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

Reader Comments (58)

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 1:29PM Kalex716 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Great article.

That fixation on the notion of "massive" can certainly be misleading. In my opinion, massive is more relevant when its in context of how involved you have to be with your fellow players in meaningful ways.

A game for example, like Champion online, can have you plugged into instances with tons of people, but when you are fully empowered and capable of doing everything pretty much on your own, you have no compulsion whatsoever to interact, communicate, or play with anyone else. Anyone who has ever played it and has gone into the power modify room knows what i'm talking about. You'll see some odd 30 people standing around NPC's, all zoned in and working out their own powers basically oblivious to everyone around them despite the odd distraction of a really vibrant costume. This isn't my idea of "massive" either, even though theirs lots of people. No one really cares about anyone else in this game. Nothing anyone else does matters to me essentially.

Immediate interaction with 10 peoples on a micro scale, and then outwards of even more on that macro scale is certainly massive enough for me, as long as my involvement with others is meaningful in the game and not trivialized.

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 1:20PM Keen and Graev said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
If Global Agenda is a MMO then so are Yahoo Checkers and Diablo.

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 3:45PM Seraphina Brennan said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Yes, because Yahoo Checkers allows one match to affect the outcome of the other. Why didn't I see it before?
Reply

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 4:32PM Keen and Graev said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
You must be confusing massive with dynamic. Simple mistake.
Reply

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 4:38PM Seraphina Brennan said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I disagree, and I've outlined above how those two things go hand in hand. "Massive" is partly a dynamic experience, and it's something that many mainstream MMOs do not utilize, as other commenters have shown below.

Beyond that, instancing isn't really massive, yet many, many mainstream titles take advantage of it. Why? Because it's fun and it allows you to do more things.

I honestly don't see the problem of having a game that does so much instancing. We already have one of those that we call a MMO (Guild Wars) so what's the big deal about having a second one? Even GA offers more persistence and evolution than Guild Wars offers.

But, like I said above, bottom line comes down to having fun. Why do we mire ourselves in these types of arguments when that's not the point of the game? The point is to play and enjoy with whatever the game offers.

But, to take your argument head on, it just appears that we have both have a different definition of "massive." Is that so much of a bad thing?
Reply

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 4:42PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Today was my first time playing GA and from my experience it seems very much so a MMO. You have a down where there are shops and many other players walking around and talking with each other. Yes it may not be a world like WoW or another similar title but it is still interacting with many other players and you can do missions which happen to be Missions and PvP (which are about the same as WoW's instances and battlegrounds).

I don't see anything that would make this game NOT an MMO. Maybe you don't like it and that's fine, just skip over the articles on it. I don't see why everyone against GA is being so childish. To me the game seems like/is a MMO, is it so bad that I want to read about it on my favorite MMO blog?
Reply

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 1:23PM Rich said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
GA is more of a MMO than some of the "real" MMO games that come out recently.

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 1:27PM TacosWLove said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
You can swing it any way you want. You may have shown that you need alot a poeple to accomplish the open world goals of GA, but what you fail to recognize is that we dont want to tentatively know that there is another 290 of my buddies out there preforming for the greater good. I want 290 people at my back forming a line of fire to with heavy support to obliterate our enemy. I want to siege a base like a real war scenario, not test our small team tactics.

I want a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER game. Imagine if I told you, "hey this game has a multiplayer portion of a 100 people, but only 8 of those can fight at once. but all can fight at once in different instances" And if I placed info on the box saying "2-100 mulitplayer fights", wouldnt you be pissed once you realized that only 8 can fight at once? I would consider this false advertising. This game is NOT massively multiplayer. They are trying a hybrid. that simple...

PLANETSIDE SUPPORTS 400 people d*mmit! Get your facts straight. Read my post on the Planetside entry like 3 stories down.

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 3:47PM Seraphina Brennan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sorry Mirkinz, it use to only support 100 per side back when I played. Perhaps that has changed, and I'm sorry.

I've fixed the post.

~Sera
Reply

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 1:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You are correct. All of the opinions your readers have are bound by subjectivity. But subjectivity and perception of what constitutes a word shouldn't be confused with using a term inappropriately.

>It's not about the 10 vs. 10 battle, but how that 10 vs. 10 impacts the agency as a whole. That's what makes it massive.

That is quite dynamic, yes. But massively? No. The interactions and outcomes of micro battles persuade outcomes in a grander, deterministic scheme. But this is isn't what defines a game which claims to be "Massively.... (whatever)."

