Global Agenda Has Launch On Its Agenda

By Jim Rossignol on February 1st, 2010 at 4:14 pm.


Sci-fi shooter with clever MMO territory bits, Global Agenda, launches today at 12pm EST, which I think is about an hour from now. Are there any RPS folks playing? I’ve not had a chance to play yet, but I’ll be looking to hook up with RPS folks for high-fives and game-worth-examination purposes over the coming week. Post in comments if you’re in-game and we’ll try and get some sort of RPS team established.

Launch trailer and bunch of other videos below.

, .

47 Comments »

  1. Cal says:

    Yes, server should be up in ~40 minutes. I’ll be in as Caladein whenever that occurs.

  2. mrmud says:

    I have been playing as Brissa in the pre-launch thingys.
    Guess ill be playing as soon as I get home from work.

  3. PixelCody says:

    Sounds like a fun time. I really like the alliance battling overworld thingy but…

    I just can’t hack paying over £30 for a video game (poor student is poor). All boxed releases at least come out for £26 and quickly drop in price over at play.com. I can’t see the same happening on steam for a while.

  4. Jockie says:

    Forgive my ignorance, does Global Agenda have monthly subs?

    • mrmud says:

      It does, but you dont have to pay them.
      Im a little unclear what the distinction between paying and non paying is.
      I think paying subscribers get to craft stuff but I cant imagine that being the only draw so there has to be something else.

    • Antsy says:

      Subscribers Get to take part in the Agency vs Agency Conquest mode (see video above)

  5. CMaster says:

    @Jockie and mrmud above – Paying subscribes get access to the PvP territory-control game.

    Anyway, I liked what I played at Eurogamer. The coop missions looked fun to play with friends, while the DM looked arcadey and consoley and what with lacking locational damage etc, not that involving. However, I didn’t amange to get into beta after submitting an application and I’m reluctant to slap down the money, or encourage my friends too until I’ve plaid it properly.

  6. James Allen says:

    Paid subscriptions get this right here.

  7. Antsy says:

    I’ve been playing this over the weekend and I’m loving it. I suffered physical withdrawal while waiting for the game servers to go live again! If you like Team Fortress 2 or team based shooters you’ll find a lot to like here.

  8. Howl says:

    I think the litmus test with any MMO is that it should still be an awesome game if you stripped out the MMO part. Does this stand on its own two feet as a shooter or is it yet another crap game slapped in a vaguely interactive chatroom/lobby?

    I have to admit, I watched some videos and the shooteryness of it looked a bit cheesy. It would be nice to be proved wrong.

  9. Premium User Badge

    abhishek says:

    The few videos I’ve seen of this game seemed fairly bland to me, but what has really got my interest is just how well the game seems to be selling on Steam right now. It has been in the top 10 sellers list for quite a few weeks now, and it has even beaten out some big hitters as well. As a general rule, I believe only a good product will sell well over extended periods of time, so I guess my question is… is the game not properly represented by the gameplay videos? Is it really that much fun to play?

  10. Captain Becardi Jagermister says:

    I’m skeptical…
    so… It’s a “persistent world” in that each “region” (hexagon shown in first video) can be obtained by an “agency” (guild)… However, the only way to get control of the “region” is in a 10v10 conflict… So, the “persistent world” means instanced “battlegrounds” (10v10 match to determine control)…

    Isn’t that an oxymoron?

    Whatever, it’s like risk kind of… Can’t wait to join a Ruin-esq guild (NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS in Warhammer Online) and topple all the other factions (sure, 10v10 matches, but only if you can match all the infiltrators). I can imagine a guild will only expand as much as their player size matches their region size (10 per hexagon)

    I wonder, though… Can one explore the regions without enter into an instanced battleground? How would one level up? Can one engage in a non-instanced PVP (big issue for me), though not for dominance but griefing purposes?

    • Antsy says:

      No, this isn’t that sort of MMO. There is no world to wander around griefing low levels while they’re attempting to pick flowers.

  11. Captain Becardi Jagermister says:

    Also, the 2nd trailer was over the top cheesy.

  12. Antsy says:

    This is NOT an MMORPG. This is a very good Third Person team based shooter. The problem that its facing is that because its trying to broaden the experience people are putting their MMO hats and robes on and complaining about things that have no place in the game. I saw one guy in chat complaining about how easy it was to level up and that there aren’t enough “towns” (his word).

    Come to this expecting a team shooter in the vein of Team Fortress 2 but with a lot more going on in it and you’ll find an extremely pleasing game with a lot of depth. Come expecting an MMORPG experience and you’re going to be extremely disappointed because that’s not what Global Agenda is about.

