Global Agenda - Now Subscription less, GW model.

[Trippy]

It looks okay to me. Nothing spectacular. I really wish I could shoot in the head the people who call these games MMOs though.

[Malakili]

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.

I dunno, the stealth aspect seems logical.  Cloaking devices to allow you to close distance without geting blown to bits.  The other melee can just have really powerful power armor or something...

I dunno, I can suspend disbelief for this if I can imagine my mage shooting fire from his hands in a fantasy game.

[Triforcer]

It looks okay to me. Nothing spectacular. I really wish I could shoot in the head the people who call these games MMOs though.

How could you charge fees if you didn't call it an MMO?

I said this in a different thread, but it bears repeating:  I really, really want to understand the current development fad of calling FPSes MMOs and then charging a monthly fee for what is essentially a variation on Team Fortress 2.  Planetside charging fees- yeah, I can get behind that.  But  8v8 deathmatching charging fees?  I predict Epic Phail(tm) for that business model. 

[Velorath]

How could you charge fees if you didn't call it an MMO?

Microtransactions?  In fact, aren't monthly subscription fees looking a little outdated at this point unless you're Blizzard?

[Malakili]

I said this in a different thread, but it bears repeating:  I really, really want to understand the current development fad of calling FPSes MMOs and then charging a monthly fee for what is essentially a variation on Team Fortress 2. 

If what they are pushing about this sort of strategy aspect of "hexes" being the basic unit of map control, and you get small matches in each of those affecting the larget map control, toss in content updates, character progression, etc ends up playing out, I might be willing to pay monthly for a "variation of TF2"

Of course, if the game sucks, all that fancy talk means nothing.

[Kageru]

At the start of the gameplay vid I couldn't help yell out "Spy's sapping my sentry!"... such similar dynamics.

It looks like fun as long as it has no subscription fee and local servers.

[Mrbloodworth]

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?

Planetside paid for itself a long time ago.

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.

That's not correct.

[AcidCat]

"* For combat however, we do not intent to support giant, seamless maps with hundreds of players. ...  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."

Ah well. I still hold out hope that someday a true spiritual successor to Planetside will be made.

[HaemishM]

But  8v8 deathmatching charging fees?  I predict Epic Phail(tm) for that business model.

Yeah, this. I was already turned off by the mention of a TANK class in a shooter (why the fuck not just call him a meatshield?) then I find out it's mostly co-op PVE with only 8v8 PVP matches? No thanks. I'd rather play BF2 for free and that game is what 4 years old?

[Malakili]

But  8v8 deathmatching charging fees?  I predict Epic Phail(tm) for that business model.

mostly co-op PVE

Is this the case?  I kind of assumed the co-op PvE was less stressed than the PvP.  If its a PvE game BEFORE a PvP game, I'm not really interested at all.

[HaemishM]

That's the impression the linked video gave me.

[Ghambit]

I've been in the Alpha for this for a while.  I havent checked back in though recently because I keep missing the testing schedule.  I'll try to pop back in and give a non-NDA breaking impression.

[schild]

I'll try to pop back in and give a non-NDA breaking impression.

No such thing if the NDA is still in place.

[Malakili]

That's the impression the linked video gave me.

I found this on their website:

Player-Driven World: MMOGs are typically categorized as primarily either player vs. environment (PvE) or player vs. player (PvP). PvE games typically offer a more scripted and controlled campaign experience as players engage computer controlled obstacles. PvP games typically offer a more dynamic experience because the game conflict emerges from player initiated activity and politics. Global Agenda is very much a player-driven, PvP experience with PvE playing a supporting role.

source: http://hi-rez.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/91

So, hopefully PvP is the focus.

[HaemishM]

Somebody needs to tell the executive producer that, because that ain't what his fucking video says.

[Redgiant]

Somebody needs to tell the executive producer that, because that ain't what his fucking video says.

This sounds more and more like the WAR of PS. The only difference is

(a) poeple seem to know what is coming (and how different from a hoped-for predeccesor) more honestly and earlier. It won't be anything like PS, but at least everyone already knows that.
(b) it is even less open-world oriented than WAR (Guild Wars comes to mind as poeple have said). Big difference, but see (a).

DAoC -> WAR -> disappointed
PS -> GA -> ??

edit: Funny, I also thought of CoH when I saw the video.

[ashrik]

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.

I was personally put off that they still used human combatants when obvious a representation of "future earth" would have parties that simply made use of semi-autonomous machines to engage in warfare with. But then I remembered that it was just a game. I'd be hard pressed to find a sci-fi gaming world that didn't make use of melee weapons.

[SnakeCharmer]

Cute.

[Modern Angel]

So they ripped off Talislanta's tagline?

But I liked it.

[Triforcer]

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.

I was personally put off that they still used human combatants when obvious a representation of "future earth" would have parties that simply made use of semi-autonomous machines to engage in warfare with. But then I remembered that it was just a game. I'd be hard pressed to find a sci-fi gaming world that didn't make use of melee weapons.

If you want your game to have stealth (which, at least in an FPS, has a very valuable place in preventing eternal bloody stalemates at bottleneckes) you pretty much need to give the stealthers melee.  Its much harder to balance ranged stealth than melee stealth. 

