Gothic 3 - Review @ Gamespy

[Kalia]

Gamespy has posted a review of Gothic 3 and assigned it a paltry one and a half stars out of a possible five (a 'poor' rating).
In the end, the greatest tragedy of Gothic 3 is that there are actual moments when what might have been comes peeping through the digital detritus. The basic design of the game is quite sound and if Piranha Bytes could clean the game up, it might end up becoming a classic. As it stands now, my nightmarish trip through the world of Gothic 3 made me want to send my disc on a one-way trip into an incinerator. Here's hoping Gothic 4 turns out better, because this one's a complete miss.
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=2844)

[ToddMcF2002]

Boy that was pretty depressing - and its one of the sites that has a pretty significant impact. Clearly he is not a Bethesda fanboy since he makes several references to G3's choices and consequences and the stale, generic Bethesda world.

I think he might be wrong about the consequences breaking the game - since I'm pretty sure you can complete the story line under all conditions?

I get the feeling that the combat is his biggest beef - which makes sense since its a very combat heavy game. Ironically this is the area PB went out of its way to redesign to capture more market - now its biting them in the ass pretty badly. I don't know about the final score - but combat in this game really is bad. So is performance.

[northreign]

Have played G3 for 2 or so hours now and think its incredibly awesome even despite bugs. I see no reason not to dislike it just the same as with G1 & 2.

To give it 1 and 1/2 is so backwards and idiotic. You know how bad a game 'should' be to get that? GameSpy needs a book entitled: Review 101 For Dummies.

There are almost no good review sites anymore. Play the demo.

[Naked_Lunch]

Massive number of bugs;
That can eventually (and are in the process) of being patched
lousy combat system;
it is pretty much the same as oblivion's yet that was praised and got best game evarrr and other such garbage.
poor art design;
What the fuck is this guy smoking? Gothic 3 has the best atmosphere of any game I've played in a loooong while. It looks gorgeous, too.
poor interface;
No better than Oblivion's.
lousy dialogue and voiceovers; generic storyline.
See above. The guy doesn't get that Gothic 3 isn't about the epic story or phat l00tz or whatever, but about utterly and truly creating your own world and story and shaping it. It's the true sandbox game and these retards just can't handle it, even if they've been crying out for it.

[TheMadGamer]

A brief review of Gamespy's opinion yields the following:

Gothic 1 - 4.0 Stars - Reviewed By Craig Wessel
Gothic 2 - 2.0 Stars - Reviewed By Dan Bennett
Gothic 3 - 1.5 Stars - Reviewed By Allen Rausch

If you read each of the reviews, they all read very similarly. Yet Gothic 1 scores 4 stars while Gothic 2, far superior in every way to Gothic 1 scores 2 stars... and the fans of Gamespy score Gothic 2 with 5 stars.

A large portion of his review is taken up by a problem where his mouse isn't recognized during the game. And even by his own admission states that PB nor the official PB forums for G3 make any mention of this problem. And then he continues on pinning this problem on G3 without pausing to consider possibly that the problem maybe has to do with the computers he is playing on. A rational, objective person would at least consider the possibility that since nobody else in the world has mentioned this problem, it could be a problem with his machines. The Reviewer writes that the opening combat scenerio when you start G3 in the middle of combat is 'galactically stupid' and is symbolic of how bad the rest of the game is... I assert that so much space taken up writing about his mouse problem is symbolic that this reviewer is slightly biased in a negative way toward G3.

I can understand this reviewers complaints with the bugs, but he goes on to rail against the game pretty heavy handedly in ways it doesn't deserve. For instance, he makes it a point to complain about the interface which was one aspect of Gothic 3 I thought couldn't possibly be highlighted as being 'bad.'

He complains about the graphics, which as far as I could tell are just a little bit lesser to the graphics of Oblivion. Reading his rants against the game is almost a statement of how stupid I must be as a gamer to think the graphics are actually pretty nice. The Gothic 1 review calls Gothic 1's graphics 'nice' yet Gothic 3's art design is '...pretty atrocious' - I think that's a bit of an overstatement there, even when being subjective.

