Curse

keli · May 10, 2007, 08:04 PM // 20:04

pathetiiiiiic this guy is absolutely jealous for gw thats all, (i dont think he played with gw, not even with hellgate duh)

AlienFromBeyond · May 10, 2007, 08:06 PM // 20:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

HGL looks like traditional level & item grind diablo clone.

Oh the irony.

And anyone who thinks Guild Wars' PvE is anything but pure grind is totally deluding themselves. Titles = ultimate timesink.

Personally, I'm really looking forward to Hellgate: London. I probably won't have any time left over for Guild Wars after it, unless it truly just sucks. Then I'll be going to Mythos. Or Super Smash Brothers Brawl. Or Spore.

Knightsaber Sith · May 10, 2007, 08:14 PM // 20:14

Alright, alright- let's just calm down. Now I'm a regular at GWG and HGG and I can tell you Sulfuric just has a little overzealous fanboy-ism going on. I don't think he's ever actually played GW and the majority of the HG:L community doesn't agree with what he's said.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Eldin · May 10, 2007, 08:21 PM // 20:21

Wow, sad. I also hate all those other people agreeing. I agree with Diablo - many of those statements are false or biased against us.

Just forget about them. Let them wallow in their squalor.

This is like my friend who can only list stupid reasons for why WoW owns GW, such as:
-NO JUMPING!!
-NOMOUTHMOVINWTF (this was prior to Nightfall)
-No awesum potionz
-NO JUMPING!!

Miral · May 10, 2007, 08:21 PM // 20:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenRgy

Guild Wars is a PvP-focused game.
Hellgate: London is a PvE-focused game.

That point alone tells me HGL sucks.

really? tells me HGL might be worth lookin into if the devs are actually about pve over pvp...

though I'm not digging the optional subscription to get better gear

lakatz · May 10, 2007, 08:27 PM // 20:27

It's okay lawnmover. It just seems to me that one I-forgot-to-take-my-ritalin-this-morning guy, BrigAce, who said "that sums it up... in lament terms" rather than "layman's terms," that seemed to be really hateful. And I can imagine that as soon as he doesn't get whatever he thinks HGL owes him, he'll hate HGL as well. You know.

And the OP doesn't appear to have spent much time in GW. Some of his points are incorrect... like the one about 1st person mode, for instance. But he doesn't really diss GW like the other posters there do.

Thanks so much for posting that. It was interesting.

RHEDD!

Hi...

I'm curious. What is your specialty in game dev? Or what did you do on HGL anyway? Since you were talking about the graphics looking like cutting room floor product, I'm wondering if you aren't a texture artist or environment designer or something like that?

Shadis · May 10, 2007, 08:33 PM // 20:33

Our comments will mean nothing to them. The best thing to do is to save the entire topic from that board, tuck it away somewhere, then throw it back in their faces 4 or 5 months after HGL's release. Right around the time the honeymoon is over and they are all complaining about everything possible in that game.

Knightsaber Sith · May 10, 2007, 08:40 PM // 20:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miral

really? tells me HGL might be worth lookin into if the devs are actually about pve over pvp...

though I'm not digging the optional subscription to get better gear

Just to let ya know, the "elite" gear that you can get as a subscriber is only better in appearance, not stats.

lakatz · May 10, 2007, 08:41 PM // 20:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadis

Our comments will mean nothing to them. The best thing to do is to save the entire topic from that board, tuck it away somewhere, then throw it back in their faces 4 or 5 months after HGL's release. Right around the time the honeymoon is over and they are all complaining about everything possible in that game.

Wow... I really don't care what anyone thinks of my comments, and I didn't write anything here for anyone but the people I addressed in my comments. Plus I've learned some interesting things in this thread, and I've posted a question to one of the writers here from whom I'd like to learn more. So I sincerely hope this thread isn't tucked away anywhere and is left as is.

Perspectives are interesting things aren't they... so varied.

Lawnmower · May 10, 2007, 09:21 PM // 21:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knightsaber Sith

Just to let ya know, the "elite" gear that you can get as a subscriber is only better in appearance, not stats.

Yeah.

I understood it like, Elite subscribers are able to be more powerful than non paying customers though.

I heard there will be some kind of "soft lvl cap" thing where only paying members can really advance.

From bill ropers words, gamespy article; " If you think of it as more of an MMO, you think "Great, I got this MMO that comes with an offline version that I can play by myself and a whole way to play for free that is basically a trial period that lasts forever, instead of two weeks.""

trial period that lasts forever?

maybe gws server technology is more incredible and uniqe than we ever realised. perhaps no one can do the same thing gw does for us for free.

Spazzer · May 10, 2007, 09:26 PM // 21:26

Quote:

And...one last thing? Hellgate: London will more than likely sell millions and have millions play. What's Guild Wars' number? Certainly not in the millions, I'll tell you that.

What a gem.

Theus · May 10, 2007, 09:35 PM // 21:35

So..you can play the game offline like Diablo 2 huh..

Then I guess that means you have all the means to create duping hacks like that of Diablo 2 too huh..

