I hate to say it but this game is already as good as dead.
I just read a Q&A with the devs of the game and they confirm it is 10v10 at the most.
That is so weak it isnt even funny, I wouldnt pay $50 for a FPS that had a max of 10v10 in multiplayer, so what makes them think people will pay $50 plus $15 a month for a 10v10?
MassiveFPS: We’ve heard rumors about player caps- what is the max amount of players you can fit in one battle?
Nathan: Global Agenda takes place in the near future after a worldwide disaster that wiped the slate clean, so to speak. Wars are no longer fought with massive armies, tanks, and fighter planes. Instead, elite teams of special agents are outfitted with the most advanced technology available and shuttled around the world on sub-orbital dropships. What this means is the player population in most maps is 10v10, but even that gets a little hectic with everything going on, between the deployed turrets, trigger-detonated explosives, tracking rockets, spider grenades, poison dart sniper rifles, and remote control drones.
Sigh, yet another Sci-Fi MMO not worth anything. Heck the only thing MMO about this is that they keep track of your stats and let you get better weapons. If that is how you define MMO then I guess COD 5 is a MMO too.
If by that you mean doomed to die within 1 year. Then yeah.
However if you mean it looks like a MMO where twitch has been totaly removed (Tabula Rasa was no FPS) then I would disagree.
To me this seems like any current generation FPS, but with this one you pay to play on tiny 10v10 servers. Try opening a 10v10 server in TF2 or COD. It will be empty as people flock to the larger 16v16 servers.
This probably sounded good in a design doc and in brainstorming sessions, but it should have gotten axed by an experienced producer in the proof of concept prototype stage. DOA imo.
I hate to say it but this game is already as good as dead.
I just read a Q&A with the devs of the game and they confirm it is 10v10 at the most.
That is so weak it isnt even funny, I wouldnt pay $50 for a FPS that had a max of 10v10 in multiplayer, so what makes them think people will pay $50 plus $15 a month for a 10v10?
Here is the Q&A
http://www.massivefps.com/Global-Agenda/Featured/global-agenda-exclusive-qa.html
MassiveFPS: We’ve heard rumors about player caps- what is the max amount of players you can fit in one battle?
Nathan: Global Agenda takes place in the near future after a worldwide disaster that wiped the slate clean, so to speak. Wars are no longer fought with massive armies, tanks, and fighter planes. Instead, elite teams of special agents are outfitted with the most advanced technology available and shuttled around the world on sub-orbital dropships. What this means is the player population in most maps is 10v10, but even that gets a little hectic with everything going on, between the deployed turrets, trigger-detonated explosives, tracking rockets, spider grenades, poison dart sniper rifles, and remote control drones.
Sigh, yet another Sci-Fi MMO not worth anything. Heck the only thing MMO about this is that they keep track of your stats and let you get better weapons. If that is how you define MMO then I guess COD 5 is a MMO too.
This looks like another Tabula Rasa to me.
If by that you mean doomed to die within 1 year. Then yeah.
However if you mean it looks like a MMO where twitch has been totaly removed (Tabula Rasa was no FPS) then I would disagree.
To me this seems like any current generation FPS, but with this one you pay to play on tiny 10v10 servers. Try opening a 10v10 server in TF2 or COD. It will be empty as people flock to the larger 16v16 servers.
The game has no business being covered on this site. It is a weak FPS game attempting to masquerade as a MMO.
This probably sounded good in a design doc and in brainstorming sessions, but it should have gotten axed by an experienced producer in the proof of concept prototype stage. DOA imo.
Yawn.... when will the flood of mediocre games end?