PDA

View Full Version : Subscription Details Announced!


Sparra
04-14-2010, 03:28 PM
The forum post: http://forum.globalagendagame.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=155&t=17838&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Or, if you're lazy, a link directly to the blog post: http://forum.globalagendagame.com/gablog/index.php/2010/04/14/global-agenda-set-to-offer-the-best-value-in-pc-gaming/

So yeah, the cost of subscribing is coming down to 10 bucks a month, crafting will be dependent on your subscriber status, and non-subs will be able to access the Desert PvE zone at no cost.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with what HiRez came up with, and am curious to see what other people think! :3

Liliith
04-14-2010, 05:51 PM
Personally I think they have no idea what they are doing. Their playerbase is still on decline (see steam stats, the number is almost laughable now for MMO) and this step will definitely do more harm than good.

I refuse any monthly fees for MMOs since they are overpriced and just plain robbery but in the case of GA it's just laughable.

liho1eye
04-14-2010, 05:55 PM
I personally prefer MMOs with monthly subscription, since it amounts to certain accountability by the developer. But in case of GA... lol what?

KrazyKain
04-14-2010, 06:14 PM
they are offering a lot of the game without the sub, so I'm happy.. altough i was planning on subbing anyway.

KaylaKaze
04-14-2010, 06:23 PM
Anyone else smell that? It smells a little like... like... a Tabula Rasa.

KrazyKain
04-14-2010, 06:31 PM
Anyone else smell that? It smells a little like... like... a Tabula Rasa.

not sure if your implying bad or good.. but from what i heard TR was awesome.. it just lacked content, and that killed the game..

meaning if Hi Rez stays dedicated and keeps the content coming, they are in for a good ride...

either way I loved what i had now, so more content and cheaper fee.. well I'm certainly happy.

KaylaKaze
04-14-2010, 07:07 PM
not sure if your implying bad or good.. but from what i heard TR was awesome.. it just lacked content, and that killed the game..

meaning if Hi Rez stays dedicated and keeps the content coming, they are in for a good ride...

either way I loved what i had now, so more content and cheaper fee.. well I'm certainly happy.

That's exactly my point. I played TR some during it's dying free period, and it wasn't too bad, but lacked content. I like GA from what I've played, but the lack of content, and then the whole subscription thing on top of it -- I don't see it surviving.

etherealwolf
04-14-2010, 10:09 PM
So yeah, the cost of subscribing is coming down to 10 bucks a month, crafting will be dependent on your subscriber status, and non-subs will be able to access the Desert PvE zone at no cost.



its still overpriced for what its actually offering.

Scoobings3
04-14-2010, 10:34 PM
Fun fact numbers have been on the increase for a month now.

But yeah I agree 1.3 is going to make or break the game. This patch will either be great and the game will keep fighting to leave it's mark on the community, or 1.3 will be where people finally go "ok this game is dead" and leave.

I hope it's the first one because I love the game but I could definitely see the game dieing after 1.3

Either way I'm going to subscribe for the first month because it's my opinion that it's worth it.

SpyRiggy
04-15-2010, 06:18 AM
Tabula Rasa was much more of an MMO than GA. I actually enjoyed that game quite a bit, but as others have said, lack of real content made it feel a little shallow.

Point being, Tabula Rasa had way more character development (especially in loot and specs) and had very large open environments with any number of strategic pathways you could take. It had great PvE events where you would fight the NPC faction, and clan wars made for an exciting and personal PvP dynamic. Regardless of its strengths though, it still failed. If Tabula Rasa couldn't keep its head above water with a reasonable subscription, GA is even more likely to crumble.

KrazyKain
04-15-2010, 07:09 AM
Tabula Rasa was much more of an MMO than GA. I actually enjoyed that game quite a bit, but as others have said, lack of real content made it feel a little shallow.

Point being, Tabula Rasa had way more character development (especially in loot and specs) and had very large open environments with any number of strategic pathways you could take. It had great PvE events where you would fight the NPC faction, and clan wars made for an exciting and personal PvP dynamic. Regardless of its strengths though, it still failed. If Tabula Rasa couldn't keep its head above water with a reasonable subscription, GA is even more likely to crumble.

