Talk:Hellgate: London/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Hellgate: London. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

hellgate

As far as instanced games charging a monthly fee Hellgate is not the first. Phantasy Star Online on the DC/GC/Xbox and Phantasy Star Universe on the PC/Xbox360 charge a monthly fee and are completely instanced.

This article is more about diablo II than hellgate, the word diablo is mentioned around 20 times and the word hellgate is mentioned around 14 times. This article is complete garbage, its a disgrace that this article is not flagged to be completely re-written. 220.238.123.44 10:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiplayer free?

I heard they were charging for this, either way it should probably be explicatively stated in the article.

Its made by the some of the guys that made Diablo 2 so it should have free online gaming.

^ How is that any validation for argument? Past that, this is no place for stating one's opnion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.64.140 (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You can play it for free online, but paying $10/mo gives you access to premium features like new weapons, armors, socketed armors, new affixes, new dungeons, harder monsters, quests for ultimate items, higher experience dungeons and a higher character level cap, as well as hardcore, pvp, shared item storage and more than 3 character slots. You will also need to pay to receive ongoing content updates and patches. In other words, you can play it without paying a monthly fee, but you will miss out on most of the fun. 157.193.59.71 12:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Doesn't even seem worth buying now with all you lose by not subscribing.

I can't find any websites with the game for free... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.21.197 (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted content?

Hmm, the Factsheet in this article is identical to the equivalent part written here: http://www.rpgcodex.com/gamedetails.php?id=329. Now, the question is just -- did they copy Wikipedia (then it's no problem), or did an editor here copy that page? Another thing pointing towards someone having been paste happy around here is that we see common lack-of-editing issues from pasting, like this:

"Character Classes Fight against the demons of the underworld as one of several unique character classes."

"Hell on Earth Battle against a wide variety of demonic enemies"

The list goes on and on, and as you can see, there are no periods separating the "Character Classes" above from the sentences, making me believe much of this was blantantly ripped from a web site where the layout and font styles used was lost. The large bulk of content in question came all at once here, only 3 minutes after this edit from the same author. So it must be either pre-written or taken from somewhere with or without permission. Can someone clarify what this "Factsheet" is all about for me, preferrably the author? Copyrighted content from other web sites in articles here is a serious matter. -- Jugalator 18:12, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Removed the content for now, replaced it with the possible copyright violation template. Jacoplane 19:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Updating with pointer to http://www.hellgateguru.com/factsheet.php, since I now believe that's where it came from originally. That fan site also had that exact text, and the same editor did at the same edit session as this add an external link to the hellgateguru.com fansite. Also, this time even the section name "Factsheet" matches. It could be the webmaster giving us the rights to use this freely as a nice gesture, but it could be someone entirely else; I've only got an IP address of the editor too. I'll see if I can contact the guys at hellgatguru.com and resolve this one to either add back the content if we have permission, or permanently remove the content. Thanks for showing me there's a violation template for these things; I seem to have missed that myself. -- Jugalator 13:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

OK, the copyright owner is Sol Invictus, site admin of HellgateGuru.com who took the liberity to improve the article as he thought it looked a bit sparse. So by posting it here himself, I assume he's complying to the GNU License and everything is fine. I'll add it back now and update the Copyright Issues article accordingly. He used to be of RPG Codex staff too, so that explains why they have the content as well! -- Jugalator 17:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Article or Shill?

I find it hard to feel like a game that hasn't shipped yet can really be deemed noteworthy. This feels less like a legitimate article and more like a shill.

Many, many games that are not yet released have an article on wikipedia. They contain the (sometimes sparse, agreed) information that has been gathered from various different sources. I think it can't be denied that this is useful and fits the criteria for a good article. Theroachman 06:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm behind quite a few edits in this article and sure hope I'm not endorsing the game, but keeping it NPOV. :-) I try to keep it all at an informal level, and the least I want is to appear as a shill. The intention is simply to have a good article base for when the game is released, by using content revealed already by now. One section I believe look a bit biased and out of place is the "fact sheet" at the bottom of the article. It was added by a fansite owner early on to give the article some substance, but I think it's starting to feel it has at least partially played out its role a bit with less "ad" feeling material available elsewhere now. I'm personally a bit unsure what to do with it (merge with other content?) as I don't want to lose information, and that's why I haven't done anything to it yet. I do believe this game by now has enough factual content revealed for an encyclopedia article though. -- Jugalator 01:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I refer you to the article on Diablo II in wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_II (or check out Moby Games if you prefer a more objective source, http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/diablo-ii/credits). The credits list cites Stieg Hedlund as the designer of that game, so statements like: "... not only worked on, but were the principle designers and visionaries of the Diablo series." might be overreaching, as well as sounding suspiciously like marketing speak.

perhaps that is a little over the top without any sources, but even then it's far from calling it an ad. just look around wiki there are many articles on upcomming games, some with way less chance of actually finishing then this one. Boneyard 14:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit of a race-to-the-bottom argument, that just doesn't hold water for me. Removing bias seems to be a pretty hot-button issue for wikipedia, and while I'm positive there are other instances, and likely even more egregious ones, you have to start somewhere.

