This is the future of MMO's? 12vs12? 60 man engagements? Instances?
That's it? That's a regular game with a metamap that, for some reason, is classified as an MMO. Man this is dissapointing.
[quote]"if you look at a game like wow or planetside with their open evironments you will find that (as far as world pvp goes) there are hotspots and all that empty space between is just a time sink in travel".[/quote]
Yeah all that "empty space" is what constitutes a world. It's what defines most MMO's. Without it, you have "maps", as in every other MP game ever made. And that is what Global Agenda is. A regular FPS with lesser graphics and a meta campaign. I hope there's no monthly fee to it.
do i have to do instances
is their a game world. can all my friends be in the same spot at the same time. do i have to do instances
This is the future of MMO's? 12vs12? 60 man engagements? Instances?
That's it? That's a regular game with a metamap that, for some reason, is classified as an MMO. Man this is dissapointing.
[quote]"if you look at a game like wow or planetside with their open evironments you will find that (as far as world pvp goes) there are hotspots and all that empty space between is just a time sink in travel".[/quote]
Yeah all that "empty space" is what constitutes a world. It's what defines most MMO's. Without it, you have "maps", as in every other MP game ever made. And that is what Global Agenda is. A regular FPS with lesser graphics and a meta campaign. I hope there's no monthly fee to it.
do i have to do instances
is their a game world. can all my friends be in the same spot at the same time. do i have to do instances
You can all hang out in the city/HQ no problem. The actual combat is all instanced, but you can group up and all play together anyway.
Why should i stop playing Battlefield 2142 and start playing (and PAYING every month?!) this game instead? It dosnt make sence.
Sure, ill probably try it out a month or two, but i dont think i wanna pay every month for a regular FPS game with some MMO features tossed in for good measure. That would be kinda stupid when i can play games with better graphics and much better gameplay for free.
... unless the game rocks... then i will pay whatever to play it.
The key difference and the reason we cover it and not BF2142, for example, is persistence. Yes, BF has added some persistence to characters, but take this end-game for example. The end-game has all sorts of persistence, MMO elements, even if the actual battles do not have 1000 people in them.
To me, that argument is a dated one. Sure, it is nice when you can have 1000 people in the same place, but to me it's more important that I could play with any of those 1000 people and we're all working towards persistent goals in the same world. No MMO lets 1000 actual characters run around in the exact same space without blowing up the server and client.
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
It's good to finally get to see the end-game. I think it's this feature that will serve to be the most interesting for players.
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
Hi guys. From reading the comments I can see you all havnt gone over to globalagendagame.com to read the knowledge base so let me drop some knowledge on ya. I'll try to say as much as i can w/o breaking NDA. There is no direct trading. Only AH. We havnt tested AvA yet, but the battle we have tested is very unlike what you may be thinking. Its the best kind of addicting and challenging at the same time. For those worrying about its being primarily instanced, don't be. If you look at a game like wow or planetside with their open evironments you will find that (as far as world pvp goes) there are hotspots and all that empty space between is just a time sink in travel. GA doesnt have that. Pick an area to fight in, and hit the action. Period. Come on over to the forums, sign up. Get your learn on. It's really a great community to be a part of.
In Planetside the time it took to go from one base to another or from one continent/planet to another could mean huge fights errupting out in the open or running battles from one base to another and some of those were far better than the base fights themselves. Bridge battles in Planetside were some of the best.
What I am seeing in GA amounts to small battle maps like we see in Halo. Nothing wrong with that, if you like the small battle maps you'd find in such a game. I however like the large openess of a game like Planetside.
Seriously! How awesome would it be to be 1 of the best mercenaries! Just going around for the highest bidder (if they decide to do that) and be totally awesome! ... I wanna be that guy!
Guilds, actually fighting over who gets you and when they see the opponent got you, they just think.. oooh shite!
