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.

This game will give me lulz

In my mind the difference between a game being a MMO and just a MOG (massive online game) is that in an MMO you're in the game world 100% of the time and in a MOG you switch back and forth between a chat room and the game world. The total immersion in the game world being the difference between the two.

its an mmo, straight forward.

I played it at E3 and in CBT1 and the way I  fealt about my character and the feel of the game was exactly an mmo.

Doing challenging group pve missions is just one of the reason.

im gonna have to try this game when it comes out.  I love the premise to this game; to fight against a totalitarian world government, it gives it a feel that rivals huxley (the mmofps), yet synonomous... brave new world.  What would make things even more creepier is if they had Aldous Huxley repeat some of his remarks pve quest-wise in both games.  

-- "I nuke my metal eggs in the morning with my modifyed microwave oven turned EMP weapon" -- a distant yet unsurprised citizen of a system foreseen

Agreed, this is more like guild wars w/o the messy world map to PVE in.

Certainly not a traditional MMORPG model, but that doesn't meant it won't be fun.

People who love FPS games should thrill to it but those looking for more of a virtual world experience certainly are looking in the wrong place.

This game has nothing massive. It's kind of the tombs in guildwars, you play match after match and voilà. Is it enough to add an auctin house to claim a subscription ? I'm not sure.

The real MMOFPS that people is waiting for would be a planetside on steroids. With a revamped network code. 100 vs 100 with no lag and bullets and shells everywhere. This is massive, this is persistent.

8 vs 8... MMO ? no.

Originally posted by Avathos

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Warhammer achieved nothing - Aion will absolutely bury it.

The OP has a point. The only reason they are calling it an MMO is to justify the $15/mth other than that there is nothing MMO about it, maybe a lobby dressed up as a fancy city, extensive character customizations (passed off as rpg these days).

Not saying GA won't be a good game-it'll be fine but it's like having to pay for the full game then another  $15.00/mth for say CoD4 or TF2 (a pay-once game that to this day is still getting free content updates) when there is really nothing to justify it being subscription based. Hence the liberal use of the term MMO to lump it together with other subscription based games, some of which fit that model and some don't.

I mean if people want to pay $15/mth for what is essentially a variation of a multipllayer FPS that's their perogative but when there are other choices that can offer that FPS fix and not charge you a monthly fee it's a tough sell.

HiRez studio is hosting the server, does that not make the monthly fee make sense? You still need to pay for a server in TF2 or L4D, the difference is the guys who made the game are taking the extra time to make sure the game play quality remains enjoyable and with low ping. Plus the ongoing free content they promise.

Not to mention the 45 day campain thing, the in-game guild system, the PvE, Crafting, armor and weapon dyes, Skill trees, leveling, over 100 sets of armor already completed, etc. etc. All shooters have all that stuff for sure.

The fun factor alone is worth the price if you ask me, but that's just some internet dude's opinion.

Originally posted by Simsu

<snip> ...and just a MOG (massive online game) <snip>

Actually, MOG is generally considered to stand for "Multiplayer Online Game".

-Oscarian

GA  is different from FPS games because each round will effect other maps and have an impact on the rest of the world.

I see it as something like Guild Wars but with only  like 10 guild halls that teams must fight to control.

The point of having instances and not zerg pvp is to ensure that player skill matters and to reduce performance issues.

Even in zerg games a lot of people find that group on group encounters are the most challenging and fun, so why not design a game that facilitates that playstyle? Even in WAR, a zerg game, most people played way more instanced scenarios than open pvp, partially because it was more rewarding but also because it ensured a somewhat level playing field and made for better fights because its not just a numbers game.

Yeah its instanced combat, but the maps are persistent property that will constantly be changing depending on what is happening in the adjacent maps. Additionally there are other elements like pve, levelled character development, gear, and skill builds that drastically alter class playstyle.

Hate to break it to you but zerg =/= mmorpg.

Originally posted by Kyleran

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.

 

It is an MMORPG as much as a those online cassinos are.