PVP:Yes | Distribution: | Retail Price:$49.99 | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:n/a
Desktop Client | System Req:
Global Agenda Previews: Hands-On Preview
MMORPG.com's Carolyn Koh had the opportunity recently to sit down for a play test demo of Hi-Rez Studios' upcoming shooter MMO Global Agenda.
By Carolyn Koh on September 18, 2009
"Team Fortress on Speed!" was how my compatriot described his hands-on play session with Global Agenda. I do not do well with FPS games being that most of them give me vertigo. I had seen Global Agenda and played through the tutorial at E3 and thusly hauled a gamer bud with me to PAX to play the game while I took notes. This was his first look at Global Agenda and he was still talking about it through the next weekend when I saw him again at a house warming party.
Although I spent all of my in-game time at E3 indoors, most of the maps were outdoors although some had some in-door bits, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that it did NOT give me vertigo. Although the bits of maneuvering inside a building did make me a little queasy, it was nowhere as bad as games such as the aforementioned TF2. The game Fury came to mind when I first saw Global Agenda. It was a game that MMORPG.com had given a graphics award to one E3 which subsequently crashed and burned due to unnecessarily complicated leveling through complex fantasy skills and builds. Global Agenda has much of the same game play mechanic behind it; Match-made, team based PvP on several different maps. That is where the similarity ends as Global Agenda is a futuristic sci-fi game with PvE as well as PvP components to it. With much simpler weapon systems and skill trees as compared to Fury, it was easy to get into and did not lack depth in the classes I had seen thus far - Mechanic and now Assault.
At E3, I saw was an earlier build and I was running about indoors in the city as well as indoors in the newbie tutorial which contributed to the vertigo. This new build looks much better, with better frame-rates which helps to ease the issues for the vertigo sensitive such as I.
)
As with my first hands-on session, my compatriot found the controls extremely intuitive. We (or he) played all three maps that were shown, starting with Ice Flow which was an Escort mission where we actually had to "Push the Object" - a huge piece of machinery. Set outside of a Siberian facility, I had time to admire the architecture and scenery. The second map was known as Seaside and is a three-point Ticket map set upon a massive drilling platform suspended above a storming Northern Atlantic Ocean where we had to win two of three objectives. The third was named Climate Control and is an Attack/Defend map set within the mountains of East Asia complete with trees swaying in the wind.
The play characters were all level 50 and fully tricked out. With 15 points to distribute among the devices one could bring into the game, we made our choices of weapons and devices, figured out how to switch weapons on the fly and the game was on. Fast and furious, eight versus eight matches with a good mix of Recon, Assault, Medic and Mechanic on the team, the first was totally a firepower, brute-force match before players began to explore the nuances of their characters and by the third match, healing stations, bombs, force-shields and turrets were being laid and we were protecting our Medic! Poor medics... they may as well have targets super-imposed over their armor. We also figured out re-spawn beacons (which can be destroyed) for more strategic re-spawn points closer to the objective, and tried out close combat, managed to block and back-stabbed the opposing team's Medic as he turned tail and ran.
A quick explanation of the classes: There's Assault (tank / DPS), Medic (healer / damage), Recon (sniper / intelligence / detect traps) and Mechanic (turrets / "pets" / shields). Each class has three skill trees for players to specialize their classes in. As all players are fully armored and the game is fast paced, each class has a distinct silhouette; big bulky shoulders for Assault, flexible pipes and packs for the Medic, a sleek slim silhouette for the Recon guy and a 3rd mechanical arm for the Mechanic, which is folded over his shoulder. The Medics also invariably were following the Assault guys. Follow the trail of the healing ray and a Medic was attached.
)
As long as we were outdoors, I enjoyed this game immensely. With its fast pacing, gorgeous graphics, smooth animations and flow, Global Agenda also has an intuitive UI and controls, that I as a non-FPS player was able to pick it up very quickly - love those turrets and force shields!
When we got kicked out of the game due to a technical glitch and had to log back in, Executive Producer Todd Harris took the opportunity to show us developments in their Cities. Help Kiosks abound which help you navigate and provide assistance in the game itself. If you are seeking an area or objective, it will provide a trail that takes you where you need to go, not just a directional beacon. I also spoke with him about the game that was not shown at PAX, the PvE game.
