How else would you percieve a non-cost to play online mode with a paid to play mode?
I mean would the gimped multiplayer be pay to play? No? Well then the only thing I could think of would be multiple online modes. But hey! You can't play all of them for free! Maybe a deathmatch mode for free? Awesome! Wanna play with your friends? $xx.xx per month is awesome!
Maybe there is one cheat free [open] online server and one [closed] online server? Hey! Diablo has been doing that free for years!
Really, all I can think about is free mode = gimped mode.
Maybe there is one cheat free [open] online server and one [closed] online server? Hey! Diablo has been doing that free for years!
Apples and oranges, apples and oranges.
Dude its the same thing exactly. They have been hyping this game like its a future version of diablo.
Also apples and oranges are both fruit and there for fairly identical.
I don't know why people defend developer actions like this and act like anyone who calls them on it are the devil. Its stupid and not necessary. It isn't like this is some giant MMORPG with hundreds of servers and updates every month.
Maybe there is one cheat free [open] online server and one [closed] online server? Hey! Diablo has been doing that free for years!
Apples and oranges, apples and oranges.
Dude its the same thing exactly. They have been hyping this game like its a future version of diablo.
Also apples and oranges are both fruit and there for fairly identical.
I don't know why people defend developer actions like this and act like anyone who calls them on it are the devil. Its stupid and not necessary. It isn't like this is some giant MMORPG with hundreds of servers and updates every month.
The apples and oranges bit is stupid for two reasons. First, it's an expression. Who cares whether it literally means what it functionally means? Second, the fact that they're both fruit doesn't make them fairly identical. It makes them remotely similar. Grapes and apples are very different, as are kiwi and oranges, but they're all fruit.
OT: If there's a pay-to-play version of HGL's online play, than the free version will obviously be gimped. As SPI and Aumni said earlier, I doubt it's possible to have a pay version and a free version without the free version having fewer features (and thus gimped, unless the features are absolutely retarded).
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited January 2007
That gamespot interview is tells us nothing we don't already know. There's no information there guys, just a pr interview. We still can't argue this shit.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
That gamespot interview is tells us nothing we don't already know. There's no information there guys, just a pr interview. We still can't argue this shit.
No my point was the fact that they are just PR dancing around pretty much shows their stance on this.
If it wasn't as bad as everyone says they would say so.
If the free version is going to be so gimped just pay for the pay-to-play version. It's not like they're going to make us pay for something that sucks, however you guys seem to wholeheartedly think so.
If the free version is going to be so gimped just pay for the pay-to-play version. It's not like they're going to make us pay for something that sucks, however you guys seem to wholeheartedly think so.
It's more like the paying itself sucks. I'd rather not dedicate some money every month for something that has been done for free in the past. If that means less content, so be it. I can't shell out $15 or even $10 per month, every month I want to play this game.
If the free version is going to be so gimped just pay for the pay-to-play version. It's not like they're going to make us pay for something that sucks, however you guys seem to wholeheartedly think so.
It's more like the paying itself sucks. I'd rather not dedicate some money every month for something that has been done for free in the past. If that means less content, so be it. I can't shell out $15 or even $10 per month, every month I want to play this game.
Where have we seen what paying will give us? Nowhere. Where have we seen that it'll cost $15 or $10? Nowhere.
It's like you guys just don't want to like this game no matter what evidence is thrown at your faces.
If the free version is going to be so gimped just pay for the pay-to-play version. It's not like they're going to make us pay for something that sucks, however you guys seem to wholeheartedly think so.
It's more like the paying itself sucks. I'd rather not dedicate some money every month for something that has been done for free in the past. If that means less content, so be it. I can't shell out $15 or even $10 per month, every month I want to play this game.
Where have we seen what paying will give us? Nowhere. Where have we seen that it'll cost $15 or $10? Nowhere.
It's like you guys just don't want to like this game no matter what evidence is thrown at your faces.
You just don't get it, do you?
I think everyone who's upset about gimped multiplayer and pay-to-play has the exact opposite problem. We want to like the game very, very badly, but when the only thing we know about it's multiplayer capabilities is that it will have a pay-to-play component and a free component, nobody has a good feeling about it. If you'd stop relentlessly defending this game for two seconds, you'd see that nobody has said anything absurdly prophetic.
