Originally posted by Rhoklaw

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.

I think DDO has massive outdoor zones as well as instanced areas. But I could be wrong.

Planetside has many massive zones all connected and allows single zones to have 100v100v100 (300 players) at once. It fits MMO in every way.

Guild Wars... Unless it has outdoor zones where you can fight. Yeah it should probably not be called a MMO. IMHO.

Hellgate is dead, so comparing games to it is kinda not nice :) And no it does not fit the classical definition of a MMO.

WW2 has a massive setting and allows huge numbers of players to fight at one time. True the world does reset. Still it fits decently as a MMO. At least the world is massive, the player base is massive and the fights are massive.

You are 100% correct about this fitting as a MOFPS. Just like TF2, CoD, BattleField xxxx, Counter Strike or any of the other non-monthly charing games.

I would not want to be a investor in this company. They can not win. This game probably looked good on paper but should have been shut down a long time ago. Shrug.

The closer this comes to release the more information will come out, and one of three things will happen.

1. They will release information that shows us why this game is worth a monthly fee and I will eat my words.

2. They will release information that shows us why this game is NOT worth a monthly fee, and they will be DOA.

3. They will say as little as they can get away with about instancing and hope they can sucker enough people into buying the box.

If 1 happens. I will gladly say I am sorry and buy the game.

If 2 happens. I will ignore the game and go on with my life.

If 3 happens. I will feel bad for all the people who got suckered when the game shuts down within the first year.

Allow me to quote the dev.

So, when people ask about "instances", they are usually really interested in to what extent there are large areas that simulate an open world with many players around. These players may enjoy the combat feel of giant maps and large teams, or enjoy exploring a large, seamless outdoor area. In Global Agenda we do offer large city spaces and other social areas where you interact with other many players and NPCs.

They KNOW we are asking if they have a large open world where we can fight. But they will not come right out and say. Sorry no we do not have large open areas.

None the less, that is what this says. They will have a large meeting area where you can chat with your buddys, buy stuff and then go into one of the tiny 10v10 matches.

Even the 60v60 they brag about is really only 10v10, 10v10, 10v10, 10v10, 10v10, 10v10.

Another quote.

For combat however, we do not intent to support giant, seamless maps with hundreds of players. There are both technical and game play issues in trying to support that type of game play.

The technical issues have been solved by their competitors. A old game like PlanetSide solved 100v100v100 but they can't solve 16v16. Heck EVERY FPS on the market solved that one.

As for the game play issues... If you are worried that your combat is so fast paced that more then 10v10 will be overwhealming then just make the maps bigger with spread out control points.

Again others have solved these problems, and I really do not belive they are having problems with map design. No this sounds like they have a weak product that can not support more then 10v10.

Shrug. If it looks good to you. Spend your $50 +$14.95 a month and come back and tell us how stupid we were to slam the game.

 I don't like how they are seperating servers by country. I like EVE in part because you can fly with people from many different countries. Many stationed Military play EVE. Great to fly with my friend who is stationed overseas.

The name "Global" agenda is kinda ironic for them keeping only people of that Country on that server.

Just copy Planetside with better graphics and fixes and I'm happy.

Originally posted by John.A.Zoid

Just copy Planetside with better graphics and fixes and I'm happy.

As a Global Agenda Alpha Tester. this game is in its own atm its kinda like planetside but not really.

its more like UT3 but kinda. Its kinda like Tabula Rasa. infact theres a lot of ppl who alpha tested it playing this.. but i have not seen mutch out side of PvP so maby

from what i seen MOSTLY PVP this game is more like Teamfortess. but SIFI fewer classes but  same skills bigger maps

I would like to see more.. It is getting better and better. but i cant say mutch. NDA. but ill see if i can. due to them just relaseing the fansite kit and a public fourms ect..

we have some GOOD fourm post about it  ----> Urbanbushido  u may like

I agree with Mr. Zoid - give me a redesigned PS with hundreds of enemy, and I'm happy.

 GA isn't "massive" enough for me.

 Zoom

Planetside was definitely a MMOFPS, it allowed hundreds of people to fight at the same time, without having (unless it was packed) to wait in queues, etc. The battles "persisted" in that control of the base you fought over was the object of the fight, and it would remember who had control over time, not "here's a battle, X team won, everyone back to the graphical lobby so we can call this a MMO and charge you for a graphical pretty battle.net."

Guild Wars is not a MMORPG, but it also doesn't charge monthly fees.

HG:L, well, it like fury failed to meet the criteria of MMO, yet charged for it, and POOF.

D&D Onnline, well, that's a weird case, I wouldn't call it a MMO per se, but at least its "battle.net" area actually had some in game use besides server/instance/battle select.

WW2 Online is a MMOG/MMOFPS, it tracks the stats, ranks, etc, between campaigns. Server resets are just a necessity for the type of game it is. But its "one battlefield all the time for everyone", which is more than just about any other game can say.

Yeh I just want battles with thousands of people online like Planetside (in theory though the game is dead now) if it is all instanced up then I don't care cause I can get that kinda gameplay in what are much better FPS games that just focus on combat.

The game looks like it has a lot of good features and some negative features for me. Nothing new in that. No game I have played has every been 100% positive.

MMO - Massively Mutltiplayer Online....The game is an online game where you log in andplay with other players. There will be "massive" amounts of people connected to the same world at the same time...assuming they are popular of course you will have anywhere from 50k(ala Eve, guildwars) to 500K if it really takes off. they will all be logged into one world and able to interact with each other.

To me that is massive, its multiplayer, its online - therefore its an MMO.

Sure combat is portioned off into small group combat and there are +'s and minus's to that, however, there will be consequences to everyone in the world as to the outcome of those instances.

Myself - I am partial to the big fights involving 100+ people in a zone etc. , but if a game is really designed and developed well the type of mechanics in the end wont matter so much.

It sounds like a great plan... 

Lets postulate this is an MMO, to get coverage on mmorpg.com
Lets make it an FPS, there are so many successes in ths field out there. 
Lets make it so people dont really meet each other, heavy with instances.
Lets make pvp with a maximum of 8v8 or 12v12.

and...

Lets not mention Tabula Rasa in the interview, this is global agenda after all, not.... wait..

Yeah... great plan. 
 

well done I must say.... mmorpg.com fell for it... again...
 

Sounds like BF2 with a campaign mode tacked on.  Which I think is awesome.

Dunno if its an MMO or not . . . but it sounds interesting and the kind of game I'd enjoy.  So I'll let others argue about the definition and me I'll concentrate on seeing if the game lives up to its hype.

Originally posted by Shohadaku

 I don't like how they are seperating servers by country. I like EVE in part because you can fly with people from many different countries. Many stationed Military play EVE. Great to fly with my friend who is stationed overseas.

The name "Global" agenda is kinda ironic for them keeping only people of that Country on that server.

That really shouldn't limit you. There's a guy in my CoH supergroup playing on a US server even though he lives in Japan. Before they launched the European servers, there were Europeans playing on the US servers. I would hope that the GA team would not limit your server access merely because of your physical location.

Originally posted by ProfRed

Originally posted by Slackerboy

And once more they dodge the issue of this not being a MMO.

Why is MMORPG covering this game? This is no more a MMO then any other FPS on the market.

 

"For combat however, we do not intent to support giant, seamless maps with hundreds of players. There are both technical and game play issues in trying to support that type of game play. Our goal was to provide a more intimate, mission-based, strike-team experience and all our game fiction, weapon distances & strengths, and travel powers are designed to support that goal. Wars are no longer fought with massive armies, tanks and fighter planes. In our future, elite teams of special agents are outfitted with advanced technology and shuttled around the world on sub-orbital dropships. Our agents do not walk to work across an open world nor travel across fields on horseback. Some other games have focused on large maps and the logistics of transporting large teams from place to place and there is an audience for such a game. But that is not Global Agenda."

In other reports these "more intimate, mission-based" maps are reported as 10v10. If a new FPS came out with a single player game and a multiplayer mode that only supported 10v10 it would be blasted for having such a weak multiplayer componet.

But for some reason this so called MMO has 10v10 and is a MMO.

Years ago a MMOFPS came out that supported 100v100v100 (Up to 300 at a time). Why could they do it 4 or 5 years ago, but these people act like it's impossable to do what any modren FPS can do. Heck at least get up to average. Say 16v16. Heck I have been on TF2 servers with 32v32.

If you are like me and waiting on a MMOFPS this is not it. Save your money wait for the reviews rather then the hype. This game will be dead inside a year.

 

It is an MMO.  There is a persistant world, with persistant character development.  There is a massive number of players online fighting over world objectives.  Just because all of the battles are smaller scale and instanced doesn't mean it isn't an MMO.  It is more on the FPS side of things, but regardless it is an MMO.  If you don't like the concept that is fine.

They never said it was impossible but it doesn't fit within their goals.  To have small group squad based warfare that looks extremely high quality on a persistant evolving map supporting numerous battlefields was their goal. 

BS, 50 steps is all the persistant world you get.... google for alpha leaks.

NVM read the other posts below yours they ARE alpha testers.

MMORPG.com what happened to you...

And for the record, mmo= Massive Multiplayer online....

Meaning thousands playing online in a persistant world model, as was the meaning when the term was coined...

What you spin it as now, your saying bf 2  and cod4 are mmo's and they arnt. they are online games.

Otherwise its just a run of the mill online game...

(Hell GA aint even on par with those two examples...)

Added to my long list of potentially interesting games to try out.

What difference does instances really make on gameplay? Even in a large open world you don't often fight 100 vs 100 battles, and when you do it's a zerg. I like how they are dividing the forces to complete different objectives to reach a goal, and that what one team does affects the others in the raid. And according to what they say there will be large areas for socializing. All good

I'm also excited that this is a sci-fi game and an MMOFPS. Graphics looks great too! What is there not to like? :D

The game qualifies as an MMORPG because it has a massive amount of players whose actions affect the game, and they role-play with their characters in a basic storyline of super agents fighting for control of the world.

Guild wars, as stated by one of the founders, Jeff Strain, is a Competitive Online RPG, not a classic MMO.  It does, however, fit the broad guidelines of an MMO.  Guild Wars gameplay doesn't affect the GW world?  Guess none of you have Factions.  The Luxon/Kurzick line shifts all the time.  If you are a Luxon in a Kurzick-controlled point, even if it is Traditional Lux territory, you can't use merchants unless you have more Kurzick faction points than Luxon.  That sounds like gameplay affecting the world to me.

Quit being nit-picking lawyers. 

Originally posted by Quizzical

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?

 

If you reread my statement, these "realms" are servers. Those are not instances in the sense of a gamer. They are instances in a technical standpoint but in terms of gameplay, they are not. You are removing the concept of what players think an instance is. Kinda how the Global Agenda answer was. If you use your definition of instance, all multiplayer games (any multiplayer game that allows multiple to play at the same time) in the world are instances.

This game is not much of a MMORPG and will give you the same feelings Halo does but Halo is for free.

Good luck with Global Agenda - I hope you learn from it.

Originally posted by Wardrop

Originally posted by ProfRed

Originally posted by Slackerboy

And once more they dodge the issue of this not being a MMO.

Why is MMORPG covering this game? This is no more a MMO then any other FPS on the market.

 

"For combat however, we do not intent to support giant, seamless maps with hundreds of players. There are both technical and game play issues in trying to support that type of game play. Our goal was to provide a more intimate, mission-based, strike-team experience and all our game fiction, weapon distances & strengths, and travel powers are designed to support that goal. Wars are no longer fought with massive armies, tanks and fighter planes. In our future, elite teams of special agents are outfitted with advanced technology and shuttled around the world on sub-orbital dropships. Our agents do not walk to work across an open world nor travel across fields on horseback. Some other games have focused on large maps and the logistics of transporting large teams from place to place and there is an audience for such a game. But that is not Global Agenda."

In other reports these "more intimate, mission-based" maps are reported as 10v10. If a new FPS came out with a single player game and a multiplayer mode that only supported 10v10 it would be blasted for having such a weak multiplayer componet.

But for some reason this so called MMO has 10v10 and is a MMO.

Years ago a MMOFPS came out that supported 100v100v100 (Up to 300 at a time). Why could they do it 4 or 5 years ago, but these people act like it's impossable to do what any modren FPS can do. Heck at least get up to average. Say 16v16. Heck I have been on TF2 servers with 32v32.

If you are like me and waiting on a MMOFPS this is not it. Save your money wait for the reviews rather then the hype. This game will be dead inside a year.

 

It is an MMO.  There is a persistant world, with persistant character development.  There is a massive number of players online fighting over world objectives.  Just because all of the battles are smaller scale and instanced doesn't mean it isn't an MMO.  It is more on the FPS side of things, but regardless it is an MMO.  If you don't like the concept that is fine.

