Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What makes this an "MMO"?
TR-Matt
Member Posts: 24
I'm wondering, what makes this truly massively multiplayer instead of just an instanced arena shooter? Does it have a persistent world, large scale battles, etc.? From what I've seen and read it doesn't seem like it. I'm worried that calling it massively multiplayer is just marketing speak to make a subscription fee palatable. Hopefully someone who knows more about this game can explain to me why that concern is unjustified and Global Agenda deserves the title of MMO.
Comments
you sorta shot yourself in the foot just now.
MMO = Massively Multiplayer online
so the game doesnt need a persistant world with large scale battles, it just needs too be online with lots of ppl at the same time.
if it called itself and MMORPG then you would have had an argument but no it can be called an MMO
First off yes it is a MMO.
Second PvP is centered around small scale PvP with each battle afftecting other parts of the hex map your trying to control. 64 vs 64 alliance maps and smaller groups get divided into 12 vs 12 PvP maps. Some cities will allow numerous players to interact with each other while most will be in guild rooms.
you sorta shot yourself in the foot just now.
MMO = Massively Multiplayer online
so the game doesnt need a persistant world with large scale battles, it just needs too be online with lots of ppl at the same time.
if it called itself and MMORPG then you would have had an argument but no it can be called an MMO
Your definition of MMO is very flawed. There's so many games that could fit that 'definition' it becomes meaningless. I also find it troubling that this company seems to expect a monthly fee for what is essentially an arena shooter. If that's true why not play any number of other shooters which don't require a monthly fee? Oh well I guess I shouldn't get my hopes up for a modern MMO shooter, it seems like all of them are just arena shooters with some shady marketing and a level grind attached.
you sorta shot yourself in the foot just now.
MMO = Massively Multiplayer online
so the game doesnt need a persistant world with large scale battles, it just needs too be online with lots of ppl at the same time.
if it called itself and MMORPG then you would have had an argument but no it can be called an MMO
so by your logic CS:S is an mmo?
March on! - Lets Invade Pekopon
you sorta shot yourself in the foot just now.
MMO = Massively Multiplayer online
so the game doesnt need a persistant world with large scale battles, it just needs too be online with lots of ppl at the same time.
if it called itself and MMORPG then you would have had an argument but no it can be called an MMO
Your definition of MMO is very flawed. There's so many games that could fit that 'definition' it becomes meaningless. I also find it troubling that this company seems to expect a monthly fee for what is essentially an arena shooter. If that's true why not play any number of other shooters which don't require a monthly fee? Oh well I guess I shouldn't get my hopes up for a modern MMO shooter, it seems like all of them are just arena shooters with some shady marketing and a level grind attached.
No actually his definition was spot on. He explained very clearly what MMO stands for and this game does actually fit with that perfectly well. In fact it looks a hell of a lot more interesting and involving than other mmos I have seen because your actions matter in the game world and really can have an effect on things. You and the other players in your faction can effect the outcome of the overall campaign while in other mmos its all just a scripted story like a single player game, where every player is really just playing their own personal version of it which they can share if the fancy takes them.
So....massively? Check! There are lots of players online in the same virtual world much like any other mmo. It does rely on instances a lot but thats fine. That doesnt stop it from being an mmo and anyone that thinks it does is just nitpicking.
Multiplayer? Check! Lots of players log online into the same game and play it with and against each other just any other mmo.....well......actually its better than most other mmos because in most of them everyone is logging online just to fight against the computer. This game actually involves players having a meaningful impact on each others gaming experience. Its a shocking revelation I know.......people effecting each other over the internet?! Whatever next!!
Online? Check! Yes its online. Its not a single player game with an extra online feature like other FPS games such as Call of Duty.
When I read about this game I felt rather excited. It got me thinking of the cool and exciting battles that took place in Battlefield 2142 except that each zone is NOT a seperate isolated instance and instead the outcome of a battle in each zone has an impact on the overall map......a larger persistant gameworld just like the gameworld of any other mmo. This is where you are getting confused by comparing it to the online matches which happen in other FPS games. In those games there is no persistant online world and instead you just have a series of matches where the map resets at the end of each battle. Global Agenda isnt like that.
It has FPS gameplay combined with all the RPG elements you get in other games (classes, character progression, weapon upgrades, etc). Then on top of that it has an RTS aspect because every battle means something in the overall cmapaign.
Global Agenda is actually more of a true MMO than most other games currently available because its a real multiplayer game where you need to work with and against the other players. If you think the fact that this game will charge a monthly fee is a rip off then maybe you should pay closer attention to all of the other so-called mmos because they are really nothing more than single player games dumped on a server and opened up to everyone in massive co-op mode.
Rather than reaching a false conclusion about Global Agenda simply because you cant be bothered to read up about it, how about reading this article about the game.......
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/339/feature/2682/Top-Three-Questions-about-Global-Agenda-Answered.html
There is no large open land scape you can traverse in Global Agenda, I'll give you that. However, given the lore of the game and the fact it's all about the PvP... I don't see why you'd want to roam around on barren wastes looking for a few people to shoot.
