Curse

Paddywhack · Dec 19, 2007, 10:05 PM // 22:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by wetsparks

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.

AuraofMana · Dec 19, 2007, 10:47 PM // 22:47

Quote:

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.

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.

Bryant Again · Dec 20, 2007, 04:06 AM // 04:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraofMana

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).

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraofMana

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).

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraofMana

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraofMana

If you think about it, there is no sub-genre for RTS and others as well.

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.

Kakumei · Dec 20, 2007, 12:40 PM // 12:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraofMana

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).

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.

Batou of Nine · Dec 21, 2007, 05:43 AM // 05:43

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

RedNova88 · Dec 21, 2007, 06:43 AM // 06:43

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.

Bryant Again · Dec 21, 2007, 06:50 AM // 06:50

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!

tmr819 · Dec 21, 2007, 02:33 PM // 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyree

This means that this topic is flawed to because GW an HG:L are completely diferent games either.

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.

Clarissa F · Dec 21, 2007, 03:10 PM // 15:10

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.

Paddywhack · Dec 21, 2007, 03:29 PM // 15:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarissa F

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.

Quote:

We’re very excited at the progress we’ve made in the first few weeks of the game’s life. We’re also appreciative of how honest and forthcoming our community has been with their feedback. It is our earnest desire and goal to make Hellgate: London better and better. We hope that this is evident in our continued efforts and support of the game and our players.

While this has some great new features, it has more importantly addressed our biggest outstanding issue. We have rewritten our memory manager and also identified two key memory issues. This should make an enormous difference to the vast majority of our players. The cheer that went up around the office was probably heard for miles. The instability of the client is something that has embarrassed and bothered us since the game launched, and we are incredibly happy to be able to address it in such a substantive way before the holiday break.

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

AuraofMana · Dec 22, 2007, 11:03 AM // 11:03

Quote:

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

Exactly.

Quote:

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 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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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?

Quote:

Maybe GW is doing the same, or it might just be a normal RPG that you play online.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

In WoW, if you wanted to get everyone on a server together, you can, and they'll number in the thousands.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Kakumei · Dec 22, 2007, 11:28 AM // 11:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraofMana

MMO does not exist.

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

Quote:

Just because GW is instanced doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as a MMORPG.

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

Quote:

You can interact with all players in GW, you just can't do it all at once

Which is the entire point.

Quote:

You aren't going to be able to get everyone in your party, and neither can you on WOW.

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

Quote:

There are no MMORPG out there (for now) that can let you see every player in the game at once in a place.

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.

Quote:

Go to any major gaming websites and look at the genre for GW.

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.

Quote:

You've failed to explain the difference that sets GW as not a MMORPG.

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

Quote:

Just because it has a smaller party size doesn't mean it isn't a MMORPG.

No one said anything about party sizes.

Some Guru Named Kai · Dec 22, 2007, 12:20 PM // 12:20

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

Mahanaxar · Dec 22, 2007, 12:43 PM // 12:43

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.

AuraofMana · Dec 22, 2007, 01:27 PM // 13:27

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

Which is the entire point.

Tell me a MMORPG that has that.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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 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.

Quote:

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

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 >_>

Quote:

Role Playing does not exist (and never will, luckily) in games of this kind.

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 :/

Quote:

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.

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?

Bryant Again · Dec 22, 2007, 03:05 PM // 15:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraofMana

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraofMana

I fail to see any difference between GW and WOW (and all the rest of MMORPG) in the concepts of MMORPGs.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraofMana

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.

Or Baldur's Gate for that matter.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraofMana

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.

But having no persistant areas is quite a huge difference.

Number 4 isn't terribly relavent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraofMana

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

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

Engel the Fallen · Dec 22, 2007, 04:00 PM // 16:00

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.

Mahanaxar · Dec 22, 2007, 04:54 PM // 16:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraofMana

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 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.

Iuris · Dec 22, 2007, 05:16 PM // 17:16

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.

Zinger314 · Dec 22, 2007, 05:24 PM // 17:24

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.