No "evidence" has been thrown in anyone's face that's positive. No news is not good news on this front, it's very, very bad news. A game that's supposed to be released within six months or so that doesn't even have it's multiplayer feature list worked out? Bad news. A game that doesn't know whether or not it's going to be pay-to-play full featued in about six months? Bad news. A game co-published by EA? Bad news.
Stop acting like you know everything that we don't and therefore everyone else's opinion is invalid. Nobody has to be excited about this game just because you're willing to pay a monthly fee for the multiplayer.
If the free version is going to be so gimped just pay for the pay-to-play version. It's not like they're going to make us pay for something that sucks, however you guys seem to wholeheartedly think so.
It's more like the paying itself sucks. I'd rather not dedicate some money every month for something that has been done for free in the past. If that means less content, so be it. I can't shell out $15 or even $10 per month, every month I want to play this game.
Where have we seen what paying will give us? Nowhere. Where have we seen that it'll cost $15 or $10? Nowhere.
It's like you guys just don't want to like this game no matter what evidence is thrown at your faces.
You just don't get it, do you?
I think everyone who's upset about gimped multiplayer and pay-to-play has the exact opposite problem. We want to like the game very, very badly, but when the only thing we know about it's multiplayer capabilities is that it will have a pay-to-play component and a free component, nobody has a good feeling about it. If you'd stop relentlessly defending this game for two seconds, you'd see that nobody has said anything absurdly prophetic.
No "evidence" has been thrown in anyone's face that's positive. No news is not good news on this front, it's very, very bad news. A game that's supposed to be released within six months or so that doesn't even have it's multiplayer feature list worked out? Bad news. A game that doesn't know whether or not it's going to be pay-to-play full featued in about six months? Bad news. A game co-published by EA? Bad news.
Stop acting like you know everything that we don't and therefore everyone else's opinion is invalid. Nobody has to be excited about this game just because you're willing to pay a monthly fee for the multiplayer.
The whole thing.
I'm just disappointed that the developers are coping out with the bullshit approach instead of actually talking to their fans like reasonable adults. I figured they would show more respect.
If the free version is going to be so gimped just pay for the pay-to-play version. It's not like they're going to make us pay for something that sucks, however you guys seem to wholeheartedly think so.
It's more like the paying itself sucks. I'd rather not dedicate some money every month for something that has been done for free in the past. If that means less content, so be it. I can't shell out $15 or even $10 per month, every month I want to play this game.
Where have we seen what paying will give us? Nowhere. Where have we seen that it'll cost $15 or $10? Nowhere.
It's like you guys just don't want to like this game no matter what evidence is thrown at your faces.
You just don't get it, do you?
I think everyone who's upset about gimped multiplayer and pay-to-play has the exact opposite problem. We want to like the game very, very badly, but when the only thing we know about it's multiplayer capabilities is that it will have a pay-to-play component and a free component, nobody has a good feeling about it. If you'd stop relentlessly defending this game for two seconds, you'd see that nobody has said anything absurdly prophetic.
No "evidence" has been thrown in anyone's face that's positive. No news is not good news on this front, it's very, very bad news. A game that's supposed to be released within six months or so that doesn't even have it's multiplayer feature list worked out? Bad news. A game that doesn't know whether or not it's going to be pay-to-play full featued in about six months? Bad news. A game co-published by EA? Bad news.
Stop acting like you know everything that we don't and therefore everyone else's opinion is invalid. Nobody has to be excited about this game just because you're willing to pay a monthly fee for the multiplayer.
The whole thing.
I'm just disappointed that the developers are coping out with the bullshit approach instead of actually talking to their fans like reasonable adults. I figured they would show more respect.
Sort of like one of the greatest developers out there.. Blizzard?
Don't get me wrong. I'm worried too. But not talking to us doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a crap game. I have high hopes, I guess. The videos look fun, if nothing else.
I figure more up-to-date infos will be coming our way as the game nears completion. Soon, then.
Paying your subscription just gives you access to all the new content first as it is created, you pay about $5 a month subscription for running updates of new monsters and stuff. However then after 6 months or so an expansion pack pops out with all the content that had already been added as well as a bit more for $30. Subscribers get the pack for free online, non-subscribers have to buy it.
The added stuff between packs is things like alterate dungeons, and extra quests. The pack would be like LoD for diablo, adding new areas and new levels.
So it really would be just an alternate payment scheme.
If the free version is going to be so gimped just pay for the pay-to-play version. It's not like they're going to make us pay for something that sucks, however you guys seem to wholeheartedly think so.
