I play UT99 a lot,and i consider it a MMOFPS,because i am playing against several different players all over the world at any given time,so it offers as much interaction as any other MMOFPS does.Most MMO that offer PVP,you are only fighting 1 maybe 2 players,in UT99 i can have 5/6/7/8+ surrounding me at one time.
I supose this why we have dictorionarys. Withouth them, people use definition in a lax way to fit his taste.
I could accept that Diablo 2 was a mmorpg game... in someways. But now we have people that think Unreal Tournament is a MMO?.
Somewhere we have to draw the line betwen just MO and MMO.
I kind of think 200x200 in a big map could be a good limit for what is and what is not MMO.
We need to draw the line.
You sould *absoltuelly* suggest Unreal Tournament to the owners of www.MMORPG.com to add to the list of games. I would pay to see his response (other than the predictible "is not a RPG" part).
But what about 198x177?
Drawing lines are great, but who gets to draw them? Who gets to decide? What if we draw them and everyone ignores them?
Totally with you on this Maddeux. I don't get these arbitrary definitions that keep poppin up. MMO = Massive Multiplayer Online, RPG = Role Playing Game. Soooo if it involves lots of people online flying around with jetpacks and blowing up stuff for fictional goals ... yeah I'll stop there.
Let me help you:
Counter-Strike: FPS
Quake: FPS
Unreal Tournament: FPS
Halo: FPS
Planetside: FPS
Baldurs Gate: RPG
Morrowind: RPG
WOW: RPG
On RPG games you "role play" a character, and the computer play the role of a "dungeon master", the rol of the dungeon master is to control the world to able your "role play" to work. So the dungeon master is the mediator betwen u and the world. There are not really phisics, but rules that the dungeon master use, or break, to make the game fun. As a dungeon master, is ok to ignore the rules, to make the game fun. The importante of a RPG games is not the rulebook, but the "roleplay".
On a FPS game you are given some destruction tools, like pistols, grenades or missiles. These tools work much like simulation of real weapons, and you use these tools against monsters or other players. The game runs as like the real world is posible, with some unreal settings to favor fun, like resistence to wounds, so you don't die by one-shot, the ability to respawn, invariable speed no mather how much weight you have, etc.. FPS games are about speed reaction and skill using these weapons.
A RPG game can have some FPS elements, and a FPS game some RPG elements. And can exist a game that looks somewhat like both, like Planetside. But even planetside arguabily play like a FPS, since is about aim, and theres not dungeon master to decide if you hit or not with your shot, or decide what would be fun to ocurr with your fireball. Recently, a FPS game added a dungeon master: L4D. So the limits can continue to blur, but still a RPG != FPS
Originally posted by madeux But what about 198x177? Drawing lines are great, but who gets to draw them? Who gets to decide? What if we draw them and everyone ignores them? /fret
This is like everything in this life. We set some random line... somewhere, and we discuss it till we agree. Maybe is not perfect, but is teh next thing, and will help us avoid people telling us Halo is a RPG or CoD4 is a RPG. And there exist such people.
And we need to control the meaning of words like RPG because we have to use then to discuss, if the words become everything and nothing, we lost the ability to discuss stuff.
not only is this game an MMO its also an MMORPG because you can role play in it, whoever coined the term MMOFPS was a retard, Might as well call WoW MMOActionbar
And by that definition, CoD, Batlefield, Ghost Recon, CrimeCraft, etc. are mmorpg's too.
not only is this game an MMO its also an MMORPG because you can role play in it, whoever coined the term MMOFPS was a retard, Might as well call WoW MMOActionbar
And by that definition, CoD, Batlefield, Ghost Recon, CrimeCraft, etc. are mmorpg's too.
Who cares how it's classified. If it's fun, play it. If you don't like it, there are many others for you to go play.
Thanks for the confirmation. Global Agenda will be a great INSTANCED multiplayer. I will still try it, but to be honest I am still looking for MMOFPS that offers true OPEN RVR. I define Open RvR with at least 200 vs 200 like Planetside attempted to do and warhammer achieved.
