+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 71
Discussion: Mass Multiplayer / Mass Multiplayer - General Discussion - Global Agenda - Kind of curious if anyone is looking to get into this. I've been watching it
-
08-21-2009, 06:01 AM #1
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Location
- Loveland, CO
- Age
- 38
- Posts
- 1,033
Global Agenda
Kind of curious if anyone is looking to get into this. I've been watching it for alittle while and I must say, the concept looks facinating. A FPS MMO, built with the Unreal 3 engine. Teams battle over objective points that can contribute to research, that unlocks gear for your whole team. There's other objectives as well. Being a dedicated CS:S player, where the focus of the game is objective driven, I think this might be a interesting alternative until Borderlands is released. Let me know what you all think.
Curiosity is going to kill this Cat.
-
08-21-2009, 09:41 AM #2
Re: Global Agenda
From what I have read on MMORPG it isn't going to be an MMOFPS in the Planetside/WWIIOL sense of the word. There's a shared location for downtime but the actual combat areas are limited instances. :/
-
08-25-2009, 12:28 PM #3
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- MA
- Age
- 31
- Posts
- 664
Re: Global Agenda
I don't know about the viability of MMO FPS'es. With so many FPSes that are free to play as much as you want after purchase - does a little bit of MMO persistance really make it worth paying a sub fee for?
"I've been working since I was sixteen. I fought in two wars. Hell, I've killed people. I'm not saying that I didn't enjoy it..."
-- Red Forman
-
08-25-2009, 12:40 PM #4
Re: Global Agenda
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! It isn't just the persistence but the fact that you can have more than 32x32 (which is the current max on most free FPS). If I recall correctly Planetside's continents locked at 240x240x120. 240 on two sides, 120 on the third side. Total of 600 people. Not too shabby for a near decade old game. Makes 64 players look kinda weak, eh?
Also the battles are often hard fought. The most epic FPS battle I ever participated in lasted a week. No joke. At the time I was playing on the German side of WWIIOL and we were pushing hard for Antwerp. First major attack started early one weekend. We got about 1/2 the city but stalled out. The rest of the week saw us and the Brits not only in heavy action in Antwerp itself but trying to push each other off the surrounding towns. Antwerp has 9 directly connected supply towns with another 3 secondary supply towns. Massive infantry, armor, air and sea power fighting over 13 separate locations 24/7 for a week. We finally took Antwerp the following weekend.
But.... but... those are true MMOFPS. From what I've read of GA it isn't such a beast. Each of the battles are instanced and probably scaled down to 32x32 at max as it uses Unreal(?) as its core engine. The "MMO" shared area is non-combat which basically makes it a glorified server browser.
So is paying for an MMOFPS worth it? Yes. In the case of this questionable "MMO" status, maybe not.
-
08-29-2009, 04:07 PM #5
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 14
Re: Global Agenda
Planetside was an awesome game! The battles to control bases were usually 200 vs 200 and they were actually battles. No pointy hats and beards to be seen!
I've been dying to play Global Agenda since I heard of its release. It looks like what Tribes 2 was like and I spent many years in T2!
-
11-04-2009, 08:37 AM #6
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 46
Re: Global Agenda
well i apllied for the beta hopefully ill get in
-
11-08-2009, 08:11 PM #7
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Posts
- 1,028
Re: Global Agenda
I think the answer of "is paying for largescale 200+ battles, worthwhile?"
The answer is like Greyed said, YES!!!!
I would easily pay 20$ a month for 200 v 200 battles in a realistic environment. Unfortunately, not such a game exists atm
-
11-09-2009, 11:27 AM #8
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Location
- Utah
- Posts
- 79
Re: Global Agenda
I am So getting Global Agenda when it comes out. It is an Day 1 Purchase for me
as for the Global Conquest thing. Heck yes I would defiantly pay for that.And when he get to heaven,
To Saint Peter he will tell;
One more soldier reporting sir
I've serve my time in hell
-
11-10-2009, 08:58 PM #9
Re: Global Agenda
Actually, Planetside was the first and really only large-scale MMOFPS. I believe the servers are still active (run by Sony) and there has been 2 expansion packs since the initial release back in 2004?
Originally Posted by fuzzhead
I think the answer of "is paying for largescale 200+ battles, worthwhile?"
The answer is like Greyed said, YES!!!!
I would easily pay 20$ a month for 200 v 200 battles in a realistic environment. Unfortunately, not such a game exists atm
Wikipedia Article on Planetside | Planetside Official WebsiteAcreo Aeneas
Content Development Team
Technology Relations Manager
Former 9th IHS Member. Long live the mobile infantry!
Novice Audiophile, Technology Enthusiast
"Arrrrgh! This waiting for BF3's beta is driving me up a wall!" - Acreo Aeneas
-
11-13-2009, 07:42 AM #10
Re: Global Agenda
Wasn't the first and isn't the only. World War II Online was out ~2 years before Planetside and is still running to this day. Originally Posted by Acreo Aeneas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_Online
However PS and WWIIOL are the only two true MMOFPSes in my mind so on that part we agree.
"...the rules aren't there to enumerate what is always correct but what is always wrong..."
