Talk:Hellgate: London/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  hellgate 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Can I remove the Fact Sheet? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Based items 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Source Code stolen 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Guilds? 

message: " 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)
thread_title:  Characters comparation with Diablo 2 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Screens/Info 

message: 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)
replies: text: Since they're located in North America, North America summer, or Q2 2007. VegJed 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Summer?! 

message: I'm not really following the development of Hellgate: London, so it's hard for me to make the sort of deep edits I think would really benefit this article.  So a few suggestions for people with the appropriate knowledge:  1. The article needs a lot more citations.  The references at the bottom look promising, but it would be nice if their relevance was marked with <ref>s in the article body. 2. The news about fan response to announcements from the developer seems overblown.  It's brutally hard to validate claims like "many fans."  Sure "some" say they plan on no longer buying the game, but is that really newsworthy?  Fans of yet-to-be-released games scream and moan about all sorts of things.  3. Most of the article amounts to reporting on things that have been claimed by the developers.  Unless a third party (like a journalist who saw a pre-release) confirms things, they really need lots of "Flagship Studios claims that the game will include..." prepended to the claims. — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested improvements to the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Constantly refrencing Diablo. 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gameplay 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  There is no "hunter" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Classes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Early Release? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed POV on subscriptions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Review skewing 

message: Any of the regular contributers object to me implementing Miszabot talkpage archiving? thanks, --guyzero | talk 20:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Miszabot implemented. cheers, --guyzero | talk 17:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talkpage archiving? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This is what I have so far:
The game received a mixed reception from reviews. Reviewers cited its addictive, challenging, fast gameplay, randomisation and similarities to the Diablo series as positives, while its repetitive nature, skeletal plot and subscription model were seen as negative aspects. The game received 70/100 on Metacritic, based on an average from 35 reviews.
Hellgate drew numerous criticisms involving the games rushed release which seen it shipped with numerous bugs, including "game breaking" bugs , such as a memory leak which resulted in numerous crashes and a bug which prevented players from progressing through storyline content.
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)

text: 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)

text: 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. Someoneanother 14:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Reception section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Review Comment 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: What if I were to reference multiple other sources?      and  (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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy section controversy 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Diablo series 

message: 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)
replies: text: Found sth like this . 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  SEA support summary 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Flagship Studios loses ownership of Hellgate: London 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Palladium 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too long 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Multiplayer is now Asian territories only 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Habisoft was going global with Hellgate 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Major Reconstruction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Seperate Page