Looks great and all, but reading up on how the game works.
im afraid its overhyped, by desperate fps players who are looking for a
prober and succesfull FPSmmo
Well, lets wait until release before final jugdement!
Humains will ultimate fail, cause of thair nature :
Condamnation before investigation!
------ Playing MMO's since my first which was Ultima online, then Anarchy online. and so on.. Now a days im very critical before i ewen bother downloading a Free to play mmo.
Looks great and all, but reading up on how the game works. im afraid its overhyped, by desperate fps players who are looking for a
prober and succesfull FPSmmo Well, lets wait until release before final jugdement! Humains will ultimate fail, cause of thair nature :
Condamnation before investigation!
A lot of us here are in the beta and I think many old school FPS players (specifically CS when hitboxes became very popular) feel that there is a lack of individual skill in this game and that group/team tactics/play are much more important.
ie. Even though I'm a God at CS1.6 and TF2, I won't be able to carry a team full of fails. Just like how 1 DPS in WoW cannot make up for a fail tank and healer.
No matter what people say, the game is what it is. a MMO - FPS. So many core elements of an MMO theres no doubt it isnt, especially in the way your character levels and progresses, which is even more of a MMO aspect once you see..
Ok seriously I want someone to just come out and say at least one of these:
"This game will suck because it's not an mmo"
"Persistence doesn't count if it happens in an instance"
or
"GA is awful because 10v10 is to small"
If you can't say any and back it up then why do you even care? You're just arguing over semantics. Same goes for people defending GA it wouldn't be any better if is an mmo.
Besides being associated to an mmo these days is almost always an insult anyway.
you tell me why its not a mmo. Oh because of instances. Well i guess i was right Guild wars is not a mmo. You probably suck at tps and thats why your putting it down. I defend GA because its something diff and it will be a good game. They put a lot of work in this game and you can tell.
Actually, no, guild wars isn't an MMO and I've never considered it such. There is nothing persistent about guild wars besides your character, which does not an MMO make. So yeah, I'll say it, unless they suddenly bust out with "hey check out this cohesive persistent world we've been hiding behind this curtain!" I'll be the one to say it. Global Agenda isn't an MMO, its a FPS with some virtual chatroom areas and co-op side missions.
sorry guild wars is a mmo and so is GA because it has massive amounts of people playing it on a sever. What makes WOW a MMO that its open world? When someone can prove what a game needs to be a mmo besides massive amounts of people let me know.
Looks great and all, but reading up on how the game works. im afraid its overhyped, by desperate fps players who are looking for a
prober and succesfull FPSmmo Well, lets wait until release before final jugdement! Humains will ultimate fail, cause of thair nature :
Condamnation before investigation!
A lot of us here are in the beta and I think many old school FPS players (specifically CS when hitboxes became very popular) feel that there is a lack of individual skill in this game and that group/team tactics/play are much more important.
With contest, this is a must, but even in the regular Pvp matches, teamwork is a given unless playing against pickup/
This pyramid of slander is just becoming moronic. Any actual points you two were aiming to make got lost along with the braincells you have savagely beaten to death.
I'm personally of the view point that GA is not an MMO, because its multiplayer, not massively multiplayer. You can only play with a few others at any given moment, the rest being pretty avatars in a hub, just like Hellgate, GW, etc. By scale of amount of people playing the game and actually interacting with one another, to go with that analogy, would actually imply games like CoD, Battlefield, and TF2 are MMOs. And GA only has as much of a persistent world as Planetside does. MAG is going to be equally persistent. Battlefield has had persistent aspects to it's game play for a long time now. CoD has persistent development of players within the game.
