Guild Wars 2

Dante.1763:

Thats all most of us want anyways. Better skill mechanics, better storyline, Less bugs, more features. The map shape matters very little to us compared to those things.

All those those things are important to me, too, yet just because my idea of what is ‘important’ is a little more broad than most people’s idea of ‘importance’, does not mean what I am pointing out in my OP is wrong, or does not mean what I am pointing out in my OP is not important to those who do think things like this matters.

You know, when I bring things up that are wrong or a bit off on a product, in this case, Guild Wars 2, I do it in such a way as if it were my product and how I want it to look and perform to the masses, yet you guys don’t look at it that way, and that is why anything that has to do with ‘polishing’ Guild Wars 2 doesn’t matter to you.

You guys are just more focused on how the game runs to get your rupees faster/more efficiently, yet I am not the kind of gamer that is in it just for ‘that’ like everybody else.

Eidolonemesis.5640:

Dante.1763:

Thats all most of us want anyways. Better skill mechanics, better storyline, Less bugs, more features. The map shape matters very little to us compared to those things.

All those those things are important to me, too, yet just because my idea of what is ‘important’ is a little more broad than most people’s idea of ‘importance’, does not mean what I am pointing out in my OP is wrong, or does not mean what I am pointing out in my OP is not important to those who do think things like this matters.

You know, when I bring things up that are wrong or a bit off on a product, in this case, Guild Wars 2, I do it in such a way as if it were my product and how I want it to look and perform to the masses, yet you guys don’t look at it that way, and that is why anything that has to do with ‘polishing’ Guild Wars 2 doesn’t matter to you.

Well, what do you want them to do about it? Rework all the maps so they don’t have square edges? What’s the point of your thread?

Eidolonemesis.5640:

All those those things are important to me, too, yet just because my idea of what is ‘important’ is a little more broad than most people’s idea of ‘importance’, does not mean what I am pointing out in my OP is wrong, or does not mean what I am pointing out in my OP is not important to those who do think things like this matters.

You know, when I bring things up that are wrong or a bit off on a product, in this case, Guild Wars 2, I do it in such a way as if it were my product and how I want it to look and perform to the masses, yet you guys don’t look at it that way, and that is why anything that has to do with ‘polishing’ Guild Wars 2 doesn’t matter to you.

Unfortunately, that issue isn’t something that’s going to get polished away now. Which is sad, because they could’ve done some interesting things with interconnected natural borders. Instead of dredge hiding in little spots under one mountain peak, a part of two zones could have been laid out with tunnels to serve as borders. (Like the spot that connects to Frostgorge.)
Or, like the way Gendarran is, the transition occurs before the zone separation, so it’s less jarring.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Eidolonemesis.5640:

Dante.1763:

Thats all most of us want anyways. Better skill mechanics, better storyline, Less bugs, more features. The map shape matters very little to us compared to those things.

All those those things are important to me, too, yet just because my idea of what is ‘important’ is a little more broad than most people’s idea of ‘importance’, does not mean what I am pointing out in my OP is wrong, or does not mean what I am pointing out in my OP is not important to those who do think things like this matters.

You know, when I bring things up that are wrong or a bit off on a product, in this case, Guild Wars 2, I do it in such a way as if it were my product and how I want it to look and perform to the masses, yet you guys don’t look at it that way, and that is why anything that has to do with ‘polishing’ Guild Wars 2 doesn’t matter to you.

Well, what do you want them to do about it? Rework all the maps so they don’t have square edges? What’s the point of your thread?

No, because had you read my updated OP and earlier comments I made to others, I said I do not expect Anet’s terrain designers to bother with re-working the current World Map.

However, I did say that I do expect Anet’s terrain designers to do a better job on future World Maps (if there is one, like Guild Wars 1 had with Factions and Nightfall, being different World Maps).

Eidolonemesis.5640:

All those those things are important to me, too, yet just because my idea of what is ‘important’ is a little more broad than most people’s, does not mean what I am pointing out is wrong, or does not mean it is not important to those who think things like this matters.

But heres the thing, its to late now to change the maps, at least the old ones. Dry top and the silverwastes are already doing what you say you wanted, they arent squares, they are more rounded(At least the area where a player can walk isnt. The zone itself looks square, but where you can actually explore is not.)

I never said it was wrong. I said its not quite true as in not 100% correct. some of what you said is true. You should be using a 100% explored map, not a partially explored one. That includes the silvewastes and dryptop, as well as the citys. you should also be tracing the area where a player can walk on each and every single map.

In my opinion the maps are fine. Square maybe, but they are fine, and maybe as we are going to Maguuma a place that in GW1 was very to explore because of all the different paths we will be getting maps that are different shaped, like we have with Drytop and the silverwastes.

