RPGWatch Feature: Arcania Review

[Brumbek]

Fantastic review! Very well written and balanced! It would be wonderful if all reviews gave multiple final scores or thoughts based on the audience. It helps to avoid so much confusion. Although I'm a hardcore RPG fan, I'll probably still enjoy ArcaniA because I also admit I do enjoy playing more simplistic games from time to time. Variety is the spice of life, plus I've never played any of the Gothics (crazy, I know) because I always felt they were the poor man's Elder Scrolls (no offense).

 

[Ovenall]

Fantastic review! Very well written and balanced! It would be wonderful if all reviews gave multiple final scores or thoughts based on the audience. It helps to avoid so much confusion. Although I'm a hardcore RPG fan, I'll probably still enjoy ArcaniA because I also admit I do enjoy playing more simplistic games from time to time. Variety is the spice of life, plus I've never played any of the Gothics (crazy, I know) because I always felt they were the poor man's Elder Scrolls (no offense).

Man, I feel the same way. I came to G2 very late… just a couple years ago. I thought it was only moderately OK. The whole thing was more of a twitch-reflex kind of game than an RPG. I remember the very beginning, in some tower. There was a button on the wall. It looked like a minor glitch in the graphics. But if you activated it, a portcullis opened and you could get the loot behind it.

How is that some kind of ultimate hardcore RPG element? My character wasn't seeing it… Me, the guy in front of the computer had to notice it to make it work. People here hold the Gothic series up to a ridiculous level of admiration as a "hard core" RPG.

The combat was terrible, and it was terrible in a different way in G3. It was all basically reflex-based with weird controls to boot. Whack the monster, then jump back. Repeat. Repeat.

Also- unlimited inventory. How in the world does that make for a "hard core" RPG? I can carry 15 shovels, 4 swords, several suits of armor, scads of crafting items etc., etc., and still have room to pick up an infinite amount of more shovels and hammers? WTF?

There was some good exploration to be done, but the general gameplay was mediocre. The strangest thing of all of this to me is that they keep making the same game, over and over.

I know this is just my opinion. But I just don't get the huge love for the Gothic series.

 

[Gorath]

Variety is the spice of life, plus I've never played any of the Gothics (crazy, I know) because I always felt they were the poor man's Elder Scrolls (no offense).

The other way round. The Elder Scrolls had size, the Gothics had substance. Similar games ... and so different.

 

[GothicLena]

Man, I feel the same way. I came to G2 very late… just a couple years ago. I thought it was only moderately OK. The whole thing was more of a twitch-reflex kind of game than an RPG. I remember the very beginning, in some tower. There was a button on the wall. It looked like a minor glitch in the graphics. But if you activated it, a portcullis opened and you could get the loot behind it.

How is that some kind of ultimate hardcore RPG element? My character wasn't seeing it… Me, the guy in front of the computer had to notice it to make it work. People here hold the Gothic series up to a ridiculous level of admiration as a "hard core" RPG.

The combat was terrible, and it was terrible in a different way in G3. It was all basically reflex-based with weird controls to boot. Whack the monster, then jump back. Repeat. Repeat.

Also- unlimited inventory. How in the world does that make for a "hard core" RPG? I can carry 15 shovels, 4 swords, several suits of armor, scads of crafting items etc., etc., and still have room to pick up an infinite amount of more shovels and hammers? WTF?

There was some good exploration to be done, but the general gameplay was mediocre. The strangest thing of all of this to me is that they keep making the same game, over and over.

I know this is just my opinion. But I just don't get the huge love for the Gothic series.

Im glad someone else is sane around here, Gothics had a good storyline and the world had alot of depth but really the Controls are horribley bad and the combat systems in Gothic games are amongst the worst ever concieved. Dont get me started on Gothic 3 with the Stun Locking and knockdown spamming that could get inflicted on the player, and how wolves, were the hardest fights in the game. Wolves? Really? Not Orcs, Bosses, Shadowbeasts? Wolves? It was pretty bad I also dont know why some people talk about gothic like it was the greatest RPG ever known to mankind and how they want to lynch you for saying how bad the combat is. I did enjoy the games, but they were nowhere near what I'd consider the best, I still think Ultima 7 wins as best, or if we are talking modern-ish RPGs, Dragon Age or Might and Magic.

I will give mention to the Witcher, I thought it had a interesting combat system that I remember affectionately, it wasnt so Twitchy and ill concieved but it also wasnt just sit back and spam attack or sit back and do nothing it was interactive too but not in a annoying way, Witcher might be one of the best half way combat systems in my opinion, half way between Casual-ish and between Classic-ish.

