Added to my long list of potentially interesting games to try out.
What difference does instances really make on gameplay? Even in a large open world you don't often fight 100 vs 100 battles, and when you do it's a zerg. I like how they are dividing the forces to complete different objectives to reach a goal, and that what one team does affects the others in the raid. And according to what they say there will be large areas for socializing. All good
I'm also excited that this is a sci-fi game and an MMOFPS. Graphics looks great too! What is there not to like?
The game qualifies as an MMORPG because it has a massive amount of players whose actions affect the game, and they role-play with their characters in a basic storyline of super agents fighting for control of the world.
Guild wars, as stated by one of the founders, Jeff Strain, is a Competitive Online RPG, not a classic MMO. It does, however, fit the broad guidelines of an MMO. Guild Wars gameplay doesn't affect the GW world? Guess none of you have Factions. The Luxon/Kurzick line shifts all the time. If you are a Luxon in a Kurzick-controlled point, even if it is Traditional Lux territory, you can't use merchants unless you have more Kurzick faction points than Luxon. That sounds like gameplay affecting the world to me.
I will have to agree with what most people say here. When you say is this game an instance or open world, there is an obvious answer. There is no gray area. Instance is just like most MMOs produced where sections only hold a certain limit of people before a new instance opens to fill up. This has nothing to do with servers. Open worlds are like WoW (minus dungeons/raids) or Eve where no matter how many people exist, there are no instances sectioning off players. This is Global Agenda's last statement:
WoW has an open world allowing an unlimited number of people? That's certainly news to Blizzard. As they get more players, they open more instances. Here's a list of some groups of instances they have up now, restricting only to American servers:
Each of those is not merely a single instance, but many. Within each group, there are a few big instances for continents and there are many smaller instances for dungeons.
Indeed, the claim that an instance allows an unlimited number of players would be disputed by a number of people who have played the game. For starters, there are a lot of people who want to zerg a dungeon and can't. In addition, there who get stuck in queues because the game only allows so many people per instance (server) at a time.
So basically, what you mean to say is that WoW isn't an MMO and should therefore be removed from this site?
If you reread my statement, these "realms" are servers. Those are not instances in the sense of a gamer. They are instances in a technical standpoint but in terms of gameplay, they are not. You are removing the concept of what players think an instance is. Kinda how the Global Agenda answer was. If you use your definition of instance, all multiplayer games (any multiplayer game that allows multiple to play at the same time) in the world are instances.
MMOs Played: I can no longer list them all in the 500 character limit.
And once more they dodge the issue of this not being a MMO. Why is MMORPG covering this game? This is no more a MMO then any other FPS on the market.
"For combat however, we do not intent to support giant, seamless maps with hundreds of players. There are both technical and game play issues in trying to support that type of game play. Our goal was to provide a more intimate, mission-based, strike-team experience and all our game fiction, weapon distances & strengths, and travel powers are designed to support that goal. Wars are no longer fought with massive armies, tanks and fighter planes. In our future, elite teams of special agents are outfitted with advanced technology and shuttled around the world on sub-orbital dropships. Our agents do not walk to work across an open world nor travel across fields on horseback. Some other games have focused on large maps and the logistics of transporting large teams from place to place and there is an audience for such a game. But that is not Global Agenda." In other reports these "more intimate, mission-based" maps are reported as 10v10. If a new FPS came out with a single player game and a multiplayer mode that only supported 10v10 it would be blasted for having such a weak multiplayer componet. But for some reason this so called MMO has 10v10 and is a MMO. Years ago a MMOFPS came out that supported 100v100v100 (Up to 300 at a time). Why could they do it 4 or 5 years ago, but these people act like it's impossable to do what any modren FPS can do. Heck at least get up to average. Say 16v16. Heck I have been on TF2 servers with 32v32. If you are like me and waiting on a MMOFPS this is not it. Save your money wait for the reviews rather then the hype. This game will be dead inside a year.
It is an MMO. There is a persistant world, with persistant character development. There is a massive number of players online fighting over world objectives. Just because all of the battles are smaller scale and instanced doesn't mean it isn't an MMO. It is more on the FPS side of things, but regardless it is an MMO. If you don't like the concept that is fine.
They never said it was impossible but it doesn't fit within their goals. To have small group squad based warfare that looks extremely high quality on a persistant evolving map supporting numerous battlefields was their goal.
BS, 50 steps is all the persistant world you get.... google for alpha leaks.
NVM read the other posts below yours they ARE alpha testers.
MMORPG.com what happened to you...
And for the record, mmo= Massive Multiplayer online....
Meaning thousands playing online in a persistant world model, as was the meaning when the term was coined...
What you spin it as now, your saying bf 2 and cod4 are mmo's and they arnt. they are online games.
Otherwise its just a run of the mill online game...
(Hell GA aint even on par with those two examples...)
So by that definition GA is an MMO.
It sounds like GA has a world model to me. Cities.
Quest hubs were people gather in MMO all sound the same to me.
NPC's that give out quests, train, vendor all set into a given enviroment. A setting you can move around in, with a character.
In WoW you travel from city to city as you progress. Getting quests that send you to other places to do whatever. Or you hang out in a city and talk to NPC's that port you to a BG. You get on a griffion or bat and fly from one place to another to do things.
Space stations and warp gates in Eve. Warcamps and griffins in WAR.
I can't wander around with my guy in CoD. There aren't any NPC"s that I can interact with. It doesn't emulate a world.
Sounds to me like GA has a world that you can interact with.
CODx and BF don't do that.
What I think a bunch of people really want to say is:
If you can't freely travel from point A to point B, and uses instances, it's not an MMO.
And for some I would even say, if it's an FPS it's not an MMO.
People are arguing over the fluffy bs between point A and B. The stuff that usually ends up being nothing more then scenery or places you grind.
Sounds a lot like CoX to me. Each zone of Paragon city is an instance, with the magority of my quests taking place in a smaller instance.
GA sounds like a lot of fun. Found the article very informative.
It sounds like GA has a world model to me. Cities.
Quest hubs were people gather in MMO all sound the same to me.
NPC's that give out quests, train, vendor all set into a given enviroment. A setting you can move around in, with a character.
In WoW you travel from city to city as you progress. Getting quests that send you to other places to do whatever. Or you hang out in a city and talk to NPC's that port you to a BG. You get on a griffion or bat and fly from one place to another to do things.
Space stations and warp gates in Eve. Warcamps and griffins in WAR.
I can't wander around with my guy in CoD. There aren't any NPC"s that I can interact with. It doesn't emulate a world.
Sounds to me like GA has a world that you can interact with.
CODx and BF don't do that.
What I think a bunch of people really want to say is:
If you can't freely travel from point A to point B, and uses instances, it's not an MMO.
And for some I would even say, if it's an FPS it's not an MMO.
People are arguing over the fluffy bs between point A and B. The stuff that usually ends up being nothing more then scenery or places you grind.
Sounds a lot like CoX to me. Each zone of Paragon city is an instance, with the magority of my quests taking place in a smaller instance.
GA sounds like a lot of fun. Found the article very informative.
I'm starting to wonder if we have some GA plants here from how much some people keep misunderstanding what makes a MMO.
A game needs to be massive not simply in the number of players that play the game, but in scale and scope.
In WoW it would take you many many hours to travel to all the zones and see the whole game, even at max level with high speed mounts.
You have Thousands of quests given by thousands of NPCs, they cover huge story lines and small. There is a epic feel to the world and the game.
While traveling you can come across other players who can help you complete quests, or just solo. Or jump into battlegrounds with 4x as many people as GA supports.
It is a MASSIVE game.
While GA, has a waiting room. (50 steps is not a city) where you can meet a few people and set up matches. The ONLY thing this has over CoD4 is the room where you set up the matches is a 3D room rather then a server list.
As for interacting with the world. Your group wins a match so now you have minor advantage X until someone else runs that same map and takes it away from you. That is hardly epic.
At least in Planetside when you took a base it was a long and drawn out process requiring a major investment of time and resources. (Oh and up to 300 people at a time in everything from Infantry to tanks to aircraft to Mechs).
Can anyone point out how this meets massive other then it is supposed to allow a LOT of players on at once?
This game is most definitely not Mmo, and as intrigued as I am with the graphics and gameplay, will NOT pay a monthly fee for this. Good luck, GA.
MMO games played or tested: EQ, DAoC, Archlord, Auto Assault, CoH, CoV, EQ2, EVE, Guild Wars, Hellgate: London, Linneage II, LOTRO, MxO, Planetside, SWG, Sword of the New World, Tabula Rasa, Vanguard, WWIIOL, WOW, Age of Conan
If you reread my statement, these "realms" are servers. Those are not instances in the sense of a gamer. They are instances in a technical standpoint but in terms of gameplay, they are not. You are removing the concept of what players think an instance is. Kinda how the Global Agenda answer was. If you use your definition of instance, all multiplayer games (any multiplayer game that allows multiple to play at the same time) in the world are instances.
I read your statement just fine. You're trying to torture words to mean that which they do not. That's about as meaningful as claiming that it's only an instance if the cap on the number of players is an odd integer. It would seem that you are reduced to arguing that if instances are clumsily introduced via separate servers, that's just fine, however damaging it is to gameplay, but if implemented in a way that actually has a gameplay purpose, that's horrible.
-----
When the notion of an MMO was introduced, what was the alternative? Two players sitting next to each other playing a console game? Maybe four players sitting next to each other playing a console game, though consoles could barely do that? Maybe even eight players on a LAN? The Internet meant dialup, and not of the 56k variety. Back in the era in which MMOs were first introduced, 20 players in a single instance sure would have seemed awfully massive.
-----
Why does it matter if the game is an MMORPG or not? That's just splitting hairs. To say, if it's not a WoW clone, it doesn't belong on this site, would leave any particularly innovative games shut out of all sites that are meant for a particular genre. Surely trying to kill innovation shouldn't be the goal.
did anyone stop and think maybe they are trying to make a new type of MMO. how can any comments be made on what the game is or isnt if no one has actually played it. beta doesnt count b/c lots of changes will be made after that. im not saying any one person's are wrong, but that just what they are "opinions". who knows what this game will be once its its on a server, some haters may love it and vica versa. who cares if its MMOG or MO or whatever, as long as its fun to play thats what matters in the long run.
i for one like what ive seen and heard so far and am anticipating its release. just my 2 cents...
It sounds like GA has a world model to me. Cities. Quest hubs were people gather in MMO all sound the same to me.
NPC's that give out quests, train, vendor all set into a given enviroment. A setting you can move around in, with a character. In WoW you travel from city to city as you progress. Getting quests that send you to other places to do whatever. Or you hang out in a city and talk to NPC's that port you to a BG. You get on a griffion or bat and fly from one place to another to do things. Space stations and warp gates in Eve. Warcamps and griffins in WAR. I can't wander around with my guy in CoD. There aren't any NPC"s that I can interact with. It doesn't emulate a world. Sounds to me like GA has a world that you can interact with. CODx and BF don't do that. What I think a bunch of people really want to say is:
If you can't freely travel from point A to point B, and uses instances, it's not an MMO.
And for some I would even say, if it's an FPS it's not an MMO.
People are arguing over the fluffy bs between point A and B. The stuff that usually ends up being nothing more then scenery or places you grind. Sounds a lot like CoX to me. Each zone of Paragon city is an instance, with the magority of my quests taking place in a smaller instance. GA sounds like a lot of fun. Found the article very informative.
I agree fully w/ this post, sounds alot like CoH/V to me and that is one my favs to play.
I did not read through all of the posts on the past 6 pages, so if someone has already addessed this, I'm sorry. But what I wonder and hope is that even though the game is heavily instanced, that it is more like CoX, where you see people around you the majority of the time and only are with just your team when you are on a mission, rather than like GW, where as soon as you leave town, the rest of the world disappears, unless you have added them to your party. I don't just want to know that a game is massively multiplayer, I want to see/feel that it is as well.
Currently Playing: Aion Trying Out: Retired: The Chronicles of Spellborn, EvE, LotRo, WoW, VG, AoC, CoX, RO Waiting on: Blade & Soul, Black Prophecy, Global Agenda, The Agency, SW:ToR, T.E.R.A. Working On: The 5th Dimension (coming soon)
All I wanted to know was if it was going to be instanced to hell. And they confirmed it.
If this has a monthly fee, I won't play it for more than the initial free month. It really does sound like a regular FPS game (but with less players/map) and a campaign mode.
Comments
Added to my long list of potentially interesting games to try out.
What difference does instances really make on gameplay? Even in a large open world you don't often fight 100 vs 100 battles, and when you do it's a zerg. I like how they are dividing the forces to complete different objectives to reach a goal, and that what one team does affects the others in the raid. And according to what they say there will be large areas for socializing. All good
I'm also excited that this is a sci-fi game and an MMOFPS. Graphics looks great too! What is there not to like?
The game qualifies as an MMORPG because it has a massive amount of players whose actions affect the game, and they role-play with their characters in a basic storyline of super agents fighting for control of the world.
Guild wars, as stated by one of the founders, Jeff Strain, is a Competitive Online RPG, not a classic MMO. It does, however, fit the broad guidelines of an MMO. Guild Wars gameplay doesn't affect the GW world? Guess none of you have Factions. The Luxon/Kurzick line shifts all the time. If you are a Luxon in a Kurzick-controlled point, even if it is Traditional Lux territory, you can't use merchants unless you have more Kurzick faction points than Luxon. That sounds like gameplay affecting the world to me.
Quit being nit-picking lawyers.
WoW has an open world allowing an unlimited number of people? That's certainly news to Blizzard. As they get more players, they open more instances. Here's a list of some groups of instances they have up now, restricting only to American servers:
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/realmstatus/
Each of those is not merely a single instance, but many. Within each group, there are a few big instances for continents and there are many smaller instances for dungeons.
Indeed, the claim that an instance allows an unlimited number of players would be disputed by a number of people who have played the game. For starters, there are a lot of people who want to zerg a dungeon and can't. In addition, there who get stuck in queues because the game only allows so many people per instance (server) at a time.
So basically, what you mean to say is that WoW isn't an MMO and should therefore be removed from this site?
If you reread my statement, these "realms" are servers. Those are not instances in the sense of a gamer. They are instances in a technical standpoint but in terms of gameplay, they are not. You are removing the concept of what players think an instance is. Kinda how the Global Agenda answer was. If you use your definition of instance, all multiplayer games (any multiplayer game that allows multiple to play at the same time) in the world are instances.
MMOs Played: I can no longer list them all in the 500 character limit.
This game is not much of a MMORPG and will give you the same feelings Halo does but Halo is for free.
Good luck with Global Agenda - I hope you learn from it.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
It is an MMO. There is a persistant world, with persistant character development. There is a massive number of players online fighting over world objectives. Just because all of the battles are smaller scale and instanced doesn't mean it isn't an MMO. It is more on the FPS side of things, but regardless it is an MMO. If you don't like the concept that is fine.
They never said it was impossible but it doesn't fit within their goals. To have small group squad based warfare that looks extremely high quality on a persistant evolving map supporting numerous battlefields was their goal.
BS, 50 steps is all the persistant world you get.... google for alpha leaks.
NVM read the other posts below yours they ARE alpha testers.
MMORPG.com what happened to you...
And for the record, mmo= Massive Multiplayer online....
Meaning thousands playing online in a persistant world model, as was the meaning when the term was coined...
What you spin it as now, your saying bf 2 and cod4 are mmo's and they arnt. they are online games.
Otherwise its just a run of the mill online game...
(Hell GA aint even on par with those two examples...)
So by that definition GA is an MMO.
It sounds like GA has a world model to me. Cities.
Quest hubs were people gather in MMO all sound the same to me.
NPC's that give out quests, train, vendor all set into a given enviroment. A setting you can move around in, with a character.
In WoW you travel from city to city as you progress. Getting quests that send you to other places to do whatever. Or you hang out in a city and talk to NPC's that port you to a BG. You get on a griffion or bat and fly from one place to another to do things.
Space stations and warp gates in Eve. Warcamps and griffins in WAR.
I can't wander around with my guy in CoD. There aren't any NPC"s that I can interact with. It doesn't emulate a world.
Sounds to me like GA has a world that you can interact with.
CODx and BF don't do that.
What I think a bunch of people really want to say is:
If you can't freely travel from point A to point B, and uses instances, it's not an MMO.
And for some I would even say, if it's an FPS it's not an MMO.
People are arguing over the fluffy bs between point A and B. The stuff that usually ends up being nothing more then scenery or places you grind.
Sounds a lot like CoX to me. Each zone of Paragon city is an instance, with the magority of my quests taking place in a smaller instance.
GA sounds like a lot of fun. Found the article very informative.
So by that definition GA is an MMO.
It sounds like GA has a world model to me. Cities.
Quest hubs were people gather in MMO all sound the same to me.
NPC's that give out quests, train, vendor all set into a given enviroment. A setting you can move around in, with a character.
In WoW you travel from city to city as you progress. Getting quests that send you to other places to do whatever. Or you hang out in a city and talk to NPC's that port you to a BG. You get on a griffion or bat and fly from one place to another to do things.
Space stations and warp gates in Eve. Warcamps and griffins in WAR.
I can't wander around with my guy in CoD. There aren't any NPC"s that I can interact with. It doesn't emulate a world.
Sounds to me like GA has a world that you can interact with.
CODx and BF don't do that.
What I think a bunch of people really want to say is:
If you can't freely travel from point A to point B, and uses instances, it's not an MMO.