TRs failure.. according to many people i asked, was it's lack of high level content, we dont know yet if HiRez will continue to add content, but it's definetly too early to shrug it off as 'death by lack of content'. What they are saying right now is that with the sub, will come constant new content, IF they keep their promise... and only if... then it will have a chance at staying alive where TR didnt

Le Pie
04-15-2010, 07:25 AM
lets remember that the sub pays for the servers too stay up and all this new content in about 3 months theyve already released 2 expansions and sandstorm looks EPIC therefore i think its worth it hell people are willing too pay 12 for a CODMW2 map pack ffs this is a reasonable price i think.also i think the number of GA'ers will increase because of sandstorm and the trial.

Liliith
04-15-2010, 08:00 AM
I don't understand why all companies have been jumping on the subscription bandwagon lately when games like Guild Wars clearly proved it is possible to have constant updates and balanced pvp without milking stupid people.

CaptainSpiff
04-15-2010, 08:49 AM
I refuse any monthly fees for MMOs since they are overpriced and just plain robbery but in the case of GA it's just laughable.

I could not agree with you more. GA is a good, not a great game right now as it is. HiRez is lowering the subscription price but your not getting enough from the game to warrant a subscription. When the game launched I believe HiRez claimed that non-subscribers would get a large portion of the game while subscribers would have access to more content.

http://forum.globalagendagame.com/gablog/

The chart on this page illustrates exactly how much content non subscribers and subscribers are going to get. As the game stands right now, and even after the sandstorm update, I am not sure who would subscribe to the game and why they would want to. Maybe someone with more money than intelligence? They are making moves to make the game better but in all seriousness, they need to just do away with the subscription, in the long run that will generate more players. Although, I dare not suggest a game developer would want to keep their fans happy versus making more money....

lets remember that the sub pays for the servers too stay up and all this new content in about 3 months theyve already released 2 expansions and sandstorm looks EPIC therefore i think its worth it hell people are willing too pay 12 for a CODMW2 map pack ffs this is a reasonable price i think.also i think the number of GA'ers will increase because of sandstorm and the trial.

Epic is a way over used term, go look it up. Sandstorm is anything but "epic". When companies say, "We need subscriptions to keep our servers up." It's them feeding people a load of crap, if that is the case, how are the Guild Wars servers still up? GA has not realeased any "expansions" they have updated the game, and rightfully so. When the game launched it felt like it was still in Beta, and I have several friends who were in the Beta that swore it ran better in Beta.

Sparra
04-15-2010, 09:41 AM
Well when was the last time that you heard of a company that postponed their subscription for SEVERAL MONTHS to make sure that they produce content to earn their player's subscriptions?

I can't think of a single one until now.

NeryK
04-15-2010, 10:39 AM
I could not agree with you more. GA is a good, not a great game right now as it is. HiRez is lowering the subscription price but your not getting enough from the game to warrant a subscription.

Right on target. GA right now has a fun gameplay, but has nowhere near enough content to warrant a monthly subscription. I'll stick with the one-time payment, then move on to something else when bored.

etherealwolf
04-15-2010, 11:29 AM
Well when was the last time that you heard of a company that postponed their subscription for SEVERAL MONTHS to make sure that they produce content to earn their player's subscriptions?

I can't think of a single one until now.

the only reason they didn't try to charge a sub fee then is they knew it would make them look bad and almost noone would pay it at that point anyways. right now 1.3 is just a big question mark. GA sounded great on paper and it turned out to be a let down, so some skepticism about 1.3 being as "awesome" as it sounds is justified.

CaptainSpiff
04-15-2010, 01:30 PM
the only reason they didn't try to charge a sub fee then is they knew it would make them look bad and almost noone would pay it at that point anyways. right now 1.3 is just a big question mark. GA sounded great on paper and it turned out to be a let down, so some skepticism about 1.3 being as "awesome" as it sounds is justified.

Like most games, people either like it or hate it, some fall in between. Just because the game launched and has some problems, no content and so on and so on, that does not make it a "bad game". More content will help, but I doubt that will make it worth 10 bucks a month. Kudos to them for not charging from the get go but, here is the next question, how many people are going to feel screwed over when 1.3 comes out and HiRez starts making the game bias towards subscribers?

Scoobings3
04-15-2010, 02:08 PM
I have no problem investing in the game because it's core combat is the best in a game I've played, so if paying 10 bucks a month gets me more content for this combat I say rock on.