With your logic, TF2 is a MMOFPS due to the dynamic of changing strategies when an enemy manages to grab your intelligence.

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 7:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Not really. because the map always resets in the next 30min or so, and 2fort isn't gonna suddenly become blu-controlled, letting blu expand their reach and attack gravelpit until red organize a counter-attack.

TF2's matches don't give any persistence. the GA hex grid does.
Reply

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 1:44PM Thac0 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
First you say :"Today, I want to play the devil's advocate, as I do in so many of my opinion columns. I want to take on the defense of Global Agenda as an MMO title, and I think I have enough evidence to prove that it's massive -- just not in the way you normally consider MMOs to be massive. And, personally, I think this is only good news for the industry at large."

Then you say:"But what I think all of this really underscores is that we have no set definition of what is "massively multiplayer." The term, as we've said before, is a weak term that can be easily changed. It's evolving as more developers make more entries into the genre, and that's a great, great thing."

So let me get this right your saying that your proving the game is massive because massive is a weak term and has no definition. OK then...

By your reasoning an online chess tournament is an MMO because you have 2vs2 battles that affect hundreds of player standings and who is going to play who.

Hell, site can cover anything including XBox Live games because when you have a 10vs10 match in a game you are included in global rankings surely thats massive?

Why does Massively call themselves Massively if they don't know what massive is? Does that mean you have no clue what content you should be covering?

If there is no set definition of what is "massively multiplayer." what point does a site that supposedly covers "massively multiplayer" games have? You will loose anything that makes your site special if you just cover anything that you can rationalize to fit a term that by your own reasoning has no defenition? At that point i could be checking Kotaku or any other general game blog. In other words when you cover 10vs10 multilayer games your devaluing your sites worth as THE site to go for MMO news.

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 2:30PM GRT said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
"By your reasoning an online chess tournament is an MMO because you have 2vs2 battles that affect hundreds of player standings and who is going to play who."

Not really. Sure each chess match results in a win or loss which changes the score card. But that's not that same thing as each chess match having a direct impact on the chess matches being played around it.

For it to be the same thing, me beating my opponent in my match would have to give me the opportunity to remove 1 piece from the board of your chess match.

Which could actually be pretty interesting... it rewards fast playing and you could help a weaker team mate by winning your own match fast and taking your team mate's opponents queen.

I may have just invented a new MMO!!
Reply

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 2:44PM Thac0 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
thats a cool Idea GRT. :D
Reply

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 1:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
What they have done is made a 10v10 room based FPS game and added some meaning and depth to the matches. It's a good idea and takes the genre forward but it doesn't by any means turn the game into an MMO. And it really shouldn't be on this site. Although I'm glad that it is because I find the game interesting.

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 2:27PM Keen and Graev said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well said.
Reply

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 1:48PM Scopique said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It doesn't have to be the way things have always been done, foilks. Just because everyone doesn't interact all at once, or have that option whenever they feel like it, or because there aren't 290 people overrunning the 290 other people doesn't deny the game world the opportunity to be "massive". These games have changed over time...if they hadn't we'd still be playing UO...or even text based MUDS. It's OK for things to change.

Consider the NFL. All the teams aren't playing on the same field at the same time, right? But they all play football, they're all part of the NFL.

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 2:02PM Thac0 said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Are you thinking what I'm thinking Pinky?

Massively should cover online sports betting!
Reply

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 1:49PM jpkustra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I like the way you presented the game in this article. Admittedly, after reading more on the game this week, I was kind of disappointed. But after hearing this it might be the fast-paced battle that will inject some excitement into the MMO genre.

Thanks!

Posted: Jan 15th 2010 1:52PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You know, this article and the associated comments makes me realize that my most "Massive" gaming experience occured in an FPS game with 64 players on a map. As a group some 150 of us formed a two team league fighting over Europe in a risk like meta-game where FPS-matches determined who'd take a hex or two every week. We'd usually have two matches going at a time.

While I'd only be playing with 31 of my teammates and 32 opponents during a match, there were week long discussions with my fellow teammates, practices, equipment and loadout analysis etc during the week and discussing previous matches with the opposing team. I was regularly interacting with over a 100 people.

It was the most immersive gaming experience I've ever had. The next most immersive would have been several years in EVE in a 0.0 corp of 50+ members. Other MMO's have never provided more brief meetings with strangers and gameplay with a dozen or so friends.

Honestly I think its too late to discount GA as not "Massive".

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW