A Litany of Comparison: GW and Hellgate

Speaking of other games...One off topic question, if I may:
The title of this thread came from Litany of Curses from PS:Torment, amirite?

I have never played Planescape: Torment, so no.

And it doesn't need the garbage that you think it does for sure. But, the develpers are moving in MY direction anyways. There are still plenty of rares that I have that you'll probably never see. GW2 promises to be more and more of what the hardcore gamer wants afterall GWEN is an example because it ties in with GW2 and there's already goind to be HIGHER LEVELS maybe even NO LIMIT LEVELS as has been mentioned. So, PB you're losing and we're winning. Best just enjoy what you have now, won't get any better for you and has all the best chances of getting better for me and others from other mmorpgs when GW2 comes out.

And yes you are wrong here, you are always wrong here.


And see even other people agree with me.

Hi, all. I bought and played Hellgate because I was tired of the same old WoW grind (and fees!) and thought it could capture a bit of that Diablo 2/Titan Quest magic. I was sadly, horribly, tragically wrong. There are so many parts of Hellgate that are so fundamentally broken, it's hard for me to believe that it comes from Bill Roper and company. It almost seems as if Flagship willfully ignored the last 10 years of game design innovation and decided to take a page from Daikatana's playbook instead.

Hellgate has skills and item effects (they're called 'mods' in the game) with no actual explanation as to what they do. Most have been discovered by the players and documented in the official forums, but some skills and effects are a mystery to this day. In fact, the devs themselves have admitted that they have no idea how "Luck" modifiers work in their own game! Would it really have been so hard to make tooltips for this stuff?

Because of the flawed design, putting 1 point in a skill is just as good as 10 since most skills improve with your level anyway. Additionally, items greatly trump skills in effectiveness, so your time is better spent grinding for loot.

The caveat with gear is something called the 'feed system' which is an artificial set of restrictions the designers included on every item in the game. Each item and mod in the game requires a certain amount of 'stat feed' to equip it. A Rifle may take 30 Accuracy and 10 Strength to use. An Armored Vest may take 35 Strength and 15 Willpower. If you only have 60 Strength, then you're short by 5 Strength and can't equip both. On the surface, it sounds like a good balance idea, but the issue is that at later levels you'll have character classes with stats that do not match their concept in order to equip items. You would think that someone that primarily uses a Rifle would need his/her Accuracy to be the highest stat, but you'd be wrong. In Hellgate, it's more common to find high Stamina Rifle users. Why? Who knows?!

Multiplayer is practically nonexistent as you have to fight with the game's interface to group. Even then, the myriad of bugs makes grouping an exercise in frustration.

Why anyone would ever pay $10 a month to play this game is a mystery to me. I can't even find a good reason to play it for free.

The good news is that the Hellgate experience finally got me to purchase Guild Wars! The difference between the two is like night and day in terms of the polish, storyline, and graphical goodness. I'm sorry I've been missing out on all the GW goodness for the past couple of years, but I aim to catch up.

Well yeah, that's how you can tell that you're right and he's wrong.

Do I need to remind everyone that gears + high level cap + killing stuff all over the place are the essence of fun?
That was what made D2 awesome, and HG:L is a real spiritual successor of that concept:
~In D2, max level = 99
~In D2, gears make the character. There are A LOT of gears (due to random mod generator) and the majority of the time is spend on MFing.
~D2 is a hack-and-slash, just like HG:L. That is not GW. Yes, the concept of killing A LOT OF STUFF in a short amount of time might sound boring on paper, but here are 2 examples:
-Dynasty Warriors, it draws almost 0 lores from the real story, repetitive boring play, and you don't even have levels. It is one of the more popular games out there.
-Dota in WC3, crappy designed concept of the map, heroes, and +stat items. It is the most popular game on WC3. It even got in some of the WCGs in Asia.

GW is NOT a hack-and-slash. In fact, it's completely different than all the MMOs out there when it first began. Now, endless boring grinding titles has taken over and has made it even less fun than grinding levels on D2 (yes, I realize they are optional, and so are levels so the comparison stands).
GW2 sounds more akin to D2 than GW1 (actually more akin to WOW). Why? Because only a game with grind can keep its players. Realize how the titles were realized after GW died down a bit?

HG:L is not a MMORPG, it is a RPG that you can play online. GW is a MMORPG because you can only play online. GW is team based, HG:L is more geared toward solo play (which is prominent in hack-and-slash genres).

