Grats on asking the real questions that everyone wants to hear, and this is exactly as I imagined it.  I think that this setup is awesome, and ideal for this type of game. 

Multiple objectives and maps to achieve a single goal is how I always wished keep raids in WAR should work instead of a massive zerge that just surrounds the lord and wacks away. 

An evolving map with diplomacy and spies with a persistant world where players can zone in and out of battles to complete objectives and actually alter the world is an awesome concept.  I have talked about a game like this for years with friends and the possibilities it could create and am really excited about this. 

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.

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. 

Think maybe of guild wars but as FPS, and objective based PvP gameplay that affects the World, and your guild/agencies control over it.  In those terms it is much, much more of an MMORPG than Guild Wars because the players affect the world, and there is more PvP action instead of such a large focus on PvE story based content that doesn't change.  Global Agenda would be much more dynamic in the gameplay experiences.

This game is supposed to be Full Loot, correct?

Originally posted by ProfRed

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. 

This is like saying CoD is a MMO because it keeps track of your rank and what weapons you are allowed to buy. For that matter this would make Diablo a MMO because Battlenet keeps track of your items and rank.

It's a matter of definition. How do you define a MMO. Is it any game that has large numbers of players loging into a central point and that player data is maintained at a centeral site?

If so MANY games that most people call simply Multiplayer Online games (MOs vs MMO) are in fact a MMO.

The point I am trying to make is that this game is more a MO with a Battlenet gathering type interface for setting up matches.

To me a MMO would require that a massive number of players could be involved in the battles at any given time. When you look at all the other MMOs on the market you see they all support far larger fights then this so called MMO. WoW, AoC, DAoC, L1 & L2, CoH/CoV, Planetside, EQ, EQ2, UO. Every MMO released to date has understood you must allow MASSIVE fights to be called a MMO. Otherwise you are just a MO and need to drop the monthly fee.

No that isn't like what I am saying.  ** Sorry that was rude. 

Originally posted by ProfRed

No that isn't like what I am saying, but I am not going to discuss this with you.  If you want to argue about it hit up the Guild Wars forums because this is more of an MMO than Guild Wars is.  There should be tons of thread there for you to argue about why your opinion is more valuable than anyone elses.

I'm sorry that I seem to have offended you. That was not my goal. I was trying to discus the game and work out why it is being covered on a MMO site when it does not seem to be a MMO.

I will admit I do not know the first thing about Guild Wars so I can not comment on that. I was under the impression that guild wars allowed much larger fights. I'll look into that. It may be that this is a new definition for what is or is not a MMO.

I just did some quick research and you are right Guild Wars is very small scale. Looks like most fights are 8v8 with a few 12v12.

One note, Guild Wars is free to play. Sure you have to buy the game. But they do not charge a monthly fee. Sure they release content packs but you do not have to buy them to keep playing.

Unless I missed something big, this game is planing on being a standard MMO pricing. $50-$60 for the Box and $14.95 a month.

One saving grace for Guild Wars that keeps it in the MMO space may be the PvE. (Need to research) If the PvE is open world. I.E. wandering around killing mobs with instances that you enter. Then I belive that would still fit the MMO concept.

However if in guildwars all you do is stand around in a city or something and put together teams to go do instance X. Then no... We would be back to the battle net example.

Sorry I got jumpy.  Well Guild Wars is essentially a PvE game with a huge PVP arena system where players gather in cities and then zone off into PVE instanced content, or compete in arenas.  It is still an MMORPG because it is a massive amount of online players that get together to advance their persistant characters.

This game is similar in that there is a world map, with tons of objectives/campaigns/territories that is persistant and each of those instanced maps that represent these things is there in a persistant state.  Players can zone in and out of the different maps to complete objectives and advance their character in a persistant nature.  CoD has persistant characters, but not a persistant and dynamic world.  These things come together to create a Massive Multiplayer Online game.  Players affect and have a stake in the world where everything is persistant.  One server to house all players that enter into this persistant world makes it massive multiplayer. 

This style of MMO development will continue to be developed more and more because it allows for single player style game polish, content, and graphics while still having a massive multiplayer scale.  Another example of almost the exact same concept, but in RTS form is Kingdom Under Fire 2.  Check out this topic -

www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/222754/MMO-RTS-Kingdom-Under-Fire-2.html

A lot of people consider games like this to not be MMO's, but not having an open world does not equate to not being an MMO.

Christ!

That interview contains the longest explanation of the words "Yes it's heavily Instanced" that I have EVER read.

Is he trying to fool people or what.

Personally I don't mind instanced missions as long as there are also large open areas and cities to interact with other players.

Question #3 – Is Global Agenda instanced or an open world?

This is a bit of a trick question because all MMOs are instanced to some extent.

Seems to be beating around the bush a bit on this one.

Fact is mmo has two distinct meanings for people. For some its about an environment to exist in where a community develops and you develop your character within the context of that community.  For others its about pvp.

From this guys explanation it sounds like the game is pvp but they're trying to dress it up as an mmorpg.

hm... cool

but i'm not understund whot about Worlds,

1) people have only chois for server in menu like in Kikoff and Fifa online 2?

2) or whe have world like Driftcity one world for Quests and for Buying and meny hosts for pvp?

if (2) i'm think this game bee one of my favorite games =)

(thanks and sorry for my English)

Originally posted by dhayes68

From this guys explanation it sounds like the game is pvp but they're trying to dress it up as an mmorpg.

It does sound like PvP focus, but also clearly IS an mmo - just with smaller battles.  Which to me is a very good thing.

"within Global Agenda, the battles are instanced, but the War is persistent and massive"  

He also says one instance can dynamically affect another instance.  I agree with ProfRed - sounds like a great setup.   Can't wait for this one!

The more I learn about this, the less it sounds like a true MMO... or at least what I personally would consider one.  It has a few elements that ring "MMO" but the rest of it seems a little lackluster.  It may make for a great game outside of this genre, something to give FPS'ers a little more for their gaming, but it seems clear that the RPG tag will be no where to be seen.

Sounds like a beefed up and perfected planetside. Which is also Considered a MMO and on this sites list. This game seems pretty cool, regardless of if its a full fledge MMO or not, the one thing that I like to see is these Devs are saying we dont care what you want, this is the game we are making, either like it or screw off, they arnt trying to make a game players will enjoy, instead making a game they like and putting it out there.

Originally posted by Dalgor

Sounds like a beefed up and perfected planetside. Which is also Considered a MMO and on this sites list. 

PlanetSide is not instanced. And the maps are a hell of big seamless areas. And there are vehicles on Planetside. And there are a no classes on planetside... you create your classe whatever you want to do. 

Am I the only one who smells another Tabural Rasa/Planetside epic phail? Planetside at least was good until development came to a grinding halt.

I hope I'm wrong though, I liked Planetside when it was all populated and such.

Originally posted by neller2000

Am I the only one who smells another Tabural Rasa/Planetside epic phail? Planetside at least was good until development came to a grinding halt.

I hope I'm wrong though, I liked Planetside when it was all populated and such.

Honestly I prefer Tabula Rasa to what I am seeing here as it at least made an attempt to blend FPS and RPG elements in a way that was more traditional in the MMO sense.

Is Global Agenda instanced?

Yes, to bits.

That would have sufficed.

At least this is the impression I got. And since I hate instancing of public zones I won't be touching this one, I'm afraid. The whole idea behind dividing a playerbase over different servers is that you can achieve persistance in the game world and make it seemless and open without needing any copies of public zones like questing areas or cities to spread the load. Certain pve areas or pvp battlegrounds should, ofcourse be instanced, for the sake of balance and challenge but touch the 'gameworld' itself and I take a run for my money (and immersion).
 

I think people are freaking out at the "instanced" thing.

The closest game I can equate it to is phantasy star online . You have  central hubs where you interact and run around with everyone else on your server, buy armor,  choose battles, etc., but  the battles themselves are with groups in another area.

This is very much an MMO.

Originally posted by iamspamicus

I think people are freaking out at the "instanced" thing.