He makes a case that the game is idiotic for starting the player out in the middle of a combat situation. But then fails to make any mention at all that your character and any other NPCs that matter are pretty much immune to death during this encounter. Didn't Ultima VI, start out with a combat situation? And yet few would label Ultima VI as 'galactically stupid' - and in Ultima VI it was possible to die during this opening combat encounter unlike G3.

The reviewer's review of Oblivion makes complaints against Oblvion's interface and also makes lengthy comments about bugs found in Oblivion:

If there's a real deal-breaker within Oblivion, however, it's the bugs. Lots of 'em. The worst have been problems running the game at all using Nvidia's FX series of video cards, and random, unrepeatable crashes to the desktop. I've seen creatures sometimes float in mid-air and "pop" around rather than turning to attack. There were moments when NPCs got stuck on the landscape, NPC voices would completely change between lines, and quest flags didn't getting tripped. Programming text would sometimes pop up during conversations with NPCs saying things like "Subject Change." The game's animations cause characters to move, fight, and die like a poorly wired Animatronic exhibit at Disneyland. It does little for one's sense of immersion to have beautifully expressive faces when they're attached to bodies that jerk and start in ways no humanoid body ever would and occasionally fall through a wall and twitch while hung up on the world's geometry...

... But yet Oblivion receives 4 Stars. Hmmm....

[Unregistered5]

No way, Gothic was way better then two well you can't take these brain dead idiots seriously Gothic 3 has its problems but it doesn't deserve anything lower then a 7.0 its still more fun then Oblivion will ever be.

I guess they just cant handle a game with so much to do its beyond their mental capacity.

[Dez]

It seems that when his mouse stopped functioning, he stopped giving this game any real chance to be treated fairly. This guy is not even trying to find anything positive. All his remarks are negative. And most of those "negative" things are not exactly negative. Its shame to see such an unprofessonal additute from gamespy once again.

[Corwin]

More like his brain is tied into his mouse if you ask me!!

[Dr. A]

Personally I would rate Gothic 2 + NotR way higher than Gothic 1.

The reviewer dissed the art in the game? WTF. I'd blame it on Oblivion.

You see, I find that Oblivion raised the bar for graphics. But only in a technical sense and not in a aesthetically pleasing sense. I don't believe in shiny, perfectly formed walls, beams, architecture, etc - I'm too old for these sort of fairy tales. The Gothic series have always used an art style which is gritty and entropic.

[Sem]

It almost feels like some reviewers are doing it on purpose.
We read the review (or at least parts of it), but how many people check the score first and then decide to read the review itself?!

True, the game has it's bugs and flaws. But some of the scores they are giving are just ridiculous.
Oh, and about 90% of the instability problems (crashes, corrupted savegames, memory leak, Guru) with games are caused by the configuration of the player's computer. And things like floating trees and rocks will get solved with a patch.

[Prime Junta]

The only thing I *really* disagree with about the review is his take on the art -- yep, it could be richer, and the ancient temples were a major let down IMO -- but it's consistent, atmospheric, and somehow "real" in a way that very few other games manage it.

However, the rest of it is if not exactly on the money, at least fair.

The bugs: check. There was no excuse for the game to be released in the state that it is.

The interface: check. It requires too much wandering around and clicking.

The dialogue, voiceovers, and clichés: check. Apart from the bugs, IMO this is the weakest point in G3, and a major, major disappointment for me.

The combat: check, and anyone who thinks it's "essentially the same as Oblivion's" hasn't played Oblivion (or has only played it by click-spamming, which is not the best way to get results and you only get away with it because of the brain-dead auto-leveling).

The game-breaking situations: check.

And finally, the potential that occasionally shines through and hooked me for tens of hours despite the frustration, check.