That is a standard quest variants on any RPG. Most MMORPGs don't have interesting variants of those. Look for RPGs like all of the Forgotten Realms series, Elder Scroll series (which the game is actually about as big as a MMORPG), ect. They have good quests. D2 and HG:L do not have interesting quests (although HG:L tried to offer some and does better than D2 in this). Quests are not the focus of these games. Killing massive monsters in a short amount of time while picking up some phat lewtz is. HG:L did not pertain the level grind in D2 (which is not hard if you do baal runs/uber runs, ect.). Notice how GW2 is going for a higher level cap. I actually don't find the missions and quests in GW any special than any MMORPGs or RPGs out there. In fact, I preferred it if I can skip over most of them like in Prophecies, but that's just me. You are entitled to your own separate opinion.

That was how D2 worked. They mended it a bit with Synergies, but still, small arrays of skills. Why? Because specializing makes you superior. In GW, you have the same thing, except the ONLY difference is your ability to completely "reroll" your character in town. 8 skills is still a small pool to pull from. The rerolling factor is great idea. However, you don't need it in D2 or HG:L. Usually, your skills are enough to take down most monsters.

I agree that in a hack-and-slash, some good animation would be great since you'll be using some of the skills forever over and over again, but it's not that important since I'll be paying more attention to blood and brain matters spewing all over the place as I kill my monsters and get my loots. That is the focus and the fun of hack-and-slash, and that is why it is popular.

Yes indeed, Dota and D2 are both gear oriented, and like you said, almost all RPGs have that as well. People prefer that more. "It takes no skills!" you say? PvP has never been a focus of those games.

Most people rather prefer if their armor actually do things instead of looking cooler but has no benefit beyond the normal armors.

Unless you are one of those nuts that try to get all HM mishs on all your characters, you are doing the same thing in GW. The only reason why GW doesn't feel like that is because you only have so many characters and the game takes forever to "beat".

Personally, I rather GW have a higher level cap since it's going to be grinding either way. Elite gears look pretty good right now too. That's just my opinion, you don't have to share it. We all have our preferences.

That's because the focus is killing monsters and getting loot. Most players won't even bother with quests and zip through them. That was what happened with D2.

Again, the focus is not on PvP. PvP on D2 has always been somewhat of a bore to most players (then again, most GW'ers don't play PvP much). The PvP got worse when Enigma was released on D2.

It followed the tradition of D2. It didn't take any step backward, it merely treaded along. GW diverted from the fundamental concepts of D2, and that's fine. It didn't expand on the fundamental concepts of D2 (okay title grinds is worse than level grinding), it diverted from it and became PvP based instead of farming based (which many would argue as the more important part of PvE, which is composed of both quests and farming).

My entire point is that HG:L and GW are even more different games than WOW and GW. GW draws on some of the lesser used concepts in D2 (like PvP) while HG:L expanded the fundamental hack-and-slash concepts of D2. WOW drew some part from D2 as well in the set items, ect. that was pretty unique to D2 in its time. WOW still have the level grind and gear based, but it also added more PvP and quests (+ loads of other stuff). So in the end, GW is not even close to D2 (and thus HG:L) anymore.
Blizzard is currently working on a 3rd unannounced project by "Team 3". Many speculate it to be D3, since, well, you got WOW exp and SC2, what else is left? Blizzard has leaked that it is a MMORPG, which makes the claim stronger. I, for one, will look forward to it since Blizzard has never disappointed me with any of its games. If Blizzard is making SC2, it is not farfetch'd that it is making D3.

First off, cool post Aura.

Just curious as to how that makes GW an MMO? Would you consider Diablo or Hellgate MMOs if it could only be played online?

True enough, that actually happened to me the other day. I was looking at the way he walked then I got ambushed (well it felt like it, I was just not paying attention.)

And what is DOTA an abbreviation for? OH nevermind I know what you're talking about, I got lost in one for about 3 hours the other day. Go go Demon Hunter!

I consider any game that is completely online an MMO, after is stands for Massive Multiplayer Online then from there weather it is cooperative role playing game (Guild Wars), action role playing game or just role playing game doesn't really matter as those are sub-genres.

What if it's something like Counter-Strike, then? MMOFPS?

yes? there could be a million names for genres of games. I don't know why people are so hung up about guild wars not being an mmo,(they debated it on mmorpg.com for years) Its a game, and it's online, what more do people want?

I'm also aware that arena net have stated that guild wars is a corpg.