It's more like the paying itself sucks. I'd rather not dedicate some money every month for something that has been done for free in the past. If that means less content, so be it. I can't shell out $15 or even $10 per month, every month I want to play this game.
Where have we seen what paying will give us? Nowhere. Where have we seen that it'll cost $15 or $10? Nowhere.
It's like you guys just don't want to like this game no matter what evidence is thrown at your faces.
You just don't get it, do you?
I think everyone who's upset about gimped multiplayer and pay-to-play has the exact opposite problem. We want to like the game very, very badly, but when the only thing we know about it's multiplayer capabilities is that it will have a pay-to-play component and a free component, nobody has a good feeling about it. If you'd stop relentlessly defending this game for two seconds, you'd see that nobody has said anything absurdly prophetic.
No "evidence" has been thrown in anyone's face that's positive. No news is not good news on this front, it's very, very bad news. A game that's supposed to be released within six months or so that doesn't even have it's multiplayer feature list worked out? Bad news. A game that doesn't know whether or not it's going to be pay-to-play full featued in about six months? Bad news. A game co-published by EA? Bad news.
Stop acting like you know everything that we don't and therefore everyone else's opinion is invalid. Nobody has to be excited about this game just because you're willing to pay a monthly fee for the multiplayer.
The whole thing.
I'm just disappointed that the developers are coping out with the bullshit approach instead of actually talking to their fans like reasonable adults. I figured they would show more respect.
Ivan Sulic talks to us all the time in IRC and the fansite forums. Oh wait sorry, I'm defending a game we don't know 1/2 about yet.
I like how people say, without knowing, that this has been done in the past for free or that it can be done in the future for free. Well you know what? You can wait for the fucking free game to come walking by. I'm gonna pay money if the games decent.
I think I post this question in every thread about upcoming RPG's, but....any news on if there may be offline co-op from 1 console?
Well, first it would have to be released for a console - it's a PC title. Wii remote could make for a cool interface, but I highly doubt the Wii could run it as presented. Maybe a spinoff title? Hellgate: New York anyone?
I think I post this question in every thread about upcoming RPG's, but....any news on if there may be offline co-op from 1 console?
Well, first it would have to be released for a console - it's a PC title. Wii remote could make for a cool interface, but I highly doubt the Wii could run it as presented. Maybe a spinoff title? Hellgate: New York anyone?
Ah, well, I had also heard that it was at least rumored for the 360, so I've been curious about the multiplayer potential there. We shall see, I suppose.
We have always had the intention of providing a rich, robust, MMO gaming experience for our players. This means that we will be providing everything from a secure client/server infrastructure to 24/7 customer support to maintaining a complete live team to provide not only balance and bug fixes, but more importantly, continuing, ongoing content updates to the game. And while we are still finalizing the commercial and game aspects of our online plans, we can tell players that there will definitely be significant free online play.
We have always had the intention of providing a rich, robust, MMO gaming experience for our players. This means that we will be providing everything from a secure client/server infrastructure to 24/7 customer support to maintaining a complete live team to provide not only balance and bug fixes, but more importantly, continuing, ongoing content updates to the game. And while we are still finalizing the commercial and game aspects of our online plans, we can tell players that there will definitely be significant free online play.
:roll:
great post, outstanding work, man your a credit to posters everywhere Amniotic :roll:
We have always had the intention of providing a rich, robust, MMO gaming experience for our players. This means that we will be providing everything from a secure client/server infrastructure to 24/7 customer support to maintaining a complete live team to provide not only balance and bug fixes, but more importantly, continuing, ongoing content updates to the game. And while we are still finalizing the commercial and game aspects of our online plans, we can tell players that there will definitely be significant free online play.
:roll:
great post, outstanding work, man your a credit to posters everywhere Amniotic :roll:
Who's more foolish... etc etc.
Anyway - I was really disappointed to see the "marketing drone" responses in that interview. As we approach release more and more, it seems like the stuff we've seen coming out of Flagship has been less and less exciting. Remember the earliest walkthrough videos and how stoked the people presenting were on the game?
The part of the interview that frustrated me the most was when etoy('s wife) tried to pin him down on exact details regarding the pay-to-play multiplayer, and he just dodged all over the place. The more specific the question, the more vague the answer.
Is it really a good idea for them to differentiate their player base like that?
This game and Spore are the only '07 games I'm really interested in. I hate seeing this one slip closer and closer to Corporate Hell. They need to leave Hell where it belongs, in my C:\My Games\Hellgate London directory.
