I think people are freaking out at the "instanced" thing. The closest game I can equate it to is phantasy star online. You have a 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?
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.
Just to add on to the levels, remember people they mean nothing a level 1 could easily kill a lv 50 but they level 50 just has more and better skills to choose from so they can cuztomize themselves for anything needed.
I think people are freaking out at the "instanced" thing. The closest game I can equate it to is phantasy star online. You have a 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?
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.
Well, I might try it if there's a free trial. Had way too many bad experiences with hyped up games the last couple of years.
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.
I agree. Why wasn't this asked as well? Pretty vital for an MMO if you ask me.
If there aren't even large open areas like cities and such were people gather, trade, team up, form guilds, etc.
If you going to look at a fancy interface with LFG tool and form squads on the fly like is the case with nowadays FPS games.
Then this sertainly isn't an MMO. Period! And thus has no place here on the website.
So I would love to see an answer on that one. As they evaded it like the plague!
Personally I don't view this as an MMO but then again I never viewed other so called MMOs like Guild Wars and Hellgate: London as MMOs.
However it seems that this style of MMO is just another type of niche MMO for those that don't mind having central Hubs that take you to various instances.
When it comes to the Q&A I was not satisfied with the answers given as they seemed to avoid the real questions and blow a whole lot of smoke as they circled the question taking it in a different direction. Thankfully those exact same questions are better answered on their own website. Yes it's instanced and the much of the content is in 10v10 matches, personally I don't care I enjoyed playing Tribes back in the day and if they managed to capture that and added character progression all the better.
So in short do I view this as an MMO? No. Will I play it? It's likely but I will see as the game progresses.
I thank MMORPG.com for asking blunt questions (I hope this becomes a trend) about the most questionable aspect of this game (namely is it really and MMO or a gloried FPS), too bad your questions were never fully answered. Then again there are few companies that do a good job of answering the blunt questions.
Because flying a Minmatar ship is like going down a flight of stairs on an office chair while firing an Uzi.
If you're going to declare it not an MMO, then what would you classify it as? It's not exactly a single player game. To declare that one type of instancing makes a game an MMO and another type does not is splitting hairs. That sort of "this particular feature should make the game not count" taken to its logical conclusion could lead to this site having to kick all games off.
Why do people seem to object to instances more strongly if players are allowed to switch from one instance to another? If in a game like WoW (or EQ2 or LotRO or AoC or whatever), you were allowed to freely pick which server you wanted to log on to that day (basically, instant free unlimited server transfers), people would start screaming about how that's instancing and not an open world and not a real MMO and all sorts of other nonsense. Yet surely that would be better than being stuck on one server forever and complaining that the company is too restrictive on server transfers.
Besides, the problem isn't going to be too much instancing. It's going to be too little instancing. (I say that only 2/3 in jest.)
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:
...In conclusion, within Global Agenda, the battles are instanced, but the War is persistent and massive.
If battles of a war is instanced, how is the war persistent? You can only have one or the other. I still think the game will do nicely, looks good, good sounding gameplay, but there is no reason to lie or run-around the questions asked to bring in more players or present yourself as a persistent MMO when it is not. Most of us are pretty familiar with instances, massive worlds, persistents, ect.
MMOs Played: I can no longer list them all in the 500 character limit.
If you're going to declare it not an MMO, then what would you classify it as? It's not exactly a single player game. To declare that one type of instancing makes a game an MMO and another type does not is splitting hairs. That sort of "this particular feature should make the game not count" taken to its logical conclusion could lead to this site having to kick all games off. Why do people seem to object to instances more strongly if players are allowed to switch from one instance to another? If in a game like WoW (or EQ2 or LotRO or AoC or whatever), you were allowed to freely pick which server you wanted to log on to that day (basically, instant free unlimited server transfers), people would start screaming about how that's instancing and not an open world and not a real MMO and all sorts of other nonsense. Yet surely that would be better than being stuck on one server forever and complaining that the company is too restrictive on server transfers. Besides, the problem isn't going to be too much instancing. It's going to be too little instancing. (I say that only 2/3 in jest.)