I'm well aware of the machine generated MobyGames database. :-) I've now made a round of edits in attempts to make it more NPOV, so please check it out and comment if you're still concerned about some sentences, or else I'll remove the NPOV tag in a while. Thanks for your input! :-) -- Jugalator 21:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's considerably better. I'm still not sure about "luminary" Roper, but thanks for listineing to my feedback.

You've got the wrong Kenneth Williams, and even if you had the right one, I'm not sure he's notable.

I've edited the intro paragraph and rewrote it for some reasons. First, explained what all people did before more precisely in turn to explain why this game share Diablo's spirit in a number of ways. Also, removed "game industry luminary" bias and tried to make it more clear that the persons listed were co-founders of FSS, and not all creators of the Diablo series (Ken Williams wasn't). I thought myself it was a bit unclear on this before. Also changed "include" to "are", because these are all founders, not a subset. -- Jugalator 17:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Technically Eric and Dave created the Diablo series. Max and the others did not. Max was working on an unreleased football title for most of the development of Diablo, Ken had nothing to do with game development and Bill was in Irvine, and could be said to have influenced Diablo's creation, but even that's a stretch.

OK, I made it more accurate according to this info. -- Northgrove 07:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I remove the Fact Sheet?

The fact sheet is basically just emotional advertising for this game with no real encyclopaedic value or content. Ok if I remove it?

Remove it! There is no fact sheet in an encyclopedia that is written in an imperative style. --87.123.58.192 17:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the fact sheet was just put here by a webmaster while this article was otherwise considerably lacking information, but now I think the rest had outgrown the quality of that part and it felt out of place in an article like this to me. -- Northgrove 18:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Based items

"Hellgate: London will heavily use a randomized item system of at least about 100 base items, with a pool of random special properties applied to them, to achieve replayability and promote item collection."

Just a question, what does this mean. I am sure this dosent mean there will only be 100 items?

It means there will be 100 base items like differnt guns and armor types. But every item should have differnt +stats or damage/armor values. Like you might get 2 of the same "shotgun" weapon but one will deal more damage or have differnt buffs on it. It will be very much like the item system of Diablo but it is still early to for it to be finalized.--70.17.203.220 17:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no 100 based item, but 100 based weapons! Just answering your questions.

Source Code stolen

Ivan confirmed that HGL source code was stolen but that the incident wouldnt delay the game. Asososocrates

I wonder if this is a notable enough incident in this game's history to be brought up in the article. Possibly under a section like "Source code incident" or something. But if so little information about this has been released that we can just post a sentence on it or so based on a news site, maybe it's not of much use. -- Northgrove 18:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, he has not confirmed that the HGL source code was stolen. It was an unverified rumor that was later quashed when no further news about the 'code theft' surfaced. It's been several months now. There's no need to post up what amounts to little more than a rumor started by an uncredible news site. -- 219.93.175.66 11:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Guilds?

Should this article even have a guild section? Isn't that basically an invitation to link spam? Are game community groups really encyclopedic? -- Northgrove 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the guild section. It's unnecessary and there are far more guilds than those listed on this wiki. As you said, a guild section is an open invitation to spam, as once the game enters beta or is released, there are bound to be dozens of new entries -- 219.93.175.66 11:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Characters comparation with Diablo 2

" The first is a melee-combat type character referred to as the "Templar". This character is similar to the "Barbarian" character in Diablo 2. "

Wouldn't that be the Paladin? Since the Templar will have auras and such.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.225.191.178 (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

It's actually a combination of both the Templar and Barbarian classes. Aesthetically, it's similar to the Templar, but in terms of how the class is played - it's a lot like a Barbarian when it comes to active skills and attacks. SolInvictus 22:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

New Screens/Info

http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3158946

Some screens, and a little info on Skill system etc. --68.209.227.3 19:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Summer?!

Whose summer?! I really hate when people put seasons as dates on articles, I have no idea when this is getting released. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.10.86.63 (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Since they're located in North America, North America summer, or Q2 2007. VegJed 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced it with "Q2-Q3 2007" - Wikipedia isn't just for people in the northern hemisphere. 203.59.142.189 06:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Constantly refrencing Diablo.

Why is it that this article constantly references to Diablo and Diablo 2. They were not the first ever Action RPG's. And while yes some things are similar, making comparisons constantly over every little detail seems out of place, Especially for a game that is not even released yet and could potentially be completely different in all aspects. Can someone please clean this up it just doesn't sit right.

The references to Diablo are mainly due to the fact that the developers themselves envisioned this as an FPS Diablo. Though not a direct sequel, it is a sort of spiritual sequel to the Diablo series, and since the team contains many of the elements from the Diablo team, they themselves have made these comparisons.