-
11-13-2009, 01:04 PM #11
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Age
- 20
- Posts
- 618
Re: Global Agenda
Global Agenda still has very fun combat, and you may not see loads of people in a battle but, on a small scale it is much easier to manage teamwork - which is what TGers look for the most, right? And the developers did test other sizes and found 8 - 12 players per side to be the best. Besides, they have incorporated "Base Raids" where 6 battles get linked up in real time so that they each can effect eachother.
The subscription is also comparatively cheaper than most MMO's. On top of that, you can buy and play the game without paying the subscription, you just don't get as much access. Which is nice for anyone not used to subscriptions that want to give the game a try, mainly FPSers.
There's more information on it here.Last edited by MrJengles; 11-13-2009 at 01:24 PM.
|TG-Irr| MrJengles - You know you want to say it out loud.
-
11-14-2009, 12:42 AM #12
Re: Global Agenda
Yupyup. I have nothing against the gameplay, the concept, etc. I'll give it a try when it is finally released. I give almost everything a try. My only beef is with calling it an MMO because it doesn't, in my mind, fit the "massive" part of that moniker. I'd be curious to see how TG handles it and look forward to getting more TG face time. Aion kind of killed my BF2142 time as of late. *cough*
"...the rules aren't there to enumerate what is always correct but what is always wrong..."
-
11-14-2009, 02:26 AM #13
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Age
- 20
- Posts
- 618
Re: Global Agenda
Yeah, as far as the RPG -which is implied- it has the unlocks, skills and such so there is no problem. But I will admit it is a very loose term of "massive"... though, you do see everyone all at once outside of matches so, that's a lot more people and interaction than the average FPS, you just don't shoot them - which is both why it is technically massive, and why it is a loose term.
Gameplay is still great though, teamwork is forced so much that most people, TG or not, will be working together. Agencies just take that to the next level of proper coordination and planning I suppose. An unexpected Beta 1D was on today, and continues this weekend, so I actually just played it... totally uncoordinated teams simply don't win.
|TG-Irr| MrJengles - You know you want to say it out loud.
-
11-14-2009, 02:35 AM #14
Re: Global Agenda
Nah, RPG is never really implied. MMO is one half, RPG is the other, but not all MMOs are RPGs. Hence the term MMOFPS. Originally Posted by MrJengles
Yeah, several games have employed that model to be "Massive". Shared non-combat area w/instanced combat areas. Call it the Guild Wars model as I think that was the first game to employ it. NCSoft has never called GW an MMO for just that reason. Think of it this way, if you think of the instances as "servers" then the shared common area becomes a glorified, graphical, server browser. Server Browser + Servers = every FPS since Quake being, technically, an MMO. Not a conceptual leap most people will take.But I will admit it is a very loose term of "massive"... though, you do see everyone all at once outside of matches so, that's a lot more people and interaction than the average FPS, you just don't shoot them - which is both why it is technically massive, and why it is a loose term.
How's the command structure handled as compared to BF2142? I think that's the only common ground you and I have unless you've spent time in PS and WWIIOL.Gameplay is still great though, teamwork is forced so much that most people, TG or not, will be working together. Agencies just take that to the next level of proper coordination and planning I suppose. An unexpected Beta 1D was on today, and continues this weekend, so I actually just played it... totally uncoordinated teams simply don't win."...the rules aren't there to enumerate what is always correct but what is always wrong..."
-
11-14-2009, 01:20 PM #15
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Age
- 20
- Posts
- 618
Re: Global Agenda
Ha, I've heard people describe it as that before, which makes me laugh. There isn't a whole lot I can say back, but first off: all your skills, character aesthetics and implants etc. are changed out of the matches. As well as the auction house and mail system being there, so it isn't like all you do is wait. Second, individual servers have been done away with via these server "shards" for like, North America and Europe... so you never do browse any servers, or mess around trying to find one you like, with good pings for you and the people you want to game with, playing the right maps... you just choose the mission either in a team with people you want to game with, or it will match you with whoever else joined. Originally Posted by Greyed
Yeah, several games have employed that model to be "Massive". Shared non-combat area w/instanced combat areas. Call it the Guild Wars model as I think that was the first game to employ it. NCSoft has never called GW an MMO for just that reason. Think of it this way, if you think of the instances as "servers" then the shared common area becomes a glorified, graphical, server browser. Server Browser + Servers = every FPS since Quake being, technically, an MMO. Not a conceptual leap most people will take.
Though currently I've only seen Dome City, there will be agency specific areas too.
Uh, in PvP, there's no leader or anything, everyone fights. People just have to speak up if they have a plan at the start*, or decide they need a new tactic, or just want to point something out, most people tend to listen. Like I was playing Capture The Mech (think CTF) and I see their mech making a break for it... all I do is say he's running past us on the other side and immediately, the four people around me jetpack / run off with me and we mauled him. To which he complemented the teamwork and said his team didn't have any. If anything is going to inspire people to work together, it's losing every time you don't. Originally Posted by Greyed
As for AvA... I havn't seen it. But I know there is a leader for the 6 simultaneous battles when they occur. Pretty much all I know is in a link in the general forum topic I pointed out somewhere above.
*There is sufficient wait time! 20 or 30 seconds or something.
|TG-Irr| MrJengles - You know you want to say it out loud.
Reply With Quote
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Bookmarks