A Litany of Comparison: GW and Hellgate

Yes there is, but so? Games aren't meant to be the same. Some games have heavy instances like GW and some games have minimum instances. Hell, some games have no instances (like LOTR online) where people line up to kill the boss for quest (which is stupid). Instance doesn't define MMORPGs. Almost all MMORPGs have a degree with it. Say even if you play with H/H the whole time you've played GW, you still have people to interact with. Plus, you still have to go online to play.

Hate to break it to you, but uh, look at the titles. GW PvP does take build making to the next level, but other than that, the skill level in WOW PvP and GW PvP is pretty much the same. WOW follows the tradition of D2 skill building. Keep in mind that D2 and WOW aren't as PvP focused. If you are saying GW PvE takes skills then, you need help.

Yes, except BG can be played in single player and you are meant to control all of your party, which does require relatively more strategy and skill than your average RPG.

Again, I can play Diablo in single player. Until you have managed to play GW in single player (and not hacking into it and running your own server), it remains a MMORPG because I can only play it online.

Exactly, that sounds more restricting in terms of interaction as opposed to GW, and WOW is a MMORPG.

Really? Go check Wikipedia on Instance. It'll show you a list of games that uses instance. It is nothing new. So GW is completely instance, so? You can bring a party of human players. Don't like them? Boot and get new people. There you go, interaction with a lot of people.

OP went "Ohhh GW can have 32 people max in a PvP setting", which he didn't realize that a lot of other MMORPGs have less than that.

Exactly, servers are way more restricting than servers. WOW sounds more restricting in the "MMORPG aspect" than GW.

I don't get what you guys are trying to argue. How is GW not a MMORPG? You can only play online, you can interact with thousands of people, and it is a RPG. What sets it apart? Instance area is nothing new. True, GW is completely instanced, but that doesn't restrict you from interacting with other people. Yes, you can only interact with 7 at max (not going to elite areas), well other MMORPGs have servers, they can't even potentially interact with more people than you do. In WOW, are you going to interact with every single player across all servers at once? I don't think so.

I don't like to call Diablo and other Hack-and-slash games RPG, since there is no interesting quests that define RPG so well, but everyone has his or her own opinions. And we all know some RTSes doesn't deserve to be called RTS.

Hello everyone,

I just skimmed through most of this thread trying to figure out where everything is. I've been playing HGL for a few weeks now and can share these more-recent tid-bits:

1) The graphics have been crappy on other characters due to a memory leak plaguing HGL's rendering engine. To offset the leak, FSS took out the high detail character model setting as a stop-gap measure. The 0.7 patch released this past week fixed the issue... now everyone in HGL looks normal again.

2) HG:L offers life-time membership to those with a beta-code in their account. Instead of shelling out $10/month to play, players can opt for a $150 one time fee and get permanent subscription status. This is VERY risky given the game's current status and FSS's uncertainty, but many have taken the Founder's plunge after seeing the Stone Henge mini-expansion on the HGL test server (due for deployment this January). EDIT: This Founder's offer is only available to those with a beta-code and will only be available until the end of 2007. Those interested in this can still grab a code at www.bgosu.com.

3) HG:L's environment is very repetitive because the randomized map system was not executed nearly as well as D2. Almost every street is the same size/width, building textures rehashed everywhere, enclosed tunnels, etc. This makes the HG:L world very contrained from the player's perspective. The new Stone Henge expansion addresses these concerns, though it won't be available for non-subscribers for quite some time.

4) Yes, HGL is VERY gear dependent, but unlike GW which keeps all gear under heavy restrictions, HGL embraces uber-gear like Diablo1/2/WoW. This makes gear actually worth owning for functionality as opposed to vanity cosmetics. There are benefits and consequences to that game design (especially when PvP is concerned), but frankly, I'm loving the HGL toys a lot more than my GW equivalents. The sheer functionality tailoring of every item definitely runs circles around GW's heavily constrained equipment system. HGL's item level requirements keep "twinking" to a nice minimum as well.

EDIT: Forgot to mention... 5) GW's in-town communication system is far superior to HG:L. GW Player names are hyper-linked for easy communication, while HG:L requires /t <player-name>. This makes socializing and general chat far easier in GW compared to HG:L.

Yes, HGL is more stable now, but the world environment content still doesn't compare to GW. GW's different continents are much more immersive than London underground and burned out surface. GW's quest system offers a lot more than just "Kill monster-X or boss-Y," or "Gather X number of monster-ears," etc.

Despite all these faults, the main reason I'm currently playing more HGL than GW is this: GW1's hourglass is running, and when its sands run out, GW2 will take its place without any significant, tangible benefits for prior GW1 players (unlocks are meh). It's difficult to continue dumping time into GW1 when no gear can migrate over, and frankly, UT3 is giving me a lot more entertainment than GW's PVP arena's. If ANET decides to allow some/more items to migrate over, I'll be happy, but until then, it's pretty difficult to continue gathering items with expiration dates.