Lets try this again. The reason we keep saying it is not a MMO is that there are several games out right now that are simply Multiplayer Online games that fit this model and do not charge a monthly fee like a MMO.
CoD tracks your level and as you progress allows you to buy better weapons. The game has built in meeting room software allowing Massive numbers of players to meet and join a server. (Replace server with Instance and you start to see where I am going with this)
Then we have Battlefield Heroes.
It will track your level, allow you to buy better weapons as you grow. And as you win or lose matches it will change the over all war.
As far as I know, nobody has called that one a MMO. Why?
I think the problem is people are forgetting that the first M in MMO means massive for 2 things not 1.
Massive number of players & a Massive world.
CoD, Battlefield Heroes, TF2, Counter Strike whatever they all have a Massive number of players. What they do not have is a Massive world. Thus they are not MMOs, just MOs.
Shrug, if you belive it is worht $50 + $14.95 a month. By all means go ahead and buy it. All I am trying to say is don't get too involved as this game is doomed.
At least with TF2 you do not have to worry about the company going under and shutting down the servers.
Why is this game being covered by this site?? It is most certianly NOT a MMO. Not even close. All this is is a Diablo clone in space. Big deal, it has no business being covered on this site or even getting the publicity they seem to crave.
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?
Is it any less of an MMO than say, D&D Online, Planetside, Guild Wars or Hellgate London? Actually, if I was to compare this game to any MMO, it'd probably be WW2 Online since the game resets every 45 days. Is it an MMO? Probably not, but like some games on this site, it definately qualifies as atleast an MOFPS.
I think DDO has massive outdoor zones as well as instanced areas. But I could be wrong.
Planetside has many massive zones all connected and allows single zones to have 100v100v100 (300 players) at once. It fits MMO in every way.
Guild Wars... Unless it has outdoor zones where you can fight. Yeah it should probably not be called a MMO. IMHO.
Hellgate is dead, so comparing games to it is kinda not nice And no it does not fit the classical definition of a MMO.
WW2 has a massive setting and allows huge numbers of players to fight at one time. True the world does reset. Still it fits decently as a MMO. At least the world is massive, the player base is massive and the fights are massive.
You are 100% correct about this fitting as a MOFPS. Just like TF2, CoD, BattleField xxxx, Counter Strike or any of the other non-monthly charing games.
I would not want to be a investor in this company. They can not win. This game probably looked good on paper but should have been shut down a long time ago. Shrug.
The closer this comes to release the more information will come out, and one of three things will happen.
1. They will release information that shows us why this game is worth a monthly fee and I will eat my words.
2. They will release information that shows us why this game is NOT worth a monthly fee, and they will be DOA.
3. They will say as little as they can get away with about instancing and hope they can sucker enough people into buying the box.
If 1 happens. I will gladly say I am sorry and buy the game.
If 2 happens. I will ignore the game and go on with my life.
If 3 happens. I will feel bad for all the people who got suckered when the game shuts down within the first year.
Allow me to quote the dev.
So, when people ask about "instances", they are usually really interested in to what extent there are large areas that simulate an open world with many players around. These players may enjoy the combat feel of giant maps and large teams, or enjoy exploring a large, seamless outdoor area. In Global Agenda we do offer large city spaces and other social areas where you interact with other many players and NPCs.
They KNOW we are asking if they have a large open world where we can fight. But they will not come right out and say. Sorry no we do not have large open areas.
None the less, that is what this says. They will have a large meeting area where you can chat with your buddys, buy stuff and then go into one of the tiny 10v10 matches.
Even the 60v60 they brag about is really only 10v10, 10v10, 10v10, 10v10, 10v10, 10v10.
Another quote.
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.
The technical issues have been solved by their competitors. A old game like PlanetSide solved 100v100v100 but they can't solve 16v16. Heck EVERY FPS on the market solved that one.
