Hellgate: London

[Malak]

Links:
Flagship Studios
Hellgate: London Official Site
IGN coverage
Killer Betties E3 Impressions
Gamespy hands-on


To summarize the discussion that started in the Diablo 3 thread:

The original crew who made Diablo was a studio called Condor. 3 years into production they were bought by Blizzard and renamed Blizzard North. The only thing this studio made was Diablo, and they made it well. It stole years of our lives away. Well, the people who made battle.net left to form Arena.net, and the people who made Diablo left to form Flagship Studios. Guildwars is here from Arena.net, although it doesn't quite have the same feel as Diablo. The game coming from Flagship Studios does, and it is called Hellgate: London.

Hellgate takes place in... London. The story goes that demons have been trying to take over our world through portals and the Knights Templar have been stopping them. Since the near extinction of this secret order, the demons were able to gain a foothold. The armies of Europe attempted to stop them, but found their weapons were useless against the demon hordes of Hell. The templar knights offered their services and were refused. So basically London is overrun by Hell.

Enter you, the hero. Your job? Kill them, kill them all. The gameplay will be similar to Diablo in every single way except for one little difference. Your perspective has changed to the first person perspective. Is this a first person shooter? Not really. You don't really have guns, and there is no ammo to speak of. It's still you and however many friends you'd like to join you hunting down demons. There are still randomly generated areas, randomly generated items, etc etc. The crew thought that they couldn't really give you the feeling they wanted to in Diablo 2 unless you were looking at it through the eyes of the hero, so that is why they changed it. Imagine roaming the dark tunnels underground in the first person perspective...

 

[screw3d]

source?

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: screw3d


source?

All of malak's details are accurate. I've read about it online, and in a couple PC game mags. It looks like a phenominal game!

 

[screw3d]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: screw3d


source?

All of malak's details are accurate. I've read about it online, and in a couple PC game mags. It looks like a phenominal game!

:thumbsup:

 

[Insomniak]

This whole situation I find most consternating.

The word on the street is that Blizzard North, for all intents and purposes, effected an exodus from Blizzard and VU solely because they wanted to make something besides Diablo 3, which is what VU wanted for the money money money.

So they left.

And each group made Diablo 3.

...



You'll forgive me if I find some humor in the situation. They're turning into Id "We'll just keep making the same game every 3 - 4 years using a new engine" Software.

 

[Elcs]

I fail to see how this FPS can be a sequel to a hack'n'slash RPG.

The story, nor the game type seem to fit together. Even if it was written by some of the Diablo 2 writers, I still fail to see how it can be dubbed as 'Diablo3'

 

[biostud]

You need to put links to articles about it

 

[Modeps]

While I dig the team, I dont dig the concept of a first person hacker... at all. Every game that I've played where you need to do something with swords in first person has sucked. It's just not a good view for it.

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: Modeps
While I dig the team, I dont dig the concept of a first person hacker... at all. Every game that I've played where you need to do something with swords in first person has sucked. It's just not a good view for it.

Im not a fan of mixing melee and FPS. I dont like the crowbar in HL for starters

Swords in Thief 1 kind of turned me away from the Thief series.

 

[Malak]

Edited with links.

For those who are doubting the possibility of this game being good in the first person, here's some relief. All melee weapons are used in the third person perspective. Only ranged weapons are in first person.

Insomniak - They didn't leave because they didn't want to make Diablo. From what I read, the people at Flagship left to follow Roper who left because Blizzard wasn't treating him right.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: malak
Insomniak - They didn't leave because they didn't want to make Diablo. From what I read, the people at Flagship left to follow Roper who left because Blizzard wasn't treating him right.

Yes, exactly, and from what I read, "Blizzard wasn't treating him right" = Blizzard was passing on the pressure from VU games to ship another Diablo sequel.

Whether it was the fact that he wanted to do another project or simply wanted a couple months off before beginning development I don't know, but most of the "insider info" pointed to that being the reason. Gamespy's interview with Bill Roper said the decision to leave was "something that affected the whole team", not just him. See here:

http://archive.gamespy.com/interviews/july03/billroper/index2.shtml


GameSpy: The issues that caused you to leave -- did it affect all four of you equally or did the others follow you out the door?

Bill Roper: It was certainly something that we all felt the same about. It wasn't a case of any of us following the others, but more of a unified stand.

GameSpy: Can you give us any details about the specific incident that said to you, "That's it, we can't work here anymore?"

Bill Roper: Not really, and to be honest, we're focusing our energies on moving forward. We want to benefit from our combined experiences over the last ten years and use that as a new launching point without dwelling on the downsides. Basically, we are looking to put all of that in the past and keep our eyes firmly planted on the future.



Of course, the real reasons I guess we'll never get from the horses mouth, for legal reasons, so this is all really speculation.

 

[Malak]

Well it's kind of hard to believe it's due to them not wanting to make another Diablo, since that's exactly what they set out to do. From my understanding of it, Roper wanted to speak directly with Vivendi on matters concerning him, rather than using Blizzard as a middle-man. Blizzard said no. Roper said goodbye. That was all reported like the day he left. As soon as Blizzard shut him down, he was ready to leave.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: malak
Well it's kind of hard to believe it's due to them not wanting to make another Diablo, since that's exactly what they set out to do. From my understanding of it, Roper wanted to speak directly with Vivendi on matters concerning him, rather than using Blizzard as a middle-man. Blizzard said no. Roper said goodbye. That was all reported like the day he left. As soon as Blizzard shut him down, he was ready to leave.

Again, all = speculation :-\

 

[Malak]

Well it's not speculation, that's what he said happened shortly after it happened. I'll see if I can find an article..