Only 3 classes. Weird MMO charge without MMO features.
Guess we'll see.
well he did say that the 3 groups are largers sects, and each will have multiple classes.
Yeah, I got that impression too. And I'm assuming (positively this time! the shock) that multiple means more than two, so at least 3, or why not say couple. So at least 9 classes. At the very least, we can lay the 3 class complaint to rest now.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Only 3 classes. Weird MMO charge without MMO features.
Guess we'll see.
well he did say that the 3 groups are largers sects, and each will have multiple classes.
Yeah, I got that impression too. And I'm assuming (positively this time! the shock) that multiple means more than two, so at least 3, or why not say couple. So at least 9 classes. At the very least, we can lay the 3 class complaint to rest now.
In theory we can. In practice, I'm guessing the three classes will just have different skill trees or something similar to Diablo as opposed to actively different roles in each. I'd LOVE for this to be true, though.
Only 3 classes. Weird MMO charge without MMO features.
Guess we'll see.
well he did say that the 3 groups are largers sects, and each will have multiple classes.
Yeah, I got that impression too. And I'm assuming (positively this time! the shock) that multiple means more than two, so at least 3, or why not say couple. So at least 9 classes. At the very least, we can lay the 3 class complaint to rest now.
Doesn't each class have 3 "skill trees" to choose between? I wouldn't be too surprised if it turned out to be that way instead of having several different classes divided between the three sides.
Only 3 classes. Weird MMO charge without MMO features.
Guess we'll see.
well he did say that the 3 groups are largers sects, and each will have multiple classes.
Yeah, I got that impression too. And I'm assuming (positively this time! the shock) that multiple means more than two, so at least 3, or why not say couple. So at least 9 classes. At the very least, we can lay the 3 class complaint to rest now.
In theory we can. In practice, I'm guessing the three classes will just have different skill trees or something similar to Diablo as opposed to actively different roles in each. I'd LOVE for this to be true, though.
Well, Roper's exact quote was:
A key distinction I want to make is that the Templar, Cabalist and Hunter are considered Factions in Hellgate: London. They represent storyline philosophies and groups as well as overall gameplay concepts. Within each faction there will be multiple classes that focus on specific elements of that faction. So yes, there is still more to be revealed!
So what I am expecting are like Templars that focus on healing, others that focus on certain types of weapons, armaments, or skills. A worse case scenario is going to have 3 very different factions, and then a set of classes basically cloned across all 3.
Only 3 classes. Weird MMO charge without MMO features.
Guess we'll see.
well he did say that the 3 groups are largers sects, and each will have multiple classes.
Yeah, I got that impression too. And I'm assuming (positively this time! the shock) that multiple means more than two, so at least 3, or why not say couple. So at least 9 classes. At the very least, we can lay the 3 class complaint to rest now.
In theory we can. In practice, I'm guessing the three classes will just have different skill trees or something similar to Diablo as opposed to actively different roles in each. I'd LOVE for this to be true, though.
Well, Roper's exact quote was:
A key distinction I want to make is that the Templar, Cabalist and Hunter are considered Factions in Hellgate: London. They represent storyline philosophies and groups as well as overall gameplay concepts. Within each faction there will be multiple classes that focus on specific elements of that faction. So yes, there is still more to be revealed!
So what I am expecting are like Templars that focus on healing, others that focus on certain types of weapons, armaments, or skills. A worse case scenario is going to have 3 very different factions, and then a set of classes basically cloned across all 3.
Only 3 classes. Weird MMO charge without MMO features.
Guess we'll see.
well he did say that the 3 groups are largers sects, and each will have multiple classes.
Yeah, I got that impression too. And I'm assuming (positively this time! the shock) that multiple means more than two, so at least 3, or why not say couple. So at least 9 classes. At the very least, we can lay the 3 class complaint to rest now.
In theory we can. In practice, I'm guessing the three classes will just have different skill trees or something similar to Diablo as opposed to actively different roles in each. I'd LOVE for this to be true, though.
Well, Roper's exact quote was:
A key distinction I want to make is that the Templar, Cabalist and Hunter are considered Factions in Hellgate: London. They represent storyline philosophies and groups as well as overall gameplay concepts. Within each faction there will be multiple classes that focus on specific elements of that faction. So yes, there is still more to be revealed!
So what I am expecting are like Templars that focus on healing, others that focus on certain types of weapons, armaments, or skills. A worse case scenario is going to have 3 very different factions, and then a set of classes basically cloned across all 3.
