What was bad about this game?

Mostly that it was not worth any monthly fee. Just releasing that idea raised the demands what you actually get for your money and... You got nothing more than a usal singleplayer game. first pay for a game, then pay amonthly fee to play a singleplayer game? Bad arma. People do not like to buy bad karma... Most people... except a few "but it's INDIE!" people around here, want value for their money. Some kind of value. Any kind of value. Paying monthly for singleplayer games is not it.

Originally posted by Harafnir

Mostly that it was not worth any monthly fee. Just releasing that idea raised the demands what you actually get for your money and... You got nothing more than a usal singleplayer game. first pay for a game, then pay amonthly fee to play a singleplayer game? Bad arma. People do not like to buy bad karma... Most people... except a few "but it's INDIE!" people around here, want value for their money. Some kind of value. Any kind of value. Paying monthly for singleplayer games is not it.

But what went wrong with the Mutiplayer?

Didnt they look into this problem in beta?

You can still play the single player game. There were 2 problems that caused the game to die quickly.

1. A buggy launch. The game was launched in beta state. There were memory leaks and although the game was playable, it would crash regularly. Flagship did fix this but it was way to late. You only have one time to make a first impression.

2.  Huge billing problems. There were a lot of people getting overcharged by being charged multiple times. These players were never coming back.

Another problem was the lack of variety or content. Many of the areas were duplicate tile sets of other areas. Although the Stonehenge patch helped a lot. And given another month the Abyss patch would have helped much more.

If Hellgate:London had been more polished at launch, they would still be around today. Let that be a lesson for new developers. If they don't learn this lesson they will be the next one to get Flagshipped.

Originally posted by tro44_1

What was bad about this game?

The multiplayer.
 

The netcode couldn't sync with other players.

I thought the game was great, though I believe it wasn't "persistent" enough to pay a monthly fee for.  Had a lot of fun with the game, and never payed the fee. Man sure do wish it was still online right now.

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by tro44_1

What was bad about this game?

 

The multiplayer.
 

 

 

The netcode couldn't sync with other players.

 

In the beginning that was true, but by update 1.3b, it was fine.  I had very little problems with the netcode.  The major issue as to why this game failed was in two parts, 1) not enough content for the monthly fee, and 2) the companies missmanagement by Bill Roper not being able to close the deal with Hanbitsoft.  Though for the record, Habitsoft ignored FSS after they got bought out by T3.  Basically Hanbitsoft was supposed to be a co-invester, and were on friendly terms with FSS; but thanks T3 that all changed, and everything went sour after that.
 

Still I miss HGL, and hope it returns to the NA regions.  I miss hunting Dessi in The Wilds, and miss Moloch runs in Stonehenge with my guild buddies. :(

Originally posted by joeyboots

I thought the game was great, though I believe it wasn't "persistent" enough to pay a monthly fee for.  Had a lot of fun with the game, and never payed the fee. Man sure do wish it was still online right now.

I agree, and for me the fast-action gameplay mixed with the rpg character progression was a perfect marriage.  HGL has spoiled me that every game I've tried since then has failed to capture my monthly subscription.  I tried AoC and though I found the quests well written and imersive, the "point-click-autolock" gameplay no longer excites me since HGL.  Now sadly I find myself playing Neocron because it's FPS WASD controls, and user aiming reminds me of HGL.  I tried TCoS for a bit as well, and that does play like HGL in that it's also FPS WASD like HGL but... the characters move and run too slowly.  It feels like a sluggish rpg, and HGL has spoiled me with it's fast-paced action and animation.  Even with my PeP max'd, I barely notice that my character moved faster.

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by tro44_1

What was bad about this game?

 

The multiplayer.
 

 

 

The netcode couldn't sync with other players.

 

Nope .. the netcode worked fine for me.

My main issue wih hgl ( and nearly every other game i try ) was the constant glitching of bosses and elite areas. Fss tryed to patch the exploits but failed ever time.

i dont want to compete with cheaters i just want/need a level playing field that legit gamers can play.

1. Bad business model - It was an action rpg that charged a $9.95 monthly fee. Many did not like that.

2. The game was forced out because FSS was running out of funds which left the game still filled with issues.

3. Many kept comparing the game to Diablo and ofcourse if you excpect Diablo from HGL many will be unhappy. The game never had a fair chance because of this.

4. Many bad business decisions that didn't work. The guys at FSS have a ton of talent but business men they were not.

Honestly, if they would have fixed the game prior to launch many would be still playing HGL today despite some of its flaws. I still wish they multiplayer was available because the game was a ton of fun but unfortunately not all good ideas work all the time.