Hi guys. From reading the comments I can see you all havnt gone over to globalagendagame.com to read the knowledge base so let me drop some knowledge on ya. I'll try to say as much as i can w/o breaking NDA. There is no direct trading. Only AH. We havnt tested AvA yet, but the battle we have tested is very unlike what you may be thinking. Its the best kind of addicting and challenging at the same time. For those worrying about its being primarily instanced, don't be. If you look at a game like wow or planetside with their open evironments you will find that (as far as world pvp goes) there are hotspots and all that empty space between is just a time sink in travel. GA doesnt have that. Pick an area to fight in, and hit the action. Period. Come on over to the forums, sign up. Get your learn on. It's really a great community to be a part of.
In Planetside the time it took to go from one base to another or from one continent/planet to another could mean huge fights errupting out in the open or running battles from one base to another and some of those were far better than the base fights themselves. Bridge battles in Planetside were some of the best.
What I am seeing in GA amounts to small battle maps like we see in Halo. Nothing wrong with that, if you like the small battle maps you'd find in such a game. I however like the large openess of a game like Planetside.
Except that what you're completely failing to acknowledge is that there is no game world in Halo. Each of those maps is a completely seperate mini-game, the outcome of which is totally meaningless. It is literally just a match and when a team wins it resets and the players just start another battle all over again. This is nothing like Global Agenda as it does have a persistent game world comprised of lots of zones and each of those battles means something.
The open world pvp in a game like Planetside is nice but it doesnt neccessarily make for a better game. It's simply a different approach. The problem with the open world approach is that it tries too hard to simulate realism and just ends up coming across as being silly. I dont like the way open world pvp plays out in games like Darkfall, WAR or Aion. You just get masses of immortal headless chickens zerging each other. They kill each other. They respawn. Two minutes later they run back. They die. They respawn. They run back. They die. They respawn. Eventually the only way to "defeat" your enemy is to make them give up through boredom or frustration.......usually by outnumbering them. Then when you do gain control of the keep or whatever you.....ermm.....stand around waiting for the next zerg mob to try and take it back or you run off at high speed to take the next one. I think we're all well aware of how craptastic the keep swapping was in WAR.
With the approach that Hi-Rez Studios are taking, the action will be focused and a lot more structured. You form a strike force and invade a particular place, knowing that you have specific objectives in mind because claiming those objectives will provide a strategic advantage elsewhere in the ongoing war. The enemy forms a team to defend. This = balanced meaningul PvP which = fun. They are waving goodbye to the mindless zerg bullshit and a good thing too.
I personally think Hi-Rez Studios will succeed where all the other open world pvp games have failed, simply because they are focusing on making their game play like a game while the other mmos tried too hard to provide a world simulation. Open world pvp is crap when all the participants are insta-regenerating immortals. Also it might be worth paying attention to the fact that there approach has never been done before. Sure we've all seen instanced PvP but not when each of those zones is part of a map which forms a persistent game world. In a sense its still open world pvp where the combat only takes place around meaningful objectives in a fair and fun way. I'm not sure about you but I play games to have fun and I find this new approach to online gaming being offered by Hi-Rez Studios to be pretty exciting.
I for one wouldn't say there is anything Massive about 16 v. 16. but who cares, as long as its fun. A poster a few pages ago made a good point, maybe MASSIVE pvp will never be fun -- it never has been -- so maybe GA has it right.
I for one am going to give it a try after it comes out... and maybe a couple months after so I miss all the mandatory new-MMORPG launch bugs that will crop up in the first 3 months.
If its awesome, great. If it sucks, ahhh well. I'm not getting my hopes up though. Damn MMO advertisers have got me excited too many times before - I'm not falling for that crap again. We will see it when it comes out.
Comments
do i have to do instances
is their a game world. can all my friends be in the same spot at the same time. do i have to do instances
do i have to do instances
is their a game world. can all my friends be in the same spot at the same time. do i have to do instances
You can all hang out in the city/HQ no problem. The actual combat is all instanced, but you can group up and all play together anyway.
The key difference and the reason we cover it and not BF2142, for example, is persistence. Yes, BF has added some persistence to characters, but take this end-game for example. The end-game has all sorts of persistence, MMO elements, even if the actual battles do not have 1000 people in them.
