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

Reader Comments (37)

Posted: Feb 6th 2010 5:55AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The thing that I have a problem with is that if your not part of a big alliance it can be very hard to actually take part in the conquest mode. I'm part of a very small agency about 10 people that know each other through RL and other games and at the moment there is not a chance of us taking part in conquest.

Add in to the fact that it seems that there are about 4-5 alliances that seem to be dominating the conquest maps at the moment what are the chances of small casual agency's getting a spot with in one of these alliances.

Posted: Feb 6th 2010 9:27AM mrdrum81 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree with all the grievances so far, but it is just so much dang fun in the PVP zones!!! That alone is worth buying it....now if the sub content would just be equally as awesome!

Posted: Feb 6th 2010 10:24AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wish I wasn't short on cash right now, I really wanna try this game out.

Posted: Feb 6th 2010 10:33AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Ultimately Global Agenda has failed.

It's this readers opinion that GA should not be considered an MMO. Not even an MMOFPS. It is basically no different then any other modern first person shooter game. You can level up and unlock new equipment. This has been done for years now in other games that we don't classify as MMOs.

In between matches you are dumped to a lobby that your character can run around in. This lobby is about as big as a large house. I would hardly call this a virtual world. If Call of Duty Modern Warfare put you into a little space in between games it would be the same experience.

Crafting.. pasted on.

PVE ... don't think that because people are calling this an MMO there will be some good PVE areas to explore. There are none. What they call PVE in this "MMO" are some very very lame instance mission you go into with 3 other people and fight the same lame stick figure androids you see in the new Star Wars movies. You do this over and over and over. The missions are uninteresting and uninspired.

Now the true injustice thats going on here is that they took a regular first person shooter game, made an "area control map" that only opens up at certain parts of the day, and called it an MMO worthy of a monthly fee. In no way shape or form are the few extra features you get for subscribing worth $13.00 a month. Maybe $5.00 a month, at most.

Lets talk about the fighting itself. The levels all feel very sterile and generic. There is very little variation between any of them. Same wall textures, same generic crates laying all over the floors. Level design is extremely poor. It all feels like it was designed as a virtual first person shooter environment, not as an actual place that exists in a real world. For example, I'm sure oil platforms out at sea in the distant future will depend on "control points" to process the oil, not any, you know, actual equipment oil collecting equipment.

The combat itself is pretty interesting for a while. But after getting a guy to level 30 I've quickly worn tired of doing the same thing over and over. Kill the turret, kill the medic, clean up. Now do this a million times more in the same generic environments you've already done it a million times in.. zzzzzz.

The classes aren't varied enough to keep my interest for long. Any typical first person shooter will have way more guns and equipment then this game does. And this is supposed to be an MMO, yet why is the weapon selection so limited?

Ultimately Global Agenda is an average first person shooter game. If you buy the base game knowing this you might get some value out of it. If you've come for the subscription required extra features you just might find a lot here to keep you more then the first free month.

Posted: Feb 6th 2010 10:43AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I messed up big time in my conclusion.

" you will NOT find a whole lot here to keep you" is what I meant.
Reply

Posted: Feb 6th 2010 11:35AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, you got a char to 30 alright.

Next time, if your going to write a review, dont lie in it.

You posted the same review here.

http://forum.globalagendagame.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=184720#p184720

using this tool: http://serv.hexagenda.com/statcalc/ign.php, it is possible to find a full, public list of your chars.

http://account.globalagendagame.com/GAregister/stats/playerstats.aspx?p=91658 These are your chars. At time of posting, your highest level is level 23. Not 30.

You can dislike the game all you like, but be truthful in your reviews, because when you lie once, you might as well be making the entire thing up.

Reply

Posted: Feb 6th 2010 10:58AM Wuggy425 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The reviewer must be new to shooters, because GA's combat is as bad as any I've seen in a multiplayer shooter. Too spammy and lacking an emphasis on skill.

Stick with TF2. Combat's much more fun there.