This is nothing personal against Global Agenda, Huxley, Combat Arms , etc. They are or will be AWESOME games but they are not MMO by definition.
For example: Diablo I, II, Global Agenda, Combat Arms, CCS, Huxley etc (INCREDIBLE mutliplayer BUT NOT AN MMO) Everquest I and II, WOW, Warhammer Online, even Maplestory are TRUE MMOS
My point is that just because a game can get ton of people in lobby or in ladders doesnt make it an MMO. A true MMO is when you get a considerable amount people battle, play, or even chat through the whole world.
I cant wait till PS-2 and I hope that SW:TOR and WARHAMMER 40K live to be ture MMOs with Open RvR and PvE.
I define Open RvR with at least 200 vs 200 like Planetside attempted to do and warhammer achieved.
thanks for that , to tell us that open rvr must have at least 200vs 200 .
u know daoc , the most time u hunt other groups and jeah its open rvr .. open cause of the open field ( but its instanced too , rvr cause realm vs realm )
8vs8 on big rvr grounds .. so whats the difference ...
the only thing with MASSIVE pvp games like war is that they are a piece of shit , and they have no small group balance , so u don t need skill like , cause the single players doens t count , its always 100vs100 zerg , and the winner ist who has more tanks blockin the stairs at the tower.
wow arena was good but gw pvp is true pvp skill , daoc was a bit too "big button"skill intesive.
So wait you take keeps with 8 peoplez amazing? (maybe on the pvp server.(no population) but on the devon cluster you need a zerg still to this day to take a keep and you STILL EVERY DAY SEE A battle with 400 people.
So while i like ur story it doesn't pan out.
wow arena was not a mmo, wow in general is but not that aspect of it.
That being said, the game looks good.
PS. the real issue will be character advancement , mmos need to have extensive and worth while advancement. This was PS real issue along with vehicals being too strong.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
I don't see how that's ironic or releveant. Obviously Guild Wars didn't have fees, but NCsoft is responsible for claiming rendered non-combat zones constituted the "MMO" title. After all, that's the only thing that differentiates Guild Wars from Diablo 2 as far as server infrastructure goes. The only excuse Hi-Rez has for charging fees is that their servers, unlike Battlefield's, are owned by the company and not third parties. Yet drones will continue to subscribe, using the Flagship excuse, that patch frequency warrants the costs.
There needs to be some sort of consistent terminology for the various types of games and server configurations. Until now, it had been "persistent world", but the producers went and threw that out the window.
My first remark was in response to the topic title, and the second referenced a trend taking place in the genre demographic, also apparent in this thread. Yes, they probably should have been split into two seperate paragraphs.
I define Open RvR with at least 200 vs 200 like Planetside attempted to do and warhammer achieved.
thanks for that , to tell us that open rvr must have at least 200vs 200 .
u know daoc , the most time u hunt other groups and jeah its open rvr .. open cause of the open field ( but its instanced too , rvr cause realm vs realm )
8vs8 on big rvr grounds .. so whats the difference ...
the only thing with MASSIVE pvp games like war is that they are a piece of shit , and they have no small group balance , so u don t need skill like , cause the single players doens t count , its always 100vs100 zerg , and the winner ist who has more tanks blockin the stairs at the tower.
wow arena was good but gw pvp is true pvp skill , daoc was a bit too "big button"skill intesive.
I fought (lagged a lot) with 700 people on my screen (around the fort) once in daoc, please do go the other way as you are just wrong.
Seeing as you just said wows arena was good mmo pvp and daocs was bad you get -R, no cookies, and everyone knows you don't got the exp. or judgement to back this post up.
Originally posted by DevilXaphan
WOW are you deluded OP. Global Agenda focuses more on small scale team PvP than zerg PvP. PvP battle maps are broken down to 8 vs 8 teams and that is broken into how many 8 man teams their are. So if there is 8 teams of 8 people on each side, then thats 64 vs 64 people on battle maps that affect how the other battle maps do for the whole agency(guild).