Massively Multiplayer Game means exactly what the words are. It's a game that allows a large number of players to interact. If you want to go simple and loose in how you interpret that, then you'd have to admit a slough of other games to be MMOs as well if GA is to be one. If you want to go narrower, then you have to admit the finite aspects of GA, GW, etc, and that they really do not fulfill the 'massive' role, not even by early 1990s standards. It does not mean the game has to be persistent. It does not mean the player or game world has to progress in any way, shape, or form. It's not some magical term with breadth or depth, it is a very simple term to describe a very simple mechanic. All MMO means, truthfully, could be characterized as meaning "big co-op game".
Excellent post. Haven't played GA, but what I read about it, its pretty much a glorified lobby.
Ok seriously I want someone to just come out and say at least one of these: "This game will suck because it's not an mmo" "Persistence doesn't count if it happens in an instance" or "GA is awful because 10v10 is to small" If you can't say any and back it up then why do you even care? You're just arguing over semantics. Same goes for people defending GA it wouldn't be any better if is an mmo. Besides being associated to an mmo these days is almost always an insult anyway.
They are having 60vs60 battles for the subscription part of the game, guild vs guild over territories, also you don't have to pay monthly and just do the 10vs10 or 12v12
No they aren't. It is 60 v 60 broken down into 10 v 10s.
Most of the player-vs-player combat inside Global Agenda will occur inside instanced battlegrounds with strike teams of around 10 vs 10 players. That said, the results of those battles have longer-term persistence in the world of Global Agenda, affecting your Agency's ability to control territory that helps produce output toward our Campaign end game. Players will be able to socialize and conduct economic activity in our city spaces.
I'm sorry,but I cant see how obtaining results within instanced battles to sway your power in an intangible world (character wise) can be labeled an MMO.You're confined into a limited space with only 20 or so players,its like any other FPS/TPS out there with multiplayer capability.
The only time you see a mass of people is when you're in the confines of your city.
Just because your view of what a "MMO" is, is not the same as what Global Agenda's is, does not mean it is not a MMO.
You even state that the only time you see a mass of people is when your in a city....Well guess what, that makes it a MMO Period.
Hell, Farmville on Facebook is considered a MMO because many people play online together and can meet up in some stupid town.
Sorry bro, its a MMO, even if it isnt a type of MMO you wish it was.
So I guess by your definition Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is also an MMO. And Team Fortress 2, and Tribes, Battlefield, Quake Live, Mario Cart, Tetris Multiplayer, etc.
That's funny, I don't remember running into more than a couple of people in WoW while leveling. In fact, most of the time people are just hanging around the capital cities waiting to join instanced battlegrounds or dungeons. Yeah, I can definitely see how GA and WoW are so incredibly different.
So I guess by your definition Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is also an MMO. And Team Fortress 2, and Tribes, Battlefield, Quake Live, Mario Cart, Tetris Multiplayer, etc.
Don't be a bigger idiot than you really are. TF2, Battlefield, Quake, etc. don't have a persistent PvP campaign where player groups are constantly attacking and defending important territories that allows them to build facilities and reap rewards. Your ignorance makes your opinion moot.
People who start this argument at all are missing the point.
There is a -definition- of massively multiplayer online games. Global Agenda fits this definition. End conversation.
One CoD server can only hold so many people; this is how many people you see at any given time in the game.
One Warcraft server can hold thousands of people; you usually only see 10 or 12 at any given time, capitols aside.
Global Agenda can -also- hold thousands of people.
When it comes down to it, you're basically in it the same way, only in CoD it's easy to leave a server full of dickbags and charlatans and join another, while it's hard to do that in WoW or WAR or GA or EVE, especially since the latter two only have a single server supporting all those players.
Yes, GA is broken up into games of 10v10. This is intentional; 10v10 is half-reasonable, but when you get into 20v20 it turns into a robo spamfest. The decision was a good one; CoD can support more folks, BF2 can support more folks, GA doesn't have the scope or the balance to support more folks. There's also the persistence aspect of the world in GA, which is as authentic as can be; I've participated, it works well, it's fun to do.