Posted: Feb 6th 2010 1:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Wow Carl..

Can't just accept that not many people like this crummy, over priced game?

Anyway, the post I made on the official Global Agenda forum has been deleted. Not moved to somewhere out of the general discussion (though it belongs there anyway), but just completely deleted by a moderator.

This tells me that they are actively suppressing anything bad said about the game on their forums. My post didn't have a flame war going in it. In fact it was filled with very calm, like-minded people expressing their opinions on the game. No other reason to delete it except that it put their game into a negative light.

Anyway, level 23 was plenty of time to try out the AvA, scenarions, PVE, everything in the game and form a valid opinion of it. I mean 25+ hours of anything is enough to know how you feel about it.

Reply

Posted: Feb 6th 2010 2:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Fantastic article, Seraphina! Your recent articles have sold me on getting it. More post-apocalyptic goodness to add to my vast array. :)

Posted: Feb 6th 2010 4:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
the game is OK at the moment, there are a few annoying issues. sound effects are TERRIBLE, there is no way to test your voicechat in order to see if its working correctly, and hit detection is bad. also turrets are just stupidly powerful especially when an engineer is repairing them (the turrets get between 20-50% dmg buff while engy is repairing), and med-crates (engineer deployable) are better than actual medics. also there is no level restriction for the random pvp matches, so at level 5 you'll be thrown into matches vs. lvl 30+, with all their skills, gear and devices already unlocked.

tribes is better in many ways, map design and jetpack use being two of the largest differences. the jetpack in global agenda could have just as easily been a grappling hook, you only ever use it to get height advantage by getting on top of buildings. in tribes you used your jetpack to, you know, FLY. the jetpack takes the same energy pool as your gun and you can't shoot at the same time

Posted: Feb 6th 2010 6:22PM hmmdar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I bought this game today, and I've got to say I am having a lot of fun with it. I can see how the pve missions could get boring, but the pvp more than makes up for it.

Very curious to see where Hi-Rez takes the game.

Posted: Feb 6th 2010 7:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I got the game, its really worth it. Its time consuming tho because when we first tried Copnquest with my guild we saw that theres is a lot of no life ingame. the second conquest got out we tried it... people was already lvl 35 and had MECH. Seriously ...

Anyway, maybe its because i have a life and a really good job that i cant play 15 hours per day.. go figure.

Posted: Feb 6th 2010 9:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Much like Fallen Earth, the combat is YEARS behind current standards in gaming.

Will these developers just give up on mimicking fast-paced action games? Just stick with the classic MMO formula and stop failing.

Posted: Feb 7th 2010 12:52AM swarmofcats said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The fact that the game doesn't require a subscription fee makes it well worth the box price. But it's not really a MMO by today's standards. It's more similar to something like Guild Wars with it's focus on small group PvP and instanced fighting. Not something I'm likely to subscribe to--there are other, more typical MMO games that offer a lot more varied content for the price--but a great value since you can just hop in and out of the game whenever you feel like it.

Posted: Feb 7th 2010 4:49AM Psychotic Storm said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I will not judge if it is an "MMO" or not, producer say it is, I will accept it is, in its most basic from GW is the same, so why not?

the game is fast paced enjoyable and has some variety in its combat scenarios, reminds of a third person action shooter with rpg elements in it, a good combination.

the main problem lies in the two big questions, is it worth buying, most definitely, does it worth the sub, No and that is its big big problem, even at 7 Euro I do not think it is worth it.

why is that? well, not in an org, not planning to be in one any time soon and if I will I will not do it in a committed manner, what does this mean, that the main thing the sub is for (AVA) does not interest me, they left the casual "solo" player out of the sub, I do not know how many of us are out there, but I think we are many, why pay for that.

Posted: Feb 10th 2010 8:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would really subscribe to this game if they have something like a 40vs40 or 60vs60 alliance battle.

Posted: Mar 11th 2010 3:44AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't think it will last long. There's plenty of fantasy games already. What's the point of making just another mmo that will look like just as others...

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW