Instances VS Open Worlds

World of Warcraft Guild Wars

I've been watching the development of Champions Online very closely as of late. As usual, the unending hordes of internet trolls have come out of their hiding places to bash the game from every angle. Let it be said that I am not a fanboy, there are definitely legitimate grievances, as with any new game. I'm still recovering from the admittedly horrible beta launch day.

However, there are far too many who delight in bashing a new game for the sake of it. It's not constructive criticism to these people. It's a sport, played by those with tragically meaningless lives. After wading through all the crap, I finally came to what was a worthwhile topic not only for the game, but for MMO's in general. Instances, VS single servers, which is better? And does an instanced based game still deserve to be called an MMO?

Server Based

examples: World of Warcraft, EverQuest

The main reason why the gaming community seems to prefer open world, single server games like World of Warcraft, is because it lends to the immersion. The feeling that you're actually living amongst a colorful group of races, going to and from various locales. It's more realistic and seamless. Instances are only good for few events, such as raids, dungeons and PVP. It also adds a competitive element.

There is a certain feeling of suspense, not knowing if a strange player will come out of nowhere and gank you out of shear malice. Or if a rival group of adventurers moves in to kill the nearby boss while you're still working through his minions. It also lends to the feeling of community. When you're soloing in an open environment in a game like World of Warcraft, it's easy to forget that you belong to a world spanning faction, dedicated to vanquishing their mortal enemy. But once you go into an active, main city, you can really appreciate the immensity of the single server world.

Instance Based

examples: Dungeons & Dragons Online, Guild Wars

On the other hand, you have instanced based titles such as Guild Wars. What separated that game from World of Warcraft, was that it eliminated a lot of the things gamers felt were hassles in MMOs. Long traveling times, a high leveling curve and confusing areas, to name a few. Instances make sure that your hard work can't be stolen by outside parties. They keep the objectives of the party focused, and the players undisturbed. It's actually hard for me to take a stance on which type of game is better. I see the advantages and disadvantages of both. But I must assert that for someone to write off an entire game on how it handles its environment is snobbish.

I have a personal stake in the pros and cons of MMO formats. Champions Online has been a blast to play, and the criticisms against the relatively low players per instance is kind of infuriating. If nothing else, playing a game should be fun. As soon as a game feels like work, you need a break, or it's not a very good game. Champions Online not an MMO? Fine. Good game? Hell yes. It isn't that intance based games aren't MMOs, they're the same species, different breed. And if that breed means no ninja looters, griefers, gankers, waiting in line for an NPC or quest item spawn, count me in.

Warhammer Online

I think this topic is part of a larger issue between casual and hardcore gamers. And casual seems to be winning. The games to come out will inevitably reflect that, but that doesn't mean both types can't be acommodated. Interestingly, I haven't read or seen anyone condemn single servers. We're not intruding on the right of hardcore gamers to explore seamless worlds (even though it's largely just static scenery) so they should at least tolerate the way we choose to play. I wish the haters would stop bashing Champions Online.

If they don't like it, they can always go back to WoW. Hopefully their damage will be miniscule, and we can at least last the first six months. Unfortunately for the lifetime subscribers, you may not get quite what you bargained for.