Gaming Global Agenda Review

At a glance, Global Agenda might look like a Power Rangers game but it's actually a third-person shooter MMORPG set in a post-World War III Earth. We find out how well this debut release from High-Rez studios incorporates fast-pasted shooter action into the MMO genre.

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2010/02/06/global-agenda-review/1

 

Sound fairly decent, since you can try it for nothing I'll give it a go (and so should many more), lets see if it can last long enough to gain some of that 'Blizzard' polish.

 

looks like quake 3 in some ways

 

Where is the Star Trek Online review?

They launched flawlessly despite 5 million log ins on opening day, 2 million of those unique, and that was on a Tuesday!

 

Page 3: diffuculty

Can't say much about the review, I don't have time for MMOs..

 

It's on the way. Reviewing an MMO takes a lot more time than a usual game.

 

I played a good chunk of Global Agenda in beta and it was all very humdrum and not particularly exciting as I played random PvP maps and missions and such. Then I got stuck into some of the AvA (Alliance vs Alliance) gameplay and frankly, I was terrified. It's a whole different game, but more importantly it's a whole different game played by some extremely talented teams of players and I have not had my arse kicked so hard in such a short space of time in my life. Though it shames me to admit it, I was put off by this, because I don't have the time or the energy these days to devote to either finding a great team or building one and getting that good. I think Global Agenda would really appeal to maybe a Team Fortress 2 player looking to take their team-play to the next level though. I can't emphasise enough however that when getting into the wider campaign the learning curve is brutal to a degree I haven't seen since Planetside. It's basically like turning up for your first game with your pub football team only to find out you're playing against a pride of hungry lions that have armed themselves with power tools.

As for Star Trek Online I'm not sure a review is necessary when an animated .gif of Gene Roddenberry spinning in his grave would probably cover all the basics. If people really wanted detail you could caption the picture, "It's Champions Online but you're a spaceship". Wouldn't want to be too down on it, but I get annoyed by lazy development and developments don't get much lazier than a spaceship combat game rehashed out of a superhero MMO.

 

Plays like S4 League Crossed over with Battlefield 2142 and TF2?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO8CXH225g0 <-- Plays a bit like it looks in the vid. Only it's a lot more team oriented than the video implies, for instance the vid shows the Robotic class running around shooting things, when really it's a bit more like the TF2 engineer, and the Recon class can be played more like the TF2 spy than the sniper (though it can do either). Equally whichever way you cut it generally speaking you won't find much to do as a solo medic. Compared to the Korean sort of games like Gunz and S4 League it's a lot less focussed on acrobatics and more on good old fashioned shooting.

 

Looks like a very sterile game to me.

 

looks interesting, I'll have to give it a try at somepoint . anyone have an idea on how long it takes to reach end game?

 

Doesn't support eyefinity so its not got my vote.

 

Funny how the guy reviewing this didn't even play for 3 hours...and didn't even play any PvP matches.

This is his characters information https://account.globalagendagame.com/GAregister/stats/playerstats.aspx?p=99032

Looks like the reviewers on this site are not worth two shits.

 

Hah, looks like somebody from HI-REZ Studios is searching the internet for bad reviews and complaining about the time spent playing the game. GameSpot just pulled their review because of a very similar complaint.

I hate to break this to you, while due diligence is admirable, it's also painfully obvious when a bad MMO is bad. Don't expect any leniency or the benefit of the doubt from reviewers if you expect somebody to pay a monthly fee for your game, as its your job to captivate the audience immediately.

The fact is you're another offender in a long line of developers who have no respect whatsoever for the MMO genre or the paying customer and are only in it to make a quick profit. Rather than try to 'expose' reviewers, how about you instead put that time and effort into making a great MMO and beta test it for longer than three weeks.

 

Hahahahah /facepalm.

I'm not from Hi-Rez, I'm just a player in the game. I only found out about this little joke of a review site because some people on a forum (Hi SHC!) brought this up and started laughing about the poor quality of reviewers these days. Your....amusing..... reply has also been discussed there.

For the thread itself, have a look here http://www.scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?t=26338&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=900

This pathetic attempt at a review was brought up second post from bottom.

Unless you think SHC, a fan site created about a competing MMO franchize, is somehow in cahootz with Hi-Rez?

The game has quite a few problems, but the reviewer here managed to skip every single one of them, while managing to be factually inaccurate about parts of the core game play (recons in stealth having bullets move through them??WTF) and clocking up a terribly small number of hours covering a terribly small slice of the game. Jeez, the guy couldn't even figure out he was supposed to heal with his medic until his third game (you can see it on the game history), a bright reviewer he is not!

Nicholai - A moderately happy Hi-Rez customer, laughing at the amount of fail he has seen on this website so far.

 

Nicholai was banned for his post. Nice job shooting yourself in the foot there...

Furthermore, I know you talk about it at the start of the review, but you do know that only the Agency vs Agency stuff requires a subscription right? You can jump into the 'mercenary' PvP modes without it, and gain XP that way? Thus the game works pretty well for people who just consider it a third person shooter with some added MMO bits (like me). Sure, you'll need to do PvE if you want to do crafting (that, incidentally, is what all the drops are for).

Also, considering beta tests are to catch bugs, exploits and similar issues, and not make Bit-Tech reviewers happy about games, and it was in closed beta for considerably longer than 3 weeks, or perhaps you would like me to point out that the WoW open beta (yes, I've been there... I'm sorry, SHC) was something like a week long, and that WoW in Europe especially faced crippling server issues in most of the endgame content for months after release, despite having been released in the States 3 months earlier... yeah, their stress testing worked great /sarcasm.

 

So not very much then?

Playing only one game mode for 3 hours isn't exactly thorough, regardless of the score the game deserves.

 

I'll bring these issues up with Mark, who wrote the review, as soon as possible - as some of them are valid and serious complaints. Still, that doesn't make this any less PJS or biased and it doesn't make the points raised in the review any less true - especially when you see these comments echoed over other sites and reviewers. Speaking generally, it's sometimes plainly obvious that a game has problems. You wouldn't believe some of the dross we come across.

We take our credibility very seriously and will look into this.

 

I've just discussed this with Mark and frankly see no reason to retract any part of this review because the figures referred to as proof that he has only played for three hours seem at best inconsistent and at worst plain wrong. I personally sat next to Mark as he played the game for at least 12 hours over the course of two days and I know he was playing it more at home and when I wasn't around. The data you point to doesn't reflect that and actually gives contradicting data about when he first played.

This isn't totally surprising - it's common for games journalists to divide their time across separate features, accounts or characters.

There's nothing in this review which seems factually incorrect or massively at odds with the general consensus. Reading the threads you refer to though reveals you to be part of the established GA community who is actively engaged in seeking out negative reviews and forcing retractions, as has happened with the GameSpot review. I know Mark and I know our processes, as well as the simple facts that were before me - so for now I'm willing to stand by this review.

In the meantime, the developers are being contacted and I'm happy to discuss the matter further for anyone who has any questions about how we review games - just like always.

 

The fact that there are two different 'first played' times on that same page already brings the game time up for question. It took me a lot longer than 2.8 hours to get that character to level 10.

As for the PvP, it was stated in the review that we weren't going to look into, but were going to focus on the PvE.