Yeah.That sounds Subscription worthy.

Kook~NBK~ · May 10, 2007, 09:38 PM // 21:38

I found the guy's credibility shot when he mentioned how many people bought/play GW.

After that, I found the whole thing laughable.

But whatever. Neither game has sharks with lazers attached to their heads, so they both must suck.

Age · May 10, 2007, 09:41 PM // 21:41

Good for them Guild Wars needs more competion to keep their players.

Miral · May 10, 2007, 09:43 PM // 21:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knightsaber Sith

Just to let ya know, the "elite" gear that you can get as a subscriber is only better in appearance, not stats.

one can hope so, but it never turns out that way.

as for offline play... that will be great, during times like this when theres huge server problems and 32000ping lag spikes >.<

Spazzer · May 10, 2007, 09:44 PM // 21:44

That Sulfuric guy's constant repeating of "I'll tell you that" kind of reminds me of Larry The Cable Guy and his "I tell you what".

Tenma · May 10, 2007, 10:16 PM // 22:16

Personally, I don't think that the #2 mmorpg on the planet will be outbested that easily. That's just my 2 cents though.

Don't get me wrong, I think that HGL will be a nice MMORPG, just like Titan Quest, that is also a nice MMORPG. Guild Wars however, is an awesome MMORPG.

Who cares about some fanboys from a game that hasn't even be released anyway. Isn't every shooter being compared to the CounterStrike series? Isn't every RTS being compared to the Command and Conquer series?

EDIT: Oh, and to make everyone feel better, I will go through his points real quick.

1: Errm... no... it is true that GW has a very good PvP system.. but who says that the developers focused everything on PvP?
2: If you would want to play "a fully functional single-player mode with at least 30 hours of storyline-driven gameplay." I suggest you buy Oblivion.. it has about 3 times as much.. COME ON why would you buy an MMORPG for single player?
3: Yeah, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is supposed to have NPC's with uber AI that can even finish the game before you can....
4: Yes this is true, you often need variety in your party and a strategic build to win. Oh, I'm sorry? did you mean it was a bad thing?
5: GW also has some areas that are constant, I can freely walk from the portal of Kamadan from the portal of Sunspear Great hall.. isnt that awesome?
6: GW has any perspective, without exceptions.
7: WRONG, GW has WSAD AND point-click controls..
8: Yes, the content of GW was updated very often... oh.. this is also supposed to be a bad thing... my bad
I played GW for 23 months and I spend about 135 euro's on it, if I would play HGL for 23 months I would've payed 230 euro's on fees + the cost of the game itself

revelation · May 10, 2007, 10:31 PM // 22:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eldin

This is like my friend who can only list stupid reasons for why WoW owns GW, such as:
-NO JUMPING!!
-NOMOUTHMOVINWTF (this was prior to Nightfall)
-No awesum potionz
-NO JUMPING!!

Hahaha,that was hilarious XD

Guild Wars is still awsome game to play, whatever people say...

Knightsaber Sith · May 10, 2007, 10:32 PM // 22:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theus

So..you can play the game offline like Diablo 2 huh..

Then I guess that means you have all the means to create duping hacks like that of Diablo 2 too huh..

Yeah.That sounds Subscription worthy.

That's why they removed LAN play from the game. It's quite possible someone could make such hacks for offline play. But they wont be able to make them for online play anymore than they can for GW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawnmower

Yeah.

I understood it like, Elite subscribers are able to be more powerful than non paying customers though.

I heard there will be some kind of "soft lvl cap" thing where only paying members can really advance.

From bill ropers words, gamespy article; " If you think of it as more of an MMO, you think "Great, I got this MMO that comes with an offline version that I can play by myself and a whole way to play for free that is basically a trial period that lasts forever, instead of two weeks.""

trial period that lasts forever?

maybe gws server technology is more incredible and uniqe than we ever realised. perhaps no one can do the same thing gw does for us for free.

Yeah, they said at launch subscriber lvl cap may be just a little higher then non-subscribers. But with large content updates every three months for subscribers, the cap will be raised now and then. The non-subscriber cap could be raised at some point, but not as high and not as often.
But the soft cap at launch will be around 35-40, it's not like they stop you at 10 or anything. Basically, the free online play is intended to be identical to offline play, except online. The premium online play option on the other hand, has bonus features not available offline and will be updated with more content periodically. They have stated they're considering releasing expansion packs encompassing a couple of the subscriber content updates for those who don't actually want to subscribe, but such details are still up in the air.

And just another nifty feature if anyone's interested, you can download your online characters for play offline! Though obviously you can't update your online character with any progress you've made offline.

tenshi_strife · May 10, 2007, 11:08 PM // 23:08

lol.... this sounds like a wow rant *my step bro plays wow i hear this alot*

my arguement

play gw then say this, oh wait people that play gw.... like gw hum lol. anywho no more dissing on a game thats not even out, ill wait till it comes out and we have GWEN of GW2 and have hard facts to compare as of now this is dumber than argueing if fruits could fight which would win....

my vote is on lemons ^^