Why did they changed this from version 1.0 ?

**rabbitzero** · 01-06-2014 02:33 AM

It wasn't just ps3 limitations, it was bigger because there was a lot of repeating of objects and such (called instancing, but not like it's used in games, it's several copies of one object to save on memory and performance.) It was the trade off of having a bigger zone, WoW did it too, but did a better job at hiding it, and with having much, much less detailed objects and zones. Yeah, the zones were bigger, but they were mostly empty areas that looked and felt a LOT like the same area over and over again. Lots of running just to get to a town that was exactly like the last one. I played 1.0, and the only things i really miss are the higher textures (characters especially, this one confuses me) and the ability to make almost any spell aoe or single target. The rest seems to get bandied about as this great missing thing, but it wasn't really.

**Black_Rose** · 01-06-2014 02:33 AM

SE simply was unable to handle the server load because in 1.0 pretty much every command had to be checked by the server, that's why we ended up with multiple servers for every zone in 1.0 leading to multiple zones in 2.0 to put less stress on the servers.
and of course the PS3 also played a big role in many decisions that were made for ARR.

**Holyhunter** · 01-06-2014 02:34 AM

Two reasons. The first one is PS3 limitations. The second one is that the old zones were very repetitive and parts of zones were copy and pasted multiple times

**DracotheDragon** · 01-06-2014 02:36 AM

i think the reason for the smaller worlds was so the computer could render the area your in which keeps the process quick (with the loading screen acting as the rendering time) where as a open world usually uses a render circle around the player model which for programming i be leave it is easier to do on a single player game and could cause issues in multiplayer games, but if you use guild wars as an example they have wide open spaces while maintaining zones but when that zone is full of players it causes server issues and lag issues, as for the texture i think it was changed to fit the slightly different art style.. i don't know

TL;DR: the smaller zones are to stop lag and issues with the servers and low to medium spec computers (ps3 is considered medium spec), for textures i aint to sure might be for art style

EDIT: a lot of well informed people got in before i did

**Zfz** · 01-06-2014 02:37 AM

Originally Posted by Holyhunter

That's so lazy. That's just bad. So bad. lol

**MikoteAstra** · 01-06-2014 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by Naunet

I'm not particularly fond of the corridor-style copy-paste of 1.0 zones. What we need is an opening up of our current zones, eliminating unnecessary invisible walls and filling out the borders.

If i remeber it right in the betas that was because we could not jump and climb true a lot of terrain ! But if we put that aside because in betas of version 1.0 there were alooooot of problem, dont you want the huge worlds and no loading screen from city to field zone ?

And if all this limitations are from ps3, i know that now is ps4, wont they change it ?

**DracotheDragon** · 01-06-2014 02:43 AM

Originally Posted by MikoteAstra

If i remeber it right in the betas that was because we could not jump and climb true a lot of terrain ! But if we put that aside because in betas of version 1.0 there were alooooot of problem, dont you want the huge worlds and no loading screen from city to field zone ?

And if all this limitations are from ps3, i know that now is ps4, wont they change it ?

i dont be leave they will fix it, also they limited it for there servers which 90K when odin uses a single attack

also they didn't do it just because of the ps3 but because of low to medium spec computers from users who complained of lag and issues playing the closed zones are normally made as a anti-lag attempt by sacrificing scale

if they did intend to fix it it would probably be in a far later update like 3.5 or 4 (if it gets to 4) when the low spec computers then will be able to handle it

**Holyhunter** · 01-06-2014 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by MikoteAstra

If i remeber it right in the betas that was because we could not jump and climb true a lot of terrain ! But if we put that aside because in betas of version 1.0 there were alooooot of problem, dont you want the huge worlds and no loading screen from city to field zone ?

And if all this limitations are from ps3, i know that now is ps4, wont they change it ?

You couldn't jump ever in 1.0, it wasn't just the beta. The zones weren't built with jumping in mind. While I did enjoy no loading screens (although the zones in 1.0 were phased anyway so it was pretty similar) the amount of repetition in zones was beyond awful.

**Magis** · 01-06-2014 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by MikoteAstra

If i remeber it right in the betas that was because we could not jump and climb true a lot of terrain ! But if we put that aside because in betas of version 1.0 there were alooooot of problem, dont you want the huge worlds and no loading screen from city to field zone ?

And if all this limitations are from ps3, i know that now is ps4, wont they change it ?

FFXI was never updated due to PS2 limitations. It was a running joke that any graphical upgrades wouldn't be done due to the PS2. Seems this is happening again with ARR.

**Mailstrum** · 01-06-2014 02:47 AM

no because the game is still on ps3 and has to remain supported on ps3. The game will always ahve to be supported to its lowest denomitator. So all future updates and features will have to be dumbed down to work on ps3.

Thread: Why did they changed this from version 1.0 ?

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display