Comments on: RPS At E3: Global Agenda

By: Knifeparty

Knifeparty — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:05:06 +0000

Yeah. The way i see it, people are underestimating this game. Little content has been shown so far and only limited infomation has been released. The environment detail has been put down multiple times…In pretty much every article i have read, including one on Rock-Paper-Shotgun, the developers at hi-rez studios have said that they have toned down areas of their game so that they could improve other parts.

My point is maybe they’re reducing the environment detail, to improve the gameplay.
I don’t see how the environment is even bad to be honest. It looks better than world of warcraft, tf2 and most other games as such that i can think of.

So pretty much i think people are just underestimating it and should wait a few more weeks when the Hi-Rez team releases more infomation and gameplay videos.

By: sigma83

sigma83 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:36:39 +0000

My opinion on why third person is required in this game is so you can clearly see the status effects being placed on your character. To my mind it’s a readability issue.

By: Bsherrill

Bsherrill — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:11:43 +0000

Really looking forward to this game. I played WoW and was 2K+ during seasons 3 and 4. I loved PvP in MMOs, but i hate the fact that it was more about gear than skill (not that skill didn’t matter). I also love TF2 because of its diverse classes in a shooter, and im still playing atleast 10+ hours of TF2 a week.
That said, what makes Global Agenda truly shine, is the Agencies/guilds. The idea of actualy fighting for controll of land makes seem. The futuristic setting is a nice addition too. Also the unreal 3 engine will make everything look nice and pretty.
GAMC

By: symulacra

symulacra — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:02:30 +0000

Sounds like the author, John Walker, had a blast with the game. I like the idea of having to adapt from the strictly mmo mentality to a fps mentality. I am excited for the long-haul teamwork aspect to the game and the aliance vs. aliance game. This article just got my mouth watering for a game that was also of my radar till E3. . . it’s like finding gold :)
GAMC

By: ChaosTheory

ChaosTheory — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:49:51 +0000

@jon_hill987: True, but ME was also an experiment to try and make a movement focused first person game.

As for GA, I’ve been following it for a while now, and wouldn’t mind a chance to check it out myself.

By: jon_hill987

jon_hill987 — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:11:10 +0000

@Mortimer: You don’t need third person to make a movement orientated game. Look a Mirrors Edge.

I also wasn’t being specific to this game, I agree it will work in some, I just don’t like the general trend for third person/cover system that seems to be so popular at the moment. Red Faction, Damnation and the rest.

By: Mortimer

Mortimer — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:58:46 +0000

Sorry about coming off like that, I’ve just been following Global Agenda for a while and I get annoyed about the HUGE misconceptions that people have about the game. I’m not in the alpha, but I’m hoping to get into the closed beta pretty soon. Definitely not a dev, they’re much more polite than I am, just go read the GA forums, they’re pretty involved in the community… see there I go again.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:53:30 +0000

Disclosure Mortimer – what’s your involvement with Global Agenda? Your posts at the top of the thread sounded like “Interested Fan Guy”, now they sound like “Miffed Lead Designer Guy.”

Which is it?

By: Mortimer

Mortimer — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:02:53 +0000

Um, no it’s not third person because of invis or because they want to avoid having to code the gun models. GA needs third person because it is a very movement oriented game. The melee combat is more complex than nearly every other shooter out there, and the jetpack/superjump/acrobatics that you can do are also benefited by a wider view of your character’s position. I’ll reference the Star Wars Outcast and Jedi Academy games here. They would have been terrible if restricted to first person view. That’s not to say melee is as important in GA as it was in those games, but after watching many videos I think they made the right call…. and if you’re desperate there are many guns that can have scopes, not just sniper rifles, and the scopes are first-person.

I guess I didn’t emphasize this enough in my earlier post: Planetside and GA are two completely different games with different design goals. Planetside wanted battles to feel as epic as possible, and I did love it in the very early days (and beta) for just that fact. GA on the other hand wants structured combat that’s not about zerging and doesn’t lag, but still delivers top notch quality shooter fun. No one can argue that Planetside had as good core gameplay as non-MMOs like Half-Life/etc, it’s just the reality of the game, and that wasn’t really the point of the game anyway. I hope that’s enough said on that topic.