The point is that gamers don't pay for potential; they pay for something they can actually play and enjoy. In its current state G3 demands a very special and pretty unusual mindset to be enjoyable: a high tolerance for a wide set of very glaring flaws, and a very high preference for a specific set of strengths. While I absolutely loved the living world, free-form gameplay, and choices/consequences aspect of the game, I didn't love it quite enough to put up with the cruft that came with it. For more than 50 levels' worth anyway.

Here's to Gothic 4 indeed. Let's hope PB learns something about process management and creating quality software in the meantime -- and perhaps hires a few writers who can think beyond the most tired fantasy clichés, and perhaps write a line or two of interesting dialogue..

[Maylander]

Game-breaking situations? You can complete it even if you kill every NPC in the game and never pick up a single quest! There is no such thing as a way to break Gothic 3s main quest. Anyone thinking otherwise should spend a bit more time playing the game before jumping to conclusions.

Also, Oblivion running smoother is a result of the game being far less complex, hardly any difficult or advanced objects(not as in "thing", but as in a programming object, a class) to handle. Programming wise, Oblivion is fairly straight forward and simple: All quests have only one solution, all quests must be started and finished in a particular way, NPCs have a very limited schedule and hardly any possibilities(hence, nothing can go wrong), fighting is a matter of click-and-hit and not dependent on various moves and calculations.

I work as a developer myself, and I can honestly tell you Oblivion is not a whole lot more than pretty graphics attached to a great physics engine. Gothic 3, on the other hand, is far more advanced and requires much more from a developers point of view. Which, of course, leads to a lot more bugs as well. The same goes for NWN2, although the modules instead of open world will reduce the number of bugs (the whole open world thing is a disaster in terms of bug correction, but it does give games a good feeling when done right). NWN2s biggest issue is to implement the fairly advanced D&D 3.5 ruleset instead of a classic PC RPG system.

[Lethal Weapon]

A closer examination of this "review" shows that the guy has hardly played the game, let alone beat it. Most likely he's been reading the fora and made a compilation of various threads. I'm not going to discuss details, it is pointless, anyone who is halfway through the game can easily identify the huge amount of false facts. I don't know what his motives are, nor do I care; in any case no thinking person will take seriously someone who can't tell that he needs a new mouse.

[Guest]

I don't care less of gamespy. This is a very lame site with non professional reviewers, actually i think there are kiddies making reviews. I must admit that i have erased this site (and hence i don't visit it) from my list long ago (4 or 5 years), but from what i read in the forums things have not been changed.
I can give you all one advice: simply don't consider this site, and more generally play the demo or rent the game to see if you like it, but GIVE this game a chance (and apply the latest patch). I can tell you that, as for now, i'm completely absorbed by it: this is role play like fewer and fewer games are capable to show period. And now excuse me, but i must decide the fate of Myrtana....:-D

[space captain]

pretty accurate score

[Naked_Lunch]

Yes, yes, we all know Gamespy is the devil and couldn't review a good game worth jackshit, but the problem is influence. Many kids and such out there think Gamespy is teh ultiamte game site and word-of-mouth could spread through gamespy's huge readership and really really hurt PB in North America.

And the last thing I want to see is Gothic 4 released...but not here, all thanks to idiotic reviewers.

[Maylander]

That's a good point, it definetly hurts Gothic 3s chances to sell well if it gets too many reviews like this.

[GothicGothicness]

I already said it so many times, releasing the game in such an unfinished state will cost bad reviews. If I didn't do a lot of ini hacks, and mess around with settings, and on top of that had a lot of ram and patience, I would not be able to play this game. I think what they did with Gothic 3 was inexcuseable, how can they release a game that can hardly be played without modifying a lot of values by yourself in the INI files first?

Yes, the game is epic and great in many senses, but it doesn't matter they've got the most important basics wrong, combat, balancing, and the technical aspects. IMHO it doesn't matter how good the game is otherwise it deserves a bad score.

Gothic 1 and Gothic 2 didn't have these problems and I love these games, 3.... I still kind of love it, but it makes me extremly sad they didn't finish it. Reviews like that will hurt sales a whole lot. I wounder if we'll even see another Gothic game now.