Tachenon.5270:

As in, what particular portion of GW2’s playerbase cares about the shape of the zones (or has even noticed the shape) and whether they are artificially square or follow ‘natural’ contours/divisions? It seems logical to assume that if there were a great deal of players who were unhappy with the ubiquitous squareness of our beloved Tyria, there would be more ‘smoke’ here on the forums. So, who are those who oppose the squares? What do they do when they’re logged in? Are they the majority? Are they the game’s target audience?

Who is it, among us all, that cares? And, based on the post-launch development of the game, is this group the group anet most wants to keep playing?

A great many of you guys in the comments ask me questions to which you never like the answers, that despite being answers, you still don’t get it (or you just don’t want to get it).

So to answer your question, Tachenon.5270, the question is not, “Who is it that really cares” because what I point out in my OP is something that should just come from game developers without anybody asking for it in a big title game, especially one like Guild Wars 2 in the year 2015. Just like nobody really asked for the little details in our character animations when standing ‘idly’ by in town. It is these little details that come (or should come) with the territory of a good, big title game like Guild Wars 2.

In other words, your question is one of those questions that are beside the point.

The Anet developers being the professionals they are should know better so as to not come under fire regarding what my OP points out.

Tachenon.5270:

Corollary query: what IS GW2?

Guild Wars 2 is a seemingly living, breathing world (do I got it right so far?) AND so if it is going to be coded to function like one, it should look like one, too.

Therefore, all this ‘blockiness’ is not consistent with what a living, breathing world is truly like, because a living, breathing world also entails how nature takes its course when forming continents, etc. ‘naturally’ to the point where there is very little (if any) signs of man-made shapes like almost perfect squares as shown in Guild Wars 2’s World Map.

Eidolonemesis.5640:

All those those things are important to me, too, yet just because my idea of what is ‘important’ is a little more broad than most people’s, does not mean what I am pointing out is wrong, or does not mean it is not important to those who think things like this matters.

A lot of things are important to a lot of people. Some people hated seeing the Wings and called for an ability to turn them off. Other people hate various sounds and post asking for the ability to turn off other people’s mini pet sounds or back pack sounds. Some are bothered by the repeating nature of dynamic events and want that changed to a different method of starting these events. Some hate the immersion breaking backpacks, Balthazar outfits on non humans, etc.. and feel this is important. You hate seeing the square borders and want the new maps to be made in a different manner.

All these things are important to the people who think things like this matter, since it matters to them, but unless you can lay out a real reason to do future maps differently, other than it’s important to you, don’t expect to see any changes.

Looks more rectangular than square to me

This always bothered me about GW2. They made all the zones instanced and artificially connected them. Imagine if it was more natural and seamless without any zoning.

Yeah, i know GW1 had portals, but that’s hardly an excuse to make a world non-seamless.

Rauderi.8706:

Eidolonemesis.5640:

All those those things are important to me, too, yet just because my idea of what is ‘important’ is a little more broad than most people’s idea of ‘importance’, does not mean what I am pointing out in my OP is wrong, or does not mean what I am pointing out in my OP is not important to those who do think things like this matters.

You know, when I bring things up that are wrong or a bit off on a product, in this case, Guild Wars 2, I do it in such a way as if it were my product and how I want it to look and perform to the masses, yet you guys don’t look at it that way, and that is why anything that has to do with ‘polishing’ Guild Wars 2 doesn’t matter to you.

Unfortunately, that issue isn’t something that’s going to get polished away now. Which is sad, because they could’ve done some interesting things with interconnected natural borders. Instead of dredge hiding in little spots under one mountain peak, a part of two zones could have been laid out with tunnels to serve as borders. (Like the spot that connects to Frostgorge.)
Or, like the way Gendarran is, the transition occurs before the zone separation, so it’s less jarring.

Pardon my late reply.

Right, and I understand that, which is why I stated that perhaps in the next World Map Anet creates (if there is one), these borders throughout the lands won’t be as stiff and square (like they are now) and will instead flow more naturally. Better, perhaps we will see variety in these borders (as someone else brought up) so that not every border around map areas are of the same rocky type of terrain surrounding everything.

So, again… Am I so unreasonable so as to expect Anet to take from anything I pointed out and apply it to the current World Map? No, because it is unlikely at this point since (I think) they went about a now-irreversible, poor layout of the World Map, and probably didn’t think much of it at the time, or they did, yet they didn’t want to go the extra step to make it look better, rushing the production of the game so it releases faster (typical).

Therefore, whether or not maps in EVERY game are square like my attached images show (according to a couple people in this thread), Anet could have went about covering it up better so when players look at the World Map, they are not met with a bunch of blocky blotches of terrain.

