[Global Agenda] MMO Shooter/RPG. closed beta soon.

eelektrik · May 2009

So, today was the first I'd ever heard of Global Agenda after clicking a random banner ad that looked interesting because I am an MMO whore. I was actually pleasantly surprised at what I saw and signed up for the beta.

http://www.globalagendagame.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cat_7bfzzs
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47950.html

Anyone else following this? It reminds me of TF2 meets Starsiege: Tribes in a Guild Wars style 'MMO' set up with leveling to unlock access to new gear, but with persistent territory control and regular patching/content updates justifying the monthly fee. I see people bitching about the 8-12 person per side instanced battles, but having been playing Warhammer since release, I personally look forward to smaller engagements as zerg vs zerg is usually laggy, unorganized, and one side usually has a larger zerg, leading to very little fun anyways.

Also anyone signing up for the beta, they have a friend referral system in place to attempt to get friends and clanmates that use the same referral codes in the same beta waves if possible. Here are referral codes you can use from people in this thread.

HZDNIJI2130
HZDAXEN324150
HZDURAHONKY2160
HZDZANDRACO4967
HZDJAMESDM3650
HZDHARSHLAN3933
HZD52965840
HZDNIGHTSID2780
HZDCAMUIDA4823
HZD115993090
HZD16361530
HZDDARKE5820
HZDSONORK4507
HZDTYHALCYO7423
HZDPROBAD0353

Zzulu · May 2009

to me, it is dissapointing to see where the MMOFPS genre has gone

Planetside was great while it lasted, and I've yet to play a game like it since.

While Global Agenda sounds like it can be a little fun, if it requires a monthly fee I really see no reason to play it. It sounds like a regular FPS experience (but with less players/map) and a metamap.

chasehatesbears · May 2009

Eh. Guild Wars didn't have a monthly fee, and has regularly updated the game in terms of stability, balance, and content since launch. Guild Wars also had PVE content.

It kind of just looks like an arena shooter.

Niji · May 2009

I agree that this one sort of looks like just paying a monthly fee to play a plain old FPS. It doesn't look like there is really much of a "world" out there, just a ton of instances. However, my judgement on upcoming MMOs has an absolutely terrible track record, so I signed up.

Disrupter · May 2009

The one thing that DID seem really exciting about this game to me is the fact that it splits up the mission into multiple strike teams. One team trying to take out the turrets before team B can take out the com system while team C fends off the enemy until they can strike sounds awesome. I always wanted an uber tom clancy game that featured crap like that. Im signin up for beta based on that.

Brian · May 2009

Neocron was better.

eelektrik · May 2009

chasehatesbears wrote: »

Eh. Guild Wars didn't have a monthly fee, and has regularly updated the game in terms of stability, balance, and content since launch. Guild Wars also had PVE content.

It kind of just looks like an arena shooter.

This is supposed to have PvE content as well as currency, loot, skill trees, and so on. It has more RPG to it than say Planetside, but it actually has a persistent metagame unlike your average shooter. They just chose to focus the game on manageable battles of 8-12 players per side, which is a design decision that I for one support.

Some of the best multiplayer I have ever played, and some of the greatest use of teamwork I've seen, was doing 3v3 on Steel Battalion: Line of Contact. You don't have to have massive battles to be fun. In fact just the opposite, massive battles have enough problems that they tend not to be anyways.

HappylilElf · May 2009

This kind of looks like Planetside which is good. It won't be providing the huge fights that planetside did but I don't really have a problem with that. The huge fights in planetside were fun but I'd be lieing if I said they didn't have issues. 200 people fighting in/around the same base was a clusterfuck if you were a ground pounder. The game had trouble handling it and lag issues with an FPS are frustrating to say the least.

The most fun I had in Planetside was doing highly coordinated small group shit with an outfit. If this can provide that experience on a more regular basis then I'm all for it.

Garthor · May 2009

Why do you say FPS if it's third-person?

HappylilElf · May 2009

I haven't read up on specifics but is it confirmed as forced third person or is it like many games where you can switch between the two?