To me, that argument is a dated one. Sure, it is nice when you can have 1000 people in the same place, but to me it's more important that I could play with any of those 1000 people and we're all working towards persistent goals in the same world. No MMO lets 1000 actual characters run around in the exact same space without blowing up the server and client.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
It's good to finally get to see the end-game. I think it's this feature that will serve to be the most interesting for players.
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
In Planetside the time it took to go from one base to another or from one continent/planet to another could mean huge fights errupting out in the open or running battles from one base to another and some of those were far better than the base fights themselves. Bridge battles in Planetside were some of the best.
What I am seeing in GA amounts to small battle maps like we see in Halo. Nothing wrong with that, if you like the small battle maps you'd find in such a game. I however like the large openess of a game like Planetside.
Can't wait for GA to come out!!
.:[LP]:. Beowulf
beowulfhuntr on steam
Seriously! How awesome would it be to be 1 of the best mercenaries! Just going around for the highest bidder (if they decide to do that) and be totally awesome! ... I wanna be that guy!
Guilds, actually fighting over who gets you and when they see the opponent got you, they just think.. oooh shite!
If that really happens I am SO there!
In Planetside the time it took to go from one base to another or from one continent/planet to another could mean huge fights errupting out in the open or running battles from one base to another and some of those were far better than the base fights themselves. Bridge battles in Planetside were some of the best.
What I am seeing in GA amounts to small battle maps like we see in Halo. Nothing wrong with that, if you like the small battle maps you'd find in such a game. I however like the large openess of a game like Planetside.
Except that what you're completely failing to acknowledge is that there is no game world in Halo. Each of those maps is a completely seperate mini-game, the outcome of which is totally meaningless. It is literally just a match and when a team wins it resets and the players just start another battle all over again. This is nothing like Global Agenda as it does have a persistent game world comprised of lots of zones and each of those battles means something.
The open world pvp in a game like Planetside is nice but it doesnt neccessarily make for a better game. It's simply a different approach. The problem with the open world approach is that it tries too hard to simulate realism and just ends up coming across as being silly. I dont like the way open world pvp plays out in games like Darkfall, WAR or Aion. You just get masses of immortal headless chickens zerging each other. They kill each other. They respawn. Two minutes later they run back. They die. They respawn. They run back. They die. They respawn. Eventually the only way to "defeat" your enemy is to make them give up through boredom or frustration.......usually by outnumbering them. Then when you do gain control of the keep or whatever you.....ermm.....stand around waiting for the next zerg mob to try and take it back or you run off at high speed to take the next one. I think we're all well aware of how craptastic the keep swapping was in WAR.
With the approach that Hi-Rez Studios are taking, the action will be focused and a lot more structured. You form a strike force and invade a particular place, knowing that you have specific objectives in mind because claiming those objectives will provide a strategic advantage elsewhere in the ongoing war. The enemy forms a team to defend. This = balanced meaningul PvP which = fun. They are waving goodbye to the mindless zerg bullshit and a good thing too.
I personally think Hi-Rez Studios will succeed where all the other open world pvp games have failed, simply because they are focusing on making their game play like a game while the other mmos tried too hard to provide a world simulation. Open world pvp is crap when all the participants are insta-regenerating immortals. Also it might be worth paying attention to the fact that there approach has never been done before. Sure we've all seen instanced PvP but not when each of those zones is part of a map which forms a persistent game world. In a sense its still open world pvp where the combat only takes place around meaningful objectives in a fair and fun way. I'm not sure about you but I play games to have fun and I find this new approach to online gaming being offered by Hi-Rez Studios to be pretty exciting.
I for one wouldn't say there is anything Massive about 16 v. 16. but who cares, as long as its fun. A poster a few pages ago made a good point, maybe MASSIVE pvp will never be fun -- it never has been -- so maybe GA has it right.
I for one am going to give it a try after it comes out... and maybe a couple months after so I miss all the mandatory new-MMORPG launch bugs that will crop up in the first 3 months.
If its awesome, great. If it sucks, ahhh well. I'm not getting my hopes up though. Damn MMO advertisers have got me excited too many times before - I'm not falling for that crap again. We will see it when it comes out.
I hope they make a believer out of me.