And with that being said, along with everything else I have discussed with you guys (thank you for chipping in on the conversation), I am stepping out of the comments at this time because, as is almost always the case, there are just some things between us players we will never agree with no matter how big or small a thing.

Eidolonemesis.5640:

Tachenon.5270:

As in, what particular portion of GW2’s playerbase cares about the shape of the zones (or has even noticed the shape) and whether they are artificially square or follow ‘natural’ contours/divisions? It seems logical to assume that if there were a great deal of players who were unhappy with the ubiquitous squareness of our beloved Tyria, there would be more ‘smoke’ here on the forums. So, who are those who oppose the squares? What do they do when they’re logged in? Are they the majority? Are they the game’s target audience?

Who is it, among us all, that cares? And, based on the post-launch development of the game, is this group the group anet most wants to keep playing?

A great many of you guys in the comments ask me questions to which you never like the answers, that despite being answers, you still don’t get it (or you just don’t want to get it).

So to answer your question, Tachenon.5270, the question is not, “Who is it that really cares” because what I point out in my OP is something that should just come from game developers without anybody asking for it in a big title game, especially one like Guild Wars 2 in the year 2015. Just like nobody really asked for the little details in our character animations when standing ‘idly’ by in town. It is these little details that come (or should come) with the territory of a good, big title game like Guild Wars 2.

In other words, your question is one of those questions that are beside the point.

The Anet developers being the professionals they are should know better so as to not come under fire regarding what my OP points out.

Tachenon.5270:

Corollary query: what IS GW2?

Guild Wars 2 is a seemingly living, breathing world (do I got it right so far?) AND so if it is going to be coded to function like one, it should look like one, too.

Therefore, all this ‘blockiness’ is not consistent with what a living, breathing world is truly like, because a living, breathing world also entails how nature takes its course when forming continents, etc. ‘naturally’ to the point where there is very little (if any) signs of man-made shapes like almost perfect squares as shown in Guild Wars 2’s World Map.

Hmm, don’t think you quite got it, but that’s okay. Hint: I am not defending the squares. I don’t like them either.

nexxe.7081:

This always bothered me about GW2. They made all the zones instanced and artificially connected them. Imagine if it was more natural and seamless without any zoning.

Yeah, i know GW1 had portals, but that’s hardly an excuse to make a world non-seamless.

WoW kinda spoils a guy that way, does it not? :\

Even FF14 doesn’t feel nearly as ‘boxy’ since the transition points feel more natural than hiding some portal into a cubbyhole of a zone. Half the time, I can’t spot the map transitions, which should definitely be more clearly marked.

nexxe.7081:

This always bothered me about GW2. They made all the zones instanced and artificially connected them. Imagine if it was more natural and seamless without any zoning.

Yeah, i know GW1 had portals, but that’s hardly an excuse to make a world non-seamless.

seamless requires a very big difference in how you put things together and limits what you can do, down to the very structure of the servers and client interaction.
What you give up is generally not worth what you gain.

as far as the topic, the square system makes the most sense when you have a world that is a lot more free, in terms of where you can go. Its only really square in terms of zonelines, and a lot less so in terms of general topography.

RegnorVex.4071:

What a silly argument.

And yet it was and is still a good answer for the OPs question:

Eidolonemesis.5640:

Why, Anet, is the Guild Wars 2 World Map so square?

The answer is not more silly than the question. Or maybe the OP asked a question but did not want an answer?

RegnorVex.4071:

The OP is right to point out that each of the individual zones is rectangular and this is unnatural and does not at all look like a real map.

Yes, the map does not look like a real map. The borders are different and in a real map there are no waypoints for instant travel, etc. Its a game. Its a fantasy world. It is not photorealistic.

I would liked it if GW2 had a seemless world without map-borders; one map for the open-world (like in Rift). But GW2 uses a different game-engine and technology so it seems not to be possible and I dont care if the borders of the maps are rectangular because it is not immersion-breaking for me.

Invictus.1503:

Looks more rectangular than square to me

I used the term ‘square’ not only because ‘rectangle’ would not fit into my thread title, but because ‘square’ is a shape more people can relate to easier anyway than, say, triangle, if that makes any sense.

But you’re right (for the sake of pleasing your end of the argument), I will admit, most of what is illustrated in the attached image of my OP looks more rectangular than square.

P.S. I saw this nitpickery coming, but I guess I’m no one to talk since I am deemed to be a nitpicker, too, right? Right.

Good discussion, guys. Have fun.

Eidolonemesis.5640:

Invictus.1503:

Looks more rectangular than square to me

I used the term ‘square’ not only because ‘rectangle’ would not fit into my thread title, but because ‘square’ is a shape more people can relate to easier anyway than, say, triangle, if that makes any sense.