They never said it was impossible but it doesn't fit within their goals.  To have small group squad based warfare that looks extremely high quality on a persistant evolving map supporting numerous battlefields was their goal. 

 

BS, 50 steps is all the persistant world you get.... google for alpha leaks.

NVM read the other posts below yours they ARE alpha testers.

MMORPG.com what happened to you...

 

And for the record, mmo= Massive Multiplayer online....

Meaning thousands playing online in a persistant world model, as was the meaning when the term was coined...

What you spin it as now, your saying bf 2  and cod4 are mmo's and they arnt. they are online games.

Otherwise its just a run of the mill online game...

(Hell GA aint even on par with those two examples...)

 

So by that definition GA is an MMO.
 

It sounds like GA has a world model to me.  Cities. 

Quest hubs were people gather in MMO all sound the same to me. 
NPC's that give out quests, train, vendor all set into a given enviroment.  A setting you can move around in, with a character.   

In WoW you travel from city to city as you progress.  Getting quests that send you to other places to do whatever.  Or you hang out in a city and talk to NPC's that port you to a BG.  You get on a griffion or bat and fly from one place to another to do things.  

Space stations and warp gates in Eve.  Warcamps and griffins in WAR. 

I can't wander around with my guy in CoD.  There aren't any NPC"s that I can interact with.  It doesn't emulate a world. 

Sounds to me like GA has a world that you can interact with. 

CODx and BF don't do that. 

What I think a bunch of people really want to say is:
If you can't freely travel from point A to point B, and uses instances, it's not an MMO.
And for some I would even say, if it's an FPS it's not an MMO.
People are arguing over the fluffy bs between point A and B.  The stuff that usually ends  up being nothing more then scenery or places you grind.

Sounds a lot like CoX to me.  Each zone of Paragon city is an instance, with the magority of my quests taking place in a smaller instance.

GA sounds like a lot of fun.  Found the article very informative.

Originally posted by Fariic

So by that definition GA is an MMO.
 

It sounds like GA has a world model to me.  Cities. 

Quest hubs were people gather in MMO all sound the same to me. 
NPC's that give out quests, train, vendor all set into a given enviroment.  A setting you can move around in, with a character.   

In WoW you travel from city to city as you progress.  Getting quests that send you to other places to do whatever.  Or you hang out in a city and talk to NPC's that port you to a BG.  You get on a griffion or bat and fly from one place to another to do things.  

Space stations and warp gates in Eve.  Warcamps and griffins in WAR. 

I can't wander around with my guy in CoD.  There aren't any NPC"s that I can interact with.  It doesn't emulate a world. 

Sounds to me like GA has a world that you can interact with. 

CODx and BF don't do that. 

What I think a bunch of people really want to say is:
If you can't freely travel from point A to point B, and uses instances, it's not an MMO.
And for some I would even say, if it's an FPS it's not an MMO.
People are arguing over the fluffy bs between point A and B.  The stuff that usually ends  up being nothing more then scenery or places you grind.

Sounds a lot like CoX to me.  Each zone of Paragon city is an instance, with the magority of my quests taking place in a smaller instance.

GA sounds like a lot of fun.  Found the article very informative.

I'm starting to wonder if we have some GA plants here from how much some people keep misunderstanding what makes a MMO.

A game needs to be massive not simply in the number of players that play the game, but in scale and scope.

In WoW it would take you many many hours to travel to all the zones and see the whole game, even at max level with high speed mounts.

You have Thousands of quests given by thousands of NPCs, they cover huge story lines and small. There is a epic feel to the world and the game.

While traveling you can come across other players who can help you complete quests, or just solo. Or jump into battlegrounds with 4x as many people as GA supports.

It is a MASSIVE game.

While GA, has a waiting room. (50 steps is not a city) where you can meet a few people and set up matches. The ONLY thing this has over CoD4 is the room where you set up the matches is a 3D room rather then a server list.

As for interacting with the world. Your group wins a match so now you have minor advantage X until someone else runs that same map and takes it away from you. That is hardly epic.

At least in Planetside when you took a base it was a long and drawn out process requiring a major investment of time and resources. (Oh and up to 300 people at a time in everything from Infantry to tanks to aircraft to Mechs).

Can anyone point out how this meets massive other then it is supposed to allow a LOT of players on at once?

This game is most definitely not Mmo, and as intrigued as I am with the graphics and gameplay, will NOT pay a monthly fee for this.  Good luck, GA.

Just say no to instancing.