Preview Hellgate London 411 on GameSpot

Tags: Hellgate: London

<a href="http://www.gamespot.com/">GameSpot</a> has a new <A href="http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/hellgatelondon/preview_6127908.html">preview</A> of <A href="http://www.hellgatelondon.com">Hellgate London</a>. Here's a bit about why they picked London instead of Hackensack, New Jersey:
<br>
<blockquote>One of the reasons London was chosen for the setting is because the city has such an intriguing history to it, as it's been home to some of history's greatest calamities, such as the Great Fire of London, the plague, and the Blitz. It's also got great architecture, which helps make the buildings in the game look good. But most importantly, there's the Underground, which consists of far more than the world-famous Tube. There are ancient Roman aqueducts, old bomb shelters, and Victorian ballrooms. Most interesting, though, are the disused and abandoned Tube stations. Apparently, to keep people out of them, the British government actually pays people to guard them. The game plays on this real-world anecdote by postulating that those guards may be there to guard against something else. In the game, the demonic gateway originates underground. We got to see some of this subway action during the demonstration, as the game showed us some of the underground levels, all of which are randomly generated.</blockquote>
<br>
You forgot the inquisition and the Spice Girls. I'm pretty sure the Romans didn't build aqueducts in London, but I might be wrong about that. Anyway, if that was their criteria for picking a city, wouldn't <b>Rome</b> itself had been a better choice?
<br>
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.shacknews.com">Shack News</A>

 

Actually, there IS a Hellgate: Rome. London's just one of them.

 

I'm tired of reading how immersive those FP games are. Good games are immersive, bad games are boring. Morrowind's immersion sucked. Hellgate doesn't sound all that great either. They should have stuck with isometric games.

 

Translation: OMG. I DONT HAVE THE GAME YET. BUT IT SUCKS. THEY SHOULD HAVE STUCK WITH ISOMETRIC.

 

I'd be happier with isometric.

 

So would I. I like Isometric viewpoints. But I don't think that they made a 'mistake' by making it first and third person. I'm just not sure where people get the idea that 'first person is something new'. It's not. Being 'hip' is definitely not the reason they made the game first/third person, either. That was a conscious design choice. Little cramped tunnels (Like the Maggot Lair) play really poorly in isometric.

 

I didn't say that. I said that claiming that fp=immersion is bullshit, and that it would be better if the developers made an isometric game, since that's what they were really good at: Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo.

 

Well, you have to admit that if Diablo 2 were played in first person, many parts of the game would have been a lot more immersive, especially in Act 2. At least, I feel that way. It's definitely untrue with a lot of games, but adventuring in first person in games like Diablo seem very immersive to me.

Anyway, I don't want to argue with you or anything. It's all a matter of taste, really.

As for the game being released on November 1st, 2005 - that's bullshit. GameSpot is full of shit, as always.

 

You're only saying this because you like this shitheap.

 

I wonder how anyone could get that impression.

 

I dunno, I've got hopes for the game myself.