But you’re right (for the sake of pleasing your end of the argument), I will admit, most of what is illustrated in the attached image of my OP looks more rectangular than square.

P.S. I saw this nitpickery coming, but I guess I’m no one to talk since I am deemed to be a nitpicker, too, right? Right.

Good discussion, guys. Have fun.

Not nitpicking so much as this bothers you and you would like to send it changed. But…. you haven’t said why it’s a problem for ANet so that the change to less square/rectangular maps would be an advantage for them. You need this reason, not that it offends your aesthetic sense of how maps should look. If that’s all you have to offer as a reason then it’s a no better and no worse reason than the people who complained about seeing the black wings on everyone and wanted a toggle to turn them off.

Eidolonemesis.5640:

EDIT: Correct me if wrong, but Guild Wars 2’s World Map size is WAY bigger than 1024 × 1024 or even 1920 × 1080 because the attached image I posted was a screenshot taken from a zoomed point of view.

Lolwat? 1920×1080 is a monitor resolution, not a terrain map. Game maps are most of the time made up of a square array of vertices. 1024×1024 would be a 1 million polygon terrain map. The distance between the points is the actual terrain resolution. You cant drop resolution too much or you could end up with a gigantic 100×100 mile map where each terrain polygon is the size of a GW2 map (with a regular 512×512 texture lol). It’d look horrible. But the mapsize would be fantastic.

Point is, GW2 obviously have a limited size. Maybe its a hard cap, maybe its a soft cap. Who knows. We need much larger maps if you want to make something like an island the size of entire Tyria. Its perfectly possible today from a technical standpoint in other engines but the final map would still be square. It’d just have tons of water on it so it wouldnt show.

Rauderi.8706:

nexxe.7081:

This always bothered me about GW2. They made all the zones instanced and artificially connected them. Imagine if it was more natural and seamless without any zoning.

Yeah, i know GW1 had portals, but that’s hardly an excuse to make a world non-seamless.

WoW kinda spoils a guy that way, does it not? :\

Even FF14 doesn’t feel nearly as ‘boxy’ since the transition points feel more natural than hiding some portal into a cubbyhole of a zone. Half the time, I can’t spot the map transitions, which should definitely be more clearly marked.

This is the thing that bothers me most about this game, people pointed it out (some even refused to play) because it was so obvious. I think the OP has a point, this is a very rookie effort at an open world. WOW has it done right, even though they did have to give in to the occasional portal/invisible wall. The world in WOW is much more natural looking and feels natural in its play, and it’s a 10 year old game.

I’d like to see some effort at this, even if it’s a transition scene as we port. Cant we take a cable car like a ski lift into a new area or something?

I’ve always liked how the zones work in LOTRO.

Never played WoW, can you jump/climb literally everything you can see? Are there jumping puzzles and hidden nooks/rewards for playing like a goat on a mission to break the map?
I’ve always thought the terrain of gw2 is amazing, the free roaming and lack of invisible walls is a huge plus. I played TERA for about 10 minutes recently, walked into four invisible walls and uninstalled it.

Anat.1765:

Rauderi.8706:

nexxe.7081:

This always bothered me about GW2. They made all the zones instanced and artificially connected them. Imagine if it was more natural and seamless without any zoning.

Yeah, i know GW1 had portals, but that’s hardly an excuse to make a world non-seamless.

WoW kinda spoils a guy that way, does it not? :\

Even FF14 doesn’t feel nearly as ‘boxy’ since the transition points feel more natural than hiding some portal into a cubbyhole of a zone. Half the time, I can’t spot the map transitions, which should definitely be more clearly marked.

This is the thing that bothers me most about this game, people pointed it out (some even refused to play) because it was so obvious. I think the OP has a point, this is a very rookie effort at an open world. WOW has it done right, even though they did have to give in to the occasional portal/invisible wall. The world in WOW is much more natural looking and feels natural in its play, and it’s a 10 year old game.

I’d like to see some effort at this, even if it’s a transition scene as we port. Cant we take a cable car like a ski lift into a new area or something?

You could walk from area to area. Without load times (as in zero, null, nada, you wont notice it). A seamless world the size of entire Tyria. No invisible walls, no zone borders, just pure terrain. Not even cities would have loading areas. Its just a single world.

But it would require a game engine other than the one currently in GW2. Archeage for example is built with the CryEngine and does exactly what I described (with full water vehicle physics to boot, imagine a GvG with two ship of the lines). Newer games no doubt make it even better.