As for the game play issues... If you are worried that your combat is so fast paced that more then 10v10 will be overwhealming then just make the maps bigger with spread out control points.
Again others have solved these problems, and I really do not belive they are having problems with map design. No this sounds like they have a weak product that can not support more then 10v10.
Shrug. If it looks good to you. Spend your $50 +$14.95 a month and come back and tell us how stupid we were to slam the game.
I don't like how they are seperating servers by country. I like EVE in part because you can fly with people from many different countries. Many stationed Military play EVE. Great to fly with my friend who is stationed overseas.
The name "Global" agenda is kinda ironic for them keeping only people of that Country on that server.
Just copy Planetside with better graphics and fixes and I'm happy.
As a Global Agenda Alpha Tester. this game is in its own atm its kinda like planetside but not really.
its more like UT3 but kinda. Its kinda like Tabula Rasa. infact theres a lot of ppl who alpha tested it playing this.. but i have not seen mutch out side of PvP so maby
from what i seen MOSTLY PVP this game is more like Teamfortess. but SIFI fewer classes but same skills bigger maps
I would like to see more.. It is getting better and better. but i cant say mutch. NDA. but ill see if i can. due to them just relaseing the fansite kit and a public fourms ect..
we have some GOOD fourm post about it ----> Urbanbushido u may like
Planetside was definitely a MMOFPS, it allowed hundreds of people to fight at the same time, without having (unless it was packed) to wait in queues, etc. The battles "persisted" in that control of the base you fought over was the object of the fight, and it would remember who had control over time, not "here's a battle, X team won, everyone back to the graphical lobby so we can call this a MMO and charge you for a graphical pretty battle.net."
Guild Wars is not a MMORPG, but it also doesn't charge monthly fees.
HG:L, well, it like fury failed to meet the criteria of MMO, yet charged for it, and POOF.
D&D Onnline, well, that's a weird case, I wouldn't call it a MMO per se, but at least its "battle.net" area actually had some in game use besides server/instance/battle select.
WW2 Online is a MMOG/MMOFPS, it tracks the stats, ranks, etc, between campaigns. Server resets are just a necessity for the type of game it is. But its "one battlefield all the time for everyone", which is more than just about any other game can say.
Yeh I just want battles with thousands of people online like Planetside (in theory though the game is dead now) if it is all instanced up then I don't care cause I can get that kinda gameplay in what are much better FPS games that just focus on combat.
The game looks like it has a lot of good features and some negative features for me. Nothing new in that. No game I have played has every been 100% positive.
MMO - Massively Mutltiplayer Online....The game is an online game where you log in andplay with other players. There will be "massive" amounts of people connected to the same world at the same time...assuming they are popular of course you will have anywhere from 50k(ala Eve, guildwars) to 500K if it really takes off. they will all be logged into one world and able to interact with each other.
To me that is massive, its multiplayer, its online - therefore its an MMO.
Sure combat is portioned off into small group combat and there are +'s and minus's to that, however, there will be consequences to everyone in the world as to the outcome of those instances.
Myself - I am partial to the big fights involving 100+ people in a zone etc. , but if a game is really designed and developed well the type of mechanics in the end wont matter so much.
Sounds like BF2 with a campaign mode tacked on. Which I think is awesome.
Dunno if its an MMO or not . . . but it sounds interesting and the kind of game I'd enjoy. So I'll let others argue about the definition and me I'll concentrate on seeing if the game lives up to its hype.
I don''t really know when Humankind will die out but i''m guessing about 6 years before WOW. -BarCrow
I don't like how they are seperating servers by country. I like EVE in part because you can fly with people from many different countries. Many stationed Military play EVE. Great to fly with my friend who is stationed overseas. The name "Global" agenda is kinda ironic for them keeping only people of that Country on that server.
That really shouldn't limit you. There's a guy in my CoH supergroup playing on a US server even though he lives in Japan. Before they launched the European servers, there were Europeans playing on the US servers. I would hope that the GA team would not limit your server access merely because of your physical location.