I've tried it out. I really got into the hype before the game was released. But what a disappointment. I think it doesn't come near to GW to be fair. I'm not a GW or die by any means. I agree with making finishing the game a bit more special and giving better rewards for some side-quests/primary. I mean as a level 20 player sometimes the idea of taking a quest off someone for 500 exp 100gold just isn't appealing. And sometimes you can't escape the 12yo's shouting noob and mother insults in text chat every minute in pvp.

I've played WoW for a few months too. I loved Warcraft 3 and wanted to play WoW. I was playing WoW and GW at the same time for a while. But i always came back to GW due to the fun factor/not having to pay money a month (no game is worth that) and i don't care what anyone says but GW graphics are miles ahead of WoW. If the whole disney cartoony thing is for you then fair enough but just look at the animation on a hunter shooting a bow and compare it to a ranger shooting a bow for example. The animation in WoW looks from a NES game.

I think we all stick with GW for our own different reasons. Let's hope GW2 can live up to our expectations and reward all the loyal fans as well as winning over millions more.

I think that depends what you want from a game. The first PC game i properly played was D2, and so i'd probably stick with HG:L when i try it as the style appeals to me more.

One question i do have though: I know that you can play for free or subscribe, and that subscribers get any new content released. Does this refer to patches? So say if i'm playing for free and suddenly they patch it with tons of bug fixes.. do i get it?

Thanks in advance.

Apparently, you do, as that's certainly not the case for anyone--some people enjoy some depth to their gameplay, sometimes.

I beg to differ--GW (PvE, anyway) is very much a hack-and-slash, albeit team-based.

Online only is not the sole criterion of an MMO. That first M stands for 'Massively', which neither GW nor HG:L are.

Unfortunately true.

It is possible, albeit uncommon, to have skill-oriented PvE. It's just not very often seen in the RPG genre, unfortunately.

What does that have to do with anything? All I was criticizing there was their armor art, which is pisspoor in comparison to GW.

GW takes forever to beat? It took me much longer to beat HG:L the first time than Prophecies did--and let's not even mention Factions or Eye of the North.

How is this remotely true? Titles are completely, entirely, one hundred percent optional (save for the sole example of Sunspear, for Nightfall-born characters). Levels are most certainly not optional--sorry, you aren't strong enough to pass this point in the game yet, go kill ten thousand more rats.

Then your entire point is wrong.

All players get bugfixes, thank the heavens. But yes, as you stated, only subscribers get the 'new content', whatever that might turn out to be.

The overwhelming majority finds that to be more fun, and that is why there are more WOW players than GW, more Dota players on War3 than any other custom games (and probably ladder as well), and do I need to remind everyone that someone hit level 99 THREE days after D2 restarted its latest ladder after all these years.

Look at hack-and-slash. GW is not a hack-and-slash. Hack-and-slash has always been solo based, and GW is anything but that (even though the excessive uses of hench and heroes make it seem that way, which is something bad).

Again, look at the definition. Hell, I know a lot of strategy games that doesn't take strategy. It's a genre classification, not a definition of the game. HG:L is a RPG with online functions, GW is a MMORPG.

I can get ran in Prophecies and beat it fast too, but that's not beating, that's speed running. You see, in games like HG:L, people don't need to take 20 hrs to get a group because they can just solo everything that comes their way (a define point for a hack-and-slash). Even if you choose to hench in GW (heroes didn't exist in Prophecies), it'll take you a while to beat the entire game normally. Because GW is a MMORPG, there are other players to offer help and various runs to make it seem shorter. You can do the same thing if you play HG:L online. However, if you play through both normally without outside help (probably even with a pug in GW, which will probably slow any decent player down), HG:L is completed before GW.

Here is another point. Your character can be overpowered by the sheer amount of gears you have, and thus, 1 or 2 level doesn't matter as much as in HG:L (plus the fact that HG:L has a higher level cap). In GW, a level or 2 off could mean that you won't even get accepted by most pugs, which drags you down. And another thing, most titles take FOREVER to grind, and that is the ONLY THING to do after you played through the game enough time. However, that is NOT the case in games like HG:L because of the random mod generator. Why do you think D2 is still being played by all these players today? Because of its gears. Call it pathetic, but most GW'ers are doing the same thing, except with titles, which doesn't even add that much to your character as opposed to gear. Those people want to grind it, and that's completely fine. This is not to mention not all titles can't be completed while you play through normally (even those that does you won't get much). XP happens whenever you do a quest or kill a monster. In fact, most D2 players powerlevel to around 75 and starts farming. By the time they gotten some good loots, they'll hit 90+. In GW, you'll hit 20 before you even beat the game. The only thing to further power you is elite skills (if you haven't gotten max weapons and armors by now, something is wrong). It is the whole character development difference between HG:L and GW that propels the difference. Gears don't make a character in GW, your skill build does. HG:L skill builds also define a person, but gears are a vital part (unless you a caster type, you won't get hurt by gear as much, but still significant).