So the answer is yes. We can. We can do better than a “ski lift” into a new area. Dont know what answer you expected?

eyestrain.3056:

Never played WoW, can you jump/climb literally everything you can see? Are there jumping puzzles and hidden nooks/rewards for playing like a goat on a mission to break the map?
I’ve always thought the terrain of gw2 is amazing, the free roaming and lack of invisible walls is a huge plus. I played TERA for about 10 minutes recently, walked into four invisible walls and uninstalled it.

I wouldn’t recommend playing wow anymore for other reasons, but you should install the free trial so you can see what we mean. The way the map functions is excellent. as another poster mentions Archeage is also a good example, also free if you want to see what we mean. As you point out exploration is important in GW2, imagine GW2 with the map mechanics of Archeage or WOW, would be amazing. It’s baffling why its not there in any form really.

The map being square does not really affect my immersion or enjoyment of the game one way or another.

Hammurabi.5942:

The map being square does not really affect my immersion or enjoyment of the game one way or another.

I respect it doesn’t change your experience, unfortunately it is a thorn in the side for many. I’ve spent hundreds of dollars on other games (FFXIV, map was even worse)(Archeage, map was great and a reason I was excited for it and sub’d) seeking a different experience (not solely because of the map) that could have been spent on GW2. It’s a relevant discussion and does impact people’s overall experience. It’s almost immediately noticeable to anyone who has experienced something better, and when you play something else after.

tramwajarz.2369:

Belzebu.3912:

US states borders are almost all squares too, so what is the issue?

EU borders aren’t. So what?

Just to clarify a few things (not trying to sound antagonistic here). EU borders aren’t square because they all are almost entirely developed along natural landmarks and geographical areas/obstacles (I’m forgetting the correct terms here).

If you look at the US map, you’ll see the eastern states have an almost organic appearance because of mountains and rivers acting as natural obstacles. Once you look at the western side of the US map, you’ll notice the borders begin to look more like straight lines and more block/rectangular in shape.

Since the original Devs came from WoW and were familiar with that game’s seamless maps then I’m going to assume there was a particular reason why they didn’t put it into this game, as nice as that would be.

Perhaps someone with computer knowledge can say what the disadvantages of a seamless world are to the game’s engine.

Hammurabi.5942:

The map being square does not really affect my immersion or enjoyment of the game one way or another.

This.

You’ll hardly notice it while you’re exploring, apart from when you check the map. This approach to design makes map completion a lot simpler, imo.

I’ll take simple square maps over the topsy turvy, counter intuitive messes that are Dry Top and Silverwastes.

Here I thought this thread would be quoting:

Erau qssi dlro weht!

eyestrain.3056:

Never played WoW, can you jump/climb literally everything you can see? Are there jumping puzzles and hidden nooks/rewards for playing like a goat on a mission to break the map?
I’ve always thought the terrain of gw2 is amazing, the free roaming and lack of invisible walls is a huge plus. I played TERA for about 10 minutes recently, walked into four invisible walls and uninstalled it.

Just imagine walking from Frostgorge Sound to Cursed Shore without a loading screen.

You’ll still be blocked by mountains too high, but you’ll have the freedom to travel through different routes to another zone. This isn’t possible with GW2, since the only way out is through a portal or waypoint.

nexxe.7081:

eyestrain.3056:

Never played WoW, can you jump/climb literally everything you can see? Are there jumping puzzles and hidden nooks/rewards for playing like a goat on a mission to break the map?
I’ve always thought the terrain of gw2 is amazing, the free roaming and lack of invisible walls is a huge plus. I played TERA for about 10 minutes recently, walked into four invisible walls and uninstalled it.

Just imagine walking from Frostgorge Sound to Cursed Shore without a loading screen.

You’ll still be blocked by mountains too high, but you’ll have the freedom to travel through different routes to another zone. This isn’t possible with GW2, since the only way out is through a portal or waypoint.

Shadow of the Colossus was my favorite game for this type of seamless exploration but if it puts serious problems on the servers/engines w/e then it’s a luxury i’m happy without. Even when i was very immersed in the game world the loading screens didn’t interrupt me at all. If anything it gave me a sense of completion knowing that I had fully explored one region and was moving to the next, and a sense of boundary knowing that if I was too low level I wasn’t accidentally wandering into a place too dangerous for me.

I’m no longer immersed but it has more to do with the junk story and bad alt experience due to new trait system.

Yes after doing my first map completion I felt zones were blocky/square/rectangular. It’s awkward but I’m used to it.

It’s a fantasy game.

It is still a bit odd having mountains block every side of a zone.. But what can you do to cut off a map without having just a fading/foggy border? Ehhh.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Since the original Devs came from WoW and were familiar with that game’s seamless maps then I’m going to assume there was a particular reason why they didn’t put it into this game, as nice as that would be.