------------- The less you expect, the more you'll be surprised. Hopefully, pleasantly so.
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...)
Comments
This has potential.
Question is will they get it just right?
Instances can really be lame, but if you make them right dont have to be.
Its not so bad the maps are not so huge, somtimes big maps really hurt PvP more then help it.
I think alot of players need to get off the hate bandwagon.
And you all wonder why he's beeting arround the bush about Instances?
Duh Look how we react.
I read that and I got a good vibe.
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.
Just to add on to the levels, remember people they mean nothing a level 1 could easily kill a lv 50 but they level 50 just has more and better skills to choose from so they can cuztomize themselves for anything needed.
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.
Well, I might try it if there's a free trial. Had way too many bad experiences with hyped up games the last couple of years.
This game is by no stretch of the imagination an MMO. It's no more an MMO than CoD4. The only difference here is that it has a fancy lobby.
|Mortal Online|Gnostaria|
Too much instancing. Guild Wars 2.
I agree. Why wasn't this asked as well? Pretty vital for an MMO if you ask me.
If there aren't even large open areas like cities and such were people gather, trade, team up, form guilds, etc.
If you going to look at a fancy interface with LFG tool and form squads on the fly like is the case with nowadays FPS games.
Then this sertainly isn't an MMO. Period! And thus has no place here on the website.
So I would love to see an answer on that one. As they evaded it like the plague!
Personally I don't view this as an MMO but then again I never viewed other so called MMOs like Guild Wars and Hellgate: London as MMOs.
However it seems that this style of MMO is just another type of niche MMO for those that don't mind having central Hubs that take you to various instances.
When it comes to the Q&A I was not satisfied with the answers given as they seemed to avoid the real questions and blow a whole lot of smoke as they circled the question taking it in a different direction. Thankfully those exact same questions are better answered on their own website. Yes it's instanced and the much of the content is in 10v10 matches, personally I don't care I enjoyed playing Tribes back in the day and if they managed to capture that and added character progression all the better.
So in short do I view this as an MMO? No. Will I play it? It's likely but I will see as the game progresses.
I thank MMORPG.com for asking blunt questions (I hope this becomes a trend) about the most questionable aspect of this game (namely is it really and MMO or a gloried FPS), too bad your questions were never fully answered. Then again there are few companies that do a good job of answering the blunt questions.
Because flying a Minmatar ship is like going down a flight of stairs on an office chair while firing an Uzi.
This looks more like Fury with guns than anything else.
And, it will fail like Fury too, especially if the charge monthly.
I'd rather play Tribes 10v10 than a game that looked like this. And Tribes did it 10 years ago.
If you're going to declare it not an MMO, then what would you classify it as? It's not exactly a single player game. To declare that one type of instancing makes a game an MMO and another type does not is splitting hairs. That sort of "this particular feature should make the game not count" taken to its logical conclusion could lead to this site having to kick all games off.
Why do people seem to object to instances more strongly if players are allowed to switch from one instance to another? If in a game like WoW (or EQ2 or LotRO or AoC or whatever), you were allowed to freely pick which server you wanted to log on to that day (basically, instant free unlimited server transfers), people would start screaming about how that's instancing and not an open world and not a real MMO and all sorts of other nonsense. Yet surely that would be better than being stuck on one server forever and complaining that the company is too restrictive on server transfers.
Besides, the problem isn't going to be too much instancing. It's going to be too little instancing. (I say that only 2/3 in jest.)
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:
...In conclusion, within Global Agenda, the battles are instanced, but the War is persistent and massive.
If battles of a war is instanced, how is the war persistent? You can only have one or the other. I still think the game will do nicely, looks good, good sounding gameplay, but there is no reason to lie or run-around the questions asked to bring in more players or present yourself as a persistent MMO when it is not. Most of us are pretty familiar with instances, massive worlds, persistents, ect.
MMOs Played: I can no longer list them all in the 500 character limit.
Lets try this again. The reason we keep saying it is not a MMO is that there are several games out right now that are simply Multiplayer Online games that fit this model and do not charge a monthly fee like a MMO.
