Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Global Agenda: Top Three Questions... Answered
Stradden
Managing EditorMember CommonPosts: 6,696
Todd Harris, the Executive Producer for Global Agenda, has provided us with this developer journal in which he answers three of the most commonly asked questions about their upcoming MMO.
Question #1: Is Global Agenda an MMOFPS, MMORPG, or MMORTS?
Well… yes. Global Agenda is an Action MMO that incorporates elements from each of these game-types, but also some important differences.
Global Agenda has elements of an FPS because our in-mission game play is very action-oriented and as fluid as a multiplayer online shooter.
)
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
Comments
Grats on asking the real questions that everyone wants to hear, and this is exactly as I imagined it. I think that this setup is awesome, and ideal for this type of game.
Multiple objectives and maps to achieve a single goal is how I always wished keep raids in WAR should work instead of a massive zerge that just surrounds the lord and wacks away.
An evolving map with diplomacy and spies with a persistant world where players can zone in and out of battles to complete objectives and actually alter the world is an awesome concept. I have talked about a game like this for years with friends and the possibilities it could create and am really excited about this.
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.
Think maybe of guild wars but as FPS, and objective based PvP gameplay that affects the World, and your guild/agencies control over it. In those terms it is much, much more of an MMORPG than Guild Wars because the players affect the world, and there is more PvP action instead of such a large focus on PvE story based content that doesn't change. Global Agenda would be much more dynamic in the gameplay experiences.
This game is supposed to be Full Loot, correct?
This is like saying CoD is a MMO because it keeps track of your rank and what weapons you are allowed to buy. For that matter this would make Diablo a MMO because Battlenet keeps track of your items and rank.
It's a matter of definition. How do you define a MMO. Is it any game that has large numbers of players loging into a central point and that player data is maintained at a centeral site?
If so MANY games that most people call simply Multiplayer Online games (MOs vs MMO) are in fact a MMO.
The point I am trying to make is that this game is more a MO with a Battlenet gathering type interface for setting up matches.
To me a MMO would require that a massive number of players could be involved in the battles at any given time. When you look at all the other MMOs on the market you see they all support far larger fights then this so called MMO. WoW, AoC, DAoC, L1 & L2, CoH/CoV, Planetside, EQ, EQ2, UO. Every MMO released to date has understood you must allow MASSIVE fights to be called a MMO. Otherwise you are just a MO and need to drop the monthly fee.
No that isn't like what I am saying. ** Sorry that was rude.
I'm sorry that I seem to have offended you. That was not my goal. I was trying to discus the game and work out why it is being covered on a MMO site when it does not seem to be a MMO.
I will admit I do not know the first thing about Guild Wars so I can not comment on that. I was under the impression that guild wars allowed much larger fights. I'll look into that. It may be that this is a new definition for what is or is not a MMO.
I just did some quick research and you are right Guild Wars is very small scale. Looks like most fights are 8v8 with a few 12v12.
One note, Guild Wars is free to play. Sure you have to buy the game. But they do not charge a monthly fee. Sure they release content packs but you do not have to buy them to keep playing.
Unless I missed something big, this game is planing on being a standard MMO pricing. $50-$60 for the Box and $14.95 a month.
One saving grace for Guild Wars that keeps it in the MMO space may be the PvE. (Need to research) If the PvE is open world. I.E. wandering around killing mobs with instances that you enter. Then I belive that would still fit the MMO concept.
However if in guildwars all you do is stand around in a city or something and put together teams to go do instance X. Then no... We would be back to the battle net example.
Sorry I got jumpy. Well Guild Wars is essentially a PvE game with a huge PVP arena system where players gather in cities and then zone off into PVE instanced content, or compete in arenas. It is still an MMORPG because it is a massive amount of online players that get together to advance their persistant characters.
This game is similar in that there is a world map, with tons of objectives/campaigns/territories that is persistant and each of those instanced maps that represent these things is there in a persistant state. Players can zone in and out of the different maps to complete objectives and advance their character in a persistant nature. CoD has persistant characters, but not a persistant and dynamic world. These things come together to create a Massive Multiplayer Online game. Players affect and have a stake in the world where everything is persistant. One server to house all players that enter into this persistant world makes it massive multiplayer.
This style of MMO development will continue to be developed more and more because it allows for single player style game polish, content, and graphics while still having a massive multiplayer scale. Another example of almost the exact same concept, but in RTS form is Kingdom Under Fire 2. Check out this topic -
www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/222754/MMO-RTS-Kingdom-Under-Fire-2.html
A lot of people consider games like this to not be MMO's, but not having an open world does not equate to not being an MMO.
Christ!
