Gothic 3 - First Impressions @ IGN

[Kalia]

PC IGN (http://pc.ign.com/articles/746/746509p1.html) has posted their 'first impressions' of Gothic 3, the recent release in North America.
For anyone who hates having their hand held by a game's design, Gothic III (http://pc.ign.com/objects/726/726093.html) seems like the game for you. We've put in around 20 hours so far, and have yet to run into anything that resembled a main narrative. The game kicks off in the small village of Ardea, gives you a vague quest to eliminate a villain named Xardas and directs you to a nearby rebel camp. It seems hordes of Orcs have descended upon Gothic III's human controlled cities and enslaved their populations. However, your goal isn't necessarily to free everyone, at least from what we can tell so far. From the rebel camp, you get bits and pieces of information regarding how to go about eliminating the Orc threat, but how exactly to proceed is left entirely up to you. Accompanied by some nifty screenshots, it's a nice, if short, read.

More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=2765)

[TheMadGamer]

We learned hunting skills from a random NPC in a shack, for instance, after completing a quest for him. After visiting a few towns, these trainers seemed fairly common, so it's not like they're impossible to find. It's just a little strange to have to find all this out on your own.

Gamers and the gaming press are a snotty little group of people... had Gothic 3 had a 'You Are Here' along with a 'You Need To Go To Here To Complete XYZ Quest' system much like Oblivion, then much like Oblivion, G3 would be criticized.

Now that Gothic 3 is more of a 'find it yourself' type of game... which seemed to be what everyone wanted with all the bitching that went on when Oblivion came out, naturally, one of the first U.S. based reviews complains about it.

Being a dev. these days must take a lot of personal stamina and restraint.

[ToddMcF2002]

Its an interesting dilemma though - in G1 and G2 the world is small enough that you'll find everything eventually, without a map. Something the size of Oblivion and Gothic 3 are very easy to get lost in. Simply saying there is "a cave to the North" in todays games might be a virtual mile away and take real world days to find.

[Dez]

. It's just a little strange to have to find all this out on your own.

hahahahahhahahhahahahah quote of the week. :biggrin:

Its ironic that when you need to do something totally on your own in a game, its strange!!!

What the heck do they want anyway? Something similar to Oblivion perhaps? That game really doesn't allow to use one's brains at all. I'm not saying that g3 is rocket sience or anything but atleast there are no annoying popup messages popping up all the time and telling you what to do...

[ToddMcF2002]

...atleast there are no annoying popup messages popping up all the time and telling you what to do...

And in the case of Oblivion, telling you what you did! "Congrats on finding the uber stone! You get a lolipop! You should now go back to the castle and give it to Lord Questgiver."
I think that can be modded out but I'm not certain.

[Corwin]

I thought figuring out what to do was at least part of the purpose of playing the game!! Silly me!! :)

[any]

Simply saying there is "a cave to the North" in todays games might be a virtual mile away and take real world days to find.

Not at all. In G3 every mentioned place in sidequest is 30 seconds walk away at most. Seems to me, although without map marks and compass (thank God!), game was dumbed down for americans :/
Not G3 only - almost everything now is influenced by US way-of-life and dumbed to the max, which frustrates me, an european, a lot :/

[Pfandpirat]

Now that sounded a bit racist.
You can say that the game was dumbed down for the "mainstream" but it´s inappropriate to say that it was dumbed down for "americans", and I´m european too and don´t want to be associated with the likes of you.

[Gorath]

It not only sounded racist, it was racist. And one of the reasons we disabled guest postings at RPGDot.

[any]

It not only sounded racist, it was racist. And one of the reasons we disabled guest postings at RPGDot.

OMG! Racist?! Didnt know Americans are race now, I thought its a nationality :D Ok, maybe I behave like a nationalist a bit, but, please be honest: You're European, righ? Whats in Tv? - mostly american movies. Whats in cinemas? - mostly american movies. Which lifestle they tell us is best? - american.. Yeah - European games are getting more and more dumbed for american dumb kids. And believe me, those kids are dumb as hell! - in HighSchool they dont know 10% stuff we know.

[xSamhainx]

"Viking Berserker"

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-3/668811/nostradamus.jpg

[Corwin]

Let's assume for the moment, that modern games have been dumbed down. These games are made for an international market, but unfortunately, that market, while large, is now comprised of many people who want a 'quick fix' game (thus the popularity of FPS). Playing an 'old skule' type RPG, takes a LOT of time and effort and therefore, they only appeal to a much smaller market. With the cost of making games being in the millions now, can you really blame the big companies for keeping the 'bottom line' in mind when designing their product? I don't like it, but I understand the necessity. That's why I continue to support the small Indie guys as much as I can!!

[Cm]

If they dumbed down the game for me, I would like to know why?

I was going to post a long discussion on the issue, but instead I will pass. I think Corwin summed it up. The bottom line is money, and reaching a younger, less patient, but still profitable market share.

[Corwin]

Has the game arrived for you yet CM?

[Cm]

Nope. It is so close, but looks like Monday now. I tracked it to the last postoffice before mine. lol

[Corwin]

So, I won't expect to see you online then until next Friday's game!! :biggrin:

[txa1265]

The interesting thing is that the biggest influence on 'dumbing down' isn't America, but the huge impact of consoles.

[Dhruin]

What exactly has been dumbed down? There are quite a few design problems and any number of technical issues but that isn't the same as dumbing down. The map is larger and the journal arguably poorer, so that's more complex if anything. The skill system is better. The faction system is less linear. The interface is better (except the journal) but a bad interface isn't "less dumb".

So...? Or are some people confusing poor design choices with dumbing down?

[Corwin]

I don't think the game has been dumbed down!! I was posting about the generic concept that games have been 'dumbed down', therefore I accept that hypothesis and look for reasons!!

[xSamhainx]

As time moves on, everything get streamlined, not just games. For better or worse, it's called progress.

You cannot halt mankind's desire to do everything quicker, easier, prettier, and more user friendly, to a wider range of people. Oh yeah, and make a profit while theyre at it!

[Corwin]

Sad, but true Sammy!! Hey, totally off topic, but your Chargers are looking very good this year!! I've followed them ever since they hired an Aussie several years ago!! :)

[chamr]

Corwin is pretty much closest to the mark. The reason it appears games are being "dumbed down" is that the industry is much larger now which has brought with it higher costs and higher stakes. The kind of folks that want to play time consuming, somewhat complicated games is small, and will never get much larger. This wasn't so much of a factor in the old days, because the costs of producing and distributing a game were small enough that sales in the thousands, perhaps 10's of thousands was sufficient to cover costs and perhaps generate a bit of profit. Now, of course, it's big business. Playing computer games as a form of entertainment became "normal" enough, socially acceptable enough and technologically accessible with more folks having access to computers and gaming consoles than ever before as to present a pretty good buisness opportunity for companies. The early days of the industry were arguable mostly driven by the passion of the creators/developers. Now that big money can be made, the industry is driven by profit margins. Plain and simple.

So, it's actually not dumbing down as much as it is expansion of the industry bringing with it certain cold, hard marketing facts. Namely: if you want to make mucho dinero, you've got to pour millions of dollars into a game with a lot of flash that a broad market will enjoy and be entertained by. Sorry, but most of the market is nothing like us folks at the Watch when it comes to how they're entertained with video games. No need to pass judgement about them being "dumb" or "stupid". They're just different and want different things. Who here can say that no matter what the form of entertainment they consume, the always want it to be complex and challenging? Didn't think so. Lot's of folks want games to be fun and easy. And that's OK.

Of course, the justifiably troubling question is what is the future of complex and challenging games for those of us that like that style of entertainment?

[curious]

the future has be somewhere along the lines of creating an 'end all engine' that is so great and has so many options that small developers can use this engine, for years, allowing them to use most of their resources on creative aspects rather than technology. graphics are already getting about as good as they can get without getting realistic. but most games would actually not benifit from too realistic of a setting because then the luxury of doing 'creative' things with design. starships, elves, and monsters don't exist. what is the benifit in creating a 'realistic' one when an unrealistic one can actually be more powerful of an image. realism isn't always the issue it can sometimes be the quality of design. some would agrue that the best looking sci/fi game looks more realistic than a 60's sci/fi television show with bad makeup and hokey sets, but real people.

more to say, but my bumber sticker says "would rather be playing gothic 3"

[Corwin]

I think the future of gaming for people like ourselves, is in the hands of the small Indie developers. Their games may lack a little polish and gloss, and the graphics may not be cutting edge, but the GAMEPLAY is vastly superior!!

[txa1265]

The faction system is less linear.
And much more subtle - you can partially side with a number of factions, or be true to one while also gaining influence with others without compromising your 'RP-value'. It is quite nice, actually.
So...? Or are some people confusing poor design choices with dumbing down?
Maybe 'dumbed down' is the new 'this is teh ghey' ...

[Dez]

I'm just saying that oblivion would be much more enjoyable experience if it didn't hold my hand all the time. If Benthesa HAD to put those help messages in the game why couldn't they even give us a CHOISE to disable them!?!