The main thing with most people who say GA isn't an MMO is that they don't fuckin' like it. And that's fine. But as far as definitions are concerned, YES, it is massively online, YES, it contains character generation and progression (which means, from a modern standpoint, that it is an RPG), YES, it has a persistent world. The fact that you can't just walk from one end of it to the other is moot. The fucking thing fits the definition.
Some people are so fucking stupid it makes me cry inside. Yes this is an mmo and the reasons have be told many times in this thread but the retards that won't accept it probably can't be bothered to read. Let's compare it to WoW at level 80 shall we? You stand in orgrimmar(dome city) queue up for instances(pve), battlegrounds(one of the pvp maps in GA), arena(AvA). The only difference is while leveling up in WoW and that's garbage anyway so why bother.
I'll agree that world pvp can be fun sometimes, but it's always unbalanced, the zerg wins, the low-skilled sucky people prosper and the good players can't really stand out as much as in controlled games. The AvA in this game is so much more mmo-like than any other new mmo-game released, and so much more skillful and fun to play, the best team wins.
MMO stands for massive multiplayer online. As far as i know global agenda is an online game that can hold a mass of players. It's not hard to understand. Now if the question was is it an MMORPG, i could see the confusion. Yes it basically is a rpg as well as an FPS because their is a storyline that you and your co-players play a role in.
So I guess by your definition Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is also an MMO. And Team Fortress 2, and Tribes, Battlefield, Quake Live, Mario Cart, Tetris Multiplayer, etc.
Don't be a bigger idiot than you really are. TF2, Battlefield, Quake, etc. don't have a persistent PvP campaign where player groups are constantly attacking and defending important territories that allows them to build facilities and reap rewards. Your ignorance makes your opinion moot.
Yes, I am a bigger idiot than I really am. I dont know why I post on these forums anymore. Not that I will be reading any further 'witty' responses of yours:
No matter how many of you sugar-coat it, it's not an MMO. You're paying monthly for a multiplayer FPS with a persistent lobby. Something extremely similar to many large scale FPS combat games out today, which even allow you to level up, obtain gear, and complete missions...
10v10 is nice....if i compare it with eve online; with an amount of limited people u will have better fights then with masses of people (not mentioning the lag). With 10v10 playerskills will count so u will have fair fights.
Only realm versus realmfights like in Dark Ages of Camelot will beat it but they are in the open and using walls and siegeequipment.
Maybe they add/allow more people into fights later if everything is balanced.
That's funny, I don't remember running into more than a couple of people in WoW while leveling. In fact, most of the time people are just hanging around the capital cities waiting to join instanced battlegrounds or dungeons. Yeah, I can definitely see how GA and WoW are so incredibly different.
Um, well, ever done Wintergrasp? Open zone, pvp, dozens of people interacting like idiots (oh but that's not the point).
Or a seasonal event? You can run into a lotta people. Or a raid on a major city, happens every so often, lotta peeps there.
Hmm, how about when the zombies attacked all over before the launch of Lich King.
Or when some people decide to raid the other factions' lower zones to be a pain, and the higher lvls are called in, and a mess results, but its often quite a few people.
Oh, I don't know anything, but there's a powerful difference between GA and Wow or EQ or DAOC or WAR or whatever.
Call it whatever you want.
Course the point is not what the definition is, but what a buyer's expectations are when a game is advertised as an MMO. But then, when I bought EQ I had no idea that there was animal such as an MMO, LOL.
I don't believe that GA is an MMORPG in the traditional sense. Yes, you can make a decent argument for it fulfilling the requirements, but it certainly isn't what MOST people think of when they think of an MMORPG. The thing that is rubbing people the wrong way is how it's being marketed. The 60vs60 battles are really the problem here: there are NEVER 60 players in the same place at the same time. As an individual, you NEVER see more than 10vs10 in an instance, PERIOD. You would have to be pretty stupid not to figure it out before you purchased it, but hey, there are a lot of stupid people out there. This whole argument is stupid actually. WHO CARES?
Sounds like GW1, made by Arenanet. There you could play 16v16 and fight to win land/territory for your faction. Arenanet always called their game a CORPG though.
Most of the player-vs-player combat inside Global Agenda will occur inside instanced battlegrounds with strike teams of around 10 vs 10 players. That said, the results of those battles have longer-term persistence in the world of Global Agenda, affecting your Agency's ability to control territory that helps produce output toward our Campaign end game. Players will be able to socialize and conduct economic activity in our city spaces.
I'm sorry,but I cant see how obtaining results within instanced battles to sway your power in an intangible world (character wise) can be labeled an MMO.You're confined into a limited space with only 20 or so players,its like any other FPS/TPS out there with multiplayer capability.
The only time you see a mass of people is when you're in the confines of your city.
Just because your view of what a "MMO" is, is not the same as what Global Agenda's is, does not mean it is not a MMO.
You even state that the only time you see a mass of people is when your in a city....Well guess what, that makes it a MMO Period.
Hell, Farmville on Facebook is considered a MMO because many people play online together and can meet up in some stupid town.
Sorry bro, its a MMO, even if it isnt a type of MMO you wish it was.
Sorry to say it but Guildwars have very similar system and they officially named it cooperative but not massive. In top of that you do not pay monthly subscription... Nothing against Global Agenda but its like name Tomb Rider a shooter game!
Where themepark games try to hide that they are copying WOW, games like Mortal Online and Darkfall make no attempt to hide their inspiration ______\m/_____ LordOfDarkDesire
Sounds like GW1, made by Arenanet. There you could play 16v16 and fight to win land/territory for your faction. Arenanet always called their game a CORPG though.
winrar. And 16v16 is even more "massivelol" than 10v10
Comments
Looks great and all, but reading up on how the game works.
im afraid its overhyped, by desperate fps players who are looking for a
prober and succesfull FPSmmo
Well, lets wait until release before final jugdement!
Humains will ultimate fail, cause of thair nature :
Condamnation before investigation!
------
Playing MMO's since my first which was Ultima online, then Anarchy online. and so on..
Now a days im very critical before i ewen bother downloading a Free to play mmo.
A lot of us here are in the beta and I think many old school FPS players (specifically CS when hitboxes became very popular) feel that there is a lack of individual skill in this game and that group/team tactics/play are much more important.
ie. Even though I'm a God at CS1.6 and TF2, I won't be able to carry a team full of fails. Just like how 1 DPS in WoW cannot make up for a fail tank and healer.
No matter what people say, the game is what it is. a MMO - FPS. So many core elements of an MMO theres no doubt it isnt, especially in the way your character levels and progresses, which is even more of a MMO aspect once you see..
i don't see how it matter what its a mmo, mud 123 abc its a fun game what ever its called it really doesn't matter to me
you tell me why its not a mmo. Oh because of instances. Well i guess i was right Guild wars is not a mmo. You probably suck at tps and thats why your putting it down. I defend GA because its something diff and it will be a good game. They put a lot of work in this game and you can tell.
Actually, no, guild wars isn't an MMO and I've never considered it such. There is nothing persistent about guild wars besides your character, which does not an MMO make. So yeah, I'll say it, unless they suddenly bust out with "hey check out this cohesive persistent world we've been hiding behind this curtain!" I'll be the one to say it. Global Agenda isn't an MMO, its a FPS with some virtual chatroom areas and co-op side missions.
sorry guild wars is a mmo and so is GA because it has massive amounts of people playing it on a sever. What makes WOW a MMO that its open world? When someone can prove what a game needs to be a mmo besides massive amounts of people let me know.
The guild wars FAQ says its not an MMO....
A lot of us here are in the beta and I think many old school FPS players (specifically CS when hitboxes became very popular) feel that there is a lack of individual skill in this game and that group/team tactics/play are much more important.