 

[Malak]

OK, looks like it was mostly Vivendi that shut him down, although mention of "upper management" could easily had been either Blizzard or Vivendi. Regardless, Vivendi's involvement seems to be the primary cause of his leave. Linky

Why did Roper leave Blizzard? He asserts that it wasn?t so much a power clash as an outright rejection. In late June, Vivendi Universal denied his request for greater involvement in the expected sale of Vivendi?s gaming unit. ?I wanted to have more insight and more input in the process,? Roper explains. ?Blizzard is a great company, and I just wanted to hear what was going on.? On the Friday before the abrupt good-bye, upper management told him exactly what was going on: nothing. His input was not desired and his request for more information was denied.

Pretty harsh, and now they will pay for it. I think maybe Vivendi needs to rethink it's policies, given this and the Valve deal. They don't seem to be very good when it comes to employee relations.

 

[Czar]

after seeing the screenshot I reeeeeaaally think this game is going the wrong way, no charm

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Czar
after seeing the screenshot I reeeeeaaally think this game is going the wrong way, no charm

No charm?

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Czar
after seeing the screenshot I reeeeeaaally think this game is going the wrong way, no charm

No charm?

It looks good on the graphical level. Those monsters dont look immersive, scary or particularly mean.

Diablo1/2 were filled with monsters that looked evil, suited the area and looked like they'd came from the depths of hell. Slightly cartoony, yes but they fitted well into their surroundings.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Elcs

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Czar
after seeing the screenshot I reeeeeaaally think this game is going the wrong way, no charm

No charm?

It looks good on the graphical level. Those monsters dont look immersive, scary or particularly mean.

Diablo1/2 were filled with monsters that looked evil, suited the area and looked like they'd came from the depths of hell. Slightly cartoony, yes but they fitted well into their surroundings.

exactly, kinda

Diablo had this fantasy feel,

judging by the screenshots this game has just about no feel at all, very dark and very boring enemies.

And frankly I'm starting to really dislike dark games. I tried doom3 and it was just awful in so many ways. I'm currently playing Riddick and kinda liking it, I want to love it but how its dark is making me not enjoying the experiance as I think I should.

 

[Malak]

Doom3 monsters had some of the worse looks I had seen recently, but it was still a scary experience. In movies and even real life, a person doesn't have to look evil to be evil and scary. It's a matter of atmosphere, and that is what these guys are getting at. Switching down to the first person perspective, they can give a better experience. I can tell you, I was never scared in Diablo 2, but Diablo 1 had a lot darker atmosphere. I think they want to go back to that, revisit the concept. They said that the maggot lair in Diablo 2 would be a lot different from this new perspective, if we revisited. For me, it was just an annoying maze, but I can picture it from the first person. That would be some scary shit.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: malak
Doom3 monsters had some of the worse looks I had seen recently, but it was still a scary experience. In movies and even real life, a person doesn't have to look evil to be evil and scary. It's a matter of atmosphere, and that is what these guys are getting at. Switching down to the first person perspective, they can give a better experience. I can tell you, I was never scared in Diablo 2, but Diablo 1 had a lot darker atmosphere. I think they want to go back to that, revisit the concept. They said that the maggot lair in Diablo 2 would be a lot different from this new perspective, if we revisited. For me, it was just an annoying maze, but I can picture it from the first person. That would be some scary shit.

thats exactly it.. diablo was never about scaring people, just providing a fun game, something people enjoy playing

and since diablo had excelent replayability than that meant people could go through the fun over and over again, a game that scares you over and over again just doesnt make me want to play it

 

[Malak]

It's still going to have the same gameplay though. Mass monsters to kill, items to hunt for, bosses to smash, quests with rewards, etc etc etc. It's all the same mechanics, just using a new perspective and theme. Actually, it's mostly the same theme too. Hell on earth. Personally, I look forward to it. Then again, FPS is my favorite genre, and I loved Diablo. So it's almost a dream come true. I hope I'm not getting head of myself though.

 

[TackleDummy]

I think I'm going to have to see some more about this one before I can really decide on whether I want to try it or not. I saw the game mentioned in another thread, but didn't really pay much attention. I'm going to have to keep my eye on this one and see how it works out. Thanks for the info malak.

 

[Insomniak]

It'll have to have significant departures from Diablo if I'm going to be interested - so far, that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: malak
Doom3 monsters had some of the worse looks I had seen recently, but it was still a scary experience. In movies and even real life, a person doesn't have to look evil to be evil and scary. It's a matter of atmosphere, and that is what these guys are getting at. Switching down to the first person perspective, they can give a better experience. I can tell you, I was never scared in Diablo 2, but Diablo 1 had a lot darker atmosphere. I think they want to go back to that, revisit the concept. They said that the maggot lair in Diablo 2 would be a lot different from this new perspective, if we revisited. For me, it was just an annoying maze, but I can picture it from the first person. That would be some scary shit.

Its going to take a pretty impressive demo to convince me. A melee combat system in FPS, incuding quirks such as Diablo 2's defense mechanism and blocking ability via shields is going to be quite interesting to see.

From the screenshots, it doesnt pull me in and want me to play it. I read an article in PC Gamer on Diablo2 around 25 times before it came out. Bought it on its release date, played it a load, bought the expansion pack on its release date (ahead of BG2: ToB) and had my first online Diablo2 experience.

The underlying mechanics may be there. I can imagine being an Amazon with my bow, set in a medevil/hell-like surrounding, taking out countless bad guys with enchanted arrows in First-Person but I cant imagine being a Paladin or Barbarian in melee, beating up demons being all that great in first person. Third Person games usually make me feel ill for some reason. One 3rd person game I loved, which I cant remember the name of, made me feel ill and I couldnt complete it.

I'll keep my eyes peeled for a demo (or demon if i get it). So far, not convinced.