So in essence this is an MMO because it has story progression, skill training, and neutral cities where all can gather to buy stuff and congeragate.
MMO ? what does that mean massive multiplayer online, 12 v 12 is hardly massive. NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, ITS NOT MASSIVE.
That being said global agenda looks great, and im lookign forward for it. Story progression =/= mmo, skill training =/= mmo, the cities however get it close so socially it maybe an mmo but not game play wise.
Originally posted by Wizardry
You may very well have a point,but every other game that calls itself a MMO does the same things.WOW the largest subbed game on the planet is full of instances.Guild Wars does the same thing.
You have to look at the big picture,how many other players are you usually interacting with at any given time?not many,as a matter of fact MOST players are now asking for more single player content,witch IMO is ridiculous considering you are suppose to be playing an MMO.So IMO almost every game out there is for the most part a very weak mmo,as your time interacting with massive amounts of players is usually quite low.
Look at what you are asking for a "True MMOFPS",are you asking for a non stop massive player interaction?that would be impossible unless you have one playing zone with 500 players and you do nothing but kill/die/respawn over and over and over.
You could never make a game full of content this way,it would be an extreme waste of time,as you would always have to wait until you had 200+ players to interact with before you could play any opf the content.IMO MOST games do it right ,by offering content that caters to an average sized group of 6,i could live with 4 or 5,less and it becomes a single player game ,not a MMO.
I play UT99 a lot,and i consider it a MMOFPS,because i am playing against several different players all over the world at any given time,so it offers as much interaction as any other MMOFPS does.Most MMO that offer PVP,you are only fighting 1 maybe 2 players,in UT99 i can have 5/6/7/8+ surrounding me at one time.
Wow is clearly an mmo.
GW is well know NOT AN MMO. (however, its listed on thsi site why not better to be inclusive as a gameing site).
UT99 is not even close to an mmo , why even do this , i mean what are you thinking. Because i play it online its an mmo?
So LotRD was an mmo when i dialed up my local BBS may years ago because, "heck i played with other people"
Maybe golden eye for the n64 was an MMO because heck people could like come over and play with you. Maybe tetris was an mmo after all like 100 people could watch you and be like put the block there.
Ok, i know very sarcastic but mmo means one thing and one thing only, and just because a game is not an mmo doesn't mean it will be bad.
SO ALL TOGETHER NOW
MMO = MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAMES.
KEY WORD: MASSIVE
12 people not massive, 64 people not massive.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
How many players are required before it can be considered to be "massive"?
You better have more support than 64 players. Thats 32 vs 32 otherwise, its a Multiplayer fps. I know been playing fps's since Quake 1 and I've been in 64 player games like BF2142.
I think I have said this before, but please answer this question honestly: What do I get $15.00/month? 6v6 action + Lobby + maybe a map where I can see my friends fighting but I cant enter?
Is GA is F2P I would troully love it (as it is) I just cant trully justify the monthly of a multiplayer with glorified lobby Is GA offer open RvR I would trully love it and I would not bash it and play gladly the monthly fee
Just $0.02 of GA.
If you dont like it then make like a tree.
No one is makeing you play the game, No one cares that you thing the matches are to small... It has more MMO then a lot of the games on here that claim to be MMO's so Who cares?
Plus I dont rember in Counterstrike or BF2142 or any other FPS haveing the map give resources or tech alowing you to "Domanate a region"
So yes its a MMO. heck its more of a MMO (Imho) than games like Wow where if you kill the Lich King 300 times in a day It does Nothing. Who cares If Wow and War have Larger Pvp battles? they DO NOTHING!!!!! Ok in War you can raid the others city and annoy them.. Who cares in a day or so its back to normal.
In Eve I Don't go into Lowsec or Null sec But they Still touch my game. The way thay make it sound It will be the same here.
Im Tired of all the Stagnent MMO's out there. they are all pointless. Let the World change. Honestly is it that mutch to ask for?
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. Samuel Adams
Originally posted by Ekibiogami Im Tired of all the Stagnent MMO's out there. they are all pointless. Let the World change. Honestly is it that mutch to ask for?