You can say it takes no skills to be defined by gear and I'll repeat once again, PvP was never the focus. In DOTA, players argue that the ability to farm and level quickly is a skill all to its own and that is what propels DOTA - the ability to survive, make good cash by landing last hits on creeps, and kill heroes. Farming (a vital part of PvE by many) defines HG:L and D2 while GW is more PvP geared (thus why Anet called it CORPG, get it now?). It's 2 completely different game you are talking about here. It's like comparing D2 with BG2, where in as BG2 is more lore/quest driven (all DND games are), party based, and has a way more interesting storyline to it. However, D2 has its own goodies that makes it stand out. Just because they are both RPGs (MMORPGs are a type of RPGs) doesn't mean you can compare them.

Stuff like sockets and other new features. For anyone that isn't aware of sockets, having a socket on an item means you can stick stuff in it. That was one of the unique thing in D2. Yes, GW drew from that and allowed you to put runes (and eventually insignia) on your armor. Yes, GW drew a significant amount from D2, and there is nothing wrong with that, D2 is a great game. GW just didn't draw from the fundamental concepts like HG:L did, which was the entire argument of my point of why they can't be compared. Why did you think they left Blizzard? If they drew from the fundamental part of D2, they'd just stayed in Blizzard. As in the latest interview, they stated "...we were doing something radically different...", aka, no high level cap/farm based MMORPG (ignore the part where they are going back to that in GW2). high level cap/farm based defines D2 and HG:L, not GW.

Sorry, that is going to be every single game that has an online feature you'll ever play. Most people I know realize the world is doomed by playing video games.

Blizzard has never went for realism, instead they went for the comical/fantasy look. GW is not realism either, as stated in the latest interview, but yes, it is closer than WOW. If you want realistic graphic, go play DND. Another factor comes into play with the WOW thing as well: Blizzard's games have always aimed for lower -> medium spec PCs. AKA, you can probably play the game on at least low setting with a graphic card that came with your PC. For GW, you probably have to go buy a video card. Both have their strong points. I like some GW armors, but I prefer WOW armors more because they are shiny (and we all know shiny objects > all).

Yes, if D2 and/or HG:L were online only, I'd consider it a MMORPG. Look at any game-oriented websites, GW would be classified as a MMORPG while D2 and HG:L would not be. Look at the latest interview, the author even said GW was a MMORPG. Whether that is not Anet's true definition is up for debate. Yes, Anet has said GW is not a MMORPG but a CORPG. Ironically, GW is probably one of the most team-oriented MMORPGs out there. PvP has also been the focus of GW (look at the complains of people around the forum of "separate skills in PvE and PvP". Although PvP has been rather stale for a while and the balancing issue is just too disgusting to touch on.

Subscribers and non-subscribers get the same multiplayer patches at the same time. Flagship has stated that bug fixes and tweaks will always go out at no cost to everyone. Non-subscribers will just not have access to subscriber only content.

However, singleplayer users are (at this time and the forseeable future) out of luck. The devs have said that they will patch the singleplayer gamers soon, but that hasn't happened yet. There are a number of critical bugs in the singleplayer game to include broken quests that can completely halt your quest progress.

Since singleplayer users generate no income for Flagship, and they have less chance of converting to multiplayer subscribers, I can sort of understand why it's not a focus for the devs. I don't agree with it, but I do understand the economic reasons behind their decision.

Overall, the game just isn't done yet, IMO.

When you compare GW to every other MMO out there, you will find that it has little in common with any of them: No endgame, no "powerful" weapons or armor, and an easy level cap. GW lacks a lot of things that MMO players love the most.

In that sense GW is not an MMO. Due to that, MMO is indeed a game genre definition. If it was classification, Team Fortress 2 and Counter-Strike are MMO's, as well.

They released a single player patch yesterday. If you think about it though, the single player game may not make them more money like subscriptions do, but it also doesn't cost them money from people playing online without the subscription.

As to what subscribers get compared to non-subscribers, everyone gets bug fixes and balances, but subscribers gets towns, quests, and explorable areas not available to non-subscribers. They have in the test center right now the first of these areas, Stonehenge, that only subscribing accounts can access. Since I am not a subscriber I can't tell you what is there, but if you go to a fan site I'm sure you can find out.