With contest, this is a must, but even in the regular Pvp matches, teamwork is a given unless playing against pickup/
Excellent post. Haven't played GA, but what I read about it, its pretty much a glorified lobby.
They are having 60vs60 battles for the subscription part of the game, guild vs guild over territories, also you don't have to pay monthly and just do the 10vs10 or 12v12
No they aren't. It is 60 v 60 broken down into 10 v 10s.
I'm sorry,but I cant see how obtaining results within instanced battles to sway your power in an intangible world (character wise) can be labeled an MMO.You're confined into a limited space with only 20 or so players,its like any other FPS/TPS out there with multiplayer capability.
The only time you see a mass of people is when you're in the confines of your city.
Just because your view of what a "MMO" is, is not the same as what Global Agenda's is, does not mean it is not a MMO.
You even state that the only time you see a mass of people is when your in a city....Well guess what, that makes it a MMO Period.
Hell, Farmville on Facebook is considered a MMO because many people play online together and can meet up in some stupid town.
Sorry bro, its a MMO, even if it isnt a type of MMO you wish it was.
So I guess by your definition Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is also an MMO. And Team Fortress 2, and Tribes, Battlefield, Quake Live, Mario Cart, Tetris Multiplayer, etc.
That's funny, I don't remember running into more than a couple of people in WoW while leveling. In fact, most of the time people are just hanging around the capital cities waiting to join instanced battlegrounds or dungeons. Yeah, I can definitely see how GA and WoW are so incredibly different.
Don't be a bigger idiot than you really are. TF2, Battlefield, Quake, etc. don't have a persistent PvP campaign where player groups are constantly attacking and defending important territories that allows them to build facilities and reap rewards. Your ignorance makes your opinion moot.
People who start this argument at all are missing the point.
There is a -definition- of massively multiplayer online games. Global Agenda fits this definition. End conversation.
One CoD server can only hold so many people; this is how many people you see at any given time in the game.
One Warcraft server can hold thousands of people; you usually only see 10 or 12 at any given time, capitols aside.
Global Agenda can -also- hold thousands of people.
When it comes down to it, you're basically in it the same way, only in CoD it's easy to leave a server full of dickbags and charlatans and join another, while it's hard to do that in WoW or WAR or GA or EVE, especially since the latter two only have a single server supporting all those players.
Yes, GA is broken up into games of 10v10. This is intentional; 10v10 is half-reasonable, but when you get into 20v20 it turns into a robo spamfest. The decision was a good one; CoD can support more folks, BF2 can support more folks, GA doesn't have the scope or the balance to support more folks. There's also the persistence aspect of the world in GA, which is as authentic as can be; I've participated, it works well, it's fun to do.
The main thing with most people who say GA isn't an MMO is that they don't fuckin' like it. And that's fine. But as far as definitions are concerned, YES, it is massively online, YES, it contains character generation and progression (which means, from a modern standpoint, that it is an RPG), YES, it has a persistent world. The fact that you can't just walk from one end of it to the other is moot. The fucking thing fits the definition.
Some people are so fucking stupid it makes me cry inside. Yes this is an mmo and the reasons have be told many times in this thread but the retards that won't accept it probably can't be bothered to read. Let's compare it to WoW at level 80 shall we? You stand in orgrimmar(dome city) queue up for instances(pve), battlegrounds(one of the pvp maps in GA), arena(AvA). The only difference is while leveling up in WoW and that's garbage anyway so why bother.
I'll agree that world pvp can be fun sometimes, but it's always unbalanced, the zerg wins, the low-skilled sucky people prosper and the good players can't really stand out as much as in controlled games. The AvA in this game is so much more mmo-like than any other new mmo-game released, and so much more skillful and fun to play, the best team wins.
MMO stands for massive multiplayer online. As far as i know global agenda is an online game that can hold a mass of players. It's not hard to understand. Now if the question was is it an MMORPG, i could see the confusion. Yes it basically is a rpg as well as an FPS because their is a storyline that you and your co-players play a role in.