  13. rxtx says:

    I’m going to give this a go while the conquest mode is free, and then maybe subscribe if its any good

  14. bbot says:

    I bought it yesterday. The signup process is a massive pain in the goddamn ass, I tell you what.

  15. Thelps says:

    More or less all significant-release MMOs sell extremely well in the first few months of their release. However, as we’ve seen with Age of Conan and Warhammer Online (to name two of the most recent high-profile releases) player numbers drop off sharply around the time people start hitting the limits of character progression. My diagnosis is that no developer can brainstorm, implement and then balance content fast enough to maintain a growing subscriber-base without some kind of zeitgeist effect. At the moment, World of Warcraft more or less still IS that zeitgeist effect, so a lot of players gravitate back towards it.

    What’s interesting about Global Agenda is that it does something considerably different to WoW, and therefore may demonstrate slightly more immunity to the monopoly effect of ‘lots of players = interesting game, few players = boring game’ (regardless of MMO mechanics). People like to play with their friends. Once people start leaving an MMO in significant numbers the effect cumulates as more devoted players realise their achievements mean little if they can’t demonstrate them to constant waves of fresh faces.

    All high theory, of course, but I think it’s quite a robust one.

    Sadly, the quality of the game only acts as an influence longer-term. There are a lot of disgruntled WoW players looking for the ‘next big MMO’ but so far they seem to alter to the new fad, get sick of it and then gravitate back to the dominant, established, end-game-content-rich games.

    • Antsy says:

      The problem is that MMO does not mean MMORPG. This is not an alternative to WoW and people expecting a similar game are going to be confused by what they find here. Its a shooter thats trying to do something a little bit different.

  16. DireOxen says:

    I enjoyed the beta quite a bit, and am looking forward to release.
    PvP and Conquest games are very much like Team Fortress 2, with Tribes-ish jetpacks. There is also PvE gameplay where 4 players move through a level against various standard, special, and boos AI opponents, ala Left 4 Dead.
    It’s not a traditional MMO, just as Antsy described above. I did enjoy the conquest (subscription, capture territory) missions I played in the Beta. So far, they are 10 on 10 matches. If you win, your agency (guild) gets the territory, which have all sorts of bonuses such as factories for making player controlled mechs and siege cannons, equipment upgrades, ect.
    The two things they got REALLY, REALLY right are these:
    1. No PvP match can be counted over until it’s absolutely over. There’s always a chance, no matter how far ahead the other side is, that your team can turn it around a loosing match. That makes the PvP dramatic and tense no matter what’s happening.
    2. While leveling does provide benefits, they aren’t overwhelming. A good team of low level player really can compete with higher level opponents. I love that it’s not a matter of looking at the levels of an opposing team and knowing who’s going to win before a match begins.
    So, I’m a lot of having fun with it.

  17. Tei says:

    Hi!.

    I am a veteran Global Agenda player, I have not played in a while.
    How is the constructor state? I think I stoped playing about 1/2 year ago because a huge nerf that destroyed my ability to play decently. Are the rockets turrets and all decent enough now?

    Thanks in advance.

    • Premium User Badge

      Wisq says:

      Tei: Are we talking about the same game here? Global Agenda just released today, not years ago.

      (Unless you’re being sarcastic, and I’m not sure what that would be about.)

    • Jayt says:

      Unless he was referring to a beta? And if he is, most likely whatever made you leave has been changed/fixed

    • Hattered says:

      It’s future Tei! From the future!

    • DMJ says:

      @Hattered: Thanks for making me literally lol.

  18. Lilliput King says:

    After playing the beta for a while, I’m slightly unconvinced the core gameplay is good enough to be worth the effort.

    It’s a enjoyable enough affair, but spammy and imprecise. The weapon damage feels unreliable, and it has the traditional MMO problem of feeling just a little bit out of sync. A lot of the kit available is fairly derivative, the assault in particular given the same kit over and over. The game modes are a mixed bag, some showing promise, some utterly awful. The PvE is dull.

    I don’t hate it, mind. But it’s not what I look for in a shooter.

    EDIT: The interface is abysmal. The character creator is worse. Missions take far too long to get into. Most of the armour available looks the same. The shop design pointless and inefficient. Despite such a fuss made over being able to colour your armour, you will look blue to everyone else in a mission. The skills just aren’t interesting, most boiling down to ‘+3 damage protection!’. The classes all look too similar, difficult to tell at a glance what you’re up against. The armour only makes this worse. All classes have the same health, which leads to medics being ridiculously hard to kill, causing problems on missions like the mech escorting. The robotics need some kind of indicator to suggest how far their turrets will be able to fire. There are too many area of effect weapons, and they’re too powerful. Healing is too quick, making assaults being healed pretty much invincible. The map designs are functional, but rarely maintain any particular aesthetic, and are usually pretty uninspired gameplay wise. The character aesthetic is usually at odds with the environment, which doesn’t help. The ‘story’ and tutorial are pointless, and add nothing. They don’t even make sense.