I agree completely. All we need in MMO's is change, and its people like the OP as well as many others that prevent that change from happening.
Is Global Agenda a "real" MMO? I've heard that Global Agenda has a lot of instancing and relatively small battles. Is the game a "real" MMO?
Global Agenda's unique fusion of shooter-based action, role-playing mechanics, and grand territorial strategy gameplay can make the game difficult to easily pigeonhole into a "classic" game genre. At Hi-Rez Studios, our number one objective is to bring a fresh, insanely fun game to market -- not necessarily to fit neatly into an existing category.
That said, however, the game has a broad set of features that MMO players have grown accustomed to and that are traditionally considered when discussing whether a game is a "true MMO."
These features include:
•Player vs Environment missions with boss fights (Does not make it an MMO)
•Player vs Player missions with different objective types (Does not make it an MMO)
•A large-scale, persistent territory control framework and Campaign (Sounds interresting please explain)
•Multiple character classes and subclasses (Does not make it an MMO)
•Character leveling and progression (Does not make it an MMO)
•Skill trees (Does not make it an MMO)
•Social Hubs (So is MSN, AOL-CHAT, Arena NET, ETC (Does not make it an MMO)
•Achievements (Does not make it an MMO)
•Loot with various qualities (Does not make it an MMO)
•Blueprints and crafting (Does not make it an MMO)
•Economy and auction system (HMM YEAH)
•Gear upgrades (Does not make it an MMO)
•Alliances and Agencies (our version of "guilds"). (can all they all play in the same instance.... NOOOOOO)
•Grouping systems (for easily teaming with other players for mission) (Does not make it an MMO)
•Character customization and dyes (Does not make it an MMO)
•Flair and seasonal items (Does not make it an MMO)
•Alliance/Agency/Group/Side/Team text chat (Does not make it an MMO)
•Integrated Voice Chat (Does not make it an MMO)
•Thirty+ different major weapons/devices for each class (Does not make it an MMO)
•Scores of character emotes (Does not make it an MMO)
•A "Raid" system that is part of the campaign system that allows coordinated teams of up to 60 persons (working inside up to 6 different strike teams) to simultaneously raid the enemy, working toward a common raid objective. (WTF THIS MEANS 60v60? IN ONE INSTANCE OR SREAD OUT IN DIFFERENT INSTANCES WITH A COMMON CHAT CHANNEL)
•Single server-shard per major geographic region -- meaning you can communicate with and compete with/against tens of thousands of other players. ( A GLORIFIED CHAT CHANNEL... LOL)
THE QUESTION IS SIMPLE: IS GA AN MMO?
THE ANSWER HOWEVER WAS NOT. EVEN THE PUBLOSHER KNOWS THIS IS NOT AN MMO.
My problem is not with global agenda. Persoanlly I have said this ton of times this game is going to be good and fun. HOWEVER IS NOT AN MMO...
THE QUESTION IS SIMPLE: IS GA AN MMO? THE ANSWER HOWEVER WAS NOT. EVEN THE PUBLOSHER KNOWS THIS IS NOT AN MMO. My problem is not with global agenda. Persoanlly I have said this ton of times this game is going to be good and fun. HOWEVER IS NOT AN MMO...
Why Not? Its more of a MMO than a lot of games on this site?
If you dont like the system then Shoooo.
Im getting tired of Zergfests. This game isent one. I for one am pleased.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. Samuel Adams
the game looks fun for small team combat with a point. i would say thats a really good step for the people who enjoy games like tf2 counterstrike and UT.
but really... its not an mmo. its a mofps. hell if you want to claim having alot of people waiting to get into games makes you an mmo.... Team fortress 2 would be an mmo.
i like that they are giving the game a point. using your team work towards capping lots of the map. (basically a tourny that resets) its cool, i just dont know if its worth my monthly fee.
If the game is actually any good, then id gladly pay a monthly sub for it, MMO or not. It has the elements of team based FPS with persistant characters and customisation and an emphasis on teamwork. Thats good enough for me, and id rather play it that yet another level up fantasy clone.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
I supose this why we have dictorionarys. Withouth them, people use definition in a lax way to fit his taste.
