Originally posted by Zzulu

 

That is literally PR talk for "no, this is not an MMO. But if we call it one, we get more attention and maybe we can even slip in additional payment methods as well!"

 

It's like Guild Wars but with a campaign map. Guild wars did not have a monthly fee. If this game is also F2P, I will most likely enjoy it. If they require 15 dollars/month or microtransactions for 12vs12 or instanced raids, then I will probably never look in the games direction ever again.

For being an Indy game it's got the goods to compete on a certain level. Until you actual play it (not sure if you have) I wouldn't really debate the future of it. I won't go into detail, but GA is damn fun.  No RMTs are planned, currently, if they were to pop into the game I'll split, want nothing to do with them. The game is worth a montly fee, the only thing I will tell you, is the game feels extremely polished.

I don't care if it's an MMO, FPS, 3rd person shooter, I could give a damn what they label it. But right now, its got my attention.

What he said.

Also, if it's on MMORPG.com, various MMOFPS sites, and MMO sites, then you better believe the industry considers it an MMO.

AvA looks sick. Its like EvE, yet not at the same time. I'm very excited about this game.

The amount of actual AVA full blown campaigns that has been tested in GA by the alpha testers and even the in house testers is not nearly enough, its very concerning and I hope to see A LOT more testing on this aspect of the game. This is definately something that needs to be heavily tested over and over and over because its the core to what will make GA a long term game or not.

The guy earlier who said this game needs dedicated in-game Guild Leaders to help foster the community is right on about this, its something that needs to be looked at very seriously.

Why should i stop playing Battlefield 2142 and start playing (and PAYING every month?!) this game instead? It dosnt make sence.

Sure, ill probably try it out a month or two, but i dont think i wanna pay every month for a regular FPS game with some MMO features tossed in for good measure. That would be kinda stupid when i can play games with better graphics and much better gameplay for free.

... unless the game rocks... then i will pay whatever to play it.

You guys are looking into it with such negative views and getting cought up with genre titles. You're setting yourselves up for disappointment because when you get your hands on the game you're just going to nitpick on stuff. You can't come into beta (where not even everything they have is active let alone even built yet) and say "NOT LIKE WOW IT'S NOT AN MMO!" That's like comparing a fetus to an olympic athlete.

This is the firts game HiRez will be pushing out the door. I don't really expect it to be a smooth ride out the gate, they don't expect that either. Global Agenda does have the potential like many other games did, but the difference here is the developers have the balls to do the right thing. If the community is level headed and supports the team, I think we might just like the result.

I went through VanGuard. I pre-ordered my CE of Age of Conan. I let Darkfall go. I know there are people out there that just don't believe in developers anymore. Just keep your eye on HiRez, I think if anyone is going to restore your faith it will be them.

I just got done reading Smed's blog about Planetside Next aka Planetside 2. I can see that there appears to be a superior product in the category of MMFPS and its Global Agenda.

Originally posted by Zzulu

This is the future of MMO's? 12vs12? 60 man engagements? Instances?

That's it? That's a regular game with a metamap that, for some reason, is classified as an MMO. Man this is dissapointing.

 

[quote]"if you look at a game like wow or planetside with their open evironments you will find that (as far as world pvp goes) there are hotspots and all that empty space between is just a time sink in travel".[/quote]

 

Yeah all that "empty space" is what constitutes a world. It's what defines most MMO's. Without it, you have "maps", as in every other MP game ever made. And that is what Global Agenda is. A regular FPS with lesser graphics and a meta campaign. I hope there's no monthly fee to it.

do i have to do instances

 

is their a game world.   can all my friends be in the same spot at the same time.  do i have to do instances

Originally posted by bopilop

Originally posted by Zzulu

This is the future of MMO's? 12vs12? 60 man engagements? Instances?

That's it? That's a regular game with a metamap that, for some reason, is classified as an MMO. Man this is dissapointing.

 

[quote]"if you look at a game like wow or planetside with their open evironments you will find that (as far as world pvp goes) there are hotspots and all that empty space between is just a time sink in travel".[/quote]

 

Yeah all that "empty space" is what constitutes a world. It's what defines most MMO's. Without it, you have "maps", as in every other MP game ever made. And that is what Global Agenda is. A regular FPS with lesser graphics and a meta campaign. I hope there's no monthly fee to it.

 

do i have to do instances

 

is their a game world.   can all my friends be in the same spot at the same time.  do i have to do instances

 

You can all hang out in the city/HQ no problem. The actual combat is all instanced, but you can group up and all play together anyway.

Originally posted by Securion

Why should i stop playing Battlefield 2142 and start playing (and PAYING every month?!) this game instead? It dosnt make sence.

 

Sure, ill probably try it out a month or two, but i dont think i wanna pay every month for a regular FPS game with some MMO features tossed in for good measure. That would be kinda stupid when i can play games with better graphics and much better gameplay for free.

 

... unless the game rocks... then i will pay whatever to play it.

The key difference and the reason we cover it and not BF2142, for example, is persistence. Yes, BF has added some persistence to characters, but take this end-game for example. The end-game has all sorts of persistence, MMO elements, even if the actual battles do not have 1000 people in them.

To me, that argument is a dated one. Sure, it is nice when you can have 1000 people in the same place, but to me it's more important that I could play with any of those 1000 people and we're all working towards persistent goals in the same world. No MMO lets 1000 actual characters run around in the exact same space without blowing up the server and client.