I guess that you could call that 6 different classes but if that's what Roper and co means then I call them just lazy.
Where did that info come from?
My own take on that is that Cabalist would have like, Priest, Mage, Warlockystylething/Necromancer.
Templar would have Fighter, Assassin, Rogue, Paladin
Hunter would have Sniper, Ranger, Amazon-style character, Heavy machine gun style character.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I read the interview, and I saw the exact quote about it, but I wasn't inclined to take his usage of the word "class" with anything more than a grain of salt, especially given the "marketing drone" nature of his other responses. I seem to recall some info about skill trees within the classes, and I imagine that it's a lot more like the different skill trees in Diablo, not so much like different classes in the traditional RPG sense.
I would say that you should just ask him a followup question about that, but I'm pretty sure I can predict the response already.
"We are committed to providing as many unique roles of play in Hellgate: London as we can. I assure you, not only will Hellgate: London offer the same depth of play as a traditional MMORPG, it will also mow your lawn!"
On a bit of a side note, I found this lovely video trailer while searching around for hellgate tidbits. The middle portion of the video makes up the second trailer they released at E3 a while back, but the first and last parts of the video are new.
With regards to the class issue, the hunter/templar/cabalist set of "classes" or "factions" reminds me in many ways of the first Diablo's rather limited selection. So it wouldn't surprise me if they do end up sticking to just 3 classes. It would leave them plenty of room to develop additional classes if there are Hellgate sequels.
Only 3 classes. Weird MMO charge without MMO features.
Guess we'll see.
well he did say that the 3 groups are largers sects, and each will have multiple classes.
Yeah, I got that impression too. And I'm assuming (positively this time! the shock) that multiple means more than two, so at least 3, or why not say couple. So at least 9 classes. At the very least, we can lay the 3 class complaint to rest now.
In theory we can. In practice, I'm guessing the three classes will just have different skill trees or something similar to Diablo as opposed to actively different roles in each. I'd LOVE for this to be true, though.
Well, Roper's exact quote was:
A key distinction I want to make is that the Templar, Cabalist and Hunter are considered Factions in Hellgate: London. They represent storyline philosophies and groups as well as overall gameplay concepts. Within each faction there will be multiple classes that focus on specific elements of that faction. So yes, there is still more to be revealed!
So what I am expecting are like Templars that focus on healing, others that focus on certain types of weapons, armaments, or skills. A worse case scenario is going to have 3 very different factions, and then a set of classes basically cloned across all 3.
I guess that you could call that 6 different classes but if that's what Roper and co means then I call them just lazy.
Where did that info come from?
My own take on that is that Cabalist would have like, Priest, Mage, Warlockystylething/Necromancer.
Templar would have Fighter, Assassin, Rogue, Paladin
Hunter would have Sniper, Ranger, Amazon-style character, Heavy machine gun style character.
The skill tree list is from Hellgates own webpage, just check it out in the class section.
Posts
How else would you percieve a non-cost to play online mode with a paid to play mode?
I mean would the gimped multiplayer be pay to play? No? Well then the only thing I could think of would be multiple online modes. But hey! You can't play all of them for free! Maybe a deathmatch mode for free? Awesome! Wanna play with your friends? $xx.xx per month is awesome!
Maybe there is one cheat free [open] online server and one [closed] online server? Hey! Diablo has been doing that free for years!
Really, all I can think about is free mode = gimped mode.
Apples and oranges, apples and oranges.
Although I'm still waiting to see what the fuck is going on with this game.
Dude its the same thing exactly. They have been hyping this game like its a future version of diablo.
Also apples and oranges are both fruit and there for fairly identical.
I don't know why people defend developer actions like this and act like anyone who calls them on it are the devil. Its stupid and not necessary. It isn't like this is some giant MMORPG with hundreds of servers and updates every month.
I never asked for this!
OT: If there's a pay-to-play version of HGL's online play, than the free version will obviously be gimped. As SPI and Aumni said earlier, I doubt it's possible to have a pay version and a free version without the free version having fewer features (and thus gimped, unless the features are absolutely retarded).
No my point was the fact that they are just PR dancing around pretty much shows their stance on this.
If it wasn't as bad as everyone says they would say so.
I never asked for this!
Where have we seen what paying will give us? Nowhere. Where have we seen that it'll cost $15 or $10? Nowhere.
