Flagship Studios Announces Hellgate: London

[Brother Laz]

If posting scans of the magazine article is not allowed, would pointing at a post on another forum that has a link to a post on another forum that has links to scans be allowed? :)

[Occhidiangela]

The FPS-Roguelike hybrid... almost makes me think someone still reads my posts. :)

The only thing that really concerns me from this early preview is the promise of 16 (or 32?!) player cooperative support.  I mean, from a marketing standpoint, it is almost mandatory.  Most gamers aren't going to see this issue the same way I do.  I just hope they don't screw the game up trying to make largescale coop worthwhile.  A group of 16 player characters isn't a caving party, it's a bloody infantry division.
[right][snapback]73508[/snapback][/right]

Touche.

In a team that size, SOMEONE has to be in charge, or it is chaos. Heck, look at a football team . . . it's only 11, and things go the dogs rapidly unless there is a leader.


Occhi

[Griselda]

Hey, I'm not morally opposed to the idea of scans being posted. Link to whatever you want. I have seen game companies and magazines get quite cranky about this sort of thing (some scans of Civ 4 got yanked off of CivFanatics pretty quickly, for example), and I'd prefer that we didn't have game companies getting cranky with us.

[Alrin]

Hey, I'm not morally opposed to the idea of scans being posted.  Link to whatever you want.  I have seen game companies and magazines get quite cranky about this sort of thing (some scans of Civ 4 got yanked off of CivFanatics pretty quickly, for example), and I'd prefer that we didn't have game companies getting cranky with us.
[right][snapback]73542[/snapback][/right]

Or, you could simply do a regular google search for the words Hellgate scans - which could possibly lead somewhere. Clearly, if you did find some polish tiscali game site with the scans you would not enter, but that is besides the point. Right?

*wink* Have fun.

[Jarulf]

What I am curious about is, will there be chickens? And if so, will they be server side?

[Bolty]

What I am curious about is, will there be chickens? And if so, will they be server side?
[right][snapback]73775[/snapback][/right]

No! The inevitable question is, will there be a Jarulf's Guide to Hellgate: London?

:P

-Bolty

[Ashock]

No!  The inevitable question is, will there be a Jarulf's Guide to Hellgate: London?

:P

-Bolty
[right][snapback]73778[/snapback][/right]

Jarulf's Guide to Hellgate: London and Hellfire: Rome.



-A

[SetBuilder]

This sounds like a really fun game, I'd say. As long as they don't lag out on the Single Player and LAN support!!

Umm, WoW quest system isn't linear?  D2 quest system isn't linear?  What?!  Granted, WoW does have slightly different paths you can take, but it's still the same outcomes for each individual quest.  I just don't see how they can say the new system is going to be non-linear and then say it's similar to D2's quest system especially.
[right][snapback]72035[/snapback][/right]

Maybe they were smoking some good #$%&? WoW doesn't have a linear quest system. You can take the quests whenever and in whatever order you want. Same quests (as that is the backbone of the game), but your choice how to do them. Don't know what they are talking about comparing to D2.

I'd like to think they are setting a quest system closer to Fallout 2. Realistically, this game sounds more like Fallout 2, or Fallout Tactics than a Diablo style, just with swords and magic rather than guns and mutants.

I just hope they don't screw the game up trying to make largescale coop worthwhile.  A group of 16 player characters isn't a caving party, it's a bloody infantry division.
[right][snapback]73508[/snapback][/right]

Two squads of seven, each squad also having a squad leader (7 troops + SL). Ideally, 34 is the best number in competitive play. That way each team can have two squads, two squad leaders, and a captain. Takes a LOT of practice to be able to work in two squads with eachother, and it's pretty much a requirement you know or at least play with these same people a LOT to get to your fullest potential. That in itself though would make the game EXTREMELY playable.

Tip: Worst team player, best commando is good Captain. EXTREMELY good tacticians a must for squad leaders. If captain no listen to SL's, captain be burned. :D

[Aello]

What I am curious about is, will there be chickens? And if so, will they be server side?
[right][snapback]73775[/snapback][/right]

Well, none are planned. Perhaps it wasn't made clear in the article but the game is set in London, England and not London, Kentucky. Perhaps server-side rats though? Not as cute, but meaty.