[Stormwaltz]

NECRO'd

They've announced their pricing plan, which is remarkable only for its rationality. Want to play it as a round-based shooter? Buy a box. Want to play it like Planetside? Buy a box and a subscription.

http://www.massively.com/2009/10/20/hi-rez-announces-pricing-structure-for-global-agenda/

[Numtini]

I might buy it just to reward them for the sub model.

[Zzulo]

The game just became interesting again

[Malakili]

NECRO'd

They've announced their pricing plan, which is remarkable only for its rationality. Want to play it as a round-based shooter? Buy a box. Want to play it like Planetside? Buy a box and a subscription.

http://www.massively.com/2009/10/20/hi-rez-announces-pricing-structure-for-global-agenda/

If it really is "like planetside" they've got my interest again.  I'm not convinced by the wording though, that it isn't just instanced, but the instances and wins/losses you take and such matter in some more long term way, in which case, I'm less interested again.

[Severian]

Attack and Defend Territories in zones that match your agency's schedule

Smart.

[Venkman]

Only difference seems to be that this is map/match based instead of the more fluid anytime/anywhere semi-persistence of PS ("semi" because of continent locking). So you could have PS-style battles with 60 vs 60, but the staging comes somewhat automatically rather than starting in Sanct.

Big thing for me is a lack of vehicles. What is it with this blindspot? Is it that devs are scared for the size of the maps they need to create? Or do players just not like it? Halo and PS guys, come on! I accept CoD/MW doesn't have them and may never well. But if your game doesn't have that same sort of super-snappy feel, it better be offset with some tanks and flying or it will just feel like Huxley.

Well, to me anyway

[Zzulo]

Only difference seems to be that this is map/match based instead of the more fluid anytime/anywhere semi-persistence of PS ("semi" because of continent locking). So you could have PS-style battles with 60 vs 60, but the staging comes somewhat automatically rather than starting in Sanct.

Big thing for me is a lack of vehicles. What is it with this blindspot? Is it that devs are scared for the size of the maps they need to create? Or do players just not like it? Halo and PS guys, come on! I accept CoD/MW doesn't have them and may never well. But if your game doesn't have that same sort of super-snappy feel, it better be offset with some tanks and flying or it will just feel like Huxley.

Well, to me anyway

As far as I know, most maps are locked to 12 vs 12

[jakonovski]

The game's coming out in February 2010: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/hi-rez-dates-global-agenda

[damijin]

My Lineage 2 crew and ex PS soliders (intentional sic) are going to give it a run. I think the sub model is extremely smart as long as the subscription is worth it's price. Instead of telling people "Buy this $50 box and get your first month free!" it's "Buy this $50 box and get a full game! If you like that game, decide at any time whether or not to pay for additional persistence and depth!"

That makes the box buy so much more appealing. I know lots of folks who shut down their MMO subs periodically when money gets tight and they aren't playing very much. With this, even if you occasionally unsub from boredom or whatever -- you still have a gameplay experience available to you and your money spent on the box was not wasted.

I hope the model does really well and starts a trend for any other games that could utilize it.

[Nonentity]

NDA just lifted on this.

NON-DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS LIFTED
Hi-Rez Studios is thrilled to announce that the non-disclosure requirements around the Global Agenda beta have been lifted.

Beta testers are now permitted to share information regarding the game with their friends and on public forums, etc.

A large part of our marketing strategy is to grow through positive word of mouth. So, please get the word out and bring folks into the game!

 

My first impressions: I always feel like other classes kick my ass, no matter what class I play, so I guess that means it's balanced somewhat?

[Mrbloodworth]

Does it feel like planetside?

[Nonentity]

Not at all - everything is lobby based. I can see it being a purchase just because it doesn't have a monthly fee for most of it, and there's a lot to experiment with it, I just don't know how in depth the fee-based persistent world combat is going to be. You have to be a part of a decent agency to be able to hold some ground, so maybe later on it'll become more important. The only persistency comes in the fact that there is a hex grid where you drop plots of land, bases, research facilities, etc. onto - it sounds cool in concept, I just haven't even tried it yet so I can't comment.

As far as an avatar-based lobby shooter with some leveling and whatnot, it's okay - there is nothing I can point out that is off about it, other then I don't know really what there is to brag about. It has gear that degrades so you constantly need to replace it, some PvE missions that have some fun platforming elements and whatnot.

It hasn't scared me away yet.

[kildorn]

I feels nothing like planetside. It feels a lot like Quake with a 3d lobby imo.

Also, the texture resolution is horrible. Terrible. Mind bogglingly bad. Maybe it's just my machine, but I can't get the damned thing to display in anything I'd even sort of call "pretty"

edit: less Quake, more Tribes, actually.

[ashrik]

hmm but my tribes had wide open 32 and 64-player servers

[kildorn]

hmm but my tribes had wide open 32 and 64-player servers

Well yes, and my happy memories want to say the graphics were cleaner in tribes, and the interface to actually use jump packs was far better.

but it feels like a poor remake of tribes with smaller player counts and uninspired maps.