The closest game I can equate it to is phantasy star online. You have a central hubs where you interact and run around with everyone else on your server, buy armor,  choose battles, etc., but  the battles themselves are with groups in another area.

This is very much an MMO.

So it's more like the third epic phail, Hellgate London?

Originally posted by neller2000

Am I the only one who smells another Tabural Rasa/Planetside epic phail? Planetside at least was good until development came to a grinding halt.

I hope I'm wrong though, I liked Planetside when it was all populated and such.

Yea you are one of the few that think that and you are wrong. The game will have instanced battles (like wow or war) but they will actually mean something like taking over enemy land or messing up there research. The game will be amazing.

Originally posted by neller2000

Originally posted by iamspamicus

I think people are freaking out at the "instanced" thing.

The closest game I can equate it to is phantasy star online. You have a central hubs where you interact and run around with everyone else on your server, buy armor,  choose battles, etc., but  the battles themselves are with groups in another area.

This is very much an MMO.

 

So it's more like the third epic phail, Hellgate London?

I never played HG:L or know anything about it really, so I couldn't say how similar it is.

If you like class based games like Team Fortress or Battlefield, and like persistant worlds where you can shape control zones in a pvp fps kind of way, then you will love this game.

I think the ability to "level up" your char and unlock better gear and improve your char is what will keep people playin and what seperates this from a standard fps game. It's really the very best of cod/bf/tf etc all rolled into one. Winning a battle means something in the overall map kind of like chromehounds campaigns on the 360.

I really don't see what the big debate over this being a MMORPG or not. So, let's break it down and see if it qualifies without everyone adding their "Personal " definitions of an MMORPG.

Massive = The article reports having only one server for North America... I'd say that qualifies as massive

Multiplayer = The article refers to Strike Teams which  infers more than one person or they would have called it a Strike Person so it qualifies. Multiplayer = more than one person

Online = The fact that they are going to have servers that people log into it qualifies it as an online game

RPG = Taking on the role of an agent in a future setting and running missions to compete with other agencies. Since you are taking on the Role of something else in a Game, it also qualifies

When you break it down and don't try to impose your views of what MMORPG onto others it is very clear there is no need to debate if the game is an MMORPG or not.

This has potential.

Question is will they get it just right?

Instances can really be lame, but if you make them right dont have to be.

Its not so bad the maps are not so huge, somtimes big maps really hurt PvP more then help it.

I think alot of players need to get off the hate bandwagon.

And you all wonder why he's beeting arround the bush about Instances?

Duh Look how we react.

I read that and I got a good vibe. 

Originally posted by iamspamicus

Originally posted by neller2000

Originally posted by iamspamicus

I think people are freaking out at the "instanced" thing.

The closest game I can equate it to is phantasy star online. You have a central hubs where you interact and run around with everyone else on your server, buy armor,  choose battles, etc., but  the battles themselves are with groups in another area.

This is very much an MMO.

 

So it's more like the third epic phail, Hellgate London?

 

I never played HG:L or know anything about it really, so I couldn't say how similar it is.

If you like class based games like Team Fortress or Battlefield, and like persistant worlds where you can shape control zones in a pvp fps kind of way, then you will love this game.

I think the ability to "level up" your char and unlock better gear and improve your char is what will keep people playin and what seperates this from a standard fps game. It's really the very best of cod/bf/tf etc all rolled into one. Winning a battle means something in the overall map kind of like chromehounds campaigns on the 360.

 Just to add on to the levels, remember people they mean nothing a level 1 could easily kill a lv 50 but they level 50 just has more and better skills to choose from so they can cuztomize themselves for anything needed.
 

Originally posted by iamspamicus

Originally posted by neller2000

Originally posted by iamspamicus

I think people are freaking out at the "instanced" thing.

The closest game I can equate it to is phantasy star online. You have a central hubs where you interact and run around with everyone else on your server, buy armor,  choose battles, etc., but  the battles themselves are with groups in another area.

This is very much an MMO.

 

So it's more like the third epic phail, Hellgate London?

 

I never played HG:L or know anything about it really, so I couldn't say how similar it is.

