Hellgate: London

Silver Predator Wolf · Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:15 am

Well... the game is not out yet. But it will come out this year. It's a RPG cross with a FPS. The good news, is that it's platform is Microsoft Windows. By the looks of the trailer, it's going to need a very good graphic card to play it. As for the other stuff that is needed, I cant say anything.... Well... here is the trailer and the info on it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y4ID0i7_N0g

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellgate_london

Wan · Post by **Wan** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:56 am

In-game video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=P9YaUI48yw0

*sniffs* smells like "Windows Vista required due to DX10"

EDIT:

Wikipedia wrote:On August 6, 2007, Electronic Arts and Namco Bandai Games announced that the game will be released on October 31, 2007 in the USA, and November 2, 2007 in Europe.

Halloween, anyone? xD

Silver Predator Wolf · Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:59 am

Ya.. who knows what else is needed to play this game. So far.. that is all we know.....

Confidential · Post by **Confidential** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 3:38 am

I guess we'll need...
Intel Core 2 Duo (or Quad would be better)
Around 1-2 GB of RAM
A very good VGA card (GeForce 7 or 8 or equivalent)
for the game to run efficiently.

I've read in some game forums. It said that Hellgate London will be working in both XP and Vista.
But all of these information aren't confirmed yet.

(I'll definitely need a new PC for this...Since mine's only Pentium 4 HT, 512 MB RAM and GeForce 6200. o_o')

Silver Predator Wolf · Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:03 am

Ya.. I need to upgrade my com to. I just hope I will have enough after I save up.

Absolute Wolf · Post by **Absolute Wolf** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:39 am

Hm...I wonder how efficient will it work with EMT64 technology...I doubt that it will need a dual-core to work efficiently.But a powerful processor is needed , thats for sure.
As I read : 1Gb ram is sufficient for the game...
They say that a minimum of 256 MB of video memory is required to work properly,yet 128 is the least ( of course on PCI-Express)
Judging from the trailers seen it has an interesting plot.
Good game!

Silver Predator Wolf · Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:43 am

The com I'm using now needs one hell of an upgrade just to play this game. Either I do that or I get a new com. Well... I will just have to wait and see.

Absolute Wolf · Post by **Absolute Wolf** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:03 am

I'll won't start with what kind of PC you have to buy to suite your needs, but keep in mind that if you buy a new PC, then buy one that will be compatible with games even in 2-3 years time.Technology is evolving faster and faster.
Good luck on buying a new PC or just upgrading!

Silver Predator Wolf · Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:07 am

I'll keep that in mind when I am going for a custom made PC. The one I'm using now can't even handle maple story and by the looks of it, this com will only be able to use for doing projects and homework. I have to save up my money to get a new PC.

Confidential · Post by **Confidential** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:46 am

I have GeForce 6200 256MB on AGP8X Interface. I guess it's gonna be so laggy if I play this game without an upgrade.

Silver Predator Wolf · Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:00 am

Best to do an upgrade Confi. The last thing you want is to be killed by lag when you are playing single player or on the net.

Morkulv · Post by **Morkulv** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:01 am

Silver Predator Wolf · Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:04 am

Na... It can be played online. But you might have to pay if you want to go beyound a certain level and do other stuff. They are still talking about this do.... But I'm sure it can be played as single and on the net.

Absolute Wolf · Post by **Absolute Wolf** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:57 am

I took the time to see what is the big difference between DirectX 10 & DirectX 9. There is a big difference between them just as Morkulv mentioned earlier.
Now...There won't be a DirectX 10 for XP, instead there will be the DirectX 9.L - which has is compatible with games requiring DirectX 10, yet not as good.
Another thing is the CPU...I wondered around to see about the latest Dual & Quad Core system and any drawbacks. It is said that in a way the Dual Core systems are poor in performance than a single Core CPU...All depends on the Software and the Motherboard used.
I include some links : First of all DirectX --- http://im-gamer.com/images/img/directx_9_vs_10.jpg
Now the article about Dual Core CPU --- http://compreviews.about.com/od/cpus/a/dualcore.htm

Shadow Wulf · Post by **Shadow Wulf** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:37 pm

I would like to know when that dual core review was written because from what I can tell now a days dual core is better than single.

IndianaJones · Post by **IndianaJones** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:21 pm

My Dell Dimension 3000 Computer specs.

Intel Pentium 4 2.80 ghz
Windows XP Home Edition (regarded as Custom Edition)
512 mb of Ram
Nvidia GeForce FX 5500 256mb PCI (better than ATI Radeon 9250 PCI)
DirectX 9.0c latest version
40 GB hard drive (it's gay, it won't fit most of my favorite stuff in)

Damn, I need to customize this computer right now or buy a new computer.

Absolute Wolf · Post by **Absolute Wolf** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:14 pm

Shadow Wulf wrote:I would like to know when that dual core review was written because from what I can tell now a days dual core is better than single.

I continued to search for some more info about dual and quad core systems.They do have a drawback at the clock speed.Some of newer dual and quad CPUs have the same drawback, they have less clock speed then a single core thus in some processing they might be a bit slower then a single core unit.Yet the dual & quad core CPUs can handle more data then a single core,yet some are not necessarily faster then a single core.They can just handle more + adding hyper threding to each core can take up more than 5-10 tasks demanding 100% CPU usage and still have enough cache and MHz to start and run other applications at the same rate.Yet a single core unit can process a bit faster the the newer ones (In some situations).Or it's maybe because I'm running an Intel series 630 CPU.
Now...I'm not saying that if someone buys a new PC,he/she should buy a single core CPU...In contrary it's better if he/she buys a dual or quad core CPU as it will handle Windows Vista smoother or Windows XP,XP 64,not mentioning the new Games on market and still appearing. Yet it is mentioned that to used the dual core or quad core in 100% and working on 64-bit you need 4 GB of RAM,but thats another story...
Right now...If someone buys a dual core or quad core system it should be compatible depending on software and other hardware.
Just to mention: I saw a lot of people who bought a Dual Core CPU for good price and a poor quality motherboard.(It was sad)
So all in all a Dual Core or Multiple Core CPU is the best deal.