I'm going to give them 10 bucks once, see where the game goes and play by ear from there.

SpyRiggy
04-15-2010, 03:23 PM
Eliminate monthly subscriptions. Drop the price to $20.00. Then I might buy it.

HoodedMiracle
04-15-2010, 05:00 PM
They say anything about different subscription plans? You know, 1 month, 3 month, 6 month?

Scoobings3
04-15-2010, 05:44 PM
Eliminate monthly subscriptions. Drop the price to $20.00. Then I might buy it.

I thought you already bought it O.o did you just do the trial then?

SpyRiggy
04-15-2010, 07:11 PM
I thought you already bought it O.o did you just do the trial then?

I was in on the beta / pre-order. The more I saw of it the less interested I was in keeping my 50 bucks invested in the game, so steam was kind enough to give me a refund on the day of release.

d10sfan
04-15-2010, 09:24 PM
I dont see how someone could justify paying $10/month for so little features. The way it is setup, you dont get much extra anyways.

It would of been great if this game took some of the ideas of Tabula Rasa and had tons and tons of great content to go with it. Tabula Rasa, while lacking in content, had tons of other great features.

Gunplay was fairly fun and the different weapons and items you could pickup was great, lots of variety. The NPCs randomly attacking some of the bases was really fun too. It added a sense that the game was really happening, with contested bases actually being contested. Couldnt spawn there and if you wanted it back, you could get some friends and capture the base from the Bane.

KrazyKain
04-16-2010, 08:27 AM
why the hell is everyone complaining about the lack of content for the sub WHEN THE SUB WAS POSTPONED BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF CONTENT....


There WILL be more content when the sub starts.

SpyRiggy
04-16-2010, 09:49 AM
why the hell is everyone complaining about the lack of content for the sub WHEN THE SUB WAS POSTPONED BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF CONTENT....


There WILL be more content when the sub starts.

There's no way they could release enough new content to justify the 10 dollar subscription. They'd essentially have to develop an entire secondary game. The 40 dollar price tag is still way too high as well, so I think people have a right to complain. I sue TR as the benchmark that this game has to stand up to (and surpass, if it wants to survive), and its not even close. This game has to accept that its a 20 dollar novelty game, or continue its tail spin.

KrazyKain
04-16-2010, 09:59 AM
10 dollars is already cheaper then its initial price, and 7 euro a month (equivalent) is nothing. Sandstorm is giving us open areas to explore which is exactly what everyone has asked for, this is going to have new enemies, 2 areas, not sure how large.. a completely new quest/mission system for these new areas as well as a new aspect to the PvP. PLUS new weapons and skills... this is alot of new content for one update.

SpyRiggy
04-16-2010, 12:18 PM
10 dollars is already cheaper then its initial price, and 7 euro a month (equivalent) is nothing. Sandstorm is giving us open areas to explore which is exactly what everyone has asked for, this is going to have new enemies, 2 areas, not sure how large.. a completely new quest/mission system for these new areas as well as a new aspect to the PvP. PLUS new weapons and skills... this is alot of new content for one update.

It's a lot, but its being placed in what is essentially a vacuum. If they're going to release quality, its going to take a very long time and the game will likely expire in the interim. If they rush something out it will likely be garbage, and the game will lose what remaining shred of consumer confidence it has.

As for the price, I know it was reduced to $40.00 from $50.00. It's still way too much. And the $10.00 a month fee wouldn't be too bad if the game was actually an MMO, but its not. Even the sandstorm update isn't going to bring it in line with TR, and TR failed, so I anticipate this games end is fast approaching. It's fine to disagree with me, but history tends to repeat itself. I'm just glad I dodged wasting money on this one..

etherealwolf
04-16-2010, 01:42 PM
It's a lot, but its being placed in what is essentially a vacuum. If they're going to release quality, its going to take a very long time and the game will likely expire in the interim. If they rush something out it will likely be garbage, and the game will lose what remaining shred of consumer confidence it has.