And for some I would even say, if it's an FPS it's not an MMO.
People are arguing over the fluffy bs between point A and B. The stuff that usually ends up being nothing more then scenery or places you grind.
Sounds a lot like CoX to me. Each zone of Paragon city is an instance, with the magority of my quests taking place in a smaller instance.
GA sounds like a lot of fun. Found the article very informative.
I'm starting to wonder if we have some GA plants here from how much some people keep misunderstanding what makes a MMO.
A game needs to be massive not simply in the number of players that play the game, but in scale and scope.
In WoW it would take you many many hours to travel to all the zones and see the whole game, even at max level with high speed mounts.
You have Thousands of quests given by thousands of NPCs, they cover huge story lines and small. There is a epic feel to the world and the game.
While traveling you can come across other players who can help you complete quests, or just solo. Or jump into battlegrounds with 4x as many people as GA supports.
It is a MASSIVE game.
While GA, has a waiting room. (50 steps is not a city) where you can meet a few people and set up matches. The ONLY thing this has over CoD4 is the room where you set up the matches is a 3D room rather then a server list.
As for interacting with the world. Your group wins a match so now you have minor advantage X until someone else runs that same map and takes it away from you. That is hardly epic.
At least in Planetside when you took a base it was a long and drawn out process requiring a major investment of time and resources. (Oh and up to 300 people at a time in everything from Infantry to tanks to aircraft to Mechs).
Can anyone point out how this meets massive other then it is supposed to allow a LOT of players on at once?
This game is most definitely not Mmo, and as intrigued as I am with the graphics and gameplay, will NOT pay a monthly fee for this. Good luck, GA.
MMO games played or tested: EQ, DAoC, Archlord, Auto Assault, CoH, CoV, EQ2, EVE, Guild Wars, Hellgate: London, Linneage II, LOTRO, MxO, Planetside, SWG, Sword of the New World, Tabula Rasa, Vanguard, WWIIOL, WOW, Age of Conan
Just say no to instancing.
I read your statement just fine. You're trying to torture words to mean that which they do not. That's about as meaningful as claiming that it's only an instance if the cap on the number of players is an odd integer. It would seem that you are reduced to arguing that if instances are clumsily introduced via separate servers, that's just fine, however damaging it is to gameplay, but if implemented in a way that actually has a gameplay purpose, that's horrible.
-----
When the notion of an MMO was introduced, what was the alternative? Two players sitting next to each other playing a console game? Maybe four players sitting next to each other playing a console game, though consoles could barely do that? Maybe even eight players on a LAN? The Internet meant dialup, and not of the 56k variety. Back in the era in which MMOs were first introduced, 20 players in a single instance sure would have seemed awfully massive.
-----
Why does it matter if the game is an MMORPG or not? That's just splitting hairs. To say, if it's not a WoW clone, it doesn't belong on this site, would leave any particularly innovative games shut out of all sites that are meant for a particular genre. Surely trying to kill innovation shouldn't be the goal.
did anyone stop and think maybe they are trying to make a new type of MMO. how can any comments be made on what the game is or isnt if no one has actually played it. beta doesnt count b/c lots of changes will be made after that. im not saying any one person's are wrong, but that just what they are "opinions". who knows what this game will be once its its on a server, some haters may love it and vica versa. who cares if its MMOG or MO or whatever, as long as its fun to play thats what matters in the long run.
i for one like what ive seen and heard so far and am anticipating its release. just my 2 cents...
I agree fully w/ this post, sounds alot like CoH/V to me and that is one my favs to play.
I did not read through all of the posts on the past 6 pages, so if someone has already addessed this, I'm sorry. But what I wonder and hope is that even though the game is heavily instanced, that it is more like CoX, where you see people around you the majority of the time and only are with just your team when you are on a mission, rather than like GW, where as soon as you leave town, the rest of the world disappears, unless you have added them to your party. I don't just want to know that a game is massively multiplayer, I want to see/feel that it is as well.
Currently Playing: Aion
Trying Out:
Retired: The Chronicles of Spellborn, EvE, LotRo, WoW, VG, AoC, CoX, RO
Waiting on: Blade & Soul, Black Prophecy, Global Agenda, The Agency, SW:ToR, T.E.R.A.
Working On: The 5th Dimension (coming soon)
All I wanted to know was if it was going to be instanced to hell. And they confirmed it.
If this has a monthly fee, I won't play it for more than the initial free month. It really does sound like a regular FPS game (but with less players/map) and a campaign mode.