    Also, when I start a mission while holding an arrow key, the character will run in that direction until I press that key again. So um, there’s that.

    • Tei says:

      Lilliput King
      ” The classes all look too similar, difficult to tell at a glance what you’re up against.”

      Humm.. heres a map:
      The scout is the guy with tiny “flags”. The assault is the fat dude. The builder is the one with a third arm. The healer dude will look like a antroformized healing pack.

    • Tei says:

      Re: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/10/feb/glob.jpg

      It looks like a medic stabbing a scout in the chest. The one of the left is a obvious healer, because of the green syrope all around. And the one of the right has the tiny wings. I have no idea wtf is the TChulu green thing, maybe is a medic nuke dot, or something.

    • Pamplemousse says:

      Tei, I think Lilliput means that at a glance it’s difficult to gauge the numbers and classes you are fighting. Compare a cluster of enemies to say, a cluster of enemies in TF2. It is much easier to tell what your up against in the latter game.

  19. The Great Wayne says:

    Hmmm, been offered the pre order for christmas so I played it quite extensively during January.

    My thoughts, short version: it’s Team Fortress 2, without the fun.

    Longer version: first, while the main gameplay system obviously appeal to TF2 players, it’s not very well put. Without going into too much details, there are many RPG aspects “weightening” this gameplay (whole level system, implants part farming, persistent character who can’t switch class/skilltree during a fight, etc…) that completely destroy the instant fun you feel while playing TF2.

    More, the conquest aspect – while interesting on the paper – doesn’t quite fit with the rest of the game as much as it’s supposed to. In games like EvE or UO you got a whole socio-economic macro-environment creating high stakes to territory development/control, territorial fighting and annihilation of the neighbors. Here, involvement is marginal at best as “material-based variables” aren’t the alpha and omega of winning or losing matches (at least pre launch beta state). You’re never gonna be “sent back to empire” if you totally fail, just playing the same game without your color on the hexagon map.

    And to top that all, the whole bidding system (you have to bid ingame money to be able to assault enemy zones) to attack hexagons is fubar.

    Finally, the PvE aspect is repetitive but required to expect being able to craft better implants if you do not own facilities, as crafting parts and blueprints don’t drop in PvP missions. Also, you have to level crafting old school mmorpg style, aka grinding.

    So, while I confess I might be a bit hard, I will not play that game, not even the free version of it, and I say that as someone who is still playing TF2, been a huge player of Planetside and is a frank supporter to conquest & plunder in mmo games.

    GA has a lot of ideas and potential on paper, but imho it’s not put together well enough to justify playing it over other actual titles like Section 8, not even talking of paying a monthly sub to it.

    • Darthey says:

      I gave the beta a whirl for a few days, then cancelled my pre-order. The PvP is more frustrating then fun due to the power restrictions, and the points-based equipment restriction does little to balance the effects of rank on gameplay.

      Somehow they’ve taken the speed and freedom of tribes and taken out the fun.

      My biggest pet-hate is the UI does not work well at warning you when your about to die. Most of the time I go down it comes as an utter surprise; either I’ve been scoped and not realised someone’s shooting at me, or I get dropped by something so quickly I can’t react.

      The game has tried very had to mix RPG leveling with a team-based shooter, but I think it will leave fans of both genres disappointed.

    • Warskull says:

      TF2 without the fun sounds about right.

      They advertised themselves as an MMO and let people think they were planet side to whip them up into a frenzy. Their “gameplay” videos never really shot what the game really plays like.

      Its really spammy and not that interesting, I don’t see why you would pay $50 for it when you can just play TF2. The only thing it has is a crappy level system, so if you are desperate for grinding levels in your shooter, I guess this might satisfy you.

    • mrmud says:

      I havent played alot of GA yet but so far its pretty fun and I honestly never really enjoyed TF2.

  20. Smurfy says:

    I had an official beta access key for this, but it said I’m not allowed in yet. It’s not a very good beta access key if it blocks me out of the game until launch IMO.

  21. joseph says:

    Is it as global as it sounds – are there Australian servers?

    • joseph says:

      “We currently have live, running data centers in both North America (Atlanta) and Europe (London), and will constantly evaluate the right timing to invest in an Oceania/PacRim data center as well as other geographies based on market demand. Having data centers in each major geographic area allows us to deliver the excellent performance and low ping times expected in a fast-paced action shooter.