That interview contains the longest explanation of the words "Yes it's heavily Instanced" that I have EVER read.
Is he trying to fool people or what.
Personally I don't mind instanced missions as long as there are also large open areas and cities to interact with other players.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
Question #3 – Is Global Agenda instanced or an open world?
This is a bit of a trick question because all MMOs are instanced to some extent.
Seems to be beating around the bush a bit on this one.
Fact is mmo has two distinct meanings for people. For some its about an environment to exist in where a community develops and you develop your character within the context of that community. For others its about pvp.
From this guys explanation it sounds like the game is pvp but they're trying to dress it up as an mmorpg.
hm... cool
but i'm not understund whot about Worlds,
1) people have only chois for server in menu like in Kikoff and Fifa online 2?
2) or whe have world like Driftcity one world for Quests and for Buying and meny hosts for pvp?
if (2) i'm think this game bee one of my favorite games
(thanks and sorry for my English)
It does sound like PvP focus, but also clearly IS an mmo - just with smaller battles. Which to me is a very good thing.
"within Global Agenda, the battles are instanced, but the War is persistent and massive"
He also says one instance can dynamically affect another instance. I agree with ProfRed - sounds like a great setup. Can't wait for this one!
The more I learn about this, the less it sounds like a true MMO... or at least what I personally would consider one. It has a few elements that ring "MMO" but the rest of it seems a little lackluster. It may make for a great game outside of this genre, something to give FPS'ers a little more for their gaming, but it seems clear that the RPG tag will be no where to be seen.
Sounds like a beefed up and perfected planetside. Which is also Considered a MMO and on this sites list. This game seems pretty cool, regardless of if its a full fledge MMO or not, the one thing that I like to see is these Devs are saying we dont care what you want, this is the game we are making, either like it or screw off, they arnt trying to make a game players will enjoy, instead making a game they like and putting it out there.
Mess with the best, Die like the rest
PlanetSide is not instanced. And the maps are a hell of big seamless areas. And there are vehicles on Planetside. And there are a no classes on planetside... you create your classe whatever you want to do.
Am I the only one who smells another Tabural Rasa/Planetside epic phail? Planetside at least was good until development came to a grinding halt.
I hope I'm wrong though, I liked Planetside when it was all populated and such.
Honestly I prefer Tabula Rasa to what I am seeing here as it at least made an attempt to blend FPS and RPG elements in a way that was more traditional in the MMO sense.
Is Global Agenda instanced?
Yes, to bits.
That would have sufficed.
At least this is the impression I got. And since I hate instancing of public zones I won't be touching this one, I'm afraid. The whole idea behind dividing a playerbase over different servers is that you can achieve persistance in the game world and make it seemless and open without needing any copies of public zones like questing areas or cities to spread the load. Certain pve areas or pvp battlegrounds should, ofcourse be instanced, for the sake of balance and challenge but touch the 'gameworld' itself and I take a run for my money (and immersion).
My brand new bloggity blog.
I think people are freaking out at the "instanced" thing.
The closest game I can equate it to is phantasy star online . You have central hubs where you interact and run around with everyone else on your server, buy armor, choose battles, etc., but the battles themselves are with groups in another area.
This is very much an MMO.
So it's more like the third epic phail, Hellgate London?
Yea you are one of the few that think that and you are wrong. The game will have instanced battles (like wow or war) but they will actually mean something like taking over enemy land or messing up there research. The game will be amazing.
So it's more like the third epic phail, Hellgate London?
I never played HG:L or know anything about it really, so I couldn't say how similar it is.
If you like class based games like Team Fortress or Battlefield, and like persistant worlds where you can shape control zones in a pvp fps kind of way, then you will love this game.
I think the ability to "level up" your char and unlock better gear and improve your char is what will keep people playin and what seperates this from a standard fps game. It's really the very best of cod/bf/tf etc all rolled into one. Winning a battle means something in the overall map kind of like chromehounds campaigns on the 360.
I really don't see what the big debate over this being a MMORPG or not. So, let's break it down and see if it qualifies without everyone adding their "Personal " definitions of an MMORPG.
Massive = The article reports having only one server for North America... I'd say that qualifies as massive
Multiplayer = The article refers to Strike Teams which infers more than one person or they would have called it a Strike Person so it qualifies. Multiplayer = more than one person
Online = The fact that they are going to have servers that people log into it qualifies it as an online game
RPG = Taking on the role of an agent in a future setting and running missions to compete with other agencies. Since you are taking on the Role of something else in a Game, it also qualifies
When you break it down and don't try to impose your views of what MMORPG onto others it is very clear there is no need to debate if the game is an MMORPG or not.