Global Agenda - Now Subscription less, GW model.

[Ingmar]

That dude has some stupid looking hair.

[Malakili]

I'm hoping its good.  I've been waiting for "the next Planetside" forever.  Is someone setting up a guild beta application?  Furthermore, have I been around here long enough or posted enough to actually get in on that? 

[Zzulo]

Judging by the sound of it, this game is not going to be anything at all like Planetside.

It sounds to me like an FPS version of Guildwars, but with the regular monthly fee

[ashrik]

For those of you who are hoping this is a new planetside: It's not.

Think of it as more of world of warcraft arena FPS. Or maybe guild wars. It's basically going to be arena matches with a loose clan system bolted on. Don't expect more than a dozen people on a side; I suspect it will end up being half that.

Yar. Planetside this is not. Cmon guys, the Unreal Engine.

[tmp]

Yar. Planetside this is not. Cmon guys, the Unreal Engine.

They stuff Unreal Engine into everything nowadays. Doesn't mean anything.

http://tera.hangame.com/

for that matter, Lineage 2 was also running the (earlier) Unreal Engine and had large castle sieges from what i remember.

[Mrbloodworth]

Question #1: Is Global Agenda an MMOFPS, MMORPG, or MMORTS?

Well… yes. Global Agenda is an Action MMO that incorporates elements from each of these game-types, but also some important differences.

Global Agenda has elements of an FPS because our in-mission game play is very action-oriented and as fluid as a multiplayer online shooter.

    * Global Agenda is technically a third person shooter. Your character jetpacks to rooftops, grapples onto ledges, engages in melee combat, and darts behind cover to evade rocket fire and we've implemented a third-person camera to provide players the best view of their surroundings.
    * We've taken inspiration from many modern shooters, but at the same time we intend combat to be more than just a twitchy shooter death-match. Due to our very distinct player classes and other game mechanics, our combat is not decided simply by who has the fastest reflexes. It is more about positioning, team cooperation, and using the appropriate device and counter at the appropriate time.
    * Tactics are more important than twitch.

Global Agenda has elements of an RPG because your character does progress and unlock new skills and gear over time.

    * We offer four very distinct but broad player classes and a large set of usable device types including ranged weapons, close-combat weapons, stealth & deception devices, remote controlled robotic pets, turrets, force fields, and many, many more.

    * Your character earns credit with NPC factions by doing missions and acquires a more powerful and diverse collection of gear over time.

    * However, we are definitely not an exploration-focused game, nor heavy on quest dialog, nor a game where grinding content will allow you to easily defeat those of a lower character level. To us 'playing a role' pertains to the role you carve out for yourself on your mission strike team and your player-created Agency. We do not expect the player to simply act out a role via scripted story missions.

    * provide the context but players drive the story.

Finally, Global Agenda has some elements of an RTS/strategy game based upon our episodic Campaigns.

    * Our Campaigns give agencies the opportunity to actually gain territory, construct facilities, produce or steal resources, and compete in an approximately 45 day competition to construct a protected complex for your allies before your rivals do.
    * Within Global Agenda some groups, the best groups, will make history by winning Campaigns.

In this way, your character actions and contributions affect the outcome of a single mission (like an FPS), your character career (like an RPG), and your agency's long-term Campaign goals (like a strategy game).



Question #2 – Is Global Agenda a persistent world?

Yes. Global Agenda is very much a persistent world:

    * GA has persistent characters, skills, stats, gear, achievements, and more.
    * GA has territories that agencies and alliances own, build and fight over
    * GA has PvE content that is linked with our overall game play
    * GA has long term Win conditions
    * GA has vendors and equipment of varying qualities that players can acquire
    * GA has character customization, progression, and levelling
    * GA has an immersive, integrated environment, with multiple NPC factions and exotic cities
    * GA has player-driven politics, wars, betrayals, and diplomacy
    * GA has a single world within which players interact and progress



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.

    * From a technical standpoint if too many players are in the same area, in any MMO, the performance will be unacceptable and game play will suffer. Period. So, every game with characters segments the population to prevent or minimize this condition from occurring. The real question is the specific number of characters each game allows within an area, how big those areas are, and how the player population is segmented.

    * With most MMOs the player is forced to choose a named server (essentially one really big instance) when creating a character. One consequence of this is that it can be difficult (sometimes impossible) to play with your friends who created characters on different servers. From a status standpoint it also segments the population so you can never be best in the world, just best on your server. We take a different approach because in Global Agenda we plan to have one single server per geographic market (i.e. North America, or Europe, etc.) but beyond that we do not artificially divide the player population by forcing players to choose server.

    * In addition to choosing a named server, many MMOs use instances when they want to limit the number of players for balance and gameplay reasons aside from any technical constraints. For example – dungeon raid PvE instances or PvP battlegrounds typically have limits on the player count per side.

    * 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.

    * 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.

    * Our player agents operate primarily within mission instances, working tightly with one another and using a variety of devices and tactics; in the same way television agents within Mission Impossible or 24 operate within mission instances. And, in the same way a TV or film director uses tight camera angles to maximize impact on the viewer, we use instances to maximize impact and contribution of each Global Agenda player.