I don’t see how “well balanced combat” disagrees with the structure of Global Agenda. From everything I’ve heard that’s the primary point of the game, and they’ve already nailed it in the ALPHA (but they’ll continue to improve of course). It’s impossible to have truly balanced combat in a game where the number of people on each side isn’t fixed (cough Planetside). Also how can you have a balanced fight when you can’t even control who your teammates are? The fact is that competitive pvp happens in instances and no where else, period. And if you complain about the lack of immersion in Half life, Cod4, and etc, then yes its true this has only slightly more… but obviously you’re missing the point of those games.

Vehicles are basically not in GA, but the Robotics class has “pets” and some remote control drones that sort of act like vehicles. And also there’s the big mech in Capture the Mech (flag) which is indeed a vehicle.

Global Agenda is for players who enjoy shooter games but want something more meaningful than endless repeats of matches with no effect. If you have fun playing counter-strike for years (as you have if you’re a real shooter fan), then you’ll probably like GA even more. Also this game is definitely complex and entertaining as a shooter. Unlike Planetside/APB/Crime Craft, it does not use the fact that it’s an MMO to excuse bad gameplay. (with APB I’m making an assumption here, but it’s obvious that planetside and crime craft could not compete with a game like quake 3 or half-life if they weren’t MMOs. Global Agenda, on the other hand, is meant to stand toe to toe with modern shooters in core gameplay, and then on top of that deliver more persistence and involvement. )

I’d like to point out my favorite aspect of the game that sets it apart from normal multiplayer shooters. The 60v60 territory control mode is really the endgame for Global Agenda. There are multiple zones to separate the top tier and largest agencies from the smaller and more casual ones, allowing everyone to have fun with this game mode. There are also seasons in which prizes go to the winner of each zone at the end (about 45 days per season). Also, the territory control involves a hex-grid of resources on which the owner can build a variety of structures which will require a “grand-strategy” type of approach. Your agency will have to decide how best to use your territory to gain an advantage over the surrounding enemies.

More important than all that is the 60v60 battle itself. The battle takes place across 6 instances, but the players can move between the instances to create small imbalances and surprise power-plays during the match (leaving them disadvantaged in the instance they left with only 8 people). Players do this by loading back into a staging area, where they can change out their gear-loadout if they want, and then loading into another instance of their choosing. Furthermore, the instances are interlocked so that capturing objectives in one instance immediately effects the other instances. This achieves the effect of reducing lag (by spreading the 120 players out into 6 instances) and eliminating zerg (there must be between 8-12 players per team per instance, so you can’t over-load an instance with like 20 people vs the enemy team’s 10), while still maintaining the structured nature of instanced matches (as opposed to open-world fighting where you can’t control the number of players or who your teammates are).

It really bothers me to see people making judgments about the game based on a lack of information. Kinda like how I’m shocked at all the people who say APB looks great when all we’ve really seen is the character creator.

By: Tei

Tei — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:56:26 +0000

@jon_hill987: It looks cool, It don’t play cool but this is secondary on a game that is hyped/sell based on videos and screenshots. GA is different, because some classes can use invisibility skills, and TPS helps check if you are invisible or visible just now. I think is now a “convention”, and something that make games look more 2009-ish. And probably is more cheap, since you don’t have to model a extra model (the v_model). But It make harder to code the camera, since it has to have excellent beavior. I agree that is stupid, and a console fad that must go, but I don’t think in GA is totally out-of-place.

By: jon_hill987

jon_hill987 — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:47:42 +0000

Why does every action game have to be third person these days? I hate Gears of War for making this idea popular.

By: Surgeon

Surgeon — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:31:52 +0000

It doesn’t seem to offer the same appeal of a massive virtual war, unlike Planetside. Which is basically what I’m after.
It’s like all the new style MMOFPS’s are taking small baby steps. Maybe we’ll get something like PS2 in a few years time?

Anyway, RPS have made it onto the latest Global Agenda newsletter…

“..what makes Global Agenda so interesting is how fun it is to play.”
– RockPaperShotgun