If you like class based games like Team Fortress or Battlefield, and like persistant worlds where you can shape control zones in a pvp fps kind of way, then you will love this game.

I think the ability to "level up" your char and unlock better gear and improve your char is what will keep people playin and what seperates this from a standard fps game. It's really the very best of cod/bf/tf etc all rolled into one. Winning a battle means something in the overall map kind of like chromehounds campaigns on the 360.

Well, I might try it if there's a free trial. Had way too many bad experiences with hyped up games the last couple of years.

This game is by no stretch of the imagination an MMO. It's no more an MMO than CoD4. The only difference here is that it has a fancy lobby.

Too much instancing. Guild Wars 2.

Originally posted by Vortigon

Christ!

That interview contains the longest explanation of the words "Yes it's heavily Instanced" that I have EVER read.

Is he trying to fool people or what.

Personally I don't mind instanced missions as long as there are also large open areas and cities to interact with other players.

I agree. Why wasn't this asked as well? Pretty vital for an MMO if you ask me.

If there aren't even large open areas like cities and such were people gather, trade, team up, form guilds, etc.

If you going to look at a fancy interface with LFG tool and form squads on the fly like is the case with nowadays FPS games.

Then this sertainly isn't an MMO. Period! And thus has no place here on the website.

So I would love to see an answer on that one. As they evaded it like the plague!

Personally I don't view this as an MMO but then again I never viewed other so called MMOs like Guild Wars and Hellgate: London as MMOs.

However it seems that this style of MMO is just another type of niche MMO for those that don't mind having central Hubs that take you to various instances.

When it comes to the Q&A I was not satisfied with the answers given as they seemed to avoid the real questions and blow a whole lot of smoke as they circled the question taking it in a different direction. Thankfully those exact same questions are better answered on their own website. Yes it's instanced and the much of the content is in 10v10 matches, personally I don't care I enjoyed playing Tribes back in the day and if they managed to capture that and added character progression all the better.

So in short do I view this as an MMO? No. Will I play it? It's likely but I will see as the game progresses.

I thank MMORPG.com for asking blunt questions (I hope this becomes a trend) about the most questionable aspect of this game (namely is it really and MMO or a gloried FPS), too bad your questions were never fully answered. Then again there are few companies that do a good job of answering the blunt questions.

This looks more like Fury with guns than anything else.

And, it will fail like Fury too, especially if the charge monthly.

I'd rather play Tribes 10v10 than a game that looked like this. And Tribes did it 10 years ago.

If you're going to declare it not an MMO, then what would you classify it as?  It's not exactly a single player game.  To declare that one type of instancing makes a game an MMO and another type does not is splitting hairs.  That sort of "this particular feature should make the game not count" taken to its logical conclusion could lead to this site having to kick all games off.

Why do people seem to object to instances more strongly if players are allowed to switch from one instance to another?  If in a game like WoW (or EQ2 or LotRO or AoC or whatever), you were allowed to freely pick which server you wanted to log on to that day (basically, instant free unlimited server transfers), people would start screaming about how that's instancing and not an open world and not a real MMO and all sorts of other nonsense.  Yet surely that would be better than being stuck on one server forever and complaining that the company is too restrictive on server transfers.

Besides, the problem isn't going to be too much instancing.  It's going to be too little instancing.  (I say that only 2/3 in jest.)

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:

...In conclusion, within Global Agenda, the battles are instanced, but the War is persistent and massive.

If battles of a war is instanced, how is the war persistent? You can only have one or the other. I still think the game will do nicely, looks good, good sounding gameplay, but there is no reason to lie or run-around the questions asked to bring in more players or present yourself as a persistent MMO when it is not. Most of us are pretty familiar with instances, massive worlds, persistents, ect.

Originally posted by Quizzical

If you're going to declare it not an MMO, then what would you classify it as?  It's not exactly a single player game.  To declare that one type of instancing makes a game an MMO and another type does not is splitting hairs.  That sort of "this particular feature should make the game not count" taken to its logical conclusion could lead to this site having to kick all games off.

