Is Global Agenda instanced?

Yes, to bits.

That would have sufficed.

At least this is the impression I got. And since I hate instancing of public zones I won't be touching this one, I'm afraid. The whole idea behind dividing a playerbase over different servers is that you can achieve persistance in the game world and make it seemless and open without needing any copies of public zones like questing areas or cities to spread the load. Certain pve areas or pvp battlegrounds should, ofcourse be instanced, for the sake of balance and challenge but touch the 'gameworld' itself and I take a run for my money (and immersion).
 

I think people are freaking out at the "instanced" thing.

The closest game I can equate it to is phantasy star online . You have  central hubs where you interact and run around with everyone else on your server, buy armor,  choose battles, etc., but  the battles themselves are with groups in another area.

This is very much an MMO.

Originally posted by iamspamicus

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?

Originally posted by neller2000

Am I the only one who smells another Tabural Rasa/Planetside epic phail? Planetside at least was good until development came to a grinding halt.

I hope I'm wrong though, I liked Planetside when it was all populated and such.

Yea you are one of the few that think that and you are wrong. The game will have instanced battles (like wow or war) but they will actually mean something like taking over enemy land or messing up there research. The game will be amazing.

Originally posted by neller2000

Originally posted by iamspamicus

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.

I really don't see what the big debate over this being a MMORPG or not. So, let's break it down and see if it qualifies without everyone adding their "Personal " definitions of an MMORPG.

Massive = The article reports having only one server for North America... I'd say that qualifies as massive

Multiplayer = The article refers to Strike Teams which  infers more than one person or they would have called it a Strike Person so it qualifies. Multiplayer = more than one person

Online = The fact that they are going to have servers that people log into it qualifies it as an online game

RPG = Taking on the role of an agent in a future setting and running missions to compete with other agencies. Since you are taking on the Role of something else in a Game, it also qualifies

When you break it down and don't try to impose your views of what MMORPG onto others it is very clear there is no need to debate if the game is an MMORPG or not.

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. 

Originally posted by iamspamicus

Originally posted by neller2000

Originally posted by iamspamicus

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.
 

Originally posted by iamspamicus

Originally posted by neller2000

Originally posted by iamspamicus

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.

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.

Too much instancing. Guild Wars 2.

Originally posted by Vortigon

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.

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.

Originally posted by Quizzical

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.

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.

Originally posted by Zyllos

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:

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?