Don't be a bigger idiot than you really are. TF2, Battlefield, Quake, etc. don't have a persistent PvP campaign where player groups are constantly attacking and defending important territories that allows them to build facilities and reap rewards. Your ignorance makes your opinion moot.
Yes, I am a bigger idiot than I really am. I dont know why I post on these forums anymore. Not that I will be reading any further 'witty' responses of yours:
No matter how many of you sugar-coat it, it's not an MMO. You're paying monthly for a multiplayer FPS with a persistent lobby. Something extremely similar to many large scale FPS combat games out today, which even allow you to level up, obtain gear, and complete missions...
Get over it.
This is the point where I remind everyone to abide by our RoC
10v10 is nice....if i compare it with eve online; with an amount of limited people u will have better fights then with masses of people (not mentioning the lag). With 10v10 playerskills will count so u will have fair fights.
Only realm versus realmfights like in Dark Ages of Camelot will beat it but they are in the open and using walls and siegeequipment.
Maybe they add/allow more people into fights later if everything is balanced.
Um, well, ever done Wintergrasp? Open zone, pvp, dozens of people interacting like idiots (oh but that's not the point).
Or a seasonal event? You can run into a lotta people. Or a raid on a major city, happens every so often, lotta peeps there.
Hmm, how about when the zombies attacked all over before the launch of Lich King.
Or when some people decide to raid the other factions' lower zones to be a pain, and the higher lvls are called in, and a mess results, but its often quite a few people.
Oh, I don't know anything, but there's a powerful difference between GA and Wow or EQ or DAOC or WAR or whatever.
Call it whatever you want.
Course the point is not what the definition is, but what a buyer's expectations are when a game is advertised as an MMO. But then, when I bought EQ I had no idea that there was animal such as an MMO, LOL.
---------------------------
Rose-lipped maidens,
Light-foot lads...
I don't believe that GA is an MMORPG in the traditional sense. Yes, you can make a decent argument for it fulfilling the requirements, but it certainly isn't what MOST people think of when they think of an MMORPG. The thing that is rubbing people the wrong way is how it's being marketed. The 60vs60 battles are really the problem here: there are NEVER 60 players in the same place at the same time. As an individual, you NEVER see more than 10vs10 in an instance, PERIOD. You would have to be pretty stupid not to figure it out before you purchased it, but hey, there are a lot of stupid people out there. This whole argument is stupid actually. WHO CARES?
Sounds like GW1, made by Arenanet. There you could play 16v16 and fight to win land/territory for your faction. Arenanet always called their game a CORPG though.
Play as your fav retro characters: cnd-online.net. My site: www.lysle.net. Blog: creatingaworld.blogspot.com.
I'm sorry,but I cant see how obtaining results within instanced battles to sway your power in an intangible world (character wise) can be labeled an MMO.You're confined into a limited space with only 20 or so players,its like any other FPS/TPS out there with multiplayer capability.
The only time you see a mass of people is when you're in the confines of your city.
Just because your view of what a "MMO" is, is not the same as what Global Agenda's is, does not mean it is not a MMO.
You even state that the only time you see a mass of people is when your in a city....Well guess what, that makes it a MMO Period.
Hell, Farmville on Facebook is considered a MMO because many people play online together and can meet up in some stupid town.
Sorry bro, its a MMO, even if it isnt a type of MMO you wish it was.
Sorry to say it but Guildwars have very similar system and they officially named it cooperative but not massive. In top of that you do not pay monthly subscription... Nothing against Global Agenda but its like name Tomb Rider a shooter game!
Where themepark games try to hide that they are copying WOW, games like Mortal Online and Darkfall make no attempt to hide their inspiration
______\m/_____
LordOfDarkDesire
winrar. And 16v16 is even more "massivelol" than 10v10