I cleaned up the unnessesery references, "Like/Unlike Diablo 2: [Fact about Hellgate: London]" — Shadaez 21:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A considerable amount of "spells" some characters were taken from Diablo. One could see this game as Diablo III. Centuries have passed, man advanced, lost the old ways and now hell has come back.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations badly needed!

This article is in desperate need of citations, lots of citatoins. The Wikipedia guideline on citing sources says, "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." So pretty much any editor can wander by and say, "You know, I'm not sure I believe that," delete about 90% of the article and be completely within guidelines. I'm sorely tempted to do so myself, since the game hasn't been released and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Alan De Smet | Talk 14:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to remember where one first saw a news item three months ago. Things should get better once the game is actually released. Brother Laz 12:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Editors usually don't randomly delete stuff without bring it up to dispute first, and if they do you can just as easily revert the changes. If you're going to delete something say so and explain the reasoning. Usually it's possible to just type in word for word what is said and find what you're looking for. I did find a quote that really stood out since it's not based on any fact at all:

"Finally, this pricing decision moves the game into more direct competition with the popular World of Warcraft, which dominates the monthly fee massively multiplayer online role-playing game genre."

The revenues for WoW clearly shows that it dominates the mmorpg genre, not to mention the fact that the expansion is the quickest/most sold game in PC gaming history AND WoW has the MOST subscribers worldwide for any mmo ever, EVER. I don't see why this needs a citation, the fact that WoW is dominating the market is pretty common fact in gaming culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.173.92 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that world of Warcraft dominates the MMO market, but Hellgate is not an MMO. Hellgate is a single-player game with supplemental online material. Hellgate isn't even in the same category as WoW. WoW is an RPG while Hellgate London is a shooter with RPG elements which could be closer related to System Shock 2 or Planetside.

To be honest, the pricing section reads a lot more like a student research paper using self-brewed theories. Though I do not understand why the statement "(Instancing) generates far less server load, with users' computers doing much of the work" since there is an entire article on Wikipedia that explains the reasoning for Instancing and the statement is basically a reiteration of the article Instance dungeon. 74.161.2.121 00:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

--Indeed. There is a lot of unsubstantiated accusation towards the game and the overall undertone is incredibly poorly written. Setsunakute 05:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Release date

It's an estimate based on retailers and not a final date as announced by FSS in a press release. Nothing tells this is the case in the article and people may mistake the origin of the date is based on something definite from FSS. Actually, Tyler Thompson said during E3 2007 that they were shooting for something in the Summer, but that they would add time to the schedule if they deem it's necessary. I think a more cautious Q4 2007 would be more suitable until we have a date confirmation from them. — Northgrove 01:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll just go ahead and add "(estimate)" to it on my own. I just think it shouldn't say plainly "Release date: X" as it may give the impression it's final. — Northgrove 23:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

And just days after I edited that, the release date was announced. :-) Updated again. — Northgrove 16:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent

This section is dated and should be removed. We already know what the release date is, and gameplay videos are now released. — Shadaez 21:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the playboy section is so small and their's one line of information, it would be better suited for a Trivia type section like in most other articles — Shadaez 21:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the Recent section and also change around the playboy/book/comic sections — Shadaez 08:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Gameplay

the gameplay section is..well..completely wrong, only one class plays like a first person shooter, the others do not. They don't even have a first person view — Talios 21:22, September 2007 (UTC)

Not true, all 6 classes can equip guns and fire them like a FPS.--71.179.106.51 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Worts Leg?

Wort's Leg. Now Thats creative enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.233.247.10 (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no "hunter"

It's called Marksman in hellgate london or at least according to my beta. But that part of the article that says that marksman is the main fps type is wrong. Only the skills of Marksman involve guns. Most classes use guns in an fps way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.29.31 (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure but I think you may be stepping on the NDA. Careful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.176.40.210 (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The NDA is no longer in effect, according to the latest news post on the official Hellgate London website (http://www.hellgatelondon.com/underground/subscribers-and-patch-0) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.81.101 (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the faction is called "Hunter." The marksman is one of the classes in the Hunter faction, as mentioned in the article. The reason for them describing the Hunter Faction as FPS is that aiming the guns is more based on the reticle, as opposed to most of the guns of the other factions which fire towards the target regardless of the reticle (although not all guns for the other classes, there are definitely exceptions). VegJed 04:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Classes

Someone needs to clean up the Classes section. I'll do what I can, but it's a mess. It looks like it was just thrown in there. --Cheezymadman 01:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Early Release?

EB seems to have released the game two days early here in Australia. I just picked up my copy but none of the servers are up so im guessing its not actually supposed to be out yet. Mloren 03:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed POV on subscriptions

Removed POV piece in the subscriptions section. while the penny arcade comic is humorous it has nothing to do with what Hellgate is and is therefore non-encyclopedic. I understand that some people are disgruntled about the subscription model, but wikipeda isn't the place to vent. Martinj63 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it kind is, if its in a noticeable level that is. So far ive read quite an ammount of mockeries about the subscription model, so its not just one or two guys "venting out".200.83.56.73 (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Server / Patch Commentary

I understand that FSS's launch of this game has been bumpy, and I believe it is fair to include mention of their server & patch problems, and the user complaints if there are reliable sources that make those criticisms. Providing a blow by blow account such as this [1] reads as proseline. I absolutely agree that criticism is warranted, but I think it should be clearly presented (and hopefully by additional reliable sources.) I've reduced this section to hopefully read a bit cleaner. Please feel free to add and modify. regards, --guyzero | talk 07:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You have conveniently managed to reduce it to next to nothing. For example the important fact that the SEA copies cannot be used on US/EU servers was not being advertised, was left out. And the entire SEA server fiasco has been reduced to "There are issues.", which is hardly descriptive.

A detailed account is necessary. Otherwise every article talking about a period of conflict would be reduced to "There was a conflict" followed by a long list of references. E.G. "Microsoft's business practices have been criticzed over the years." instead of the full list of complaints and individual references for each. Question2 07:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith that there was nothing "convenient" about my edit - I did the best I could to clean WP:OR from the section for inclusion. I clicked through the sources you linked and didn't find any mention that it wasn't advertised (and that it's an issue) that SEA copies are not usable on US/EU servers. If I missed it, please fix. With regards to the SEA server fiasco - and though I'm not an SEA user, I can tell many of the players are upset and I would be upset as well - we'd need 3rd party reliable sources (i.e. not forum complaints) to confirm the notability of the various detail of the fiasco itself (which is what's done in regards to "criticisms of Microsoft's business practices".) I also can't confirm from the sources that IAHgames gave conflicting information to their users with regards to patching. One post said it's coming soon, another post later said that they tried to apply the patch as they had announced, but it was buggy so they removed it and it's again coming soon, which is probably maddeningly infrequent but not self-"conflicting" as I had said in the article. regards, --guyzero | talk 07:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand what kind of sources you are looking for. I linked to official annoucements and threads on the official forums. Unless you are suggesting that theres a few dozen people launching a conspiracy to discredit IAH on their official forums and lying in all the threads i listed, i fail to see how they dont qualify as sources of information. Its obvious CNN.com isnt going to run news article on "SEA version not advertised as being limited to SEA!" or "SEA's Hellgate London patch 0 late by one week!". Everything i posted was fact, accurate and easily verifiable.

-Fact : SEA version does not advertise that it cannot be used on the US version. NOWHERE does it state on the box that it will not work on the US or EU version. If you dont believe me you are welcome to go to SEA and check the box yourself, or ask on a fansite like hellgateguru.com, since neither IAHgames or FSS is going to make a page saying "Yes the SEA version cannot be used on the US/EU servers and vice versa". And obviously it did cause problems. Did anyone buy the SEA copy and try to play it on the US/EU servers(or vice-versa)? Of course they did. Did it fail to work? Of course it did. Its obvious this was a problem for a admittedly small portion of people. I dont know what you want. Signed testimonials from people who bought the wrong version? People have posted forum threads about this, but apparently they could be lying.

-Fact : The official annoucement i linked to stated that the level cap would be removed on 6th november. Another official annoucement on 6th november made no mention of why the level cap was not removed and simply announced there was a maintenance. Im not sure what you are reading, because im clearly seeing this. I cannot find any mention of "It was buggy so we didnt remove the cap this time." Question2 06:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, assume good faith - I never suggested there was some forum conspiracy.

Please read the reliable sources guideline. For example, a gaming news site that says "IAHgames mishandled the patching and server launch" would do much to help establish whether this issue is notable and let us at least say in the article that this criticism was stated by a reliable source. Agreed, CNN isn't going to cover this, but if this issue is notable, then independent sources will mention it. Anything can be said on a forum, there is no basis to assume for fact-checking or accuracy on a forum post, so they are not considered reliable sources.

Like I said above, the fact that the SEA version does not work with US servers, or that this is a problem, isn't represented in any of the sources you mentioned. Even if there is a forum post somewhere commenting on it, I doubt that would qualify as a reliable source -- is this issue notable, has a gaming news cite mentioned it? Kotaku and others typically mention issues like this endlessly so you might search around to see.

Here are the two announcements you provided regarding the level cap patch: #1 "we're patching to raise to level cap tomorrow" [2] and #2 "we only did maintenance and didn't implement the patch due to bugs, we're retesting it, it will take at least 24 hours" [3]

cheers, --guyzero | talk 10:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Extrakun 07:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)I have been noticing that a user has been removing big chunk of text regarding the SEA issues. May I have an explanation on why? Which part of the removed section is not in keeping with Wikipedia's standards? Instead of removing it, could you have improved upon it? Still new to this, will appreciate some guidance.

Extrakun 07:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Anyway, in order not to mess up the main Hellgate article, I have started another article concering IAHGames.