[Gregorius]

Maybe they were smoking some good #$%&? WoW doesn't have a linear quest system. You can take the quests whenever and in whatever order you want. Same quests (as that is the backbone of the game), but your choice how to do them. Don't know what they are talking about comparing to D2.
[right][snapback]73958[/snapback][/right]

That's not what Treesh meant. Or at least I don't think it is. WoW's quest system is fairly linear. Yes, you don't have to take all the quests or do them in some prescribed order but...
1. You don't have any bearing on how the quest ends. You can't, for example, choose to return VanCleef's head to Gryan Stoutmantle or to see if the King would give you more for it (considering the disgusting number of quests this would be nightmarish).
2. Many quests continue in a sequential fashion. Taking the letter from VanCleef's body leads you all the way through to the quest where you kill the guy in the library and his roguish informant.
In effect, you're quite constrained by your faction and many other aspects of the way the game is set up. I'm hoping for quests that will, at the least, work like Diablo I where you have a chance to get different quests each time, or even better, like Ogden's Sign from that game (where you have multiple choices, but hopefully it's not like one absolutely sucks!), or even better if which quests you take and how you complete them has a bearing on the rest of your story.

[SetBuilder]

or even better if which quests you take and how you complete them has a bearing on the rest of your story.
[right][snapback]73961[/snapback][/right]

That's what I'm hoping for. Just like the Fallout 2 quest system. And if you are talking about a land with many cities or forts or whatever, going the fallout style and telling how your journey, your decisions, and the quests you a. completed and b. how you completed them affected each of those key areas... Would be killer. Especially when you are talking about a magic-based RPG, with FPS capability, vs. a guns/technology based RPG.

[Nystul]

Two squads of seven, each squad also having a squad leader (7 troops + SL). Ideally, 34 is the best number in competitive play. That way each team can have two squads, two squad leaders, and a captain. Takes a LOT of practice to be able to work in two squads with eachother, and it's pretty much a requirement you know or at least play with these same people a LOT to get to your fullest potential. That in itself though would make the game EXTREMELY playable.
[right][snapback]73958[/snapback][/right]

OK, so we're in the secret cellar of some historical building in London, fighting who knows what. We've got two squads of 8 people, involving different skills that complement each other extensively. One can fight on the other's flank, if the architecture allows it. Now if you were designing the level with this concept in mind (and keep in mind, you may actually be designing a random room algorithm and list of random enemies), do you really think it's going to be an interesting tactical level in single player mode as well? For that matter, is it even going to be playable with 1-4 players? You can't really tie level generation to number of players, unless you lock every game at creation. So at most, you can make lame changes to enemy difficulty, or you can put in an triggered or timed enemy spawn system.

I fear it will lead to a game that is more akin to Diablo 2 or WoW than Diablo (or a good single player FPS, or Angband for that matter), and that concerns me. Because I'm still playing Diablo and Angband, and I pretty much gave up on D2 and WoW a long time ago. But then again, there is nothing in D2 that is really balanced for more than ~3 players and very little of WoW is balanced for more than 5...

[SoulEdge]

Well, none are planned.  Perhaps it wasn't made clear in the article but the game is set in London, England and not London, Kentucky.  Perhaps server-side rats though?  Not as cute, but meaty.

More like pigeons. :P

[SetBuilder]

OK, so we're in the secret cellar of some historical building in London, fighting who knows what.  We've got two squads of 8 people, involving different skills that complement each other extensively.  One can fight on the other's flank, if the architecture allows it.   Now if you were designing the level with this concept in mind (and keep in mind, you may actually be designing a random room algorithm and list of random enemies), do you really think it's going to be an interesting tactical level in single player mode as well?  For that matter, is it even going to be playable with 1-4 players?  You can't really tie level generation to number of players, unless you lock every game at creation.  So at most, you can make lame changes to enemy difficulty, or you can put in an triggered or timed enemy spawn system.

