like. Unfortunately, Pantheon will not meet that criteria, so I'll just have to hope that the instanced zones are large enough and the frustrations of running into barriers/invisible walls (UGH) are at an absolute minimum.
@philo
Nothing has anyone has said would qualify as blatant misunderstanding to me. There are certainly different perspectives expressed. The primary opinions appear to be either physically open, very sandboxy open choices, or only one version of the world where no phasing/lockout mechanics exist. Which version of open world were you hoping to have us comment on? To me a truly open world is all three with the added bit of being able to personally modify the environment of the world through my effort.
Open world to me simply means an experience that is not 'on rails'. I can choose to go anywhere I see. I may not survive, but I can try. I have a choice of what to do when I get there, too.
Zone lines? Not really part of it for me. Zone lines to me are like when movies skip boring stuff and change 'scenes'. You enter a cave and don't see the 2 miles of spelunking the character did to get to the inhabited dungeon. You enter a city and don't have a 2 mile treck through residential areas to get to the trade center.
Instances? *sigh* Fed up with talking about them, but... Not really part of it for me depending on how they are used. If it's a shard of a whole zone to avoid overcrowding, then it's still open world. If it's a personalised, one-group-only, teleport-in-and-out dungeon, then, no, that's not open world. It does matter that you can not only go anywhere, you can pretty much meet anyone.
Sandbox? Not really. Sandbox elements always help with the whole 'free choice' feel, but a very complex and well designed world will feel, and effectively be, just as 'open'. Total sandbox might be more 'technically' 'open', but is often much less fun.
I always used to love it in Dungeons and Dragons when we had a DM that would let us get into serious trouble and wing-it if we 'left' the scenario, but I always remember, also, that when we got back 'on track' the game would be better scripted and you'd feel like you're achieving something. Open world is great, but entertainment is often simply much more entertaining with a script ;^)