| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (21)

Posted: Aug 9th 2009 8:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! God another FPS Join a 12/12 server claiming they are a MMOFPS. Sigh someone bring back a updated version of Planetside!!!

Posted: Aug 9th 2009 8:57PM Stanzig said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
/agree
Reply

Posted: Aug 9th 2009 10:10PM mmark said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
But when you are talking to your investors and you use phrases like "MMO like WoW, which has 10 million subscribers" they get all excited and give you lots of money.

If you say "yet another 12 player networked shooter" on the other hand, most of the investors walk away.
Reply

Posted: Aug 9th 2009 10:36PM Celeras said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think the fact that entire regions play on the same server (North America, Europe, Asia) is enough to warrant the title of Massively Multiplayer. Gtfo.
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2009 7:45AM MrGutts said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Steve

What do you mean by Regions? Are you trying to justify this game being a MMO if other players are from around the world playing it? So If I have a COD, BF server 60 vs 60 and have a bunch of aussies, uk and asian players playing on. I don't call it a MMO. It's still a Shooter.

People will make their mind up really quickly when the game comes out. In my opinion this game should not be covered by Massively because this game is not a MMO, it's a 3rd person shooter.

Massive in MMO to me doesn't mean a 1 time instance of (12 on 12) or (30 on 30), it means I can see and interact with hundreds of people in large scale zone that doesn't magically go away once everyone leaves it. It means I don't have to que up and wait for some team to fill to do battle with another group. It means I can jump in anytime I want and try to capture something by myself OR with a huge team of 100 guild members if I really feel the need to do so.

Reply

Posted: Aug 9th 2009 9:03PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While I agree this is not massive pvp I don't think a game must be as massive as planetside to be an MMOFPS. What I do think though is that planetside is the single best and most innovative game of all time. It is showing its age these days, but in its prime it was great.

Posted: Aug 9th 2009 10:29PM Cicadymn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I miss planetside. It's my sincere wish that the 40k MMO will be like it.

Posted: Aug 9th 2009 11:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I love when people complain about instanced PvP, somehow forgetting that WAR is a huge embarrassing failure largely because of oPvP. How many games suffer in PvP due to Zerg tactics and imbalanced factional attrition? The only one I can think of that succeeded at it was DAoC, and that's because the small hit squad tactic was viable due to the most basic of game mechanics, mechanics which people complain about.

Granted, without set factions, this is less of an issue in GA, but the trend seems to be going towards limiting oPvP if for no other reason but to spare servers, a notable indicator being WoW's limit on Wintergrasp.

Having never played Planetside, I can't speak knowledgeably about it, but I see nothing wrong with small-scale conflicts, especially in the context of small tactical squads infiltrating a base or holding an objective as part of a larger conflict.

Posted: Aug 10th 2009 2:06AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hear, hear. The only time I really enjoyed oRvR in WAR was when I'd split from the zerg and ambush enemy players trying to catch up with their zerg.

I loved queueing for scenarios, before the incentive 'improvements' to oRvR, of course, which left me randomly queueing regularly for 30-60 minutes (if not longer) before one actually popped; and boy would I be angry if the one that popped was already underway!
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2009 12:00AM Pitt said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Even battlefield can push 50v50, so 12v12 is pretty lame.

I will still try it though

Posted: Aug 10th 2009 12:44AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I was really looking forward to global agenda. Now that I know more about it, I don't want to play at all. It sounds like the same sort of drab mechanics that I've seen elsewhere. Its just another lobby game.

Posted: Aug 10th 2009 2:50AM Psychotic Storm said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I like what I hear and what I see except melee but that's a minor thing.

From personal shooter experience, mainly from battlefield, allowing many players will almost always end up in one of the two situations, either each group splitting in smaller groups of 4-12 people and each going of an objective and stay there to defend it, effectively splitting the huge map in many smaller sections, or they make a swarm condensing so many players in a small area that makes the game a unplayable, I do not have a personal planetside experience, but sounds as a possible situation if you allowed many players in, it will either evolve is a small area of really many people shooting each other, or in many smaller groups dispersed around a large area, from what I gather GA does the second and manages to save resources while doing it,never a bad thing.

Posted: Aug 10th 2009 5:16AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
A monthly subscription for a single-player game seems to be the new definition of MMO.

Posted: Aug 10th 2009 6:12AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i think it sounds intresting. it kinda reminds me think of Hellgate London

Posted: Aug 10th 2009 10:26AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is not an MMO.

Posted: Aug 10th 2009 11:31AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Erika and Wootson, you're either trolls or idiots.

By what I assume is your standards, WoW isn't an MMO either because you have zones where you socialize that are unlimited in terms of population, and zones like dungeons and raids that limit population to anywhere between 5 and 25.

Posted: Aug 10th 2009 11:55AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Kdolo

If I'm going to have to pay a monthly fee for something that others do for free (and maybe even better), why would I pay? It's completely ridiculous to pay for a simple layer of multi-player options that are stacked onto basic gaming concepts.

Do you pay monthly fees for playing Left 4 Dead, Battlefield, Counter-Strike, Call of Duty? No! Why? Because the community hosts the servers and pay for everything.

These developers nowadays think they're smart to not let you make your own private servers, and instead they do all the hosting themselves. So basically you end up paying a monthly fee for playing in an online environment. Just like they did with Xbox Live! And you know you want to play online, so there's absolutely no legal way around it. And as soon as you know, you end up paying for playing EVERY single multi-player video game on the market!

Want to play online sports? PAY!
Want to play online FPS? PAY!
Want to play online RTS? PAY!

Only thing they do nowadays is mix some genre up with RPG and voila, they have a reason to make you pay.

And don't even get me started about the so-called "free to play" stuff that redirects you to the in-game shop...

Posted: Aug 10th 2009 3:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Want to play online RPG? PAY!

I dont see anything in your argument that justifies this for a traditional MMO that doesn;t go for what they intend to do with GA, or APB, or any other MMOFPS.
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2009 7:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Kdolo

You focus a little to much on what I typed instead of the message behind it.

Of course an online RPG does not justify a monthly fee. Nor does any other game with simple online functionalities stamped onto them. A simple chatbox and guest room do not justify a monthly fee. A game with 12 vs. 12 combat, basic RPG elements, and a grid multi-player system do NOT justify a monthly fee. And (without calling names) in the next few months there ARE going to come such games on the market that will rip you off.

The gaming market would be better off when people could host their own servers and maybe pay the developers some tiny fee, like $1 tax payment or something.

Posted: Aug 12th 2009 1:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
For god's sake this is an MMO! The scale of the fights doesn't matter. To simply define an MMO: a game where you have a CONSTANT (or semi-constant like in Guild Wars' PvE) connection with the game server/other players. The no-fighting social zones are vital.
People should stop treating GA like an MMO. This will be a shooter. That means SKILL BASED GAMING (more or less...). Large-scale battles don't matter at all unless you are under 14 and large numbers get you excited.
And you steal your dad's credit card to pay the monthly subs for MMOs. Or you play on illegal private servers. Anyway, most of you complain about the quality of games today. And you complain about the fees. FOR F*CKS SAKE you don't (wanna) pay for games but you want them done good?! Do you seriously think that the game devs can make a game without any income? Its the cheap people that ruin the games and cause things like gameguard, secuROM and dissappearing LAN-mode in starcraft to happen.
Would love to continue but g2g
| 1 | 2 |

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW