Instancing Sucks (And So Does Static Content)
Look on any online gaming message board and you will always find at least one thread about how good or bad instancing is. Some players prefer lots of instancing while others would rather play in a world full of static content. Each style of game has its merits, but I am here to say that both styles suck.
I started my online gaming career in Ultima Online, but Everquest was the game that really hooked me. EQ had no instancing at all when it launched. In fact, I don’t think instancing had been invented yet in any form. In my opinion, this is what made EQ so great. If you wanted to go adventure in Lower Guk, you had to go to the same zone as every other player. You didn’t have the entire zone to yourself. You had no choice but to interact with other players. This allowed for the making of friendships (and enemies) that lasted for years. The social and guild drama brought on by no instancing made the community unique and more aware of itself.
The downside of static content is that zones can get overcrowded. You may be relegated to camping one small area for hours at a time because the zone is full. Sometimes people would start lists and you had to wait your turn before getting a group. Doing that, however, caused even more socialization and communication between players. It also pissed off a great many players.
The addition of instancing greatly changed the social dynamic of online gaming. If you want to go crawl a popular dungeon you simply went to the zone and entered your very own instance, where the only people in it are your group or guild. You have run of the place to do exactly as you wish for as long as you wish with no interference from anyone. This naturally speeds up progression and ease of advancement. It also prevents the waiting in line for a spot in the zone.
The downside of instancing is that it removes much of the player socialization that you see in non-instanced games. Players, for the most part, stay within their guilds and rarely to speak to non-guild members. I found this to be especially true in World of Warcraft. Unless I was in a group or a guild, I would have sworn that every player was deaf and mute. It was also much more difficult to find long lasting friendships in games like these. Most everyone stayed to him or herself because they could. Reliance on others is at a minimum. I think this greatly diminishes the social possibilities in a game.
So both have good and bad points to them. Everquest is the greatest example of a game with static content (although later updates added instancing), while World of Warcraft, Lord of the Rings Online, and others go the instancing route. As much as I prefer static content, I know that we will never see a full static content game again. Humans, as a whole, are incredibly lazy, and games that utilize instancing will always draw more customers. The games are easier, you don’t have to interact with others as often, and let’s face it, most players think everyone else sucks.
For good or ill, instancing is here to stay. Any game that uses only static content will fail miserably. There will not be any going back to the good ol’ days where we walked uphill, both ways, with 1000ms lag, to the zone of our choice.
Read More