It's like you guys just don't want to like this game no matter what evidence is thrown at your faces.
You just don't get it, do you?
I think everyone who's upset about gimped multiplayer and pay-to-play has the exact opposite problem. We want to like the game very, very badly, but when the only thing we know about it's multiplayer capabilities is that it will have a pay-to-play component and a free component, nobody has a good feeling about it. If you'd stop relentlessly defending this game for two seconds, you'd see that nobody has said anything absurdly prophetic.
No "evidence" has been thrown in anyone's face that's positive. No news is not good news on this front, it's very, very bad news. A game that's supposed to be released within six months or so that doesn't even have it's multiplayer feature list worked out? Bad news. A game that doesn't know whether or not it's going to be pay-to-play full featued in about six months? Bad news. A game co-published by EA? Bad news.
Stop acting like you know everything that we don't and therefore everyone else's opinion is invalid. Nobody has to be excited about this game just because you're willing to pay a monthly fee for the multiplayer.
The whole thing.
I'm just disappointed that the developers are coping out with the bullshit approach instead of actually talking to their fans like reasonable adults. I figured they would show more respect.
I never asked for this!
Sort of like one of the greatest developers out there.. Blizzard?
Don't get me wrong. I'm worried too. But not talking to us doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a crap game. I have high hopes, I guess. The videos look fun, if nothing else.
I figure more up-to-date infos will be coming our way as the game nears completion. Soon, then.
Paying your subscription just gives you access to all the new content first as it is created, you pay about $5 a month subscription for running updates of new monsters and stuff. However then after 6 months or so an expansion pack pops out with all the content that had already been added as well as a bit more for $30. Subscribers get the pack for free online, non-subscribers have to buy it.
The added stuff between packs is things like alterate dungeons, and extra quests. The pack would be like LoD for diablo, adding new areas and new levels.
So it really would be just an alternate payment scheme.
Ivan Sulic talks to us all the time in IRC and the fansite forums. Oh wait sorry, I'm defending a game we don't know 1/2 about yet.
Well, first it would have to be released for a console - it's a PC title. Wii remote could make for a cool interface, but I highly doubt the Wii could run it as presented. Maybe a spinoff title? Hellgate: New York anyone?
I think there's already a thread on that:
Ah, well, I had also heard that it was at least rumored for the 360, so I've been curious about the multiplayer potential there. We shall see, I suppose.
:roll:
great post, outstanding work, man your a credit to posters everywhere Amniotic :roll:
Who's more foolish... etc etc.
Anyway - I was really disappointed to see the "marketing drone" responses in that interview. As we approach release more and more, it seems like the stuff we've seen coming out of Flagship has been less and less exciting. Remember the earliest walkthrough videos and how stoked the people presenting were on the game?
Is it really a good idea for them to differentiate their player base like that?
Only 3 classes. Weird MMO charge without MMO features.
Guess we'll see.
well he did say that the 3 groups are largers sects, and each will have multiple classes.
Yeah, I got that impression too. And I'm assuming (positively this time! the shock) that multiple means more than two, so at least 3, or why not say couple. So at least 9 classes. At the very least, we can lay the 3 class complaint to rest now.
In theory we can. In practice, I'm guessing the three classes will just have different skill trees or something similar to Diablo as opposed to actively different roles in each. I'd LOVE for this to be true, though.
EDIT:Beat'd
Well, Roper's exact quote was:
So what I am expecting are like Templars that focus on healing, others that focus on certain types of weapons, armaments, or skills. A worse case scenario is going to have 3 very different factions, and then a set of classes basically cloned across all 3.
Mastery
Evocation
Transformation
Templar skilltree:
Assault
Invocation
Holy Aura
I guess that you could call that 6 different classes but if that's what Roper and co means then I call them just lazy.
Where did that info come from?
My own take on that is that Cabalist would have like, Priest, Mage, Warlockystylething/Necromancer.
Templar would have Fighter, Assassin, Rogue, Paladin
Hunter would have Sniper, Ranger, Amazon-style character, Heavy machine gun style character.
I would say that you should just ask him a followup question about that, but I'm pretty sure I can predict the response already.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAmvtgmO4sM
With regards to the class issue, the hunter/templar/cabalist set of "classes" or "factions" reminds me in many ways of the first Diablo's rather limited selection. So it wouldn't surprise me if they do end up sticking to just 3 classes. It would leave them plenty of room to develop additional classes if there are Hellgate sequels.