Review skewing

I edited the graph that had four reviews on it previously and hilariously showed the only two generally positive reviews and only two of the multiple low reviews (and they weren't even that low). This game is crap and the multiple negative reviews show that, and whoever keeps trying to make it look like the game is receiving generally mixed reviews ranging from high to mediocore should be ashamed of themselves. It says something about the integrity of the game journalism business when you have such a huge disparity between the exclusive review and what everyone else gives it and I can't believe there are shills who support that kind of behavior.

I think there should be a special section detailing Hellgate's horrendous launch (one of the worst in multiplayer pc gaming history), including such hilarious debacles as billing people multiple times for their subscription, billing people daily instead of monthly, charging $150 dollars for the founders' offer to people who didn't order one ("only" happened to 3% of customers, according to Roper), and banning people complaining about being charged for things they didn't purchase from the official forums for "spamming". This was easily the worst part of the launch and something that, as far as I know, is unprecedented in PC gaming history. There has also been the issue of horrendous server stability and character development bugs and accidental deletions, but these pale in comparison to stealing money from your customers.

These suggestions are laughable, at best. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is supposed to have encyclopedic material. Superlatives such as "horrendous", "One of the worst in history", "hilarious", etc. etc are all your slanted point of view. If you wanted to write something that actually detailed some of the issues, that's one thing. Your suggestion of "LOL U GUYZ R LOSERS AND UR GAME SUX!" isn't really helpful in recording them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.64.140 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage archiving?

Any of the regular contributers object to me implementing Miszabot talkpage archiving? thanks, --guyzero | talk 20:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Miszabot implemented. cheers, --guyzero | talk 17:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Reception section

Does the article really need a listing of every review the game has been given? In my opinion, it only needs a small section outlining what various reviewers called good points (with citations to those reviews) and what various reviewers disliked (cited), and, perhaps, mention the Metacritic score (which is sort of an average of the total review scores). What does everyone else think? ~ Carlin _{U T C} @ 01:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great, I totally agree. I think it'd be good to keep the scores in the infobox, and shorten the reception section to a few representative reviews that give the reader an accurate (and WP:NPOV) overview of the media reception of the game. I don't think there is really a need to redundantly repeat the scores from the infobox in the prose as it is currently, or to have each paragraph in a different style (some with the Pro's, Con's, etc. bullet points, some without), but do it how you think is best .. it's a great idea. thank you! --guyzero | talk 08:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is what I have so far:

The game received a mixed reception from reviews[4]. Reviewers cited its addictive, challenging, fast gameplay[5][6], randomisation[7] and similarities to the Diablo series[8][9][10] as positives, while its repetitive nature, skeletal plot[11] and subscription model[12] were seen as negative aspects. The game received 70/100 on Metacritic, based on an average from 35 reviews[13].
Hellgate drew numerous criticisms involving the games rushed release[14] which seen it shipped with numerous bugs [15], including "game breaking" bugs [16], such as a memory leak which resulted in numerous crashes[17] and a bug which prevented players from progressing through storyline content[18].

Opinions? Is there anything else I should add? I feel it is a bit short, but I can't think of anything else to expand it. (The citations aren't inline external links, had to alter them for the links to work on the talk page). ~ Carlin _{U T C} @ 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great start. What I've seen done is to prose-style the reception section and to attribute specific important comments to the review. See Halo_3#Critical_reception_and_impact for an example. That style might provide some more specific detail for the reader. Also, I suggest removing the bits that are sourced by corpnews (a blog that is discussing a beta version of the game), curse (not a review) and any forum posts. I've seen mention of bugginess in some of the actual reviews. Thank you again for working on this. cheers, --guyzero | talk 00:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a great opening piece for reception, you could drop that into place then start folding the quotes below into fleshed-

out opinions about the game. Someone another 14:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

When were you planning on updating the review section, Carlin? I was kinda expecting to have seen it by now. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 13:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Review Comment

I've edited the line "PC Gamer recently gave Hellgate: London a 89 out of 100 in an exclusive review granted in exchange for a favorable rating" to remove the comment about the review being in exchange for a favorable rating. Hopefully the reason for this edit is obvious. Such an allegation had best have a reputable source (instead of none at all, as in this case), considering the defamatory and, one imagines, controversial nature of it.The Mink Ermine Fox 05:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There are PC Gamer ads inside Hellgate London. Enough said.87.64.77.40 (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the PC Gamer references to PC Gamer US. I'm not being nationalist or stirring anything up, it's just that that implies that the US edition is the "true" one, whereas the UK one was in fact the first one. However, i don't think being published a few months in advance gives it any particular prominence - I just think it should be "PCG US" and "PCG UK", rather than one having prominence over the other. 86.159.54.30 (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Editing it as PC Gamer US or PC Gamer UK would not appropriate, as neither magazine is titled as such. I have fixed the entries, and you can see the changes. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 23:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section controversy

The founders of Hellgate: London do have a link to the idea of demons. I have noticed in the game and the book that the Goetia has been mentioned. In Diablo the support of these demons were used also. What is the reasoning for such a choice on the controversal characters such as demons? I do find it facinating, but am curious as to the reson for london? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genoshay2k (talk • contribs) 23:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the Controversy section, as it's full of POV and uncitedness. Once there are are better cites and less POV-ed writing, then it can go back in. QuasiAbstract (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncitedness? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hellgate:_London&oldid=180997434#Controversy See the little numbers inside square brackets? They are citations. It's clear that you do not wish anything negative about the game to be conveyed here, based on your earlier revert of my edit stating "forums aren't a good ref, because anyone w/o an account can't access", and now, despite a mirror of the thread being cited you still removed my edit. So unless you have anymore lies to add I will be restoring the section. ~ Carlin _{U T C} 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do about having negative things about the game, as anyone can see. However, there are many itmes that can't be verified, including your link. How can someone without an account verify the accuracy of your mirror? How do we know that's nothing more than someone promoting the negativity of the section? We don't. We need to have verifiable sources. I'll go through and do more than just a wipe, but we need better citations and much better writing that the blatant POV that is in there now. QuasiAbstract (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I just reworked the section. I removed any paragraphs with unverifiable citations and tried to reword POV heavy sections. QuasiAbstract (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My link is verifiable by anyone with a forum account and via good-faith. The alternative to that is a thread from a fansite, such as hellgate.incgamers.com or HellgateGuru, rather than the official site. The issue is an important one, as the lock-out of a large portion of Oceanic users is a serious and controversial issue, considering Flagship's lack of a response. ~ Carlin _{U T C} 12:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

However, it violates WP:V where all readers should be able to check that material assed to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Forums aren't reliable. If we were able to find an article regarding this information, it could be added back in. Also, regarding the claim of Flagship and Ping0 ignoring the problem - there is no way to verify that.QuasiAbstract (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Forums pertaining to user complaints are not reliable? Let me rephrase; a 27 page thread on the official forums pertaining to user complaints are not reliable? ~ Carlin _{U T C} 08:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Forums are not a published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If there were a source that references the 27 page thread, a reference that doesn't require a mirror, as that can still not be checked for accuracy, then we can put that information in. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for truth, but for verifiability. If I don't have an account, I can't check the verifiability, even with a mirror of the forums, I still can't check the verifiability. Also, synthesizing information from several pages of threads that there is a problem also violates WP:SYN and WP:OR. That's why we need use published sources. QuasiAbstract (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So, in other words, the validity of the criticisms section is flawed as criticism made directly to Flagship via their official forums cannot be cited - I think not. If mirrors using WebCite, Way Back Machine and other such tools is accepted then a mirror of the thread in alternative hosting space is also acceptable. ~ Carlin _{U T C} 10:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

<- (lose indent) Even mirrored, forums are not reliable sources. Anything can be posted in a forum - there is no basis to assume accuracy. Game bugs are generally not "controversial" or notable. If the issue is notable, a reliable source (i.e. gaming news site, etc.) will report it which may provide basis for inclusion here. regards, --guyzero | talk 12:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How are other mirrors accepted? They haven't been on this article and shouldn't be. 50 people could complain about the lighting to Flagship on the official forums, but does it really mean that there's a problem or notable? Possibly not. How can we determine the validity of those statements on the official forums, even if there are 200 people saying the same thing? We can't. QuasiAbstract (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WBM is a mirror and is accepted as policy. Go figure. ~ Carlin _{U T C} 21:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, the difference between a mirror by WBM and a mirror by a user, would be that the WBM is an reputable source. Reputable. A user is not a reputable source. If you were able to get a mirror from WBM or another reputable source, it could be used. It must be from a reputable source. QuasiAbstract (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A user generated mirror could also be considered reliable if other person(s) with HG:L accounts confirmed its contents were accurate. ~ Carlin _{U T C} 06:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really, because the source must be reputable - having a reputation. A group of users doesn't have the reputation that a source like WBM has. QuasiAbstract (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, something mirrored by WBM is not automatically a reliable source. Even if the HG:L forums were mirrored by WBM, it would still not be a RS due to the concerns noted above. regards, --guyzero | talk 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What if I were to reference multiple other sources? [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] and [24] (The login doesn't show you server status, so when/if the servers are down loading up the game ends with a time-out on the "Loading" screen, and the game Not Responding, with it only sometimes telling you that the "connection timed out".) - not talking about the same problem but that's exactly what happens to affected players. ~ Carlin _{U T C} 18:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

<- The only link I see that can be used is from CorpNews, because it is a published article, not a forum. QuasiAbstract (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