Perhaps someone with computer knowledge can say what the disadvantages of a seamless world are to the game’s engine.

I think the reason is simple – they had a working engine in GW1 which rely on instancing (ie restricted and focused maps) and they just went with a that design instead of rebuilding it from the ground. You dont just “put” something like a seamless map into a game. Its a core part of its server architecture, how transitions are handled.

But I dont know what Anet was really thinking. I am hoping it was “we just want to make a great game!” but it may have been “a new engine is going to cost us what?!?!?” :P

I did notice this rectangular-ness.

I agree it’s not really ideal to see rectangles, when you open the map; but, to be fair, the zones don’t feel rectangular when you’re in them.

I think comparing them to US states is not really relevant, as everyone knows that US states are just completely artificial borders and that (in most cases) there is no actual geographical boundary preventing you leaving one and entering another.

Whereas, the actual geography of the game’s zones is built around the rectangle idea.

eyestrain.3056:

Never played WoW, can you jump/climb literally everything you can see? Are there jumping puzzles and hidden nooks/rewards for playing like a goat on a mission to break the map?
I’ve always thought the terrain of gw2 is amazing, the free roaming and lack of invisible walls is a huge plus. I played TERA for about 10 minutes recently, walked into four invisible walls and uninstalled it.

Well, you can’t climb everything, as some things are too steep to climb.

But, you can climb everything that isn’t too steep (in openworld areas).

They have only recently added jumping puzzles in newer zones.

The main thing about it, is that there aren’t artificial geographical boundaries placed around the edge of the zones.

So, you can just run from one to another, without a portal, or loading screen.

You are still somewhat funnelled if you’re running (or on a ground mount), due to “natural” obstacles in the terrain, but you can just fly over (most of) it, on your flying mount.

The new xpac doesn’t allow flying though, which I found disappointing.

As far as I’m concerned, you don’t add something like that to a game, leave it there for years (so, people become used to it) and then take it away again.

Also, although it is truly openworld, which is great, its engine is obviously ageing somewhat, in terms of graphics.

So, you know, there are pros and cons between the two games, from that POV.

Yes.The Tetris map sux.Ironically though the terrain design of GW2
is the best I’ve seen in an MMO.
But the individual zone maps are not put together in a way that they
form one large world map.
In many cases we are talking about totally separated zones,that don’t
necessarily even share the same borders,as the world map suggests.
For example,the rocks at the south sea border of Bloodtide Coast are
not visible from the north sea border of Sparkfly Fen.Or when you look
south from Kessex Hills into what should be the jungle of Caledon Forest
all you see is the end of the map box,an empty ocean.
Making the maps seamless would require a world redesign from the ground
up,and a lot of phasing tech in order to separate the players in the different zones.
So simply forget it.Maybe in GW3.

When I first got to play the game the rectangle zones were a bit odd to me aswell, however. Pretty much all map data tends to be stored in such a way that it forms a rectangle (for example, round images really aren’t round at all, they simply have transparent pixels at the corners to make it seem round). This has to do with how computers store data. ArenaNet could have still simulated non-rectangular maps in a similar way by making a map with alot of unused areas at the borders, however, they probably thought it was better to make the maps as big as possible and use all available space. This causes all the maps to become rectangular. Right now I am used to it but if they could go back in time I wish it would have been more naturally shaped.

This is one of the things that bother me in GW2, this and the amount of loading screens and the weather design, are things that break immersion in the game.
I wish they could remove those borders, tweak the maps to make them look a little less rectangular and create a dynamic weather.

Lethalvriend.1723:

This has to do with how computers store data.

Not really. It has to do with basic math. As a simple case:

Imagine if you have 3×3 pixel grid and make a “round” map that fill the space inside it – a cross due to the obvious lack of resolution. Well you still have a max X and max Y of 3 (lets ignore 0) which means you need a 3×3 array no matter the content or you wouldnt know where to put the pixels. Hence, you get a square with 44% of the space wasted.

Algreg.3629:

RegnorVex.4071:

The point is that every time you open the map and look at it you are reminded that all of these biomes are unnaturally rectangular. It’s like looking at a big table instead of the feeling you get when you open up the world map in most other big MMOs.

That is not a point at all, as you don´t “experience” maps, but environments.

Of course you experience a map – every time you open it (which you have to do a lot) it affects your overall experience.

I don’t view it as a major problem, personally, but some people probably do and it is fair enough to mention it.

Not sure what you people think a forum is for, if not to discuss our impressions of the game?

Forums are never going to be full of just “I wuv GW2!!! <3” type threads, so if that irritates you, then why not avoid either the entire forum, or the thread titles that sound like the comments therein may be less than positive?