Disclaimer: I'm not an RPG PVP fan... too much competition level Quake and UT have seen to that. If I want to PVP, I go where reflexes and aim matter more than skill selections -- the adrenelin rush is so much more addictive in that genre for me.

No it doesn't, but persistancy does. It's the fact that the littlest thing that someone does can actually affect you. It's knowing that someone could die on one side of the continent and you could find his corpse when you pass by there.

In Guild Wars, you trade that persistancy in for other things. You don't get that connected feeling.

I'd agree if you had to put no effort into your build if you could just max out a title and say "k done lol," but that's not the case. If you have a high ranked title and your build sucks, you will lose.

Ursan Blessing may be the slight exception to this, but that's why a lot of people want it nerfed to oblivion and back.

If you're saying that everyone is really good at Guild Wars, then you're being too assuming. Guild Wars takes a much different approach compared to most MMO's.

Okay, so does this mean if these games could only be played online that they'd be MMO's?

This goes waaay back to an interesting thread debate I had with my friend (yes I consider you a friend, Dreamrunner) that talked about the pros and cons of the Guild Wars vs. WoW system. Sure in Guild Wars you're not restricted and you can meet your friend(s) anywhere, but the whole game population is spread apart and cut oh so thin by so many outposts and instancing.

It depends on what you'd rather have: Less boundaries to connect with friends, or a closer knit community?

Ever been to Alterac Valley in WoW? Frikkin' huge. Not to mention that there can be *no* limit to how many people can PvP at a time due to persistancy. The skies the limit, baby.

The gameplay, small emphasis on gear, lack of "more powerful" gear, cut up instancing, and general business model (and how it's success is calculated) are just a few of the things that set it apart. In terms of an RPG, GW is a great success. In terms of an MMO, it's not too hot. Selling 3.5 million copies of your product is really good! But having 1 million (possibly less) active players isn't so great.

While there are a smaller total number of people you can communicate with, there are much better ways of communication. There's a universal party search that scans the whole server for anyone looking to do the instance you want to do, not to mention a party search chat channel that you join automatically when you want to search.

Also when you enter an instance or raid, you can connect to the chat channel of said raid and talk to everyone who's also in that raid. Very helpful for discussion on bosses and the like.

And hey Shar, do you have TF2? Add Bryant Baby!

Yes I have TF2... tried it, even did an all-day LAN party with TF2, but haven't played it since. UT3 Warfare is more my cup of tea. Piloting a Leviathan, Dark Walker (aka war-of-the-worlds tripod walker), and launching hand-held nukes is more my style The speed and quality of the UT3 engine is really something else.

Stabbing people in the back and ruining their shit is *my* style : P I might get UT3 for x-mas thoughs.

It seems like there is a lot of "splitting hairs" going on here.

For me, the main thing that keeps me playing GW is that there's no monthly fee, and the grind is only what I make of it. I played City of Heroes since its launch in '04, and while i really enjoyed it, needing 3+ months of constant playing to reach max level and thus get all your cool powers gets frustrating. I can't even imagine how hard it would be to get a max anything in a game like WoW w/ its ever-increasing level cap.

But enough of that - it's really what you make of it. If you define "role playing" as assuming the roll of a character in a fictional setting, then GW is most definitely an RPG. I'm not sure what more is desired other than that.

There were some posters that mentioned the ability to change the game world; currently, that is only possible w/in the confines of that the developers will allow. You can't overthrow the human leaders in WoW and declare that the Alliance is dead, nor can you permanently kill any key characters. There may be quests where you fight some big bad enemy, but in the end he manages to come back for the next group doing the trial/raid. It's pretty much a given that the status quo be maintained, the only exception being where the developers make some sweeping changes to the game, in which case it was the devs doing the change, not the players.

All in all, we're not going to see the kinds of things people are asking for unless there's a massive online dev or GM team that can assume NPCs at any given time, or AI becomes sufficiently advanced to think on its own...

If you, and only you wrote it, I'd read it.

<3 Zinger <3

I wish I can get free corpses in GW :/ Yeah, someone will affect you in WOW as opposed to GW, but due to the massive servers, it usually isn't a problem in WOW (and the whole instance on important quests + dungeons thing). Of course, there's the thing where everyone likes to do: Hit all monsters once, draw aggro and run. Let other people kill them for you. Phat lewtz.

Same thing in gear-oriented games. Just because you have the better gear, if you didn't build your character right or you just generally have no idea what to do in PvP, you'd be screwed.

Most MMORPGs have loads of idiots like GW as well. It is more evident in GW because it is so team-oriented (and the fact that one idiot = lose in PvP). In WOW, you are expected to farm alone until later game and raiding + w/e.

Lmao.

That usually puts a lot of people off. Even in a solo-oriented game like WOW, people feel more connected, which is just wrong.

That concept > all. The World PvP concept in GW2 sounds familiar. That would own so much.

Yes, the initial GW was a great game. The senseless grinding titles and uninteresting contents added later on (except the BMP) killed the game for me. Not to mention the horrid "balancing".

Go to Kamadan ad1, there is the worst communication on GW ever: Trade Spam.

That's only half of my point. It's the fact that you could see another player die and come back hours later and his corpse could still be there. It's being able to wander by as a lowbie and see an advanced player or group of players take down a particularly tough badguy. It's running into a lowbie having trouble with a lot of monsters and saving his ass.

It's those little things that can really take an impact on your game. In regards to spawn campign and the like, it's generally server and server size dependent. I'd stay away from Illidan, though. Biggest clump of Alliance PvP assholes I've ever seen (need proof?)

It's much easier to pull off in gear oriented games. That's why the test realms in WoW are so popular: You can "test out" unreleased live content by having them give you a free level 70 on the testing realm with the best gear in the game.

You do need a basis of understanding in gear games, but the gear does have the job. In Guild Wars, you need a pretty good grasp of how to set up your party and such to be successful, and you could probably vanquish, complete campaigns, etc. with an unmaxed sword and shield.

Cutting you off right there. WoW is *not* a solo-oriented game.

Wait, why is that bad??

It'd be interesting to see the direction it'll take for that, mostly in terms of balancing: Will they balance it around a team or individually?

"And that's why there's a trade channel" they'd say. Such a shitty bummer that since everyone turns off trade the idiots have to pollute the local channel.

It's rather interesting in WoW, though. Since there's an auction house, there isn't a whole lot of people actually trading in the outposts. Since all trade channels from each major city are connected, it's more like a general chat channel.

WoW is very solo friendly game. Many group quests are soloable when rightly prepared (and class is right). Season 1 gear can be now got with simple BG honor, etc.

It's solo friendly sure (and now more than ever, casual friendly) but is not solo-oriented.

First of all I liked Diablo. Second of all Hellgate London seems really simple and well thats one of the reasons I left WoW due to it's simplicity. I've had enough of simple MMORPG's and thats why I came here. Thats just my two cents.

The only 2 things these 2 games have in common is both are instanced with persistent towns and elite armors can be crafted by the merchants.

Guild Wars is pvp centric while Hellgate is pve centric.
Guild Wars is not about hacknslash, Hellgate is. GW is mission based and has a better storyline.
Hellgate is gear dependant while GW is about skills/builds.
Both business models are completely different. GW is 100% f2p while Hellgate offers f2p and subscription.
GW has been in existance for over 2 years while Hellgate has been out barely 2 months.
Hellgate has single player while GW does not.
The character classes in these games are completely different.
GW uses the monk class to heal while Hellgate uses injectors for heals.

I can probably name more differences but clearly there is more differences than similarities between these two games.

That's the obvious case. It's the core similarities that matter, and the more of those is when the two start to appear more alike.

It's like Heretic and Doom: They're nearly completely different, but it's the fact that they use the same game engine that makes them feel so alike.

HGL - very buggy
GW - not so buggy

I blame EA for that, Roman. *sigh* Another game bites the EA dust.

Just because a game uses the same game engine doesn't make it it's twin. I can't think of any core similarities between hellgate and gw other than what I mentioned in my first sentence.

That's not what me or the OP is saying.

And those are incredibly large points. There's more in the OP, as well.

Just bought the game, and having played it for a few hours i so far agree with everything the OP said. GW has spoiled me... While this looks to be a promising, mindnumbing time waster, I don't see myself getting addicted, or immersed in it like I have GW.

Curious, what level did you get to? I've found HGL's armor to be quite nice, and has the benefit of a dye system affecting all your armor at once for a cohesive look, rather than the mish-mash you get in WoW. But if you only got ot like 15 or 20, yeah the armor is kind of unimpressive, especially for Hunters. But fluff wise they're not supposed to have crazy, extravagant armor doodads, play a Templar if you want to be all shiny and such.

I think people should re-evaluate HGL once 1.0 comes out. Even on the Test Center it's quite impressive, Stonehenge is beautiful and very different from the normal game. I can only imagine it'll get better once the bugs get ironed out and it's put on the normal play servers.

Just checked out Stonehenge and WOW that is gorgeous! I might consider Hellgate for that...

sorry i didnt read that entire thread, there was alot there and im tired! But my 2 cents is im now playing HGL in place of GWs and loving it. Its a fresh change from the fantasy thing and being able to use a gun while casting just rocks.

The two games are very similar, but also very different. The random instances being the main one. But HGL has alot of changes to come including an auction house and its bound to change ALOT in the next year.

It may even come to be a true contender to GWs in terms of content and playability.

Its got me distracted anyway as im a lvl25 engineer at the minute and about 3/4s the way through the game. If anyone sees me pottering about say hi.

But funnily enough it suffers one major issue that GWs does to. The textures on other players armor looks awfull inside towns, but looks nice in instances. Which is a shame because HGL has a good graphics engine. It may be very repetative, but I play it for the mindless chill out factor.

Its a nice mix of FPS and RPG and I enjoy it. If you play HGL expecting wonderfull storyline and lure, u will be disapointed though.