CoD tracks your level and as you progress allows you to buy better weapons. The game has built in meeting room software allowing Massive numbers of players to meet and join a server. (Replace server with Instance and you start to see where I am going with this)
Then we have Battlefield Heroes.
It will track your level, allow you to buy better weapons as you grow. And as you win or lose matches it will change the over all war.
As far as I know, nobody has called that one a MMO. Why?
I think the problem is people are forgetting that the first M in MMO means massive for 2 things not 1.
Massive number of players & a Massive world.
CoD, Battlefield Heroes, TF2, Counter Strike whatever they all have a Massive number of players. What they do not have is a Massive world. Thus they are not MMOs, just MOs.
Shrug, if you belive it is worht $50 + $14.95 a month. By all means go ahead and buy it. All I am trying to say is don't get too involved as this game is doomed.
At least with TF2 you do not have to worry about the company going under and shutting down the servers.
Why is this game being covered by this site?? It is most certianly NOT a MMO. Not even close. All this is is a Diablo clone in space. Big deal, it has no business being covered on this site or even getting the publicity they seem to crave.
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?
I think DDO has massive outdoor zones as well as instanced areas. But I could be wrong.
Planetside has many massive zones all connected and allows single zones to have 100v100v100 (300 players) at once. It fits MMO in every way.
Guild Wars... Unless it has outdoor zones where you can fight. Yeah it should probably not be called a MMO. IMHO.
Hellgate is dead, so comparing games to it is kinda not nice
And no it does not fit the classical definition of a MMO.
WW2 has a massive setting and allows huge numbers of players to fight at one time. True the world does reset. Still it fits decently as a MMO. At least the world is massive, the player base is massive and the fights are massive.
You are 100% correct about this fitting as a MOFPS. Just like TF2, CoD, BattleField xxxx, Counter Strike or any of the other non-monthly charing games.
I would not want to be a investor in this company. They can not win. This game probably looked good on paper but should have been shut down a long time ago. Shrug.
The closer this comes to release the more information will come out, and one of three things will happen.
1. They will release information that shows us why this game is worth a monthly fee and I will eat my words.
2. They will release information that shows us why this game is NOT worth a monthly fee, and they will be DOA.
3. They will say as little as they can get away with about instancing and hope they can sucker enough people into buying the box.
If 1 happens. I will gladly say I am sorry and buy the game.
If 2 happens. I will ignore the game and go on with my life.
If 3 happens. I will feel bad for all the people who got suckered when the game shuts down within the first year.
Allow me to quote the dev.
So, when people ask about "instances", they are usually really interested in to what extent there are large areas that simulate an open world with many players around. These players may enjoy the combat feel of giant maps and large teams, or enjoy exploring a large, seamless outdoor area. In Global Agenda we do offer large city spaces and other social areas where you interact with other many players and NPCs.
They KNOW we are asking if they have a large open world where we can fight. But they will not come right out and say. Sorry no we do not have large open areas.
None the less, that is what this says. They will have a large meeting area where you can chat with your buddys, buy stuff and then go into one of the tiny 10v10 matches.
Even the 60v60 they brag about is really only 10v10, 10v10, 10v10, 10v10, 10v10, 10v10.
Another quote.
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.
The technical issues have been solved by their competitors. A old game like PlanetSide solved 100v100v100 but they can't solve 16v16. Heck EVERY FPS on the market solved that one.
As for the game play issues... If you are worried that your combat is so fast paced that more then 10v10 will be overwhealming then just make the maps bigger with spread out control points.
Again others have solved these problems, and I really do not belive they are having problems with map design. No this sounds like they have a weak product that can not support more then 10v10.
Shrug. If it looks good to you. Spend your $50 +$14.95 a month and come back and tell us how stupid we were to slam the game.
I don't like how they are seperating servers by country. I like EVE in part because you can fly with people from many different countries. Many stationed Military play EVE. Great to fly with my friend who is stationed overseas.