I really like the variety of weapons in hellgate and the many ways they can be modded. I also like the fact that armor drops for you.

The variety of summons that the summoner can use is very nice. I also like the fact that they live longer and you don't need a dead body around to be able to summon.

For most quests, I can just call up my 4 or 5 summons and do just fine without help. The fact that it scales the difficulty with the number of players helps with soloing.

I also like the way you can combine items to make a minipet and such. That's fun.

On the downside, the environment is very repetitious, I never have enough storage space, and the graphics aren't near as nice as guildwars. And I can't get it to play windowed for me.

It's about time for the singleplayer crowd to get a little consideration. Thanks for the info. I honestly don't know what they're doing anymore since I shelved the game.

Edit: Technically they would cost them some money for the support issues. The MP and SP executables are separate (which is why their release schedules are so different) and Flagship has to pay their people to work on the SP patch as well as the MP one.

Flagship Studios realized that people found some of the tile sets very similar and has promised more of them in either .7 (coming out this week) or 1.0 (coming out late this month or early January).

Also I never had problems with storage, most of the stuff I can't wear and isn't valuable to the merchant so I just break it down to upgrade components so I can update my weapon or armor. Speaking of armor, I have a marksmen and I have to spec into strength a lot to be able to wear any kind of decent armor. They really need to work on that as a marksmen shouldn't have to worry about strength but I don't think it is high on FSS priority list at the moment.

And your welcome Paddywhack.

Flagship has promised more tilesets, but as far as I know (from a quick look at their official forums just now) the 1.0 update will include the Stonehenge location, but no real tileset additions to the base game, which is a big part of the monotony from levels 1-30.

The feed system is one of those ideas that I'm sure sounded good in the bullpen meetings and on paper, but is terrible in practice. 0.7 includes an "adjustment" of the feed requirements, but I don't think it will be enough to offset the general flaw in the system, which is that it's just not fun to adjust your stats to match your items rather than your character concept.

Color me 'meh' on HGL. I may reinstall and check the game out again in six months to see where they are.

The only classification of a MMORPG is that you must play online and you can party up with people (and the moot point that it HAS TO BE A RPG). No endgame is nothing special, all MMORPG has it, even most RPGs. Powerful weapons and armors have been used in the past, and easy level cap is probably nothing new as well. The "general thing people love the most" you are referring to are the core fundamentals of D2 and WOW (D2 is probably one of the earliest).

TF2 and CS are not MMORPGs because they are FPS. They can be classified as MMOFPS, but generally, there is no sub-genres in FPS (I don't know why) so all FPSes are just referred to as FPS. RPG is probably the only genre that has sub-genres. If you think about it, there is no sub-genre for RTS and others as well.

I'll just leave it that because RPG is the most common games out there ever since.

So if you could play off-line in GW it would no longer be an MMORPG? Same with World of Warcraft?

Well, that's my point as to why GW shouldn't be classified as an MMORPG: It's too different. Those are the things MMORPGs are most known for, powerful items and high levels and stuff, and that's why they're popular.

I don't call GW an MMORPG because it doesn't appeal to that crowd. If you give GW to an avid Lineage II or WoW player, they're gonna come back with disappointment. It doesn't have any of the stuff they like. Likewise, you're gonna turn off other RPG players because it's labeled as an MMO, and MMO's are usually filled with a lot of things people hate: Grinds, timesinks, etc. It's a lose-lose situation.

I'm asking because you're basing your reasoning of calling GW an MMO is because it's based off of classification: You must be online to play it, so therefore it's MMO. Since you have to be online with Team Fortress 2 and Counter-Strike, then they must be MMO's as well. But that's not the case. MMO's is a genre in itself now, not a classification. And Guild Wars doesn't fit the mold.

Real-Time Strategy is based off of Strategy games. It was too different from a typical strategy game that it needed it's own subgenre. Maybe GW is doing the same, or it might just be a normal RPG that you play online.

I'm not going to touch any part of your other massive post--it's not worth it, all you're doing is saying the same shit over and over--but this is irrevocably incorrect. There's a reason that the word 'Massively' is in there--it refers to the amount of players that can play together. In WoW, if you wanted to get everyone on a server together, you can, and they'll number in the thousands.

In Guild Wars, you will never see more than twenty-three other people at once in a combat area, and only ninety-nine other people in a town--that's not massive. In Hellgate, those numbers are even smaller.

GW is not an MMO. Hellgate is not an MMO. Diablo 2 is not an MMO. WoW is an MMO.

Well...