As for the price, I know it was reduced to $40.00 from $50.00. It's still way too much. And the $10.00 a month fee wouldn't be too bad if the game was actually an MMO, but its not. Even the sandstorm update isn't going to bring it in line with TR, and TR failed, so I anticipate this games end is fast approaching. It's fine to disagree with me, but history tends to repeat itself. I'm just glad I dodged wasting money on this one..

i think it could actually limp along on $20 for the game and $5 a month, however they seemed determined to overcharge.

not that i would buy at that point, but alot of other people would.

when are game companies going to learn that most gamers are not stupid and are not willing to overpay for something.

spaceback
04-16-2010, 02:49 PM
They should have marketed this as a persistant co-op shooter (which it is) and not try the old MMO line as an excuse to milk a sub fee. Hellgate did the exact same thing and people rejected it. Exactly what is the sub fee paying for here? Maybe one day theyll come to their senses before its too late, it would be a shame to see a proper persistant shooter die off.

As for Tabula rasa, the game failed because it was utter garbage. It ws incredibly limited with horrible auto aim combat and no content. Fighting the random bane attacks was fun for about a week, but there was nothing else to do but a long, repetitive quest grind. I still have my copy in its box somewhere.

Seramana
04-16-2010, 07:01 PM
I bought this after enjoying the trial but it's not something I can play long term like a mmo, it's more of a "I'll play a round of GA before I go to sleep" kinda game. The queue's and the lack of content makes me wanna log out after an hour of playing.

And yes, a monthly fee is too much to ask even with the upcoming Sandstorm patch, however it's nice to see developers acknowledge the lack of content and postpone monthly fees.

sgtkoolaid
04-16-2010, 08:29 PM
as far as i can see this is nothing more than a scifi inspired guildwars styled MMOG. not to be confused with a full blown MMO. this game is horribly instanced, cramped, and bland visuals. as well as easy mode, i ended up killing a boss by myself lol. so for the devs to be charging a fee for a game that is very similar in set up scope, and in chunks like guildwars is down right silly.

Scoobings3
04-17-2010, 12:13 AM
There's no way they could release enough new content to justify the 10 dollar subscription. They'd essentially have to develop an entire secondary game. The 40 dollar price tag is still way too high as well, so I think people have a right to complain. I sue TR as the benchmark that this game has to stand up to (and surpass, if it wants to survive), and its not even close. This game has to accept that its a 20 dollar novelty game, or continue its tail spin.

I'm guessing it would be pointless to point out that TF2 when it was released had a 20 dollar price tag, and had way under even half the content this game does. It was released with 3 levels.

Kanonno
04-17-2010, 01:04 AM
I'm guessing it would be pointless to point out that TF2 when it was released had a 20 dollar price tag, and had way under even half the content this game does. It was released with 3 levels.

but with 9 characters

Baharroth
04-17-2010, 02:01 AM
as far as i can see this is nothing more than a scifi inspired guildwars styled MMOG. not to be confused with a full blown MMO. this game is horribly instanced, cramped, and bland visuals. as well as easy mode, i ended up killing a boss by myself lol. so for the devs to be charging a fee for a game that is very similar in set up scope, and in chunks like guildwars is down right silly.

Just a quick question - are you playing the trial? If so, you're limited to easy and medium PvE? Unsurprisingly, that would be why the boss was easy...

PvE really does not kick off until high/max/double agent due to more enemy types, more interesting maps and it actually gets more difficult.

but with 9 characters

Don't you get more equipment choice per character in GA though? I'm not too familiar with TF2 so I can't say for sure. Either way I don't see why people automaticaly think more classes is better - isn't the whole point of a class based shooter that each role has something they're specificly good at accomplishing? So, for example, if you've got 9 types and there's 10 people per team, you really don't have a good chance of there being a medic nearby when you need one XD

Four classes is perfectly fine, and you can change your gameplay quite a bit with what you take so that it's not as repetitive - sometimes changing your role anyway, but not always. Even poison medics should generally have a rank 1 heal gun etc.

d10sfan
04-17-2010, 02:48 AM
I'm guessing it would be pointless to point out that TF2 when it was released had a 20 dollar price tag, and had way under even half the content this game does. It was released with 3 levels.

It may have had only 3 levels, but those three levels were much better than the content that Global Agenda is offering. Quality over quantity here, considering how similar the maps look in GA.

Also, the content is much better in TF2, in my opinion anyways. Much more diverse weapons, more diverse characters, great maps, great art style, etc.

SpyRiggy
04-17-2010, 08:05 AM
It may have had only 3 levels, but those three levels were much better than the content that Global Agenda is offering. Quality over quantity here, considering how similar the maps look in GA.

Also, the content is much better in TF2, in my opinion anyways. Much more diverse weapons, more diverse characters, great maps, great art style, etc.

Exactly, Valve doesn't succeed through quantity, they nail the details necessary to create an addictive game. L4D2 only has a few campaigns, but you can play through each one a thousand times and never see them play out the same.

And for the record, I never compared GA to TF2 in this thread, in the shadow of Valve this game is a joke. I was comparing it to Tabula Rasa, a significantly worse game than anything Valve has made, but significantly better than GA, and a game that still failed. My point was that if Tabula Rasa couldn't keep its head above water, GA is more or less doomed unless they do something drastic.

Scoobings3
04-17-2010, 12:17 PM
I was giving you something to compare to a 20 dollar price tag.

I already know that we're never going to agree on gameplay, but I'm going to go on the record saying that this game has much better gameplay and balance than tf2 can ever dream of.

TF2's ambiance was simply amazing, and it made me want to keep playing the game even after it failed so hard with balance. The comedic violence of that game was hands down the best ambiance I've ever played in a game and was simply incredible, I can't say enough for it.

The game play, however, is terrible. One hit kills are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ (even if every class can do them) I don't care who you are. Crits were a joke, the hit boxes were TERRIBLE and demomen and soldier were wildly overpowered compared, and spies were a complete joke. If you're going to try to argue that the gameplay is good in TF2 then I know we're never going to reach common ground because anyone who tries to argue that has a completely different idea of a good game than me.

And quality of levels? Don't make me laugh. Sure they LOOKED great, but they were just copy pastes from a game that was 10 years old. Hydro, the only original level, was a complete flop and nobody plays it to this day because of the terrible gameplay. That left you with 2fort and dustbowl. Dustbowl is fun but the last stage is completely imbal, especially when you take into account sticky traps from demo men.

etherealwolf
04-17-2010, 01:04 PM
The game play, however, is terrible. One hit kills are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ (even if every class can do them) I don't care who you are.

i can tell you've never played counterstrike or any other precision based shooter.

AuraofMana
04-17-2010, 01:47 PM
The game play, however, is terrible. One hit kills are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ (even if every class can do them) I don't care who you are.
It's not like every good, solid huge FPS had them right. BFBC2, MW2, and CS had them. I am not even going to bother to count further because those pretty much define FPS right now. You obviously don't like FPS if you don't like that aspect, because it's a pretty huge core aspect of it. This is marketed as a shooter, and it lacks headshots. In fact, a hit is a hit as long as you hit somewhere. That is terrible for a game that is supposed to have skill-based PvP as its major sell point.

This whole fail subscription thing is going to split the community, and whenever that happens, the game goes to hell. Remember Hellgate: London? That game tried it and look what happened to them. At least that had a one-time permanent fee you can pay.

Scoobings3
04-17-2010, 02:03 PM
Yeah I have. I didn't like counterstrike either because of the AWP. As I understand it I'm not the only one

Scoobings3
04-17-2010, 02:11 PM
It's not like every good, solid huge FPS had them right. BFBC2, MW2, and CS had them. I am not even going to bother to count further because those pretty much define FPS right now. You obviously don't like FPS if you don't like that aspect, because it's a pretty huge core aspect of it. This is marketed as a shooter, and it lacks headshots. In fact, a hit is a hit as long as you hit somewhere. That is terrible for a game that is supposed to have skill-based PvP as its major sell point.

This whole fail subscription thing is going to split the community, and whenever that happens, the game goes to hell. Remember Hellgate: London? That game tried it and look what happened to them. At least that had a one-time permanent fee you can pay.

I've always been a first person shooter fan, but instant kills have been ruining the genre. Dieing before you have a chance to react isn't skill on any side of the board, I'm sorry if you don't think that but obviously we have different opinions on what makes a good game. One person can't carry a team because there aren't instant kills and that's what makes this game a great team work game, which would make it a great competitive game.

My complaint with all those games you listed, except bad company which I haven't played because I hated battlefield 2, was largely the instant kills and stupid crap that was interpreted as "skill." Dolphin diving, Bunny hopping, all that ♥♥♥♥ that is supposedly skill is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and has no place in a game.