What you actually do is zone (lore wise you ride a drop ship into the hot zone) right into maps and get right into the fights, without the useless travel. It's not as boring as you might think. You're simplifing it to a nub. There are transitions which draw you in, rather than just a loading bar.
Keep your eye on this game, I'm sure you'll find it worth a shot at some point.
And to add yes, the world is persistent. On top of the character development, you can conquer zones with your agency and in there you can build your base. Concentrate on the defense, the military or science, as said in one of the videos.
Don't know if it will actually be worth a monthly fee but in fact it has all the aspects that and MMO definition needs. Though it isn't just rpg, but rather roleplaying-shootergame or something...than again, even the CoDs have character development
Yeah to be honest it seems to me that Global Agenda has more scope for actual roleplaying than other previous mmos with their endless streams of silly quests. So many people seem to be under the impression that if a game tells you a story then it must be a roleplaying game which is kind of daft really considering that the presence of a fixed story actually removes the possibility of the player being able to do anything other than what the story tells them. Thats not roleplaying. Thats reading a story.
It looks like in Global Agenda you will actually be able to get things done with your actions and determine what happens in the game world.......so each player is genuinely PLAYing a ROLE as opposed to reading a story about it......which makes it a roleplaying game in my books. Shooting things with a gun (as opposed to wacking something with a sword) doesnt make it any less of an RPG.
Sounds like another Fury type arena game.
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2.
Game(s) I Am Currently Playing:
GW2 (+LoL and BF3)
you sorta shot yourself in the foot just now.
MMO = Massively Multiplayer online
so the game doesnt need a persistant world with large scale battles, it just needs too be online with lots of ppl at the same time.
if it called itself and MMORPG then you would have had an argument but no it can be called an MMO
Your definition of MMO is very flawed. There's so many games that could fit that 'definition' it becomes meaningless. I also find it troubling that this company seems to expect a monthly fee for what is essentially an arena shooter. If that's true why not play any number of other shooters which don't require a monthly fee? Oh well I guess I shouldn't get my hopes up for a modern MMO shooter, it seems like all of them are just arena shooters with some shady marketing and a level grind attached.
I WANT PLANETSIDE 2!!!!!!!!!!! But yes, I think global agenda is a joke, and calling it a mmo would mean calling every other multiplayer game a mmo as well. The guy is too literal, he needs to take a hint, he is confusing the "Technical wording of mmo" with the true genre standard that it stands for.. This is a glorified chatroom. The only player interactial besides some 4v4 8v8 will be you and like 30 other people buying items in a even more glorified "Lobby room" that they happened to make a bunch of with different scenery and called it a "progression"...
You are right, global agenda is no mmo, but it will be an awsome actual mutliplayer game, but i would rather go buy counterstrike or something for that kind of thrill. The only salvation will be planetside 2 and since thats not happening, i since have never played a "Good" mmofps, or 3ps.
Global Agenda is deeper than you think. Matches carry over from one to the other. When more info is released maybe some people's minds will change.
You have to be kidding me? I thought GA was like Planetside where there was a world and HUGE battles. If this is not the case then this is NOT an MMO and it is nothing more than ONLINE mode of other FPS games. I would never pay a monthly fee for such a game and I'm very disapointed now as I was looking forward to this game, but no more
Someone needs to make an improved version of Planetside that has features to keep the game new, balanced and exciting. Planetside failed due to faction hopping and FOTW. However, it was a fun, exciting game and I seriously think they need to do improvements on it and allow 14 day trials.
Is Guild Wars considered an MMO? Because that's sort of how Global Agenda's world is setup.
http://www.guildwars.com/gameplay/synopsis/
Quote from link above.
"Guild Wars takes the best elements of today's massively multiplayer online games and combines them with a new mission-based design that eliminates some of the more tedious aspects of those games. You can meet new friends in towns or outposts, form a party, and then go tackle a quest together. Your party always has its own unique copy of the quest map, so camping, kill-stealing, and long lines to complete quests are all things of the past. Within a Guild Wars quest you have unprecedented freedom and power to manipulate the world around you; with the dynamic quest system, your accomplishments have a unique influence on your future."
It leaves alot up to interpretation. GA appears to be the Guild Wars of FPSers. Removing the actual massively multiplayer part IMHO. But then again its just my opinion. Still waiting to see more before throwing the Gavel on this one.
Time will tell.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - Lord Acton
Naw bro, that's Role Playing. You are playing a role right? Yes? AMIRITE? Then it's Role Playing!
"Roleplaying refers to the changing of one's behavior to assume a role, either unconsciously to fill a social role, or consciously to act out an adopted role".
How does one delete?
Why is there no delete post option?
I did follow this game and had some interest, but I am just completely lost at what they are thinking at this point.. and their latest marketing campaign just continues to amaze me, tellin me nothing about their game, only that there is no Elves.. oh boy.. I didnt come check out your game to see if there was Elves, oh you think its funny to make fun of Elves because they dominate the game genre? There's a reason for that. But whats your reasoning?
Now, I wonder if I can shoot an Elf while being online? I see some marketing that makes me thing there are elves, although it says No Elves? Are there going to be instances of Elves to slaughter? And I starting to concur...
MMO? I dont believe that anymore..
1. Supposedly the game resets every 45 days....
A mmo that resets? LOLz, can you say lost direction.
Not your character or any of that (becaues obviously noone would go for that) and it supposedly only takes 2 weeks tops to get your character to the highlest level you will ever achieve. Wow, a MMO achievable in no time.. Gimme Gimme Gimme, attittude...
I want to be bad, but I dont want to work for it.. No real gamer will cater to this. However, al lthe lame big zerg guild / alliances of skillless players will love this and take all the land on the final days. Gee fun.. Oh you can put it offline but not get resources.. "Ok I have all the land... turn it off, we win.." Says the commander. The concept is falling apart before they can even explain it to me...
2. The matches are match based instance wars...
No open field pvp that I am aware of?????
3. The game has snipers...
Nuff said, i rather have an elf than a sniper.. i mean.. <sarcasm> "Hi, can I camp with my hack, cuz i have no skills, i just want to headshot someone and talk smack" </sarcasm>
3. they say the world is persistant..
Yes, i guess its a bit different if a hex is now owned by someone else when I log back on in a week, but ugh seriosuly? They are just telling gamers what they want to hear... as everyone wants persistant.
All kidding aside,
Peter Porker
It's a mixture of MMO's rolled into one. At least Hi-Rez is taking a stance and making a new MMO instead of making a copy of one that already exisits. Who knows, this MMO may well be a innovative break though for future MMO's of it's kind.
It looks cool, BUT a big gripe is the monthly fee. What am I paying for exactly? GuildWars sure isn't worth a monthly fee. PlanetSide didn't warant it either. If every match is basically in an arena/battleground, then you're paying a fee just to have a persistent scoreboard with saved characters. Sorry, but thats barely a step above TF or COD4. Hell, my character grows in COD4 in a way and theres no fee. Whatever the fee happens to be, it BETTER not be the same as full featured MMOs, because I'd expect the same sort of gameworld and features. If they expect people to play, it'll have to follow the GW route and just make expansions for more content, better characters, ect. PS basically gimped by over the years and it was partly the fee. It just wasn't worth it and currently GA's fee won't be worth it either. It looks cool though.
Would GW have as many players if there was a fee? Heck no!
I don't know, right now I see this game more along the lines of a game like Team Fortress 2 then an actual MMO....only time will tell.
It's not really in the traditional sense of the definition. It's also not like a typical custom server based shooter, where you play maps in a competition setting that rotate around (tf2, cod, quake); however as others have pointed out, Gobal Agenda is more in line with what Guild Wars is, but with guns and technology. Though I do believe what you do in terms of battles actually has an impact on the game as a whole, keeping an ongoing dynamic world, just super instanced.
That's exactly right, Dstar. Global Agenda may not be a traditional MMO...but it still IS an MMO. It's a new breed, and people are having a hard time wrapping their brains around it.
It's ironic how when you make a WoW clone everyone bitches about how it's been done before, and here we have a company with the balls to go out on a limb and create something new but people still blast them for not making a WoW clone.
I don't see people blasting it. But when you know the game is bascially just a series of interconnected instances like DDO or PSO, you have to figure it'll make people go, "HUH". After watching the new E3 video, the animation is solid, the graphics are really nice. But in the end, everything is just an instance, which makes it barely a step above playing TF2 or COD4. If we have to sacrifice an actual world to get a shooter, the game will have to do something pretty significant to get people to leave their favortie online shooters, much less pay a monthly fee.
Honestly, so what if you have territory control, when its just going to switch hands again once you go offline. Think about it. You play for 3 or 4 hours fighting for a few maps or whatever. Then the next day, you lost everything and someone else has them? You fight for them AGAIN night after night? For what? You'll just lose them again. How can they justify a monthly fee when its not that much different from playing TF2 each night. Can't wait to beta test it though=)
you sorta shot yourself in the foot just now.
MMO = Massively Multiplayer online
so the game doesnt need a persistant world with large scale battles, it just needs too be online with lots of ppl at the same time.
if it called itself and MMORPG then you would have had an argument but no it can be called an MMO
Your definition of MMO is very flawed. There's so many games that could fit that 'definition' it becomes meaningless. I also find it troubling that this company seems to expect a monthly fee for what is essentially an arena shooter. If that's true why not play any number of other shooters which don't require a monthly fee? Oh well I guess I shouldn't get my hopes up for a modern MMO shooter, it seems like all of them are just arena shooters with some shady marketing and a level grind attached.
I completely agree.
Content Writer for RTSGuru.com
And overall bitter old man.
QFT!