I have played GW nearly from the start. And got hellgate when it was released... i also was long time player of diablo 2 lod. So i definitly have the perspective in all regards...

On Kakumei's orginial topics, i agree that GW vs hellgate is a better comparison then GW vs WOW. However, as someone else has already said, Hellgate has a LOT to learn from GW. Right out of the box, the game is a big nasty pile of failure. With a few of the latest patches, the game had become "playable" at that point, but still not impressive.

The saddest thing is that after all the monstrous hype that HGL had, it completely fell short of all expectations. This was one game i had high high hopes for and expected to be impressed, when in fact the opposite has become true in all regards. To name a few::

HGL has:
- unimpressive graphics (dx10 + all high end specs)
- glitchy graphics
- drab and dull graphics
- lacking on character graphic details and equipment
- glitchy interface
- glitchy network

The biggest dissappointment for me was simply the graphics. So blah, so drab and so glitchy. In fact, HGL has actually driven me BACK to diablo 2 lod!!!!!!!!! i mean, when u play a 10 yr old game and find it more fun then a new "cutting edge" game, you know somethings wrong...

However, to be fair, like GW it is gonna be a rocky first few months. They have already fixed some things, but i havent been back to play HGL for a month now. I have also been on sort of a GW hiatus, and instead of playing a great new graphic game, i have been playing a 10 year old game instead... lol.

Anyway, i kinda went on a rant about HGL there, oops.
In the end, GW wins hands down. GW blows HGL graphics out of the water. GW still has better gameplay, game design, graphics, and stability then HGL and i think this probly wont ever change. Sadly, i really feel i wasted my 50 bucks on HGL...

OH well, i'll keep playing d2lod, and i been playing Crysis (GREAT game). Come new years, i will prolly get the itch to dive into GW again. haha.

cheers

I tried Hellgate for a while, and I grew tired of it after a short while. I really didn't feel like it was anything special, at least not in comparison to GW.

It seems this MMO has gone the way of Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, or at least it may be following that direction. That is to say unless they fix their bugs and release additional content to tempt newcomers and to anchor those already playing.

Another problem in terms of bugginess in Hellgate was an annoying car that I kept having to jump over and would get stuck. Sure, there's the /unstuck command, but it takes like 10 seconds to work. Oy.

And Batou: Got TF2? Let's play homie!

No too games are ever going to be that much alike, so, by your reasoning, that would make any comparison of two games "flawed." The OP makes the point that she is comparing two games that are *more similar* in many ways than GW is to WoW.

The fact of the matter is that any comparison between two games that provides useful and interesting information is worthwhile. This one does.

Frankly, I appreciated the comparison and found it very interesting. I am not interested in playing HGL for a number of reasons, not least of which is because it just looks unremittingly dreary and grim from what little I have seen of it.

As another poster has suggested, I'd sooner subscribe to WoW than play HGL for free. Better still, however, I'll just keep playing GW for the time being.

Thanks, Kakumei, for a well-written post.

Update .7? Considering software is not considered a final release until they are confident enough to give it 1.0, I guess they DID release a beta to the public. In that case, I'll wait for the 1.0 version to pass judgment. It explains the plethora of bugs.

I'm certainly not defending HG:L, but in fairness to Flagship, they have explained that the numbering system with regards to patches is different from the norm. Since the first patch on launch day was patch zero, they started numbering from there.

The version number of the game is displayed in the bottom corner of the menu screen. When you fire up HG:L for the first time, even before patching, the version number reads "1.36..." or something like that.

Regardless of the version number, the game is clearly still in Beta. Here are the patch notes from the 0.7 patch that just came out.

Seriously, if you admit that the client-side memory code was completely unstable, then you have a beta product.

Exactly.

I am classifying GW as a MMORPG solely because you can only play online. MMORPG is not the same thing as MMO, there is no such thing. People who say MMO (wrongfully) are saying it as a shortcut to MMORPG. There is no official MMOFPS or MMORTS genres named.... yet. A lot of games would fit these categories, yes, but no one has been using them as far as I can tell. And GW is not the first MMORPG attempting to not base its concepts on powerful items + high level cap.

GW is not the only one with unique prospects like this. Like I said above, I am quoting GW as a MMORPG solely because you can only play online and the fact that it is a RPG. Grinds, timesinks, ect., ironically to your post, exists in GW. It is about the biggest (I argue that it is the ONLY) thing left to do after you "beat" the game. I'd rather have higher level caps and more elite gears to grind if I have to spend the same effort to grind titles. Many people have different opinions as to which sort of grind is better, so I am not going to touch on that.
As for L2 and WOW players, it's because it's a different fundamental concepts, not because genre difference (since there is none). It's like offering CS to a long-time Halo player. In essence, they are both FPS, but they are so different in gameplay that players of both sides might not like the other.