[Dhruin]

I agree with that about Oblivion. But there are a couple of people in this thread who think Gothic 3 is dumbed down...there are plenty of bugs and design failures but I just don't see the dumbing down.

[roqua]

Corwin is pretty much closest to the mark. The reason it appears games are being "dumbed down" is that the industry is much larger now which has brought with it higher costs and higher stakes. The kind of folks that want to play time consuming, somewhat complicated games is small, and will never get much larger. This wasn't so much of a factor in the old days, because the costs of producing and distributing a game were small enough that sales in the thousands, perhaps 10's of thousands was sufficient to cover costs and perhaps generate a bit of profit. Now, of course, it's big business. Playing computer games as a form of entertainment became "normal" enough, socially acceptable enough and technologically accessible with more folks having access to computers and gaming consoles than ever before as to present a pretty good buisness opportunity for companies. The early days of the industry were arguable mostly driven by the passion of the creators/developers. Now that big money can be made, the industry is driven by profit margins. Plain and simple.

So, it's actually not dumbing down as much as it is expansion of the industry bringing with it certain cold, hard marketing facts. Namely: if you want to make mucho dinero, you've got to pour millions of dollars into a game with a lot of flash that a broad market will enjoy and be entertained by. Sorry, but most of the market is nothing like us folks at the Watch when it comes to how they're entertained with video games. No need to pass judgement about them being "dumb" or "stupid". They're just different and want different things. Who here can say that no matter what the form of entertainment they consume, the always want it to be complex and challenging? Didn't think so. Lot's of folks want games to be fun and easy. And that's OK.

Of course, the justifiably troubling question is what is the future of complex and challenging games for those of us that like that style of entertainment?


I agree, but to play devil's advocate, why are mmorpgs popular. Corwin, and your, core point is that people want a quick fix, and dumbed down mechanics. Even WoW is far from quick, or dumb. There is a lot to that game. EQ was slower (but I think less complex, but I barely played when I found out there is no character development, where as wow, ac, sb, uo, and some others had choice in character development so i gravatated towards them) and very popular. Vanguard is supposed to be even slower and more complex.

So how does this fit into the quick fix, dumbed down catagory? Why does it only apply to SP games? What if a wow was as simple to plat through as Diablo? Will Diablo 3 be as hard as WoW? We all know the answer is no.

Is it because people expect SP games to give them a quick, thoughtless fix, and the ones who are looking for some depth would rather play in a game such as wow, that has no ending, and always has that carrot on the stick?

[chamr]

Corwin, and your, core point is that people want a quick fix, and dumbed down mechanics. Even WoW is far from quick, or dumb.

I never said people wanted a "quick fix". I said they wanted "fun and easy" rather than "challenging and complex". I think "fun and easy" is a major selling point of WoW. In fact, I've read several articles praising how much it's "streamlined" the game to the point where "your grandmother can play it and have fun", which implies to me that it is, indeed, fun and easy. Not complex and challenging. Don't confuse lots of content and "stuff" with complex or challenging. Simply because a game has tons of areas, skills, classes, items and monsters does not mean it's a challenge at all. It has no bearing. Arx Fatalis is generally considered a very challenging game (and not just because they didn't provide enough guidance in-game), and I think it has the shortest monster and item list of any game in the last 6 years. Conversely, Civ IV is often considered a complex and challenging game. I found it rather simple, just crammed with lots and lots of "stuff" which, when boiled down, doesn't amount to much more than window dressing on a pretty run-of-the-mill TBS.

Also, I've played WoW. I was in beta. I can't say I had extensive experience with it, but what experience I had showed the game to be very, very shallow, which is why I lost interest in it and never bothered to pick up retail.

Vanguard is supposed to be even slower and more complex.

That's a good example of one that will be interesting to see how large an audience they can capture. I read a good description of the crafting system by someone in beta and I was simultaneously excited about having a look at the game while thinking "no way a large slice of the game player market is going to have the patience for this".

Is it because people expect SP games to give them a quick, thoughtless fix, and the ones who are looking for some depth would rather play in a game such as wow, that has no ending, and always has that carrot on the stick?

Again, I think you're confusing "depth" with lots of "stuff". Blizzard has perfected the formula for computer game as addicition. Crack does not give you deep insight into yourself, but it sure as hell is hard to kick.


P.S. I've never beta-tested crack. I've only read accounts. ;)

[Corwin]

Remember, I don't play MMORPG's, so my perspective is normally from an SP position!!

[TheMadGamer]

Seems to me, although without map marks and compass (thank God!), game was dumbed down for americans :/
Not G3 only - almost everything now is influenced by US way-of-life and dumbed to the max, which frustrates me, an european, a lot :/

Fantastic argument! You WIN the Internet! /golfclap

[Maylander]

I have done some research on the subject in the past (as part of my previous studies), and the reasons why modern games seem easier to complete can't be explained by either this or that, it's a result of a lot of different things.

I'm not going to write an entire article here, but I can sum up some points:
- The more experienced we, as gamers, become -> the easier games will seem as well.
- Games today require a lot more money to make than they used to, so they need to sell more to make up for it. Games today can't be made to hardcore players alone, they need to be able to sell them in several segments of the market, not just the segment of 11% hardcore players represent.
- Console games now sell very well, due to various reasons such as being easier to use right out of the box, easier controls, no patching, less bugs, etc etc. Console games focus more on short playtime with high fun factor than fun over longer periods of time, as console gamers are often slightly more casual than their computer counterpart. This infulence leads to games having "explosions" of fun, being very fun in short periods of time, such as SingStar, but extremely boring in the long run (not exactly loads of fun to do a LAN party for 48 hours with SingStar).

Take Oblivion as an example. Oblivion, even compared to its predecessors, is simplified. To average players, who only play a few hours a day and not 10 like some of us do, Oblivion is an amazing game, as you can jump in, use autotravel to some dungeon, clear it out, have fun and stop playing. I know players who spent several weeks completing Oblivion, and had fun every time they played. I completed it in three days and found it extremely repetitive when I tried to do it over again on the 4th day, but the game is obviously designed for my friends, not me, as they represent a bigger market share than I do.

There are far more reasons than this, and each reason has more depth than posted, but the point is - games today are not meant only for a hardcore audience like they used to be, and that has nothing to do with the USA. Nintendo Wii, coming from Japan soon, will be the next step for casual players, focusing almost exclusivly on "fun factor" games which are not all that great over longer periods of time, unlike most solid RPGs.

[roqua]

Chamr,

I have to disagree. I've at least tried every major (and almost all the minor, including muds) mmorpgs and wow has as much complexity or more than the other titles. I guess we could be getting complexity and challenge mixed up, but wow has more complexity to it than any mmorpg I've played, and I am no blizzard fan and I don't like diablo, starcraft, or warcraft.

I should also state that I don't raid, and I don't like grouping, and that in wow I can kill twinked out people by having a better build and strategy. I love wow's talent build system. Wow is easy to get into, but the smart people will always have the edge due to the complexity of the game. Is the game challenging? Not for the most part. But the game is the least gear dependant for pvp of any mmorpg I've played, and again, the talents set the game apart when it comes to character building, which is one of my favorite parts of any rpg, along with character creating (which sucks for almost all mmorpgs, besides SB).

[Maylander]

WoW balances many things in a better way than most. It doesn't have the best PvP system, or raiding or economy, but all aspects are fairly good, unlike most MMORPGs where several elements are simply not present at all(for instance no PvP, or only small group instances, or nothing at all for casual players, or hardcore, players).

[roqua]

After thinking about it I disagree with myself. AO was far more complex, and in all fairness, probably alos SWG. I am putting a lot of wieght into the talent build system, which I have a lot of fun with building non-cookie cutter builds.

But SB hands down has the best character creation (and development) of any mmorpg.

[Naked_Lunch]

SWG was the best MMORPG out there before the combat upgrade. It was astounding in how it was completely independent of AI control, the entirely galaxy was left blank and the players got to scribble it in. Yes, it was messy, and yes they were parts that could've been improved but all in all it was a brilliant idea and was executed quite well.

God I miss it.

Edit: nice to see you here, roqua ol' buddy.

[Cormac]

SWG was the best MMORPG out there before the combat upgrade.

So the changes it went through really changed all that (never played it, either before or after the changes) ? I've heard a lot of criticisms leveled on the upgrades, did it really made the game that bad ?

[Naked_Lunch]

Yes. It destroyed the amazing skill system and open-ended class progression and shoehorned it into nine professions, including jedi which destroyed the entire purpose of being a jedi in the first place. Not only that, but it nerfed most of the classes (no battle fatigue et al made dancers and entertainers useless). Because of this, a lot of the genuinely intelligent and interesting players left, replaced by moronic tweeners and whatnot that only played as jedi and just wanted to t0t4lly k1llz0r th1ngz rofl1!!

The space combat is still pretty neato, though. Only reason to keep playing the game, really.

[Cormac]

Uh. I always wanted to try it but I guess I'll keep away then. I so wanted to be a jedi :'(
Thanks for the reply.