Global Agenda is more than just a PvP game, it has a PvE game and a persistent world. There are solo missions for players preferring to solo and a match-making system operates in both PvP and PvE missions, ensuring that players get into the game quickly once they've decided they want to get in. "The game is balanced for PvP," said Todd. "Then we use the same skills to design the PvE content."
This game looks great, plays well and as impressed as players and press has been, the pressure is on for Hi-Rez Studios. This is an award-winning game preview. Will it live through its promise and grow into an award-winning game? Hi-Rez Studios plans to begin a new closed beta that will introduce the game's persistent campaign elements soon but at this time, has not announced a time-line for release. I know they have picked up at least a few more fans at PAX and many more eyes on them.
)
Team Fortress on speed eh? Guess ill have to closely monitor this game :)
I'm still not sure if it will survive very long on a pay-to-play basis.
It will be no game for soloers, have a proper guild/clan or you will perish.
Looks great, my only concern is that it will be too fast paced. TF2 is pretty fast paced as is and if this game is any faster , I am afraid it will cut out the major part for me.
The major part being slowing down for a second or two to strategize and plan before rushing in.
Team Fortress on speed doesn't justify an mmo subscription fee. I'll pass.
I am so anxious about this game, I think it will do just fine and people will flock to this game to play after they realize how amazing it is going to be!!!
Not that it matters much, but its robotics, not mechanic.
>_>
I can't wait for a realease date on this one. I think they are the 1st one that will get the MMOFPS genre right. I hope they will...
Failing to see the MMO aspect of this. If a glorified server browser qualifies as "shared space" for MMORPG I move that all FPS since Quake be classified as MMOs since the server browser portion is "shared space". :/
What's the top end of GA's matches? 32 x 32 or less puts it in the same realm as TF2, BF2, BF2142, et al. Even 64 x 64 would pale compare to PS and WWIIOL. Massive means massive. 8x8 on a hands on preview. Meh.
It may sound not all that fun but when you play it trust me your hooked. Wise I could give some info but NDA is in place for now but most core part are already out in interveiws.
For the record their site lists the normal match as being 10 x 10 with an occasional "raid" as 60 x 60. 10 x 10.... *sigh*
This game is incredibly good fun to play. The pace makes it extremely engaging and tiring, but in a good way. Time flies when you play it and it's just so enjoyable, even if you're not very good at it - like me!
I have 2 major concerns for the game, which may limit it's long-term appeal:
- Limited immersion and depth - may end-up feeling like a multiplayer coin-op with little character depth and basic, samey environments.
- The PvE may look weak next to the excellent PvP.
If these 2 elements can be addressed before release, this will be massive. If not, it'll play like a ramped up Battlefield Heroes meets CoD4 with a pricetag attached to it.
Aryas
Quality rather than quantity.
You're choice depends on your preference tbh.
But I'm the sort of guy that would rather date 1 model than date 50 trogs.
In the same way, I appreciate the approach used in GA.
Aryas
I do know that this closed beta coming up they will be working on the PvE stuff.
So far this almost closely rivals PlanetSide but without the vehicles.
Each battle in the instanced hex affects the outcome of other hex battlegorunds adjacent to it.
From the begining they said they want to go with small tactical battles rather than zerg warfare.
As was said before quality over quanity makes for interesting battles.
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.
if and I mean IF they get the persistence to however the territory control works then I might get excited about this one.
I can live with the 'mini-game' 'small arena' concept (shooters work better 8v8 or 16v16 anyways) as long as there is something worth fighting for that matters! I have always wanted an MMO experience that did that, Planetside, flawed as it was, got close, I just await the day someone nails it and I am there!
This is similar to how I feel as well. If this game works like a "hex grid" with each cell being an area where the mini fights occur, that sounds good to me. At least there is some over-all map where we can see our progress and where we need to concentrate fighting at.
This is the only game I'm actually looking forward to, in a sea of mediocre games that are going to be released. Hope it delivers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I wouldn't mind try it out for a weekend..
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
Given that there has to be some consensus on what an MMO is it isn't just my terms.
Then you bar is far below the norm where massively referred to several hundred, up to 1.5 thousand, players on at once.
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?
When discussing powers of magnitude difference that's a tad more than semantics. That is a large, quantifiable difference.
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?
You can still play tribes 2. Check out tribesnext.com
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.