Instead of patrolling the forms like a bad tempered, unpaid security guard.

nexxe.7081:

eyestrain.3056:

Never played WoW, can you jump/climb literally everything you can see? Are there jumping puzzles and hidden nooks/rewards for playing like a goat on a mission to break the map?
I’ve always thought the terrain of gw2 is amazing, the free roaming and lack of invisible walls is a huge plus. I played TERA for about 10 minutes recently, walked into four invisible walls and uninstalled it.

Just imagine walking from Frostgorge Sound to Cursed Shore without a loading screen.

You’ll still be blocked by mountains too high, but you’ll have the freedom to travel through different routes to another zone. This isn’t possible with GW2, since the only way out is through a portal or waypoint.

Here’s something to think about, if this was really an open world as you’re suggesting, would you mind taking a real time month or so to walk from Frostgorge Sound to Cursed Shore, because that’s how big the world would have to be in order to represent what you can represent by having instanced zones. That would be like walking from New Brunswick, Canada to Miami, Florida…that’s how big the land mass is in relative terms…I don’t think you’d enjoy it all that much.

As for the OP, have you ever really walked along all of those so called ‘square’ maps, I can tell you they’re not. I mean really get up along those ridges and other points, they’re a little more jagged than you think, and keep in mind, not all of the terrain is represented on the map, only the zones themselves are represented, not the transitional terrain between zones, that’s probably what you’re missing the most, and personally, I don’t really care. I don’t play the map.

Dawdler.8521:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Since the original Devs came from WoW and were familiar with that game’s seamless maps then I’m going to assume there was a particular reason why they didn’t put it into this game, as nice as that would be.

Perhaps someone with computer knowledge can say what the disadvantages of a seamless world are to the game’s engine.

I think the reason is simple – they had a working engine in GW1 which rely on instancing (ie restricted and focused maps) and they just went with a that design instead of rebuilding it from the ground. You dont just “put” something like a seamless map into a game. Its a core part of its server architecture, how transitions are handled.

But I dont know what Anet was really thinking. I am hoping it was “we just want to make a great game!” but it may have been “a new engine is going to cost us what?!?!?” :P

I do think, that the GW2 map technology evolved from GW1-map technology. Thats one reason for sure.

I think the GW2 map technology also has some benefits. In Rift/Archage/Wow you could get a “Server is full. please wait some hours in queue before you can play”. With GW2 map technology in PvE every map is independent of all the others and if one map is full it does not affect the other maps. And if you want to enter a full map you were placed on the “overflow maps” (before A-Net expanded the overflow-technology to megaservers).

I really like it, to be able to play GW2 (in PvE) when I want to and not having to wait in queue.

So, every (technology) choice has pros and cons.

Zaklex.6308:

nexxe.7081:

eyestrain.3056:

Never played WoW, can you jump/climb literally everything you can see? Are there jumping puzzles and hidden nooks/rewards for playing like a goat on a mission to break the map?
I’ve always thought the terrain of gw2 is amazing, the free roaming and lack of invisible walls is a huge plus. I played TERA for about 10 minutes recently, walked into four invisible walls and uninstalled it.

Just imagine walking from Frostgorge Sound to Cursed Shore without a loading screen.

You’ll still be blocked by mountains too high, but you’ll have the freedom to travel through different routes to another zone. This isn’t possible with GW2, since the only way out is through a portal or waypoint.

Here’s something to think about, if this was really an open world as you’re suggesting, would you mind taking a real time month or so to walk from Frostgorge Sound to Cursed Shore, because that’s how big the world would have to be in order to represent what you can represent by having instanced zones. That would be like walking from New Brunswick, Canada to Miami, Florida…that’s how big the land mass is in relative terms…I don’t think you’d enjoy it all that much.

As for the OP, have you ever really walked along all of those so called ‘square’ maps, I can tell you they’re not. I mean really get up along those ridges and other points, they’re a little more jagged than you think, and keep in mind, not all of the terrain is represented on the map, only the zones themselves are represented, not the transitional terrain between zones, that’s probably what you’re missing the most, and personally, I don’t really care. I don’t play the map.

Of course it wouldn’t take a month.

What on earth are you talking about?

Play the free trial of WoW – it will probably will take you a few hours, to run (without mount) from the far corner of one continent to the far corner of the opposite one (you’ll have to take a ship/airship to cross the ocean).

There is no way it would take you “months” to run though an openworld version of this game.

Of course, with the free version of WoW, you can only level to level 20, so running through high level zones will be virtually impossible; but still, the point remains that once you’re max level (so, don’t have to worry about mobs) running doesn’t take very long.