Dog · May 2009

The game is also being distributed via Steam (it's actually up on steam now, if you didn't know). I really hope they go the Guild Wars route, I could see myself playing this often if they did.

chasehatesbears · May 2009

I have absolutely no problem with instancing/lobby online games (PSO and Guild Wars are my favorite, ever.)

I just don't see them justifying the monthly fee, mostly because Arena.Net spoiled me.

eelektrik · May 2009

HappylilElf wrote: »

I haven't read up on specifics but is it confirmed as forced third person or is it like many games where you can switch between the two?

Actually I just checked and Garthor is right, from the FAQ on their site

The game employs a 3rd Person perspective (although some weapons allow scoping in a first-person perspective using a right-click action).

Your character jetpacks to rooftops, grapples onto ledges, engages in melee combat, and darts behind cover to evade rocket fire. With this type of gameplay, a third-person camera provides players the best view of their surroundings. In play testing, we found that, given these factors, the third-person view was nearly universally preferred to the first-person perspective once players were familiar with the game.

Dog · May 2009

Have they confirmed that there will be a monthly fee yet?

Yoshua · May 2009

I hope grapple hooks can be used on people.

Only two things in the video that irk me: Melee combat and walker mechs. I guess we have to have things that look "cool" even if anyone with any knowledge of the subject can tell you how absurd these things are in a modern, nevermind a sci fi, setting.

Glal · June 2009

Mechs are more absurd in scifi than contemporary?

Zzulu · June 2009

bipedal war machines are neat

stop hassling them

Scooter · June 2009

This looks like Tabula Rasa, except (hopefully) good.

Yoshua · June 2009

Glal wrote: »

Mechs are more absurd in scifi than contemporary?

No but melee combat is absurd in either setting. Excuse me if I don't qualify everything I write down, I would expect most posters here to have a little more common sense than your average gamefaqs troll.

Garthor · June 2009

Yoshua wrote: »

Glal wrote: »

Mechs are more absurd in scifi than contemporary?

No but melee combat is absurd in either setting. Excuse me if I don't qualify everything I write down, I would expect most posters here to have a little more common sense than your average gamefaqs troll.

I suppose it's a reasonable assumption to make if you know that you do not constitute the majority all by yourself.

Anyway, there's nothing particularly horrible about melee. Sniper rifles are long-range. Machine guns are medium-range. Shotguns are short-range. Beams swordz iz melee-range. It's simply one end of the spectrum (and not the stupid fucking asshole end, like sniper rifles).

Zzulu · June 2009

"The rifle is the first weapon you learn how to use, because it lets you keep your distance from the client. The closer you get to being a pro, the closer you can get to the client. The knife, for example, is the last thing you learn."

HappylilElf · June 2009

Yoshua wrote: »

Glal wrote: »

Mechs are more absurd in scifi than contemporary?

No but melee combat is absurd in either setting. Excuse me if I don't qualify everything I write down, I would expect most posters here to have a little more common sense than your average gamefaqs troll.

Let me put this simply: Don't be a jackass. What you just wrote? Prime example of being a jackass. Don't do that.

People tend to like unrealistic things in games that have unrealistic settings. Like beam swords and big stompy robots in sci-fi shooters for example. Sure, anyone who has actually thought about it realizes that bipedal tanks are a shitty idea in reality. That doesn't make stomping around in one making things explode any less fun.

The only problem with these ideas being unrealistic is if this game was actively trying to have a realistic setting. Which it's clearly not. So what's the problem?

eelektrik · June 2009

Massively has a hands on from E3 up now.

Garthor · June 2009

Also: how come "Diablo only you can bunnyhop around the chatroom" seems to be billed as "MMO" more often these days?

Camui · June 2009

So if anyone else signs up for this, use this promo code: HZDCAMUIDA4823
Apparently whenever you complete the signup everyone gets a code for themselves to share but it only gets 5 uses. So first come first serve.

(Make sure to follow the link in your email you get to finish the signup process of uploading your dxdiag to the site)