MMO does not exist. There is only MMORPG, which GW classifies into. You actually have to be an RPG to even have a chance to be classified into a MMORPG.

The only type of "war" games I've seen have all been classified under RTS. I am not entirely sure what "Strategy" games are, I am assuming paper-and-pencil or more of a turn-based style like Disciples 2 or Heroes of Might and Magic?

GW is a RPG, not a strategy game, thus it is not doing anything remotely the same. A RPG that you have to play online is a MMORPG, since the entire game must be based on online interaction (why else would you make it online only?). A RPG is just a normal game that you can play in single player where some RPGs might have online options as well. Games like D2 and HG:L are still called RPGs because you can play in single player. You can play online, yes, but you don't have to. You don't ever see people call NWN, BG2, or other familiar games MMORPG.

Just because GW is instanced doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as a MMORPG. Massively Online means you interact with thousands of players. You do that in GW, for example, trading. You are under the influence that in GW, because of the instance and the excessive usage of hench/heroes that GW is not a MMORPG. That is wrong. You can interact with all players in GW, you just can't do it all at once. All MMORPGs have party sizes, like WOW. That doesn't limit you from interact with all players eventually.

In GW, there are only a few servers because of the instance. Most of us that posts in here are all in the NA server. You aren't going to be able to get everyone in your party, and neither can you on WOW.

So? There are no MMORPG out there (for now) that can let you see every player in the game at once in a place. Plus, what is massive? That is a relative term. Just because you don't think is massive doesn't mean other people doesn't.

GW is a MMORPG. I've never said HG:L and D2 are MMORPGs, and WOW is obviously a MMORPG, JUST LIKE GW. Go to any major gaming websites and look at the genre for GW. You've failed to explain the difference that sets GW as not a MMORPG. Just because it has a smaller party size doesn't mean it isn't a MMORPG. Out of all MMORPGs out there, GW does not have the smallest party size. Look at DDO, for example, it only has up to 6 people max in parties. Yes, raids have up to 12, but so does "Elite places" in GW. DDO has always been a MMORPG, and yes, it has instances as well and so does WOW in case you didn't know that.

Your further "reasoning" seem to strengthened the fact that GW is a MMORPG.

I actually enjoyed HG:L because it reminded me of D2 very much, but I'd wouldn't bet it against D3. As for GW, I never played the game for the D2 experience. I know a lot of GW players initially have been, but GW does not have the fundamental concepts that defined D2. Instead, it has its own specialty, but that has somewhat been marred by the increasing erroneous balancing, grinding/time-sink, and the "vision" that is so un-GW (The GW in the beginning) of GW2.
In the end, I don't think you can truly compare HG:L to GW since they aren't even in the same sub-genre. They both are too fundamentally different to be compared. You can't compare a game that is build around online interaction with a heavy PvP focus with a game that is more aligned to solo play and gears and their acquisition.

What? Yes, it does. MMORPG is a sub-genre of MMO.

No, that's exactly why it doesn't qualify.

Which is the entire point.

Who said anything about parties? That's completely irrelevant.

I haven't actually tried, mind, but I don't think there's anything built into WoW that would prevent everyone on a server from coming to the same place at once.

There's little point into actually making a category for GW, as it would be all by itself, for the most part--it's much easier to just lump it in with games that look vaguely like it, and gaming websites aren't renowned for their professionalism and accuracy, on the whole.

I've explained it several times; you've ignored it.

No one said anything about party sizes.

IMO, Hellgate: London should've been an animated film because the trailers were awesome... as a game... eh, maybe not so much.

Stop calling any of these games a RPG. They are just called RPG for marketing reasons, like every single game with warriors/mages/archers/whatever killing monsters/bad guys. Even the Final Fantasy serie is labeled as RPG.

But there has been a single MMORPG in the history of online gaming so far: Ultima Online.

Some games like WoW and DAoC are fantasy MMOG.
Games like Guild Wars, Diablo and Hellgate are fantasy MOG period. Different kinds of games, but not role-playing and not massive.
Role Playing does not exist (and never will, luckily) in games of this kind.

And by role playing I don't mean speaking like a tard, but having the freedom to do whatever you want in a persistent online world. Only Ultima Online achieved this goal so far.

MMOFPS - TF2 and such, but they aren't labeled that, so as far as I am concerned, it doesn't officially exist.