IndianaJones wrote: My Dell Dimension 3000 Computer specs.

Intel Pentium 4 2.80 ghz
Windows XP Home Edition (regarded as Custom Edition)
512 mb of Ram
Nvidia GeForce FX 5500 256mb PCI (better than ATI Radeon 9250 PCI)
DirectX 9.0c latest version
40 GB hard drive (it's gay, it won't fit most of my favorite stuff in)

Damn, I need to customize this computer right now or buy a new computer.

If you plan to upgrade it's advisable to add new hardrive(A 120 GB sounds good for start),putting the old one as slave.
Then the RAM,adding a + 512 would help you and XP
With the FX 5500 you should be able to play this game.
There will be a new DirectX for those who don't have Windows Vista which has DirectX 10, yet want max compatibility with the newest games = DirectX 9.L
This covers it up for short...

Yet,you could also buy a new PC.It's your choice!
Good luck!

Shadow Wulf · Post by **Shadow Wulf** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:36 pm

So...for gaming; should I get a dual core or a single?

Xiroteus · Post by **Xiroteus** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:47 pm

Have yet to see anyone recommend a single core any longer. (Based on a computer web site I was reading for a few weeks before I built my system.)
No idea what the companies are thinking when they put out basic computers with 512MB ram with Vista.

Absolute Wolf · Post by **Absolute Wolf** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:21 am

Shadow Wulf wrote:So...for gaming; should I get a dual core or a single?

It's recommended to get a dual core or quad core CPU.For desktop computers, it will be better and with new OS and other software it will be an advantage if you have a dual core.(For short) If you'd like a proper from Intel ,then dual core I'd recommend the E6850 65 nm 4MB L2 3 GHz 1333 MHz - The price is acceptable and it can serve anyone for a long time...It won't be outdated that easy...Especially having 3.0 GHz (in dual).Yet if you really want to have high performance ,both from Intel there is the :QX6850 65 nm 8MB L2 3 GHz 1333 MHz. Yet if you choose this , it's recommended at least 2 GB of RAM...if you'd like to feel performance...(The thing is that all of these products cost a hell lot of money,but they can be used efficiently for many years and applications to come.)
Quad Cores are still at a high price.
Here you can see the Serial name of the product and it's capabilities : http://www.intel.com/products/processor ... /index.htm
I'm not very familiar with AMD products...(I've used them,but it was not of my liking...No offense) So here is a list of AMD products : http://www.intel.com/products/processor ... /index.htm

Xiroteus wrote:Have yet to see anyone recommend a single core any longer. (Based on a computer web site I was reading for a few weeks before I built my system.)
No idea what the companies are thinking when they put out basic computers with 512MB ram with Vista.

Vista will work effiently with 1GB of RAM,yet the more, the better...It will work with 512MB RAM,just like XP running on 128 or 256 MB RAM.
Yes, the single core CPU is not recommended any more.Thats true.
Yet the funny thing is that a Dual Core CPU cannot give the same performance as 2 Single CPU cores.

It's wiser to look around on the market for new PC products, then buy the one you find the best in price and in performance. I'm not the fan of PCs that are already biult in the store and ready for sale.It's better if you choose the parts you want your PC to work with.(Yet, be carefull,most of the products are compatible with one another,but not all!)

Morkulv · Post by **Morkulv** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:33 am

I'm curious if it will run on 3 ghz dual core, 1 gb RAM, and 256 mb videocard.

Absolute Wolf · Post by **Absolute Wolf** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:59 am

Morkulv wrote:I'm curious if it will run on 3 ghz dual core, 1 gb RAM, and 256 mb videocard.

It has to run with such products...Now if the Hardware is all fine,then it all depends on the software(programs,drivers,engines,...)
But I can't see anything why it won't run with 3 GHz in Dual,1 GB RAM and with a 256 MB Graphics card.

Xiroteus · Post by **Xiroteus** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:07 am

Vista will work effiently with 1GB of RAM,yet the more, the better...It will work with 512MB RAM,just like XP running on 128 or 256 MB RAM.
Yes, the single core CPU is not recommended any more.Thats true.
Yet the funny thing is that a Dual Core CPU cannot give the same performance as 2 Single CPU cores.

It will run, I hear it is not the best and they should have at least one giga byte.

It's wiser to look around on the market for new PC products, then buy the one you find the best in price and in performance. I'm not the fan of PCs that are already biult in the store and ready for sale.It's better if you choose the parts you want your PC to work with.(Yet, be carefull,most of the products are compatible with one another,but not all!)

That is what I just did, I got a better system then the pre-builts, I did research and asked questions for about a month before I bought the parts.

Absolute Wolf · Post by **Absolute Wolf** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:22 am

Same here...
I also did a month research/search for the products that I considered the best. I took in consideration both Intel & AMD. Finally I remained at Intel.I took in consideration that if I'm buying a new parts/products ,than I should buy those that will be compatible and still have high performance even after 2-3 years.
Anyway, it worth it!

Xiroteus · Post by **Xiroteus** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:37 am

I went with ADM, working well so far, I was on a budget as well, so I got the best I could with what I had.