When the problem is a user-complaint forums, ie. a place where people can voice their concerns, are a legitimate source. Numerous other articles cite forums as a source; World of Warcraft#modifications, World_of_warcraft#_ref-29 and World_of_warcraft#_ref-21. Starcraft#_ref-4, Starcraft_2#_ref-5. Not to mention numerous "new articles" that are actually user submitted. I could find more if I had time and could be bothered. ~ Carlin _{U T C} 08:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that if we reference user posts on forums, we start doing original research by compiling what the users are complaining about and finding trends in what they are talking about. That's why we use reputable, published sources. They find the trends and make the compilations. Also, if they are referencing forums, they should only be referencing developer posts and not user posts, and users are not reliable sources, at least not for Wikipedia. If the other articles are referencing user posts, just remember - Just because an article is doing it, doesn't mean they should be doing it. New articles should be referenced with reliable sources as well. Wikipedia must be verifiable, not necessarily true. We can't validate user posts on forums, so whether they're true or not, we shouldn't reference them. QuasiAbstract (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The sheer amount of sources proves its verifiability. ~ Carlin _{U T C} 19:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For us to state the problems while referencing the forums, we would have to make sure the statements are valid. We don't know that they are, so adding the information would violate Wikipedia's Verifiability Policy. Now, if we ignored that and still wanted to state the problems while referencing the forums, then we would now be violating Wikipedia's Original Research Policy. By reading through the forums and coming to the conclusion that X number of users are claiming the problem, then we have performed original research, which is why we need a reference that is published by a reputable, third-party source. QuasiAbstract (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A statement like "... people began to complain about an issue which caused them to become stuck at the loading screen" could be verified by citing a forum post, as there is evidence that people are complaining about the issue. ~ Carlin _{U T C} 04:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

<- Unfortunately, forum posts cannot to be used for verification of anything. I'm not saying that you and other users aren't experiencing this loading problem, but anyone can say anything in a forum post. Please take a look at WP:ATTRIBUTION which summarizes WP's core content policies. With regards to forum posts, it explains, "...Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely unacceptable. Questionable and self-published sources should not normally be used." If a reliable source (for example, a gaming news website, such as Kotaku) were to comment on Hellgate's bugginess in general or this particular bug, we could include that information. I hope this helps to clarify, sorry that you are experiencing this loading problem. regards, --guyzero | talk 08:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious I'm fighting a losing battle here, so I'll concede and leave the section about it out. No hard feelings. ~ Carlin _{U T C} 09:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't give up, as you did provide one reference, CorpNews, should be an acceptable cite. Just familiarize yourself with acceptable references and the Wikipedian policies. Don't give up, just become the best editor you can be. QuasiAbstract (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Premise section

Is it just me, or does the Premise section sound a lot like a description would be in-game instead of sounding like an encyclopedia? I keep reading it, and some of the word usage sounds POV ("unfortunately", "heroes", etc)...point of view of the humans, instead of an outside source. Please let me know what you all think. QuasiAbstract (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the article is written in-universe, which is not recommmened by WikiPolicy. I'm going to try to rewrite it when I get time, and using Wikipedia:WAF and WP:Fancruft for help. If someone else gets to it first, please do. QuasiAbstract (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:VG/GL I'm going to rename it 'plot' and put it below gameplay. I'll remove the excessive sub-headings in gameplay where possible and try to integrate text into paragraphs, 'flowing prose' and all that. The way the articles contructed, in bullet-style lists, masses of subheadings etc. means that the scaffolding is still up, we need to collapse it back down into a typical article. Someone another 14:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

At a quick glance, the whole article looks a lot better. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 15:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Not a singe screen-shot, not to mention picture, can be found in this article aside from the cover art. I think that a few should be added. Xeysz ☼ 01:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Diablo series

Same people who made the diablo series. Not blizzard Entertainment, people who had worked for them and made their own company. I dont know why no one bothered to say that on the actual page of the game, It says it on the game cartridge.

~~april 2008~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majinsnake (talk • contribs) 06:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The game cartridge? What the hell are you playing it on?? 59.167.51.87 (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it wouldn't be fair to mention the venerable Diablo in the same article as this garbage, also known as Hellgate: London121.209.147.229 (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

SEA support summary

Is there a reliable source (i.e. not the flagshipped blog) that can we can use to get a summary of the current status of SEA server patch levels and support by IAH? I think it would be good to include this information in a NPOV manner, supported by reliable sources and without being too axe-grindy. Does IAH maintain a page that lists their current patch levels and their update plans (if any?) thanks, --guyzero | talk 07:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Found sth like this [25]. I think it's best now what we can find about server problems (and patch) in SEA :) Sir Lothar (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, the Flagshipped blog that reported all the stories first and was proved true of them is not a reliable source? 66.176.37.51 (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Flagship Studios loses ownership of Hellgate: London

http://digg.com/gaming_news/Flagship_Studios_No_Longer_Owns_Hellgate_London

Obviously quite big news that should be incorporated somehow, but I'm just leaving this on the talk page for now. Feel free to add something on it. There's not much info on how this will affect the game released yet, or if it will somehow affect Mythos as well. For the gamers, it doesn't bode well though, as this means the actual developer supporting this game with patches is gone, and left is only HanbitSoft -- the publisher. This is still speculation, but they could well consider this being too much of a drain on their resources and kill the game. — Northgrove 18:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: http://www.warcry.com/news/view/84964-Lowering-the-Flag-at-Flagship-Studios

This has now long-since been confirmed, as well as HanbitSoft now owning the IP rights and planning to shutdown the US/EU servers and wipe the accounts on them.

66.176.37.51 (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Just updated the article with a gamasutra.com reference to an official blog posting by Hanbitsoft execs. No mention of server shutdowns or restarts. Namco is still on schedule to shutdown on Jan 31, 2009. But Hanbitsoft announced work on a HGL expansion. - Vorik111 (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Palladium

"physical damage is done by a new metallic element/alloy known as Palladium" Palladium isn't new, it's an already existing metal (similar to platinum).--91.11.96.113 (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Too long

This article is WAY too long. Why is there so much information on this game? I'm sure there's a Hellgate wiki serving the purpose that this page serves. Why is the games development history in the article? Is that really relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.202.85 (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

past tense

This article should be written in past tense (aka: "was" instead of "is"), since the game no longer exists.--24.171.0.229 (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The game no longer exists? Whoever is going around systematically destroying every copy of the game seems to have missed the one in my office and the ones at Wal-Mart.

The game still exists, just the multiplayer functionality will be/has been non-functional. Still valid to keep in present tense, since the game does still exist. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 10:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The multiplayer doesn't exist therefore that section should be written in past tense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.136.254 (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoever takes this task upon them self, be careful as to how you edit tenses. The first sentence is already wrong in that it words the lead as to say the game *was* a dark fantasy game. The game will always be of that genre (hence, it is), unless the genre gets reclassified, in which case it is that new genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukvilly (talk • contribs) 05:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The multiplayer does exist. Just because it doesn't exist outside of South Korea doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The game still runs in multiplayer on Hanbiton's website. The entire lead needs to be rewritten as its completely false.--Crossmr (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Some correction to the myth/rumor that this game is dead, or needs to be referenced in *past tense*. HanBitSoft held a press conference on November 12th, 2009, announcing that North American test servers would open for beta testing between November 17th - December 8th, with the new server formally opening on December 8th. Highlights for the updated version include the Abyss Chronicles (10 new maps, 3 new bosses, 9 distinct new armors, new bag items, 10 different main quests, Rank changes, no level cap, in-game store/mall, new guild features). The announcement also included a new expansion, Hellgate: Tokyo. As these are part of the original game, these should be included in the facts, and not limited to the Hellgate Wiki [26]Pustulous (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

A lot of this article is going to have to be rewritten. Since it is now operated by a Korean company, the north american development and operation needs to be added as historical information and the current operation and model as what is happening now. Claiming the game is defunct when it is perfectly operational and playable is factually incorrect.--Crossmr (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiplayer is now Asian territories only

Hanbit Soft still operates multiplayer servers in Asian territories. The multiplayer services that were discontinued were limited to non-Asian territories.24.166.255.66 (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Habisoft was going global with Hellgate

Through T3 Entertainment but, due to the current economic crash this was put on hold. The company them self was hit with a economic hardship with loans and back owed costs, so the Hellgate part they controled was put on freeze. They do have marketing planned and are looking for financail help but not from public. Can not post a link to the info because it was read through google translat which would not link over and the site is done in Flash so the page in question wont link. Jandraelune (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So, what does this mean? Hellgate is comming back globally? Please tell me it's true because I recently bought the game along with a few friends to find out not even LAN play was possible, well, atleast I got all discs for 10 bucks total. Singleplayer gets boring quickly too. 83.81.125.101 (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Major Reconstruction

Hi guys, If you are reading this you have interested in this wiki entry on Hellgate: London. I run the website www.hellgateaus.net and have volunteered myself with the assistance of my graphics man decibel to get this article into shape. Please feel free to talk to me about these changes. I will remove all inconsistency and correct factual accuracy as described here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maeyan (talk • contribs) 08:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's quite an amazing revamp you guys are making. But remember, less is more; wikipedia aims for optimal knoledge, right now there are too many things that could be weed out.--142.68.52.13 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This kind of excessive and large image use is appropriate for a dedicated wiki for hellgate. For wikipedia it isn't. See WP:NOT, not to mention the entire section is just cut and paste from the prima guide. Quoted or not we can't have entire sections which are like that.--Crossmr (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Understood, that makes sense. I can not continue to maintain the article however, hopefully someone else can resurrect this article. Hope I didn't cause too much fuss :) maeyan (talk) 08:21, 07 August 2009 (UTC)

Seperate Page

Should a seperate page be made for the new Hellgate published by HanbitSoft, which launches just about half an hour from when I write this? From what I understand, the single player aspect has been removed and the game differs quite a bit from the old hellgate, plus it's free to play. 71.166.48.225 (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)