MMORTS - There haven't been a significant game in this "sub-genre" to matter for a long while (I am talking about NEVER).

Thus, MMORPG is the only thing.

Really, because WOW and DDO have it as well, and they aren't the only ones.

Tell me a MMORPG that has that.

Since WOW (the MMORPG prime example you listed) has instance like GW, and you mentioned the part where you can't "interact massively", I'll have to explore all aspects of meeting people. Partying is one of the primary method to do so.

Notice, servers. In WOW, you can't interact with everyone at once due to massive amount of servers. So according to your logic, WOW isn't a MMORPG as well.

I fail to see any difference between GW and WOW (and all the rest of MMORPG) in the concepts of MMORPGs. Every "unique aspects of interaction in GW" you mentioned so far have been found in numerous MMORPGs.

I actually didn't find the film that exciting, but it was well-done graphic-wise. I agree on the part where they should have made a film, but not the weird storyline >_>

Sadly, technology will eventually allow you to explore all aspects in a virtual world. Some people will never get out of the house, or even the virtual world :/

Not really. Role-playing means you are set on a role that is not you. Thus, since it isn't you, you are refrained from doing anything you want. For example, look at actors. They don't act however they want but have to act according to the scripts.


I'll make this more clear:
~Ways to interact in a MMORPG:

1. Partying - In GW, the maximum party size is 8. Some games, like DDO, only hit up to 6. Raiding groups in DDO hits 12, but so does elite areas in GW.
--Not different from a MMORPG.

2. Trading - There is nothing stopping you from trading with every single person in GW. Some would argue that regions would, but you can just switch over (I am awared you can only do it for a limited amount of time).
--Not different from a MMORPG.

3. Instance - There is instance in GW whenever you exit town that only you and your party (if you have any) can explore. It is your own separate zone. DDO has the same thing in special dungeons or quests. WOW has the same thing in special dungeons and quests.
--Not different from a MMORPG.

4. PvP - In GW, you can only have so many people in PvP. Same thing in WOW.
--Not different from a MMORPG.

5. Towns and Districts - Districts stops all players from going to the same town. WOW has servers.
--Not different from a MMORPG.

6. Regions - GW has multiple regions, but you can switch. WOW has servers that you can transfer across, except that you can't go to servers that are full. In this aspect, GW has more "MMORPG" than WOW.
--Not different from a MMORPG.

So, anything else?

There is a HUGE difference between servers and complete instanced gameplay. Compare district sizes to the sizes of servers.

Skill > Time Spent. That right there nearly kicks GW out of the MMO ballpark.

Or Baldur's Gate for that matter.

Same with Diablo. Nothing'll stop you from trading with any one person.

In WoW, servers are set unless you want to pay a fee. But you do have easier access to trade with everyone on your server (besides opposing factions) mainly due to Auction Houses.

But having no persistant areas is quite a huge difference.

Number 4 isn't terribly relavent.

As I've stated, districts =/= servers.

I love Hellgate, but really wish subscriber and non-subscriber servers are separate. Not really into all the ex-GW players wanting to make Hellgate the new guildwars.

I mean Role Playing is doing what you want in that virtual world.
You can be a psycho killer, a mercenary, a good paladin, a thief, a fisherman, you can dance naked all day long for money, you can do nothing but trade. All in a somewhat realistic world, wich you can influence with your actions. You can give your character a personality and stick to it.
This is what I consider a RPG.

There are some key features in every game mentioned in this thread wich prevent them from being considered true RPG's: instanced worlds, global chat (hey I'm talking with some guy but I don't even know where he is), pointless PvP (sure, GW PvP its a lot of fun, but it doesn't effect the world in any way, besides a moving line in Cantha), nothing to do except fightfightfightkillkillkill.

I'm not saying this is good or bad for online gaming. Ultima Online was (is) an amazing game and so is GW. But they are completely different games.

I just don't like the habit to call everything with monsters and wizards a RPG.

You know, playing Hellgate now, there is a thing or two that GW could use from HGL.

Smoothly fitting armor. Any piece of armor will fit seamlessly with any other. That's a nice system.

If Kakumei can make an educated, unbias, nonaggresive comparison between GW and Hellgate, then I demand that I be able to make an educated, unbias, nonaggresive comparison between GW and WoW (or as much as can be compared...)

(And no, I do not play WoW anymore, so I am not inherently in favor of it. I am playing Mass Effect now, and am almost 1000/1000, so meh. I need a new game.)

And AuraOfMana, you are completely wrong on most counts. Bryant is correct.