Why do people seem to object to instances more strongly if players are allowed to switch from one instance to another?  If in a game like WoW (or EQ2 or LotRO or AoC or whatever), you were allowed to freely pick which server you wanted to log on to that day (basically, instant free unlimited server transfers), people would start screaming about how that's instancing and not an open world and not a real MMO and all sorts of other nonsense.  Yet surely that would be better than being stuck on one server forever and complaining that the company is too restrictive on server transfers.

Besides, the problem isn't going to be too much instancing.  It's going to be too little instancing.  (I say that only 2/3 in jest.)

Lets try this again. The reason we keep saying it is not a MMO is that there are several games out right now that are simply Multiplayer Online games that fit this model and do not charge a monthly fee like a MMO.

CoD tracks your level and as you progress allows you to buy better weapons. The game has built in meeting room software allowing Massive numbers of players to meet and join a server. (Replace server with Instance and you start to see where I am going with this)

Then we have Battlefield Heroes.

It will track your level, allow you to buy better weapons as you grow. And as you win or lose matches it will change the over all war.

As far as I know, nobody has called that one a MMO. Why?

I think the problem is people are forgetting that the first M in MMO means massive for 2 things not 1.

Massive number of players & a Massive world.

CoD, Battlefield Heroes, TF2, Counter Strike whatever they all have a Massive number of players. What they do not have is a Massive world. Thus they are not MMOs, just MOs.

Shrug, if you belive it is worht $50 + $14.95 a month. By all means go ahead and buy it. All I am trying to say is don't get too involved as this game is doomed.

At least with TF2 you do not have to worry about the company going under and shutting down the servers.

Why is this game being covered by this site??  It is most certianly NOT a MMO.  Not even close.  All this is is a Diablo clone in space.  Big deal, it has no business being covered on this site or even getting the publicity they seem to crave.

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.

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?

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.

Originally posted by Zyllos

 

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.

I read your statement just fine.  You're trying to torture words to mean that which they do not.  That's about as meaningful as claiming that it's only an instance if the cap on the number of players is an odd integer.  It would seem that you are reduced to arguing that if instances are clumsily introduced via separate servers, that's just fine, however damaging it is to gameplay, but if implemented in a way that actually has a gameplay purpose, that's horrible.

-----

When the notion of an MMO was introduced, what was the alternative?  Two players sitting next to each other playing a console game?  Maybe four players sitting next to each other playing a console game, though consoles could barely do that?  Maybe even eight players on a LAN?  The Internet meant dialup, and not of the 56k variety.  Back in the era in which MMOs were first introduced, 20 players in a single instance sure would have seemed awfully massive.

-----

Why does it matter if the game is an MMORPG or not?  That's just splitting hairs.  To say, if it's not a WoW clone, it doesn't belong on this site, would leave any particularly innovative games shut out of all sites that are meant for a particular genre.  Surely trying to kill innovation shouldn't be the goal.

did anyone stop and think maybe they are trying to make a new type of MMO.  how can any comments be made on what the game is or isnt if no one has actually played it. beta doesnt count b/c lots of changes will be made after that.  im not saying any one person's are wrong, but that just what they are "opinions".  who knows what this game will be once its its on a server, some haters may love it and vica versa.  who cares if its MMOG or MO or whatever, as long as its fun to play thats what matters in the long run.

i for one like what ive seen and heard so far and am anticipating its release.  just my 2 cents...

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 agree fully w/ this post, sounds alot like CoH/V to me and that is one my favs to play.

I did not read through all of the posts on the past 6 pages, so if someone has already addessed this, I'm sorry.  But what I wonder and hope is that even though the game is heavily instanced, that it is more like CoX, where you see people around you the majority of the time and only are with just your team when you are on a mission, rather than like GW, where as soon as you leave town, the rest of the world disappears, unless you have added them to your party.  I don't just want to know that a game is massively multiplayer, I want to see/feel that it is as well.

All I wanted to know was if it was going to be instanced to hell. And they confirmed it.

If this has a monthly fee, I won't play it for more than the initial free month. It really does sound like a regular FPS game (but with less players/map) and a campaign mode.