The name "Global" agenda is kinda ironic for them keeping only people of that Country on that server.
SHOHADAKU
Just copy Planetside with better graphics and fixes and I'm happy.
As a Global Agenda Alpha Tester. this game is in its own atm its kinda like planetside but not really.
its more like UT3 but kinda. Its kinda like Tabula Rasa. infact theres a lot of ppl who alpha tested it playing this.. but i have not seen mutch out side of PvP so maby
from what i seen MOSTLY PVP this game is more like Teamfortess. but SIFI fewer classes but same skills bigger maps
I would like to see more.. It is getting better and better. but i cant say mutch. NDA. but ill see if i can. due to them just relaseing the fansite kit and a public fourms ect..
we have some GOOD fourm post about it ----> Urbanbushido u may like
I agree with Mr. Zoid - give me a redesigned PS with hundreds of enemy, and I'm happy.
GA isn't "massive" enough for me.
Zoom
Planetside was definitely a MMOFPS, it allowed hundreds of people to fight at the same time, without having (unless it was packed) to wait in queues, etc. The battles "persisted" in that control of the base you fought over was the object of the fight, and it would remember who had control over time, not "here's a battle, X team won, everyone back to the graphical lobby so we can call this a MMO and charge you for a graphical pretty battle.net."
Guild Wars is not a MMORPG, but it also doesn't charge monthly fees.
HG:L, well, it like fury failed to meet the criteria of MMO, yet charged for it, and POOF.
D&D Onnline, well, that's a weird case, I wouldn't call it a MMO per se, but at least its "battle.net" area actually had some in game use besides server/instance/battle select.
WW2 Online is a MMOG/MMOFPS, it tracks the stats, ranks, etc, between campaigns. Server resets are just a necessity for the type of game it is. But its "one battlefield all the time for everyone", which is more than just about any other game can say.
Yeh I just want battles with thousands of people online like Planetside (in theory though the game is dead now) if it is all instanced up then I don't care cause I can get that kinda gameplay in what are much better FPS games that just focus on combat.
The game looks like it has a lot of good features and some negative features for me. Nothing new in that. No game I have played has every been 100% positive.
MMO - Massively Mutltiplayer Online....The game is an online game where you log in andplay with other players. There will be "massive" amounts of people connected to the same world at the same time...assuming they are popular of course you will have anywhere from 50k(ala Eve, guildwars) to 500K if it really takes off. they will all be logged into one world and able to interact with each other.
To me that is massive, its multiplayer, its online - therefore its an MMO.
Sure combat is portioned off into small group combat and there are +'s and minus's to that, however, there will be consequences to everyone in the world as to the outcome of those instances.
Myself - I am partial to the big fights involving 100+ people in a zone etc. , but if a game is really designed and developed well the type of mechanics in the end wont matter so much.
It sounds like a great plan...
Lets postulate this is an MMO, to get coverage on mmorpg.com
Lets make it an FPS, there are so many successes in ths field out there.
Lets make it so people dont really meet each other, heavy with instances.
Lets make pvp with a maximum of 8v8 or 12v12.
and...
Lets not mention Tabula Rasa in the interview, this is global agenda after all, not.... wait..
Yeah... great plan.
well done I must say.... mmorpg.com fell for it... again...
Sounds like BF2 with a campaign mode tacked on. Which I think is awesome.
Dunno if its an MMO or not . . . but it sounds interesting and the kind of game I'd enjoy. So I'll let others argue about the definition and me I'll concentrate on seeing if the game lives up to its hype.
I don''t really know when Humankind will die out but i''m guessing about 6 years before WOW.
-BarCrow
That really shouldn't limit you. There's a guy in my CoH supergroup playing on a US server even though he lives in Japan. Before they launched the European servers, there were Europeans playing on the US servers. I would hope that the GA team would not limit your server access merely because of your physical location.
-------------
The less you expect, the more you'll be surprised. Hopefully, pleasantly so.
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...)
FoE Fist of the Empire