Quake 3 was a good game, because it truly involved skill. Because you couldn't luloneshotYEWDED someone meant that you actually had to outplay them. This "realistic" crap that has been plaguing this genre is stupid and it can't go soon enough.

SpyRiggy
04-17-2010, 03:49 PM
Quake 3 was a good game, because it truly involved skill. Because you couldn't luloneshotYEWDED someone meant that you actually had to outplay them. This "realistic" crap that has been plaguing this genre is stupid and it can't go soon enough.

People who were good with the rail gun could pretty much instagib people from across the map while flying through the air.

Scoobings3
04-17-2010, 04:04 PM
People who were good with the rail gun could pretty much instagib people from across the map while flying through the air.

Except it wasn't a one hit kill if they were at full health, unless they had quad damage. But quad damage of course but I always kind of thought that was pretty dumb. quad damage that is.

SpyRiggy
04-17-2010, 04:54 PM
Except it wasn't a one hit kill if they were at full health, unless they had quad damage. But quad damage of course but I always kind of thought that was pretty dumb. quad damage that is.

Yeah, point being, they had weapons that did exceedingly more damage, but you had the risk of the long recharge time and it required perfect aim. If someone can pick off a dude from across the map while on the move I think he deserves to kill (or nearly kill) his target. One hit kills are stupid only if they occur without consideration the the players skill. Going back to TF2, if you want to one shot a low HP class as a sniper, you have to land a head shot. Ever try sniping a scout in the face? You really have to earn it.

KrazyKain
04-17-2010, 05:01 PM
I've always been a first person shooter fan, but instant kills have been ruining the genre. Dieing before you have a chance to react isn't skill on any side of the board, I'm sorry if you don't think that but obviously we have different opinions on what makes a good game. One person can't carry a team because there aren't instant kills and that's what makes this game a great team work game, which would make it a great competitive game.

My complaint with all those games you listed, except bad company which I haven't played because I hated battlefield 2, was largely the instant kills and stupid crap that was interpreted as "skill." Dolphin diving, Bunny hopping, all that ♥♥♥♥ that is supposedly skill is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and has no place in a game.

Quake 3 was a good game, because it truly involved skill. Because you couldn't luloneshotYEWDED someone meant that you actually had to outplay them. This "realistic" crap that has been plaguing this genre is stupid and it can't go soon enough.

couldnt agree more :) I miss the days unreal tournament and Quake 3 were the more popular fps games. nowadays its all about cover and sniper rifles...

d10sfan
04-17-2010, 05:10 PM
As for the content in TF2, the maps were not copypaste. They may be similar to the old Team Fortress but TF2 is a very different game. The classes are diverse, much more than GA.


Scoobings3, now you seem to have changed your argument from not enough content to "better" gameplay. Complaining about one hit kills? It is basically a twitch shooter, not as much as Counter Strike of course, but it should not take a couple minutes to kill someone in a game like TF2.

So, you may be right. You have different standards of gameplay than me. Personally, I dont mind a slower shooter like Global Agenda is seemingly trying to be, but in my opinion it could be done much better.

TF2 and Global Agenda are two completely different games so trying to compare the two is a bit ridiculous.

It takes effort to get onehit kills in TF2. Weapons that can kill in one hit in certain scenarios does not automatically mean imbalance. If I shoot someone with a fully charged sniper rifle in the head, I would except a onehit kill. Head shots do more damage, imagine that.

CannibalBob
04-17-2010, 05:10 PM
Exactly, Valve doesn't succeed through quantity, they nail the details necessary to create an addictive game. L4D2 only has a few campaigns, but you can play through each one a thousand times and never see them play out the same.

And for the record, I never compared GA to TF2 in this thread, in the shadow of Valve this game is a joke. I was comparing it to Tabula Rasa, a significantly worse game than anything Valve has made, but significantly better than GA, and a game that still failed. My point was that if Tabula Rasa couldn't keep its head above water, GA is more or less doomed unless they do something drastic.

Nail on the head. People play a lot of TF2, L4D1/2, CS1.6/S etc. because they are just inherently fun to play, satisfying and challenging. There's no incentive to keep playing, like levels, gold or loot, but you play it anyway just because the game is awesome.

