Jump to content


Hellgate:London


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#61 Tetsuya

Tetsuya

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2172 posts
  • Location:MI

Posted 05 November 2007 - 09:28 AM

View PostQuantaCat, on November 4th 2007, 01:54 PM, said:

I didnt find Diablo2 levels repetitive, on my first run through. Probably because they were short enough not to be annoying.

im not sure what game you played.  The Act 2 deserts can take hours to clear through unless you are a sorceress, and Act 5 (Lord of Destruction) is even worse.  

i cleared all the way to act 2 in Hellgate in less than 3 hours.

#62 Dark_Archon

Dark_Archon

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1792 posts
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 05 November 2007 - 10:45 AM

Sure, an internet connection is fast enough for a few people playing a game, but when you have 8+ people playing a game in the same room, having to go online to do it really sucks. The only reasonable way to play games under these circumstances is on a local area network.

Diablo 2 gameplay was EXTEREMELY repetitive, but the levels themselves were much more varied than in HGL. There is some variety there, but any stairs are fixed in the same place. Diablo 2's levels were more free flowing because the layout was completely arbitrary.

QuantaCat said:

Who cares about hack free. I don't play tournaments, nor do I play with people I don't know. And even if they did have 70% of the original diablo team, it still is nowhere near as polished as any title that blizzard made, so whatever they did, they forgot to take their quality manager with them. And please, I don't care if a place has an internet connection or not, it's just very unnecessary.
I totally agree with this sentiment. HGL just isn't good enough of a game to play anywhere but at a LAN party with friends. I didn't try WoW until there were already a few patches, but at that point it had a feeling of polish that HGL lacks. Diablo 2 also felt like a finished game. Hellgate London feels like a work in progress. The beta was very buggy, and after creating multiple characters, I didn't really get the feeling of random "dungeons". I didn't like the lack of cinematics.

My final judgement is it is a cheaply made, poorly thought out game where Flagship Studios is trying to find and tap every possible revenue stream.

Oh, and the only person I knew who actually bought the game has a problem with it refusing to run(comes up with an error) unless he quits all other applications, and even then he gets stuck at a black screen, and supposedly the booklet that came with the games mentions that you aren't supposed to have anything else running.
Mac Pro 2.66 Ghz NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 7 GB RAM SONY DW-D150A SuperDrive

#63 QuantaCat

QuantaCat

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1995 posts
  • Location:Vienna, Austria

Posted 05 November 2007 - 12:53 PM

Does anyone ever read what I write? (In regards to the LAN aspect)
QC.


avatar courtesy of James Grimlee.

#64 G-News

G-News

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 657 posts
  • Location:Bern, Switzerland

Posted 05 November 2007 - 04:03 PM

Well, I bought the game and it's running like a charm here.
Hate to say it, but Windows isn't exactly the OS I'd want to have too much stuff running at a time anyway, so having nothing else but my AV software running is hardly a problem for me. As for the work in progress: Yes it is. But I consider that a feature. "When you reload a gun that you bought at my store, it might explode. That's a f*cking feature." to quote the dude from Oxford Circus Station.
As for the revenue stream. Sure, they want to earn money with it. But they do so in a very open and transparent manner.
If you want content x and y, you gotta pay. If you don't, you can play for free.
When I compare that to WoW, that's quite a contrast. WoW didn't offer any free play, you had to pay in order to play and the only real content you got was, in most cases, content that most would never even see, because it was just another incredibly time consuming and difficult 40 man raid (or 25 later). You spent days farming otherwise useless stuff, just to skill your profession, that was mostly useless anyway, or to get the reagents for yet another Naxxramas run that was doomed to fail unless everyone was doped to maximum. That's how Blizzard makes people pay. They have to waste so much time to get anything accomplished at all, they'll have spent at least 3 months paying without even coming close to the high-end content.
And they had massive amounts of technical problems in the beginning, which were rarely compensated with an extra free day of play.
Seriously, I don't want to sound like an advocate or a fanboy, but you're barking up the wrong tree if you think HGL is about squeezing money out of people.