      That said, during our Alpha phase we’ve had a good number of players from Western and Central Europe, as well as some from Oceania, that have played the game solely off our Atlanta-based servers – and most reported that the game was quite playable even despite the geographic distance. So if players in Europe, for example, want to play with their North American agency mates, we see that as quite doable.”

      So, no, but if we email them enough, maybe. I’ll email them.

    • EaterOfCheese says:

      +1 Love to see an australian server.

  22. Will Kiel says:

    I’ve yet to experience the AvA (Alliance vs Alliance) battles, but the PvP is good fun. The PvE is good too, but it isn’t really anything too special. Plus, you receive more experience and credits for playing PvP games.

    All in all, great game!

  23. Antilogic says:

    Its very, very good fun.

    Be warned thou, this is not a standard FPS. You will not find 1 shot kills here. You will find it very hard to go out and be uber solo, in fact, you’ll prob suck and die a lot.

    You have to work as team, everything is based around teamplay.

    For the free part of the game, its great, pvp is stupidly fun when you work with the right people (and frustraing when your team is unable to get out from behind that crate they have camped themselves into) PVE is actually challanging- thats right, challanging PVE you might actually lose in a MMO, shocking, I know, and AvA has the portential to be great. Right now, AvA is a little thin on the ground, but the devs are very responsive when it comes to play feedback and have already promised a huge ava content patch before you have to start paying the monthly sub for it.

    Either way, this is a marmite game. Your either going to love it, or your gonna hate it. Theres a lot about this game that is very different from many shooters, and it will pull you out of your comfort zone and force you to adjust to a new, much more team focused style of gameplay. I hated it when I first started playing, then I adjusted it, now I cant go back to other shooters like modern warfare 2 because its frankly boring as its deathmatch 24/7 with noone bothering to work together to take down targets- because you dont need to as its a single headshot and splat.

    Its very much worth a shot, and very much worth the money if you like it. It is a niche game however, very much like EVE, it will attract its own, mabye small to some titles, but very loyal following :)

  24. the wiseass says:

    I’m not entirely sold on this game. The third person view and the two class subscription system are really putting me off. Also it looks like you simply can’t do shit playing alone.

    Concerning subscriptions, there are some major differences:
    ——————————————–
    “Persistent territories, which are won or lost thru Alliance vs. Alliance (AvA) gameplay, can be accessed only by subscribers. High level Co-op content and additional social areas are also only available to subscribers.” … “Yes, only subscribers can create Agencies but as a non-subscribers you can join an existing Agency. However, as a non-participant in Conquest, you will not have access to AvA territories and will not be able to contribute toward advancing your agency rank in the world.”
    ——————————————–
    So yes, non-subscribers get screwed as the game is only really worthwhile for subscribers. But honestly I’m not sure if these features justify a subscription cost at all. I know servers cost money, but most of this game is instanced anyway, which greatly reduces servers costs compared to open world MMOs. So I’m not really convinced, not until I can get my hands on a trial. Sorry.

    • mrmud says:

      So far I think it has been worthwile to play without a subscription (havent tried any of the AvA stuff).

  25. Premium User Badge

    Chaz says:

    What I want to know is how does it earn its “massively multiplayer” tag? To me it just sounds like a standard FPS but with a hub between matches. I don’t call 10 vs 10 PvP matches “massive”.

    • DMJ says:

      @Chaz: I misread that as “like a standard FPS but with a hug between matches”. I think the blood-soaked world of deathmatch could use more hugging.

  26. Sharpblue says:

    Ive been playing in open beta and the early start and really enjoying so far. as its been said before if you enjoy team fortress 2 or other team/objective based or coop games you should enjoy this. having the character persistence is a great thing too.
    The problem i have now is time. My gaming is currently split between global agenda, bad company 2 beta and mass effect 2. Not enough hours in the day!

    I havent played any conquest(subscriber based) stuff yet so no idea what its like. I understand that conquest will be free for everyone in the first month, after that you will be required to sub for it.

  27. Peaches says:

    I agree. This game is fun for about 3 or 4 days, but the core gameplay isn’t enough to make me want to log back in after about a week. I get frustrated by the lack of a skill ceiling – the game requires loads of teamwork, to its credit, but I don’t find anything aside from teamwork possible.

  28. Hmm-Hmm. says:

    What I really find interesting is that they market the game as an MMO and allow people to purchase the product and play without a sub. This could very well be what keeps people coming back to it, compared to other titles.

  29. Jim Rossignol says:

    I set up an agency called RPS, feel free to sign up.