    * We do support conflict and coordination across very large groups of players and toward a prominent end goal. Global Agenda Base Raids involves larger groups of about 60 players per side, but with each side divided into multiple strike teams. These strike teams fight in separate map locations, but played simultaneously and linked to one another in real-time. For example, if my strike team is able to "Disable the Generator" (Objective 1), that can benefit another strike team attempting to "Breach Base Defenses" (Objective 2), even if we are in different maps. Thus, organized teams formulate cross-mission strategy to complement their in-mission tactics.

    * We have found Campaigns to be a great way to deliver epic conflicts that involve many, many player agents, over a multiple month timeframe, but at the same time not letting battles devolve into a zerg-fest or, at the opposite extreme, have some player sitting around bored out of his mind defending an objective on a large map with no enemies in sight. Each of our maps is designed around specific objectives, with map size tuned to the player population, so you'll rarely be very far from the action.

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

[Malakili]

Nothing there is too surprising based on what we already knew.  It does confirm a lot of stuff though.  Most of all, it confirms for me that I am not interested in this game.

[ashrik]

It's hard for me to get past the idea of paying a subscription fee for what I view as a 3rd person shooter Guild Wars.
I guess that's something that gameplay has to overcome. I'm still interested.

[Mrbloodworth]

I'm interested too, while the non-seamless is a disappointment, its not a killer, especially if the game play makes that relatively seamless anyway (the zone linking).

[Ravanos]

so basically its going to be your typical FPS but with character progression and NPCs in certain hubs. sound exciting.

[Mrbloodworth]

so basically its going to be your typical FPS but with character progression and NPCs in certain hubs. sound exciting.

Sure, if in a typical FPS what you do on one maps affects another in real time while others are on another map all culminating in and over all goal for your player made faction of your buddies including building and taking another factions base or interfering in their goals.


Totally.


I also have not read anything about NPC's. Please to be reading the first post, thanks.


Seems there are some (NPC's), and it also seems that you and your faction can hop (drop pod) in if someone is doing a "PvE" goal, making it PvP.

[Ravanos]

so basically its going to be your typical FPS but with character progression and NPCs in certain hubs. sound exciting.

Sure, if in a typical FPS what you do on one maps affects another in real time while others are on another map all culminating in and over all goal for your player made faction of your buddies including building and taking another factions base or interfering in their goals.


Totally.


I also have not read anything about NPC's. Please to be reading the first post, thanks.


Seems there are some (NPC's), and it also seems that you and your faction can hop (drop pod) in if someone is doing a "PvE" goal, making it PvP.

so basically FPS version of guild wars. oh joy of joys.

[HaemishM]

Except not FPS, but 3PS?

[Engels]

So NECRO. Sorry if there is a fresher thread than this.

E3 game play footage for this:

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-09-global-agenda/51115

Is anyone else dissapointed that this is NOT Planetside 2? Between 'stealth class that can backstab' and the small scale battles occurring between pockets of players 'coordinating' across the interwebs, I can't decide if I'm dissapointed that this is just fantasy gaming dressed up as futuristic gaming or that this is Counter Strike pretending to be an MMO.

[DLRiley]

Judging by the sound of it, this game is not going to be anything at all like Planetside.

It sounds to me like an FPS version of Guildwars, but with the regular monthly fee

I would play that.

[HaemishM]

Holy shit, that video could not have made me want to play it any less. Reminds me of City of Heroes mixed with Guild Wars small-scale action stuff.

Very very disappointed.

[DLRiley]

Holy shit, that video could not have made me want to play it any less. Reminds me of City of Heroes mixed with Guild Wars small-scale action stuff.

Very very disappointed.

City of Heroes was a good game and Guild Wars was a good game so I can see how mmo players are disappointed....

edit:

Just saw the trailer, wow this shit might actually be worth a subscription. Though I highly doubt it but I'm willing to fork the cash, as long as it doesn't play like an mmo this game gets my respect. At the very least it looks more interesting than Huxlexy, Jumpgate and SWOTR.

[Mrbloodworth]

Holy shit, that video could not have made me want to play it any less. Reminds me of City of Heroes mixed with Guild Wars small-scale action stuff.

Very very disappointed.

Looked cool to me.

Also.

[DLRiley]

Holy shit, that video could not have made me want to play it any less. Reminds me of City of Heroes mixed with Guild Wars small-scale action stuff.

Very very disappointed.

Looked cool to me.

Also.

 

[pxib]

I'm not sure that this game will go anywhere, but I have a feeling we'll see objective-linked instanced PvE/PvP becomes a popular theme in free to play console shooters. Coordinating large groups as they all fight towards a common objective in their own tiny lag-free zones sounds like an excellent way to fake persistence with a manageable tech ceiling.

[DLRiley]

Well its too early to tell how this game will go. I'm hoping it leans toward guild wars and not hellgate london. It's probably the only game I haven't rolled my eyes at for a while so its worthy of a beta sign up at the very least.