Would you play any MMO if you started max level, max gear and max gold? You wouldn't, at least, not very much. This is because MMOs are not very fun to play game-play wise. They cannot have precise, interesting and fast-paced gameplay of conventional online shooters since servers are not powerful enough due to supporting thousands of players instead of two dozen.

I think this is why CoD4 and MW2 are so popular - they found a sweet spot between the fast paced+challenging gameplay of online shooters and the enticement of leveling.

Imagine if they added the gambling-esque qualities of loot systems, but kept game balance intact so newbies don't feel overwhelmed! People would never stop playing.

Scoobings3
04-17-2010, 11:30 PM
Yeah, point being, they had weapons that did exceedingly more damage, but you had the risk of the long recharge time and it required perfect aim. If someone can pick off a dude from across the map while on the move I think he deserves to kill (or nearly kill) his target. One hit kills are stupid only if they occur without consideration the the players skill. Going back to TF2, if you want to one shot a low HP class as a sniper, you have to land a head shot. Ever try sniping a scout in the face? You really have to earn it.

That's about the only example where a one shot kill in that game requires skill. Sniper was my main class, and I can tell you the only reason sniping scouts was hard was because the hit detection was bad. Once you learn to compensate for it, it really wasn't that difficult.

Scoobings3
04-17-2010, 11:54 PM
As for the content in TF2, the maps were not copypaste. They may be similar to the old Team Fortress but TF2 is a very different game. The classes are diverse, much more than GA.


Scoobings3, now you seem to have changed your argument from not enough content to "better" gameplay. Complaining about one hit kills? It is basically a twitch shooter, not as much as Counter Strike of course, but it should not take a couple minutes to kill someone in a game like TF2.

So, you may be right. You have different standards of gameplay than me. Personally, I dont mind a slower shooter like Global Agenda is seemingly trying to be, but in my opinion it could be done much better.

TF2 and Global Agenda are two completely different games so trying to compare the two is a bit ridiculous.

It takes effort to get onehit kills in TF2. Weapons that can kill in one hit in certain scenarios does not automatically mean imbalance. If I shoot someone with a fully charged sniper rifle in the head, I would except a onehit kill. Head shots do more damage, imagine that.

You're right, and I wasn't really trying to compare GA to TF2. I was merely trying to compare content. Say what you will, dustbowl is a port from the original. Detailing was done up obviously, but I can go through screenshot by screenshot, point to point and show you it's exactly the same.

2fort got a slight overhaul, but it beyond "very similar". The major change was a staircase added instead of an elevator, and the bridge in the center extended. That's it.

So, I'm gonna stop arguing this point about twitch gaming, because at the end of the day we just have different opinions. I think it was really easy to get one hit kills in tf2, and regardless of your opinion it's not really the point. I don't mean to hate on tf2, I loved that game despite it's many flaws. I just think it's silly to say that GA should be 20 dollars when it easily has more content, and in my opinion better content. It's at 40 dollars right now and I think it's fair to say it has 2x as much content as tf2 did on release.

Class balance issues, and hit detection aside I really did like that game. I was just trying to make the point that tf2 had a lot less content than this game and to say that this should be put on the same price board is a little absurd.

Scoobings3
04-17-2010, 11:56 PM
Nail on the head. People play a lot of TF2, L4D1/2, CS1.6/S etc. because they are just inherently fun to play, satisfying and challenging. There's no incentive to keep playing, like levels, gold or loot, but you play it anyway just because the game is awesome.

Would you play any MMO if you started max level, max gear and max gold? You wouldn't, at least, not very much. This is because MMOs are not very fun to play game-play wise. They cannot have precise, interesting and fast-paced gameplay of conventional online shooters since servers are not powerful enough due to supporting thousands of players instead of two dozen.

I think this is why CoD4 and MW2 are so popular - they found a sweet spot between the fast paced+challenging gameplay of online shooters and the enticement of leveling.

Imagine if they added the gambling-esque qualities of loot systems, but kept game balance intact so newbies don't feel overwhelmed! People would never stop playing.

I guess this is the difference because I actually enjoyed playing this game even at lower levels so it didn't feel like grinding. Then again, I really enjoyed the pvp system in WoW too. So I played that game a lot without any real incentives for gear (since you got that in arenas, that I did more for the gear than out of fun). I guess I'm weird.