[Melvil]

Guys, only true fans will like this game, it is way too much trouble for the average gamer who hasn't invested their personal identity into liking a game, oh wait, that's just sane people (not average gamers) :)

[Guest]

It was the same with Gothic 2 (if i remember well this crap site gave to it a low score), don't worry i'm sure PB will delight us in the future with more Gothic games. As for the kiddies, they eventually will grow and they'll start to think with their own minds and see how pathetic are some "pretend-to-be" reviewers. On the crap site they are far far away from a true professional, so it is really easy to avoid them.

[Prime Junta]

@GothicGothicness -- well put. (And with a handle like that, it's unlikely you'll be accused of being a brainless Oblivion fanboyette...)

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Among German fans there are *huge* discussions going on.

As Olnigg put it (every German RPG player should know him), the game is from a graphical point of view absolutely excellent, but on the other hand it is so much bug-infested that it could drive one mad or into crying - that such an excellent game was appearing to be so much unfinished ...

[xSamhainx]

I cant help but be amused by the number of people who seemingly take this kind of review so personally.

[Rendelius]

It is very much on the low side for my taste, but the critizism itself is more than valid.

This may sound harsh, but here we go: The developers don't deserve such a low score, but the publisher does, and very much so. In fact, this could be a way to teach them a lesson: Don't do that again, in the end such a behaviour will put you out of business.

I am convinced the game was released that way just to save the Q3 earnings for JoWooD.

[Dhruin]

I agree the criticism is valid, although the mouse bit takes up such a large amount of text and does seem to set up an exceptionally negative article. Despite its legion problems, the game is better than outlined.

It's also interesting that the mouse issue does not appear to have any sort of prominence in the community - I haven't seen reference of it here or any other forums I visit. It's hard to avoid the impression that Rausch made up his mind to belt the game from that moment on.

[Corwin]

I think the key point coming out here, is that this is a game designed more for fans of the genre who enjoying putting in the time and effort and therefore, it will never be as successful as Kindy games like Oblivion!!

[Gorath]

This may sound harsh, but here we go: The developers don't deserve such a low score, but the publisher does, and very much so. In fact, this could be a way to teach them a lesson: Don't do that again, in the end such a behaviour will put you out of business.

I am convinced the game was released that way just to save the Q3 earnings for JoWooD.

I bet it´s a much more complex topic. How much longer can you (afford to) fund a product if it´s already 12 months over schedule and the Christmas business is near?
Surely JoWooD needed the money, but you know how much ~50 people worldwide working on Gothic 3 cost every month. And don´t forget the marketing commitments which were focused on Oct. 13th.

As for the developer not deserving the flak:
It´s their 4th product in a row which ships with masses of bugs. Although on my machine it´s less buggy than any of its predecessors the game is obviously unfinished. PB should get their act together or the market will do it for them. They´ll get heavily punished when the first add-on comes out because masses of potential buyers will wait for feedback on bugs.

[Kalia]

Americans will never let any game be superior to their #1 loved trash Oblivion. I think we need to threaten no more cookies and Mcdonalds and maybe they will wake up :)

Harsh criticism of Gothic 3 hasn't come only from US reviewers. Criticism of Gothic 3 has been just as harsh and just as divided in Europe. Let's try to be fair and not ALWAYS assume that it has anything to do with nationality. And, for the record? I hated Oblivion.

[GothicGothicness]

Well, IMHO Oblivion is a worse game than Gothic 3.... but it's much less buggy and it doesn't feel unfinished, neither does it has as many techincal problems. For the people who like a rogue style dungeon hack where all the dungeons looks the same, it's not half bad as a game and deserves a decent rating for it.

[Corwin]

Look, both G3 and Oblivion are very different games, which seem to appeal to very different players, so let's stop the bashing; neither are 'bad' games, we just prefer one to the other!!