I fear it will lead to a game that is more akin to Diablo 2 or WoW than Diablo (or a good single player FPS, or Angband for that matter), and that concerns me.  Because I'm still playing Diablo and Angband, and I pretty much gave up on D2 and WoW a long time ago.  But then again, there is nothing in D2 that is really balanced for more than ~3 players and very little of WoW is balanced for more than 5...
[right][snapback]73980[/snapback][/right]

Not really. If you think about it, D2 has a difficulty modifier. The more people in a game, the more difficult it becomes, and the more team play is emphasized. How hard could it be to do the same thing on this?

[Jarulf]

Well, none are planned.  Perhaps it wasn't made clear in the article but the game is set in London, England and not London, Kentucky.  Perhaps server-side rats though?  Not as cute, but meaty.
[right][snapback]73960[/snapback][/right]

Well, serverside rats seems ok, but admit it, chickens would be much more fun. You know, they are found in this hard to find room, accessible in a small and dark alley, behind a pile of rubish (some would call this a secret room or something). Be aware though, I heared they are killer chickens!!!

Have fun!!

[Nystul]

Not really. If you think about it, D2 has a difficulty modifier. The more people in a game, the more difficult it becomes, and the more team play is emphasized. How hard could it be to do the same thing on this?
[right][snapback]73986[/snapback][/right]

I would contend that D2 is not a very well balanced game in any sense of the word. I mean, I don't know if this is still the case, but when D2 first came out, it was considered standard practice to enter an 8 player game and then solo. So that suggests to me that not only was "players 8" not hard enough for a well-coordinated 8 player squad, but it was scarcely hard enough for a single player. In the meantime the 8 player squad was probably doing about 20 times as much damage per second as the single player, and each squad member obviously had much less exposure to harm. Combine that with absolutely zero friendly fire or negative effects on teammates of any sort, and it is hard for me to see how an 8 player squad (variants not included, of course) could have even a slight bit of difficulty in the areas intended for their level. Then of course, D2 had the gap between the legions of easy mobs and the one cheesy boss here and there that gives you fits.

[Jarulf]

Not really. If you think about it, D2 has a difficulty modifier. The more people in a game, the more difficult it becomes, and the more team play is emphasized. How hard could it be to do the same thing on this?
[right][snapback]73986[/snapback][/right]

I would hardly quallify "more hitpoints" as a real difficulty modifier though. Sure, makes it a bit harder more difficulty?

[SetBuilder]

I would hardly quallify "more hitpoints" as a real difficulty modifier though. Sure, makes it a bit harder more difficulty?
[right][snapback]74064[/snapback][/right]

But that capability is what you're looking for. And what's more, having it set for more hitpoints would actually be accurate, seems to me. As you don't really have anything too much better than you would, there's just more of you. So they should be able to survive more. If some of the specials were to hit harder, you'd die in a single hit against them, every time.

Really though, it's again the capability I'm referring to. If you can change hit points, experience given, maybe the types of baddies spawned, how large the groups spawned are, and the standard sizes of buildings, AI group tactics...

There are definately ways to play with it.

[Occhidiangela]

I would contend that D2 is not a very well balanced game in any sense of the word.  I mean, I don't know if this is still the case, but when D2 first came out, it was considered standard practice to enter an 8 player game and then solo.  So that suggests to me that not only was "players 8" not hard enough for a well-coordinated 8 player squad, but it was scarcely hard enough for a single player.  In the meantime the 8 player squad was probably doing about 20 times as much damage per second as the single player, and each squad member obviously had much less exposure to harm.  Combine that with absolutely zero friendly fire or negative effects on teammates of any sort, and it is hard for me to see how an 8 player squad (variants not included, of course) could have even a slight bit of difficulty in the areas intended for their level.  Then of course, D2 had the gap between the legions of easy mobs and the one cheesy boss here and there that gives you fits.
[right][snapback]74024[/snapback][/right]

D2 had synergy in spades in the early days. The compounding effect of the abilities between Battle Cries, Auras, Static Field, Amp Damage, etc . . . really made a team effort lethal.

This allows naked teams to succeed, which is nice I think. :)

Occhi

[whyBish]

This allows naked teams to succeed, which is nice I think. :)

Occhi
[right][snapback]74112[/snapback][/right]

Is that the military philosophy? :P