It's good to finally get to see the end-game.  I think it's this feature that will serve to be the most interesting for players.

Originally posted by epicor

 Hi guys.

From reading the comments I can see you all havnt gone over to globalagendagame.com to read the knowledge base so let me drop some knowledge on ya.  I'll try to say as much as i can w/o breaking NDA.

There is no direct trading.  Only AH.

We havnt tested AvA yet, but the battle we have tested is very unlike what you may be thinking.  Its the best kind of addicting and challenging at the same time.

For those worrying about its being primarily instanced, don't be.  If you look at a game like wow or planetside with their open evironments you will find that (as far as world pvp goes) there are hotspots and all that empty space between is just a time sink in travel.  GA doesnt have that.  Pick an area to fight in, and hit the action. Period.

Come on over to the forums, sign up. Get your learn on.  It's really a great community to be a part of.  

In Planetside the time it took to go from one base to another or from one continent/planet to another could mean huge fights errupting out in the open or running battles from one base to another and some of those were far better than the base fights themselves.   Bridge battles in Planetside were some of the best.

What I am seeing in GA amounts to small battle maps like we see in Halo.    Nothing wrong with that, if you like the small battle maps you'd find in such a game.    I however like the large openess of a game like Planetside.

Can't wait for GA to come out!!

Seriously! How awesome would it be to be 1 of the best mercenaries! Just going around for the highest bidder (if they decide to do that) and be totally awesome! ... I wanna be that guy!

Guilds, actually fighting over who gets you and when they see the opponent got you, they just think.. oooh shite!

If that really happens I am SO there!

Originally posted by Teala

Originally posted by epicor

 Hi guys.

From reading the comments I can see you all havnt gone over to globalagendagame.com to read the knowledge base so let me drop some knowledge on ya.  I'll try to say as much as i can w/o breaking NDA.

There is no direct trading.  Only AH.

We havnt tested AvA yet, but the battle we have tested is very unlike what you may be thinking.  Its the best kind of addicting and challenging at the same time.

For those worrying about its being primarily instanced, don't be.  If you look at a game like wow or planetside with their open evironments you will find that (as far as world pvp goes) there are hotspots and all that empty space between is just a time sink in travel.  GA doesnt have that.  Pick an area to fight in, and hit the action. Period.

Come on over to the forums, sign up. Get your learn on.  It's really a great community to be a part of.  

 

In Planetside the time it took to go from one base to another or from one continent/planet to another could mean huge fights errupting out in the open or running battles from one base to another and some of those were far better than the base fights themselves.   Bridge battles in Planetside were some of the best.

What I am seeing in GA amounts to small battle maps like we see in Halo.    Nothing wrong with that, if you like the small battle maps you'd find in such a game.    I however like the large openess of a game like Planetside.

Except that what you're completely failing to acknowledge is that there is no game world in Halo. Each of those maps is a completely seperate mini-game, the outcome of which is totally meaningless. It is literally just a match and when a team wins it resets and the players just start another battle all over again. This is nothing like Global Agenda as it does have a persistent game world comprised of lots of zones and each of those battles means something.

The open world pvp in a game like Planetside is nice but it doesnt neccessarily make for a better game. It's simply a different approach. The problem with the open world approach is that it tries too hard to simulate realism and just ends up coming across as being silly. I dont like the way open world pvp plays out in games like Darkfall, WAR or Aion. You just get masses of immortal headless chickens zerging each other. They kill each other. They respawn. Two minutes later they run back. They die. They respawn. They run back. They die. They respawn. Eventually the only way to "defeat" your enemy is to make them give up through boredom or frustration.......usually by outnumbering them. Then when you do gain control of the keep or whatever you.....ermm.....stand around waiting for the next zerg mob to try and take it back or you run off at high speed to take the next one. I think we're all well aware of how craptastic the keep swapping was in WAR.

With the approach that Hi-Rez Studios are taking, the action will be focused and a lot more structured. You form a strike force and invade a particular place, knowing that you have specific objectives in mind because claiming those objectives will provide a strategic advantage elsewhere in the ongoing war. The enemy forms a team to defend. This = balanced meaningul PvP which = fun. They are waving goodbye to the mindless zerg bullshit and a good thing too.

I personally think Hi-Rez Studios will succeed where all the other open world pvp games have failed, simply because they are focusing on making their game play like a game while the other mmos tried too hard to provide a world simulation. Open world pvp is crap when all the participants are insta-regenerating immortals. Also it might be worth paying attention to the fact that there approach has never been done before. Sure we've all seen instanced PvP but not when each of those zones is part of a map which forms a persistent game world. In a sense its still open world pvp where the combat only takes place around meaningful objectives in a fair and fun way. I'm not sure about you but I play games to have fun and I find this new approach to online gaming being offered by Hi-Rez Studios to be pretty exciting.

I for one wouldn't say there is anything Massive about 16 v. 16.  but who cares, as long as its fun.  A poster a few pages ago made a good point, maybe MASSIVE pvp will never be fun -- it never has been -- so maybe GA has it right.

I for one am going to give it a try after it comes out... and maybe a couple months after so I miss all the mandatory new-MMORPG launch bugs that will crop up in the first 3 months.

If its awesome, great.  If it sucks, ahhh well.  I'm not getting my hopes up though.  Damn MMO advertisers have got me excited too many times before - I'm not falling for that crap again.  We will see it when it comes out.

I hope they make a believer out of me.