[01101010]

So NECRO. Sorry if there is a fresher thread than this.

E3 game play footage for this:

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-09-global-agenda/51115

Is anyone else dissapointed that this is NOT Planetside 2? Between 'stealth class that can backstab' and the small scale battles occurring between pockets of players 'coordinating' across the interwebs, I can't decide if I'm dissapointed that this is just fantasy gaming dressed up as futuristic gaming or that this is Counter Strike pretending to be an MMO.

there will never be another Planetside...unless Blizzard decides it worthy.

[tmp]

there will never be another Planetside...unless Blizzard decides it worthy.

Considering failure that's the first one (everyone talking how great it is but few actually playing) there isn't exactly much incentive to try again, is there...

[Engels]

Planetside was not a failure unless the definition of failure is based on comparison to...what? An MMORPG? Well, Planetside isn't an MMORPG. Its an MMOFPS. Of which, aside from Planetside, there has hereto been none worthy of mention.

It may be that the entire wierd subgenre of MMOFPS isn't a sustainable business venture, since what happens again and again with people that play Planetside is that they played for 3 months, then abandoned it for a year or two, then went back for 3 months, then returned after a year or two, etc.

The cycle could have continued if Planetside's content had been significantly upgraded or a sequel by Sony been released, but it hasn't, so now the game is indeed dated and is therefore floundering. Essentially, the same thing happened with EQ in this regard.

[tmp]

Planetside was not a failure unless the definition of failure is based on comparison to...what?

It's based on comparison on what people say ('game is great') and what they actually do (barely play it, if that). As you admit yourself:

It may be that the entire wierd subgenre of MMOFPS isn't a sustainable business venture, since what happens again and again with people that play Planetside is that they played for 3 months, then abandoned it for a year or two, then went back for 3 months, then returned after a year or two, etc.

"not sustainable business venture" *is* definition of failure in the world of well... sustainable business ventures these games are supposed to be.

[Engels]

And yet Sony keeps it afloat. Unless you have documentation showing a net loss over time or some such..

[Mrbloodworth]

I played planetside for 4 years. No updates and repetitive game play made me unsub. If those things were different, i would still be playing.

[Malakili]

I can't tell if this is going to be a decent shooter, or a terrible MMO, or both...

I really REALLY REALLY want to like this game, but something in the back of my head keeps telling me its going to suck.

[tmp]

And yet Sony keeps it afloat. Unless you have documentation showing a net loss over time or some such..

Short of MxO Sony keeps anything afloat. We aren't seriously arguing a game kept on life support for years with little to no active development, and now slated for final merger of last two remaining servers (except no one can be arsed to actually do the merger despite announcement made a few months ago, because one of these servers is pretty much graveyard) ... is anywhere near truly sustainable as standalone product or a succesful one, are we?

[Prospero]

I want to like it, but compared to APB it completely lacks soul. It looks like a generic sci-fi Halo clone.

[01101010]

I played planetside for 4 years. No updates and repetitive game play made me unsub. If those things were different, i would still be playing.

I played for about a month after BFRs arrived on the scene. Once SOE decided to take the inflatable stupid bat and beat dumb into PS with its disco caves and tanks-with-legs, I called it quits and vowed never to give SOE another look.

[Koyasha]

A game set in 'future earth' should never ever have melee as a viable combat choice.  That's pretty much enough to kill my interest right there.  Some of the other shit sounds vaguely interesting, but melee should pretty much be eliminated from futuristic games.

Star Wars is about the only sci-fi that melee combat makes any sense in, and there only for Jedi or Sith, no one else.

[Surlyboi]

Meh, the character classes are pretty much breaking out to the same archetypes used in Tabula Rasa.

Recon breaks down to sniper/spy
Assault goes to Guardian/Grenadier
Medic is medic and robotic is pretty much engineer.

[UnSub]

Planetside was not a failure unless the definition of failure is based on comparison to...what? An MMORPG? Well, Planetside isn't an MMORPG. Its an MMOFPS. Of which, aside from Planetside, there has hereto been none worthy of mention.

Were I a betting man, I'd say that WWIIOL is likely to outlive Planetside.

As a proof of concept, Planetside was a success. As a title that proved the viability of MMOFPSs, it wasn't.

For all the talk of how 'good' PS was, it had enough flaws that it didn't retain players and grow. And since it has been revealed that widescale hacking is going on unpunished, it it pretty much the death knell for the game.

[pxib]

A game set in 'future earth' should never ever have melee as a viable combat choice.  That's pretty much enough to kill my interest right there.  Some of the other shit sounds vaguely interesting, but melee should pretty much be eliminated from futuristic games.

Star Wars is about the only sci-fi that melee combat makes any sense in, and there only for Jedi or Sith, no one else.

But insta-heal medics are okay? Whatever breaks your suspension of disbelief.

If we're talking realism I'm always more bothered by the fact that humans are still running and gunning rather than piloting remote-control combat drones.

If the game is fun, I tend not to ask too many questions about the frameworld it inhabits. If the game sucks, I stop playing.