Tigaseye.2047:

There is no way it would take you “months” to run though an openworld version of this game.

the WoW main landmass is something in the line of 60-80 square miles if I recall correctly… Daggerfall is somewhere around 60 thousand square miles. And it still only take like a week realtime to walk through.

Let’s face it: creating seamless world maps is not Anet’s strength. There are a lot of things that kills the immersion for me:

- square zones
- no seamless world, every map has it’s own instance
- different weather effects from zone to zone
- different day/night cycle in adjacent maps
- ultra low capacity per map. Just remember that: in other MMOs whole continents are seamless without portals and in those play thousands of players simultaneously while maps in GW2 get filled within a couple of hundred players.

Dawdler.8521:

Lethalvriend.1723:

This has to do with how computers store data.

Not really. It has to do with basic math. As a simple case:

Imagine if you have 3×3 pixel grid and make a “round” map that fill the space inside it – a cross due to the obvious lack of resolution. Well you still have a max X and max Y of 3 (lets ignore 0) which means you need a 3×3 array no matter the content or you wouldnt know where to put the pixels. Hence, you get a square with 44% of the space wasted.

Naturally, but said math is exactly what is used to store map data among just about anything else (arrays, lists etc). Pretty much every game uses either a grid or 3 axis for object positioning in 2 or 3D space. But like I said, they simply decided to add space throughout their entire maps rather than ignoring a ton of space to get more natural borders.

As far as no seamless world goes, this may be a remnant from GW1. From what I’ve heard they use a modified engine in GW2 so they remained ‘stuck’ with a map based world rather than using something more akin to for example TES:V Skyrim to create a seamless world. They use small squares of terrain which are loaded and rendered depending on your position in the game world and basically piece all of them together by giving those squares positions on a larger map sort of like a chessboard.

Beldin.5498:

Hmmm .. not that i really have a problem with th squares .. but this looks different.

On the other hand RIFT also had a “seamless” world, and not closed zones like we
have in GW2.

Guild Wars 2 isn’t trying to present a seamless world, though. The individual maps in GW2 should be thought of as separate but related paintings perhaps by different artists. Hell, watch how the moon changes from one map to the next…there’s simply no visual agreement there.

GW2 goes all-out for the painterly effect (just look at the edges of the screen) so why not a square canvas?

Dawdler.8521:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Since the original Devs came from WoW and were familiar with that game’s seamless maps then I’m going to assume there was a particular reason why they didn’t put it into this game, as nice as that would be.

Perhaps someone with computer knowledge can say what the disadvantages of a seamless world are to the game’s engine.

I think the reason is simple – they had a working engine in GW1 which rely on instancing (ie restricted and focused maps) and they just went with a that design instead of rebuilding it from the ground. You dont just “put” something like a seamless map into a game. Its a core part of its server architecture, how transitions are handled.

But I dont know what Anet was really thinking. I am hoping it was “we just want to make a great game!” but it may have been “a new engine is going to cost us what?!?!?” :P

My guess (judging from the loading times when you transition between zones) is that there is something in the rendering process of Guild Wars games that makes it impractical for the world to load seamlessly as one map.

chemiclord.3978:

Dawdler.8521:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Since the original Devs came from WoW and were familiar with that game’s seamless maps then I’m going to assume there was a particular reason why they didn’t put it into this game, as nice as that would be.

Perhaps someone with computer knowledge can say what the disadvantages of a seamless world are to the game’s engine.

I think the reason is simple – they had a working engine in GW1 which rely on instancing (ie restricted and focused maps) and they just went with a that design instead of rebuilding it from the ground. You dont just “put” something like a seamless map into a game. Its a core part of its server architecture, how transitions are handled.

But I dont know what Anet was really thinking. I am hoping it was “we just want to make a great game!” but it may have been “a new engine is going to cost us what?!?!?” :P

My guess (judging from the loading times when you transition between zones) is that there is something in the rendering process of Guild Wars games that makes it impractical for the world to load seamlessly as one map.

I’m guessing this as well. Imagine walking from Kessex Hills all the way to Divinity’s Reach without a loading screen, seeing every NPC, player and event going on. That’s a lot of graphics having to be rendered all at once, and a lot of spell effects (depending on culling settings) rendering at once.

Also, I heard that GW2 is running off of a heavily modified GW1 engine, so that may be another reason. I can’t cite a source (forums…y u no fix?) and Google just gives me comparisons to the two games.

Don’t you know from Daryl’s Tomb that ‘The World is Square’?

i too am obsessed with this issue, they dont all need to be squares anet! maybe an ice diagonal line here and there? make the world feel more alive?

if you want to get REALLY edgy (and by that i mean u should do this) make a few maps where the entire one side is just opened and leads strait onto the next map…….that would feel big and real and would just look different.