I could accept that Diablo 2 was a mmorpg game... in someways. But now we have people that think Unreal Tournament is a MMO?.
Somewhere we have to draw the line betwen just MO and MMO.
I kind of think 200x200 in a big map could be a good limit for what is and what is not MMO.
We need to draw the line.
You sould *absoltuelly* suggest Unreal Tournament to the owners of www.MMORPG.com to add to the list of games. I would pay to see his response (other than the predictible "is not a RPG" part).
But what about 198x177?
Drawing lines are great, but who gets to draw them? Who gets to decide? What if we draw them and everyone ignores them?
/fret
There's a couple of people over on the SWTOR board who seem to be. I don't think I got the memo though.
It's really all subjective. All these threads like this should be entitled "This is not MY kind of MMO."
Man I can't wait for some of these games to actually get released so I can spend less time reading/responding to this kinda stuff!
Let me help you:
Counter-Strike: FPS
Quake: FPS
Unreal Tournament: FPS
Halo: FPS
Planetside: FPS
Baldurs Gate: RPG
Morrowind: RPG
WOW: RPG
On RPG games you "role play" a character, and the computer play the role of a "dungeon master", the rol of the dungeon master is to control the world to able your "role play" to work. So the dungeon master is the mediator betwen u and the world. There are not really phisics, but rules that the dungeon master use, or break, to make the game fun. As a dungeon master, is ok to ignore the rules, to make the game fun. The importante of a RPG games is not the rulebook, but the "roleplay".
On a FPS game you are given some destruction tools, like pistols, grenades or missiles. These tools work much like simulation of real weapons, and you use these tools against monsters or other players. The game runs as like the real world is posible, with some unreal settings to favor fun, like resistence to wounds, so you don't die by one-shot, the ability to respawn, invariable speed no mather how much weight you have, etc.. FPS games are about speed reaction and skill using these weapons.
A RPG game can have some FPS elements, and a FPS game some RPG elements. And can exist a game that looks somewhat like both, like Planetside. But even planetside arguabily play like a FPS, since is about aim, and theres not dungeon master to decide if you hit or not with your shot, or decide what would be fun to ocurr with your fireball. Recently, a FPS game added a dungeon master: L4D. So the limits can continue to blur, but still a RPG != FPS
This is like everything in this life. We set some random line... somewhere, and we discuss it till we agree. Maybe is not perfect, but is teh next thing, and will help us avoid people telling us Halo is a RPG or CoD4 is a RPG. And there exist such people.
And we need to control the meaning of words like RPG because we have to use then to discuss, if the words become everything and nothing, we lost the ability to discuss stuff.
And by that definition, CoD, Batlefield, Ghost Recon, CrimeCraft, etc. are mmorpg's too.
And by that definition, CoD, Batlefield, Ghost Recon, CrimeCraft, etc. are mmorpg's too.
Who cares how it's classified. If it's fun, play it. If you don't like it, there are many others for you to go play.
Attempted?
thanks for that , to tell us that open rvr must have at least 200vs 200 .
u know daoc , the most time u hunt other groups and jeah its open rvr .. open cause of the open field ( but its instanced too , rvr cause realm vs realm )
8vs8 on big rvr grounds .. so whats the difference ...
the only thing with MASSIVE pvp games like war is that they are a piece of shit , and they have no small group balance , so u don t need skill like , cause the single players doens t count , its always 100vs100 zerg , and the winner ist who has more tanks blockin the stairs at the tower.
wow arena was good but gw pvp is true pvp skill , daoc was a bit too "big button"skill intesive.
So wait you take keeps with 8 peoplez amazing? (maybe on the pvp server.(no population) but on the devon cluster you need a zerg still to this day to take a keep and you STILL EVERY DAY SEE A battle with 400 people.
So while i like ur story it doesn't pan out.
wow arena was not a mmo, wow in general is but not that aspect of it.
That being said, the game looks good.
PS. the real issue will be character advancement , mmos need to have extensive and worth while advancement. This was PS real issue along with vehicals being too strong.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
Blame Guild Wars' marketing. Pretty soon we're going to see monthly fees for every online game and you'll all warrant it because the game's enjoyable.
Ironic that you should bring up Guild Wars and monthly fees in the same breath. Considering the former doesn't have the latter.
I don't see how that's ironic or releveant. Obviously Guild Wars didn't have fees, but NCsoft is responsible for claiming rendered non-combat zones constituted the "MMO" title. After all, that's the only thing that differentiates Guild Wars from Diablo 2 as far as server infrastructure goes. The only excuse Hi-Rez has for charging fees is that their servers, unlike Battlefield's, are owned by the company and not third parties. Yet drones will continue to subscribe, using the Flagship excuse, that patch frequency warrants the costs.
There needs to be some sort of consistent terminology for the various types of games and server configurations. Until now, it had been "persistent world", but the producers went and threw that out the window.
My first remark was in response to the topic title, and the second referenced a trend taking place in the genre demographic, also apparent in this thread. Yes, they probably should have been split into two seperate paragraphs.
I fought (lagged a lot) with 700 people on my screen (around the fort) once in daoc, please do go the other way as you are just wrong.
Seeing as you just said wows arena was good mmo pvp and daocs was bad you get -R, no cookies, and everyone knows you don't got the exp. or judgement to back this post up.
MMO ? what does that mean massive multiplayer online, 12 v 12 is hardly massive. NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, ITS NOT MASSIVE.
That being said global agenda looks great, and im lookign forward for it. Story progression =/= mmo, skill training =/= mmo, the cities however get it close so socially it maybe an mmo but not game play wise.
Wow is clearly an mmo.
GW is well know NOT AN MMO. (however, its listed on thsi site why not better to be inclusive as a gameing site).
UT99 is not even close to an mmo , why even do this , i mean what are you thinking. Because i play it online its an mmo?
So LotRD was an mmo when i dialed up my local BBS may years ago because, "heck i played with other people"
Maybe golden eye for the n64 was an MMO because heck people could like come over and play with you. Maybe tetris was an mmo after all like 100 people could watch you and be like put the block there.
Ok, i know very sarcastic but mmo means one thing and one thing only, and just because a game is not an mmo doesn't mean it will be bad.
SO ALL TOGETHER NOW
MMO = MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAMES.
KEY WORD: MASSIVE
12 people not massive, 64 people not massive.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
All together now...
"who cares?"
Actually, just looking at the screenshots, it reminds me of Unreal Tournament 2004 Onslaught. Now that game is a blast.
This game reminds me of Face of Mankind
The OP and your posting in his thread.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
I think I have said this before, but please answer this question honestly:
What do I get $15.00/month?
6v6 action + Lobby + maybe a map where I can see my friends fighting but I cant enter?
Is GA is F2P I would troully love it (as it is) I just cant trully justify the monthly of a multiplayer with glorified lobby
Is GA offer open RvR I would trully love it and I would not bash it and play gladly the monthly fee
Just $0.02 of GA.
You better have more support than 64 players. Thats 32 vs 32 otherwise, its a Multiplayer fps. I know been playing fps's since Quake 1 and I've been in 64 player games like BF2142.
If you dont like it then make like a tree.
No one is makeing you play the game, No one cares that you thing the matches are to small... It has more MMO then a lot of the games on here that claim to be MMO's so Who cares?
Plus I dont rember in Counterstrike or BF2142 or any other FPS haveing the map give resources or tech alowing you to "Domanate a region"
So yes its a MMO. heck its more of a MMO (Imho) than games like Wow where if you kill the Lich King 300 times in a day It does Nothing. Who cares If Wow and War have Larger Pvp battles? they DO NOTHING!!!!! Ok in War you can raid the others city and annoy them.. Who cares in a day or so its back to normal.
In Eve I Don't go into Lowsec or Null sec But they Still touch my game. The way thay make it sound It will be the same here.
