Im looking forward to this game but until more information comes out im not going to bother assuming anything or end up a "fan boi".  All we can hope is that this game will deliver.

I like how he said the game will be balanced around PvP, then they will match those pvp skills to the pve content.  This setup sounds like it may be worth the gamble.

---

Quality rather than quantity.

---

But that misses the entire point. We're on MMORPG.com, which stands for Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Now, not all MMOs are RPGs so that's often shortened to MMO or MMOG. Notice that the Massively Multiplayer is never the part that is dropped.

Exceptionally instanced, 10 v 10 battles is not "Massive". I love(d) CS, CS:S, TF2 & BF2142. I wouldn't call any of them "Massive".

It may be a great game. I'll probably give it a go. But I don't consider it an MMO when the base conflict is the very antithesis of massive! I'm all for great games coming out. I'm against calling them cats when they're clearly oranges.

---

Originally posted by tbox
 I wish they had more then 3 skill  trees. What is with 3 and skilll trees? Wow, Warhammer ect always 3 per class.    I don't think Furies complexity ruined it seriously. The author makes us out as retarded. Fury was just not that fun and power ups on a map was silly. 

---

DAOC had 3 skill trees as well.

So can I level without ever touching pve?  Is gear involved in the game, if so do I have to pve for it?

Please don't say you visited the Hi-Rez Guys two times and wrote a preview on the game and still don't know what the 4 classes are? It's ROBOTIC not mechanic!!! No thats really embarrassing.

Originally posted by LoboMau

I was in the Closed Beta. All I can say is that is looking very good! And Im very anxious about the Campaign Map stuff, because is going to be the core of this game.

I wouldn't mind try it out for a weekend..

Originally posted by Greyed

 

---

Quality rather than quantity.

---

 

But that misses the entire point. We're on MMORPG.com, which stands for Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Now, not all MMOs are RPGs so that's often shortened to MMO or MMOG. Notice that the Massively Multiplayer is never the part that is dropped.

Exceptionally instanced, 10 v 10 battles is not "Massive". I love(d) CS, CS:S, TF2 & BF2142. I wouldn't call any of them "Massive".

It may be a great game. I'll probably give it a go. But I don't consider it an MMO when the base conflict is the very antithesis of massive! I'm all for great games coming out. I'm against calling them cats when they're clearly oranges.

Quality rather than quantity does the miss the point if the meaning of 'MMO' is defined according to your terms, which is fine.

However, my definition of MMO is slightly different; 'massively' referring to the size and non-linear nature of the game world and 'multiplayer' referring to any game with more than 10 independent players playing together online at once. Many may disagree, but personally I would consider Diablo II an MMO given the technological constraints of the time.

Eitherway, this is an argument over semantics.

I think this could be a very good game with small battles and if it doesn't qualify as an MMO by the genrally accepted definition, I don't really care. I'm not going to discriminate against a game because of arbitrary labels.

Aryas

---

Originally posted by Aryas
Quality rather than quantity does the miss the point if the meaning of 'MMO' is defined according to your terms, which is fine.

---

Given that there has to be some consensus on what an MMO is it isn't just my terms.

---

However, my definition of MMO is slightly different; 'massively' referring to the size and non-linear nature of the game world and 'multiplayer' referring to any game with more than 10 independent players playing together online at once.

---

Then you bar is far below the norm where massively referred to several hundred, up to 1.5 thousand, players on at once.

---

Many may disagree, but personally I would consider Diablo II an MMO given the technological constraints of the time.

---

They would be right to do so. Given the technological constraints at the time? What constraints? Look at the history!

Ultima Online, a tile-based game considered the grandfather of the modern MMO, released in 1997.
Everquest, a 3D MMO and one many people cut their teeth on, released in 1999.
Asheron's Call, another 3D MMO that many more people cut their teeth on, also released in 1999.
Diablo II, an isometric 2D game that was decidedly not MMO, released 2000.

Diablo II was released after the three major MMOs. I can't speak for UO or Everquest (never played the former, didn't get into the latter) but AC's servers were good up to 1,500 simultaneous logins. They started to bog a tad after that.

So what technological limits are you referring to that Diablo II ran into that prevented it form being an MMO that somehow didn't hinder 3 other MMOs released prior to it?

---

Eitherway, this is an argument over semantics.

---

When discussing powers of magnitude difference that's a tad more than semantics. That is a large, quantifiable difference.

---

I think this could be a very good game with small battles and if it doesn't qualify as an MMO by the genrally accepted definition, I don't really care. I'm not going to discriminate against a game because of arbitrary labels.

---

Where did I say it should be discriminated against? I even took pains to explicitly point out that I like small-scale FPS games and that GA might do well stack against those. I'm not saying it is a bad game. I am simply pointing out that it is ill deserving of the MMO moniker because it is not massive and the model it presents applies to dozens of other games which are not considered MMOs. Fini. Done. That's it.

I am very interested in learning more about the controls in the game. Does anyone have any details regarding them?

I'm intrigued but something doesn't add up to me.

The campaign map consists of 64 hexes side by side i believe. With each hex an instance fought over by teams mainly made up of 10 vs 10. The map is persistent and the game has a single server. So that means 64 x 20 = 1280 people max who can play in these instances at any one time.

I'm obviously missing something?

Originally posted by HiGHPLaiNS

I love this trailer for Global Agenda .. NO ELVES! .. you have to at least watch it...

www.youtube.com/watch

Anyways, the game reminds of my favorite game of all time and I am not kidding you. Tribes and Tribes 2 were big hits in late 90s and early 2000's. I miss those games now and then. I see elements of Tribes in this game.

However I hope GA is more that just a PvP game,  I really don't see me paying a monthly subscription to it, unless its got more in depth PvE elements as well.

Oh yeah.. Watch that video link.. truly classic, I am glad game companies are realizing there is people out there that are just sick to death with Magical Elves, Dwarfs and Orcs.

You can still play tribes 2. Check out tribesnext.com

Originally posted by Greyed

 

---

Quality rather than quantity.

---

 

But that misses the entire point. We're on MMORPG.com, which stands for Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Now, not all MMOs are RPGs so that's often shortened to MMO or MMOG. Notice that the Massively Multiplayer is never the part that is dropped.

Exceptionally instanced, 10 v 10 battles is not "Massive". I love(d) CS, CS:S, TF2 & BF2142. I wouldn't call any of them "Massive".

It may be a great game. I'll probably give it a go. But I don't consider it an MMO when the base conflict is the very antithesis of massive! I'm all for great games coming out. I'm against calling them cats when they're clearly oranges.

Sounds just like guild wars. Yet people talk about that on here all the time. And it's heavily instanced. In fact the developers don't even call it an MMO.