 

[JDR13]

but really the Controls are horribley bad and the combat systems in Gothic games are amongst the worst ever concieved..

You're exaggerating to a ridiculous degree. It's completely subjective, but there are many who really enjoyed the combat in the earlier Gothic games. I'm referring to Gothic 1&2, as there's really no defending the combat in G3.

 

[GothicLena]

You're exaggerating to a ridiculous degree. It's completely subjective, but there are many who really enjoyed the combat in the earlier Gothic games. I'm referring to Gothic 1&2, as there's really no defending the combat in G3.

Probably in Europe, I know Gothic is Europe's Elder Scroll Series (in terms of popularity) but Gothics have never been well received here in the US. Oddly, Gothic 4 might end up being the most well received Gothic game to hit the US.

But Gothic 1/2 controls and combat were very bad, even though granted I do agree Gothic 3s were by far the worst.

I still shudder at people saying despite stunlocks and Uber wolves, its good.

 

[Thrasher]

I actually liked the controls in G2. I think they added some tactical complexity to the combat missing from the tES series.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Ditto. I never had problems with the controls - with the notable exception of being unable to hit meatbugs in G1, in the first area. I almost gave up on the game then!
But its a useless point to argue. It was an unusual control system - you could get used to it, but its a fact that it turned many people away. I also never had a problem with the supposed difficulty of Gothic - but I play at a leisurely pace, rather avoiding fights, and happy to run for my life where necessary.
Is Gothic a hardcore RPG? It really depends (as always with RPGs) how you define that. It is hardly even a RPG if you are looking for in-depth character creation (there is none) detailed dialog trees (they are basic, often even just linear). It is a hardcore RPG if you consider the lack of handholding, general difficulty, size and detail of the world, grim setting, game changing decisions (which camp, factions) etc.
Regarding G3, with the CP, stunlock is not a problem anymore. In the state it is today, I found it a really fun game, though far weaker on story than G1 and G2+NOtR.

I liked the Witchers combat system about the same as Gothics system - I like the core mechanic better in Gothic, but I dig Witchers combination of melee with signs and alchemy.

 

[Cerberus]

Ehm, compared to what the modern market is offering, I'd say Gothic 1/2 are VERY hardcore - actually.

Indeed.

Also, R.I.P. Gothic Series 2001 - 2003
You'll be missed.

 

[skavenhorde]

I actually liked the controls in G2. I think they added some tactical complexity to the combat missing from the tES series.

+1

Someone posted a few days ago about the control system explaining how you could feel real improvement each time you improved your melee skills(excellent post sorry I can't remember your name). I agree with this opinion 100%. people who didn't stick with it were left with the impression that the combat was always that basic.

When I started adding points into the one handed skill I could immediatly see and feel the improvement. I love that to this day. They should have the melee suck big time in the beginning, but as your character improves the melee gets better. It only makes sense after all. You aren't supposed to be the best fighter in the world at level 1.

Oh wow there IS someone else out there who played some of those intellivision D&D games. You are really correct, those games were MAGIC at the time.

And remember Swords and Serpents by Imagic? That game was a prelude to the whole Gauntlet series.

(OT) Never played Swords of Magic unfortunately. I Was looking at some pics of it and would of loved to play that back in the day.

You might enjoy this blast from the past. Here's a webpage with a bunch of different intellivision games. I wasted a lot of times with those games. Especially the D&D ones and Atlantis. Loved Atlantis. BTW, the deamon noises from AD&D still creep me out to this day

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Ditto. I never had problems with the controls - with the notable exception of being unable to hit meatbugs in G1, in the first area.

Same here. Literally !

I never understood how the pople could have problems with the trading screen.
It was easy, hen you understood it. It was nothing but a set of scales.

And the meatbugs … I had the same problems with hitting them. How do you kill something that is quasi 2D ?

But - that's in real life also the case. Try to kill ticks. Not full ones. You'll need a *lot* of tries !

You can increase the level of difficulty in the Gothic games, if you go to early to areas with enemies, that a much too hard for your current level. For many Gothic fans that is part of the fun. Forbidden zones, closed doors, secret dungeons, hard to find areas are always cool .

I just realized these seconds that Zanzarah had EXACTLY the same approach ! ( ! )

 

[apoc_reg]

Signed up just to say. Brilliant review! No need to read any others.

 

[Glorian]

Arcania looks like a beautifull light-hearted RPG game…

but isnt it sad that the Gothic saga is dead..? Some of us say, yeah but we have Risen. True.. but nothing is like Gothic for the old Mirtanians lurking on these forums..