[Dr. A]

Gamespy is just crap... In their review of Oblivion (different reviewer though), they point out the same problems Gothic3 suffers from:

Heavy System Requirements
Unfortunately, all this advanced technology comes at a price -- high system specs. Never mind the minimum specs on the box. Those PCs may technically be able to "run" this game, but it's very possible they won't be able to truly play it. Even on our standard GameSpy gaming rigs (far from underpowered machines), I was forced to reduce my resolution and turn off some of the technical bells and whistles to get an acceptable frame rate.

Complaints of bugs
If there's a real deal-breaker within Oblivion, however, it's the bugs. Lots of 'em. The worst have been problems running the game at all using Nvidia's FX series of video cards, and random, unrepeatable crashes to the desktop. I've seen creatures sometimes float in mid-air and "pop" around rather than turning to attack. There were moments when NPCs got stuck on the landscape, NPC voices would completely change between lines, and quest flags didn't getting tripped. Programming text would sometimes pop up during conversations with NPCs saying things like "Subject Change." The game's animations cause characters to move, fight, and die like a poorly wired Animatronic exhibit at Disneyland. It does little for one's sense of immersion to have beautifully expressive faces when they're attached to bodies that jerk and start in ways no humanoid body ever would and occasionally fall through a wall and twitch while hung up on the world's geometry

Note the similarities
Pros
Huge, rich fantasy world to explore; Stunning graphics; spell-building and alchemy systems.

Cons
Bugs and technical issues; Poor character animations; AI limitations; console-style interface.

And in the end, Oblivion gets 4 out of 5
Despite the aforementioned issues (which are enough to give some pause), it's hard for me to resist recommending Oblivion to any RPG fan. Assuming one has a system with the muscle to run the game and the player is willing to accept some technical glitches, there simply isn't a better RPG experience available

Just seems like bias to me...:(

[Naked_Lunch]

Look, both G3 and Oblivion are very different games, which seem to appeal to very different players, so let's stop the bashing; neither are 'bad' games, we just prefer one to the other!!
No. Never compromise. Never surrender.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

The devs themselves say that they've done an awful job and should've done better. Everyone capable of the German language sgould read at least Olnigg's review or the German-language forums.

They just tested and built too many things, without doing the final assemblage.
The new engine, for example.

Personally, I'd say the publisher has been rushing a game out too early that was still being built by devs who didn't put enough efforts into correctly assembling the game. As a result, the bugs are in principle all "holes" in the puzzle that has the name "Gothic 3".

[LordRac]

This may sound harsh, but here we go: The developers don't deserve such a low score, but the publisher does, and very much so. In fact, this could be a way to teach them a lesson: Don't do that again, in the end such a behaviour will put you out of business.

I am convinced the game was released that way just to save the Q3 earnings for JoWooD.

Rendelius stated it perfectly. JoWood should do a search on the development debacle of Ultima IX so they can learn from this.

[Naked_Lunch]

Except that even patched and fixed and everything, Ultima IX was a piece of shit that insulted not just the series and its fans, but gamers in general. Gothic 3 is actually a very very good game beneath all the bugs (even if I've only gotten one desktop crash and some stuttering).

[curious]

i played ultima iv and v when they came out as a kid and when 2 games that shaped my life greatly. for some reason i never played VI or VII, as i didn't really play that many computer games at that age, bard's tale 1 and 2 were the only ones i had owned prior. but i did buy pagan when it came out and enjoyed that until the mountain king part. retried playing that game every couple of years but still got stuck. i actually enjoyed ultima ix though maybe it is because i never really knew the whole story of what happened between vi-viii. i'm sure i would have liked it better had it been like it was 'supposed to' but it did many things i had never seen before in a game and have enjoyed replaying it a few times. i do agree with you though "burroughs" that gothic 3 is a very very good game!

i've had the ultima collection since it came out but could never get ultima 6 to not move so fast...one of these days i should look up how to get it running.

[Naked_Lunch]

Use MoSlow or DosBox and turn the cycles down way low for optimal Ultima VI play.

[Corwin]

Or, wait for the U6 project to be finished. Try their M2 release for a taste, and obviously play Lazarus while you wait!! :)