I'm looking forward to Patch 1, which should be due by the end of the year. By then, we'll know what kind of content updates you can expect for paying 9.99$ per month (which also is less than a WoW subscription, btw.)
And, you could always just spend 149$ and never pay again. A rather tempting offer that I'd have bought, had WoW offered it back when I still bothered to play.
Now officially the forum idiot

#65 Naman

Naman

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Location:Karefounya

Posted 05 November 2007 - 09:57 PM

View PostG-News, on November 5th 2007, 02:03 PM, said:

I'm looking forward to Patch 1, which should be due by the end of the year. By then, we'll know what kind of content updates you can expect for paying 9.99$ per month (which also is less than a WoW subscription, btw.)

(Emphasis mine.) That's a really poor comparison. WoW is a MMORPG with a giagantic, persistent world where you play on servers with hundreds of other people per server. Hellgate is a group-based online RPG without the MMO for proper gameplay (the combat areas are all instanced) with a much smaller, less varied game world. It costs less than WoW, but you get far, far less for your money.

#66 G-News

G-News

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 657 posts
  • Location:Bern, Switzerland

Posted 06 November 2007 - 03:55 AM

That depends entirely on what you consider to be "much more" in a game.
Much more individual zones? Oh yes, certainly. More items? Rather not. More big group raid content that will take ages to clear? One point for WoW.
More stuff you can do in just half an hour, choosing whether you do it alone or in a group? One point for HGL.
It really depends on what you expect from a game.
With WoW, you'll simply end up NEEDING to spend many days playing in order to accomplish even the slightest things.
If you had to spend similar amounts of time in Hellgate, it would undoubtedly get very boring very soon. But you don't.
WoW simply has to offer more individual zones in order not to get boring within the first day of playing (because the quests are essentially the same as in every other game, including HGL too: Go to X and kill Y of Z, then return, rinse, repeat).
So yes, if you come fresh out of WoW and are used to farming for hours on end, then HGL will probably look rather repetitive quite soon.
If you, like I did, quit WoW because it was getting to time-consuming, while doing the same stuff over and over and over again, without accomplishing much at all, then HGL will be a welcome "instant fun" game where YOU can decide how much time you spend and not the droprate/spawnrate parameter of yet another Kodo herd.

You're right when you say (all of you) that HGL and WoW don't actually compare. But please, don't try to measure HGL by WoW standards, while not measuring WoW by HGL standards. It's like comparing Myst and Escape Velocity.
Now officially the forum idiot

#67 QuantaCat

QuantaCat

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1995 posts
  • Location:Vienna, Austria

Posted 06 November 2007 - 05:45 AM

..ok so to get back on track again, since Hellgate definitely isn't an MMO (unless Diablo is an MMO), I really miss LAN. End of discussion. :D
QC.


avatar courtesy of James Grimlee.

#68 G-News

G-News

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 657 posts
  • Location:Bern, Switzerland

Posted 06 November 2007 - 05:54 AM

Still, the fact that every reasonable LAN-Party, even if only within your neighbourhood, has to have a decent internet connection, the problem is really only a theoretical one. You need internet to play CS, Need for Speed and a host of other games that rely either on remote servers or some form of authentication.
It's really only a problem on paper.
Now officially the forum idiot

#69 Tesseract

Tesseract

    Unmanageable Megaweight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3512 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 06 November 2007 - 11:11 AM

View PostG-News, on November 6th 2007, 10:54 PM, said:

Still, the fact that every reasonable LAN-Party, even if only within your neighbourhood, has to have a decent internet connection
I go to a lot of unreasonable LAN parties, then.

#70 G-News

G-News

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 657 posts
  • Location:Bern, Switzerland

Posted 06 November 2007 - 12:28 PM

I don't know the state of LAN gaming in the US. But here in Europe, a LAN without internet access is quite unthinkable.
So yes, that would be quite unreasonable.
Now officially the forum idiot

#71 Vorbedacht

Vorbedacht

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 11:06 AM

Played the PC demo, was not impressed. Had some fun, wanted to like it, though it was far too repetitive and unfocused.

#72 G-News

G-News

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 657 posts
  • Location:Bern, Switzerland

Posted 07 November 2007 - 03:15 PM

as was said before, the demo does a very bad job at showing off the game.
Now officially the forum idiot

#73 Dark_Archon

Dark_Archon

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1792 posts
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 07 November 2007 - 04:12 PM

View PostG-News, on November 6th 2007, 06:54 AM, said:

Still, the fact that every reasonable LAN-Party, even if only within your neighbourhood, has to have a decent internet connection, the problem is really only a theoretical one. You need internet to play CS, Need for Speed and a host of other games that rely either on remote servers or some form of authentication.
It's really only a problem on paper.

Sure, using your internet connection is fine if your idea of a LAN party is like 3 people. When you get enough people together, one broadband internet connection just isn't enough between the connection bandwidth, and the problems you get with latency with that many people on one internet connection. Sure, you have internet access, but you don't use the internet connection for the game. That is why it is called "Local Area Network" gaming.

You are totally right. It is unfair to compare paying for WoW subscription vs. HGL subscription. WoW is a MMO, HGL isn't. A more fair comparison would be paying for a Diablo 2 subscription vs. paying for a HGL subscription. I played the beta, and I just couldn't stop thinking, "They want HOW MUCH per month?" Flagship is being completely unreasonable asking people to pay for the game, advertise to them ingame, and ask for a monthly subscription. Sure, you don't NEED to pay for a premium account but the tiered subscriptions and the bonuses for paying unbalance the game.

Having played the beta, the demo doesn't do that bad of a job at showing off the game. They showed what most of the game will be like. Sure, there are some highlights, but a lot of the areas look pretty much the same.

Edit: I just looked it up, and supposedly, the max group size is 5 people. I get to pay $10 a month to play with 5 friends at a time?!?!?!? WHERE DO I SIGN UP?
Mac Pro 2.66 Ghz NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 7 GB RAM SONY DW-D150A SuperDrive

#74 QuantaCat

QuantaCat

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1995 posts
  • Location:Vienna, Austria

Posted 08 November 2007 - 02:55 AM

Sorry, G-News, but you have no idea what is "usual" at lan parties. I for one, know for sure that most of the "official" lan parties don't have a decent internet, or aren't "calculating it in". Most friends' lan parties don't bother with the internet, because they usually don't need it. So basically, you have no clue about "normal" lan parties, you just have a clue about the ones you go to, or the ones you heard about. (I haven't seen many CS lan parties around here either, by the way, lots of Enemy Territory though) But apparently, it can be Completely Different™.

That and isn't this actually a thread that belongs in the windows forum.
QC.


avatar courtesy of James Grimlee.

#75 G-News

G-News

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 657 posts
  • Location:Bern, Switzerland

Posted 08 November 2007 - 03:59 AM

View PostQuantaCat, on November 8th 2007, 09:55 AM, said:

Sorry, G-News, but you have no idea what is "usual" at lan parties. I for one, know for sure that most of the "official" lan parties don't have a decent internet, or aren't "calculating it in". Most friends' lan parties don't bother with the internet, because they usually don't need it. So basically, you have no clue about "normal" lan parties, you just have a clue about the ones you go to, or the ones you heard about. (I haven't seen many CS lan parties around here either, by the way, lots of Enemy Territory though) But apparently, it can be Completely Different™.

That and isn't this actually a thread that belongs in the windows forum.

Well, let me see then. Since 2002 I have organized -with a team of course-  6 major LAN parties, ranging from 504 to 1553 participants. (504,530,1553,600,700,1000)
I've also helped organize at least one European championship qualifier and about 3 World Cyber Games qualifiers.
We've had internet at every event and since WoW came out, people were always able to play.
Additionally, I've been to roughly 30 bigger and smaller LANs during the same period and 90% of all those had decent internet, some even wicked fast (5MB/sec actual download rates).

Given group size in HGL is 5, you'd need about 2.5-3 Megabits DSL at home to be able to host a party for a full group. That's pretty much available everywhere, at least in Europe, Asia and North America.

As was said before, you don't have to pay to play. So far, all you get from being a subscriber is more bank slots and a little extra content that so far is only for fun.
I don't see why everyone is making such a fuss about it. I still haven't subscribed for now, yet haven't encountered anything I lacked.
Having to pay for a game each month aparently hits a string with certain people. I couldn't count how many times ppl laughed at me when I was still playing WoW and told them I had to pay each month. Yet, people have no problem paying for the cinemas, even though that's much less fun for roughly the same amount.
10 buys you (in Switzerland) a normal cinema ticket for 2-3hours worth of entertainment, 9.99 buys you a month of play. 12.50 or something like that buys you a month of WoW.
If you don't need the extra stuff you get for being a subscriber, don't subscribe. It's that simple.
Now officially the forum idiot

#76 QuantaCat

QuantaCat

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1995 posts
  • Location:Vienna, Austria

Posted 08 November 2007 - 08:50 AM

Well if you meant "decent", you obviously meant "really big ones". Most LAN parties I know are much smaller, local ones. And I'm betting tesseract does too. So even with your broad experience, like I said, that's the way you, and apparently a lot of people like you "do" lan parties. Over here, I don't know any that *require* internet access, nor bother with it. If it's there, then hooray?

My point isn't that you suck, my point is that you only need to turn a street and there is an entirely different world out there, even though you (if I read it right) organize them world-wide.
Either that, or your perception of the concept of "lan parties" is so completely different from mine, that we're talking about something else entirely.


Oh and, reading over my previous post, I feel the need to add two things to what I said: nobody knows what is usual, because there is no such thing as "usual lan parties", and I was talking about the official ones "in my country".
QC.


avatar courtesy of James Grimlee.

#77 G-News

G-News

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 657 posts
  • Location:Bern, Switzerland

Posted 08 November 2007 - 10:37 AM

View PostQuantaCat, on November 8th 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

Well if you meant "decent", you obviously meant "really big ones". Most LAN parties I know are much smaller, local ones. And I'm betting tesseract does too. So even with your broad experience, like I said, that's the way you, and apparently a lot of people like you "do" lan parties. Over here, I don't know any that *require* internet access, nor bother with it. If it's there, then hooray?

My point isn't that you suck, my point is that you only need to turn a street and there is an entirely different world out there, even though you (if I read it right) organize them world-wide.
Either that, or your perception of the concept of "lan parties" is so completely different from mine, that we're talking about something else entirely.
Oh and, reading over my previous post, I feel the need to add two things to what I said: nobody knows what is usual, because there is no such thing as "usual lan parties", and I was talking about the official ones "in my country".

Ok, that seems like a valid point.
I don't organize them worldwide. We're in Switzerland only, but of course we work together with other, some worldwide, organisations, such as WCG.
But I'm also clanmember of a formerly fairly well-known Q3 clan here. We played competitively and were on various smaller lans, national championships etc.
Most of them had internet. So I'm not just talking big LANs here, but there seems to be a difference in internet availability between the Swiss situation and other countries. Also, I might have made the impression that I think it's ok to leave LAN functionality  out of a game. That's not actually true. I very much like to have a internet independent LAN service in any game. But whenever there is a half-way good reason why it's not there, I can cope with it.
NFS (I think it was) requires internet to play, and there is, unlike for HGL, no obvious reason for it. That sucks.
CS and CSS are still wildly popular here and they too now require internet because of steam. Not having CS/CSS capability at a LAN here basically means loosing a lot of attendees, which might be why everyone will try to get the best internet possible.
It's not about making money, it's about not loosing it. Making LANs is expensive as hell here.

I'm guessing the kind of LAN-parties you're having in mind is the kind in the 8-20 people region at someones home.
I've hosted several of those too (with Internet), but then again, that was maybe 5 years ago, when DSL was not very widespread and games didn't require internet at all, except for the odd patch here and there.

So to summarize, in my humble opinion, HGL lacking LAN functionality certainly isn't great, but it isn't a show stopper.
Now officially the forum idiot