..here is a musical greeting for all old Gothic fellows..

A Requiem for a Game - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w974akLd4EY

 

[Maylander]

Most series don't last past the 3rd game anyway. If the next game is called "Arcania 2" and we already have "Risen 2" on the way, we'll have two good series: A fun, light RPG series and a series that is practically the original Gothics all over again (which is a good thing, obviously).

Bottom line: As long as PB is still in business, any other game similar to theirs is just a bonus.

 

[tolknaz]

Sorry if someone feels offended, by that comment, but i've always felt that control scheme in Gothic I and Gothic 2 is an excellent idiot detector. The thing is, once you master the controls very few similar games can match, let alone surpass the responsiveness of that control scheme. The only ones i can name are Mount & Blade and Severance: Blade of Darkness. No Elder Scrolls game, weather powered by Gamebryo or XnGine doesn't even stand a chance. The only thing that really sucks about Gothic I and II controls is the inventory management.

 

[BillSeurer]

I felt like an idiot when I starting playing Gothic 2. I was killed like 5 times in a row by that first goblin you run into outside of the tower you start in. I can see a lot of people (and non-idiots at that!) just giving up right there.

I did persevere and grew to like the combat system. There have been other games where I did give up, though, because the control system was just too freaky weird. There was this one game (something and Dangerous?) which looked really interesting but where almost every keyboard key was mapped to something seemingly random and it was just too much.

 

[oliverh72]

Screw hardcore and screw casual. This whole debate is asinine. If you get your jollies out of dying 8 times a fight, more power to you. That doesn't make you 'hardcore'. Oh, unless you just like to call yourself that to make yourself feel like an 'elite gamer'. If people don't like to die 8 times in a fight, that doesn't instantly make them a 'casual' gamer. It just means they probably don't have the time or energy to bother.

You know, games are called GAMES cause they're meant to be fun. Perhaps I'll play Arcania and I won't have fun. That doesn't make me hardcore because I didn't like Arcania. Just like not liking certain elements of Gothic games doesn't make me casual. It's not the games that are at fault here, it's the ridiculous controversy over what people are EXPECTING Arcania to live up to... expectations that they've created themselves.

Personally, I think a lot of these games that are being discussed do lots of things right ... and lots of things wrong:

Gothics are clunky in SO many ways and overly difficult. But they're great fun to explore and are really well-crafted worlds.

ES games are easy to play, very deep and allow for an incredible diversity of gameplay. But they're incredibly samey throughout and are completely immersion-breaking with things like the dialog (the way they stare at you), the voiceacting (everyone is the same person, pracitically) and the cookie-cutterness of the world.

Arcania looks to fall closer to Two Worlds than either of the above. For me, it does look like it'll be FUN. I loved Two Worlds: some exploration, some character development, some monster bashing. Cool.

 

[Ovenall]

Eh. I eventually got the hang of Gothic's combat system and controls and got pretty good with it. But I never finished any of them because they just weren't very good games. Buggy, twitchy, jittery feeling with a ludicrous inventory system and yes — even after getting used to it — the combat sucked. Some upsides as well, but not worth sinking 50+ hours of playtime.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, and if you liked it, then good for you. It just seems to me after playing the demo that Arcania is pretty much the same as all the other Gothic games, with different graphics.

 

[booboo]

For me - and this is obviously subjective - a game needs to have some level of strategic sophistication. Button mashing through every combat simply doesn't do it for me - how bloody boring! My time is precious - if I spend it on a game, there should be something challenging in it. But that's just me. Combat needs something more - elements of strategy. I simply didn't see that in the Arcania demo. And sadly it seems like the final game plays the same And what's with the 3 spell thing!? One nice thing about most magic systems is the variation in strategy afforded by a fairly collection of spells. Magic sounds so dull here I doubt I'd be interested in pursing it.

 

[JDR13]

Eh. I eventually got the hang of Gothic's combat system and controls and got pretty good with it. But I never finished any of them because they just weren't very good games. Buggy, twitchy, jittery feeling with a ludicrous inventory system and yes — even after getting used to it — the combat sucked. Some upsides as well, but not worth sinking 50+ hours of playtime.

The Gothics were absolutely worth playing for 50+ hours. I'll admit combat was never the Gothics strongest aspect, but I had no problem with it. The atmosphere is unmatched by most other crpgs, and the music is some of the best I've ever heard in a video game. If you're the type who likes to explore, and not have your hand being held, then few series even come close to Gothic.

But to each his own.