Im Tired of all the Stagnent MMO's out there. they are all pointless. Let the World change. Honestly is it that mutch to ask for?
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
I agree completely. All we need in MMO's is change, and its people like the OP as well as many others that prevent that change from happening.
Is Global Agenda a "real" MMO? I've heard that Global Agenda has a lot of instancing and relatively small battles. Is the game a "real" MMO?
Global Agenda's unique fusion of shooter-based action, role-playing mechanics, and grand territorial strategy gameplay can make the game difficult to easily pigeonhole into a "classic" game genre. At Hi-Rez Studios, our number one objective is to bring a fresh, insanely fun game to market -- not necessarily to fit neatly into an existing category.
That said, however, the game has a broad set of features that MMO players have grown accustomed to and that are traditionally considered when discussing whether a game is a "true MMO."
These features include:
•Player vs Environment missions with boss fights (Does not make it an MMO)
•Player vs Player missions with different objective types (Does not make it an MMO)
•A large-scale, persistent territory control framework and Campaign (Sounds interresting please explain)
•Multiple character classes and subclasses (Does not make it an MMO)
•Character leveling and progression (Does not make it an MMO)
•Skill trees (Does not make it an MMO)
•Social Hubs (So is MSN, AOL-CHAT, Arena NET, ETC (Does not make it an MMO)
•Achievements (Does not make it an MMO)
•Loot with various qualities (Does not make it an MMO)
•Blueprints and crafting (Does not make it an MMO)
•Economy and auction system (HMM YEAH)
•Gear upgrades (Does not make it an MMO)
•Alliances and Agencies (our version of "guilds"). (can all they all play in the same instance.... NOOOOOO)
•Grouping systems (for easily teaming with other players for mission) (Does not make it an MMO)
•Character customization and dyes (Does not make it an MMO)
•Flair and seasonal items (Does not make it an MMO)
•Alliance/Agency/Group/Side/Team text chat (Does not make it an MMO)
•Integrated Voice Chat (Does not make it an MMO)
•Thirty+ different major weapons/devices for each class (Does not make it an MMO)
•Scores of character emotes (Does not make it an MMO)
•A "Raid" system that is part of the campaign system that allows coordinated teams of up to 60 persons (working inside up to 6 different strike teams) to simultaneously raid the enemy, working toward a common raid objective. (WTF THIS MEANS 60v60? IN ONE INSTANCE OR SREAD OUT IN DIFFERENT INSTANCES WITH A COMMON CHAT CHANNEL)
•Single server-shard per major geographic region -- meaning you can communicate with and compete with/against tens of thousands of other players. ( A GLORIFIED CHAT CHANNEL... LOL)
THE QUESTION IS SIMPLE: IS GA AN MMO?
THE ANSWER HOWEVER WAS NOT. EVEN THE PUBLOSHER KNOWS THIS IS NOT AN MMO.
My problem is not with global agenda. Persoanlly I have said this ton of times this game is going to be good and fun. HOWEVER IS NOT AN MMO...
Why Not? Its more of a MMO than a lot of games on this site?
If you dont like the system then Shoooo.
Im getting tired of Zergfests. This game isent one. I for one am pleased.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
the game looks fun for small team combat with a point. i would say thats a really good step for the people who enjoy games like tf2 counterstrike and UT.
but really... its not an mmo. its a mofps. hell if you want to claim having alot of people waiting to get into games makes you an mmo.... Team fortress 2 would be an mmo.
i like that they are giving the game a point. using your team work towards capping lots of the map. (basically a tourny that resets) its cool, i just dont know if its worth my monthly fee.
If the game is actually any good, then id gladly pay a monthly sub for it, MMO or not. It has the elements of team based FPS with persistant characters and customisation and an emphasis on teamwork. Thats good enough for me, and id rather play it that yet another level up fantasy clone.
Looks to me like GA is as much an MMORPG as Guild Wars is.
Oh, wait, GW's isn't one.....according to the games own Devs
But it doesn't really matter, will it be fun, that's all I care about.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon