Gothic 3 - Review @ IGN [Archive]

Kalia

November 29th, 2006, 07:53

In another review bound to produce some "ouch" responses, IGN (http://www.gametab.com/news/751726/) has slapped Gothic III with a 4.9/10.00 ("poor") rating. Citing presentation and gameplay issues, the reviewer said:
With the promise of a gigantic game world within which you're free to do whatever you want, Gothic III is certainly a tantalizing title. It's got the graphical backbone to support the immersive gameplay it aims to deliver, a strong character development system, and a great soundtrack. Unfortunately, there are far too many problems with Gothic III to maintain the immersion. In a game where the illusion of a dynamic, realistic world is so crucial to the experience, technical bugs and awkward design decisions do a marvelous job at hamstringing Gothic III's gameplay. It's still possible to wander aimlessly through forests and deserts engaging whatever challenges you happen upon, which can be entertaining, but you'll never be free from the terrifically awkward combat. It doesn't help that some quests flat out don't work, the game frequently crashes, and little besides the soundtrack is worth listening to. Gothic III gives you a giant world and plenty of choice, but is ultimately engulfed by its own aspirations of complexity.
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=2918)

Lethal Weapon

November 29th, 2006, 07:53

I just read the review and I must say I'm not impressed at all. I would expect a much more professional review from a site with IGN's reputation. The reviewer is obviously a Gothic newbie as he complains that beating up a friendly NPC with no immediate consequences is immersion breaking. I guess he found Oblivion's psychic guards with stealing a loaf of bread automatically making you the most wanted man all over Cyrodiil much more realistic. He didn't even discover that spamming the right mouse button is more effective than spamming the left mouse button. I'm not at all surprised that he failed to utilize the large variety of combat moves and instead had to exploit the AI together with constant saving/reloading. Oblivion's click-festing combat is, as it would seem, perfectly all-right.

He complains that teleportation stones are hard to find. Obviously, what he really wants, is a GPS compass. Who's to blame him?

I could go on and on... The reviewer simply fails to bring forth the game's strongest points. He talks little if not at all of the revolutionary faction system that allows the player to trace a unique path through the game with every replay, the world really shaping according to the player's actions. Etc etc.

Some sites seem to deliberately publish bad reviews. I like to think that this is not really the case and that it's just that some reviewers are incompetent.

On a side note, I was reading the IGN G3 forum and the hottest thread was titled -guess what- "Buy Gothic 3!".

guest

November 29th, 2006, 08:24

DR490N

November 29th, 2006, 08:44

Nope, sorry, but a game which automatically scalles the whole world according to the player level can *not* be "bloody brilliant". Fun maybe, but not brilliant. I strongly agree with LW.

Danicek

November 29th, 2006, 09:10

Well, not really good review. I don't understand these low ratings. I'm really enjoying the game and I did not enjoy Oblivion. But I really believe none of these two games deserver anything under (lets say) 7 out of 10 even if the reviewer did not enjoy it.

fatBastard()

November 29th, 2006, 11:35

Nope, sorry, but a game which automatically scalles the whole world according to the player level can *not* be "bloody brilliant". Fun maybe, but not brilliant. I strongly agree with LW.

Says who?

Both games have good points and not so good points (be it design decisions or bugs) but by constantly thrashing Oblivion to raise G3 up high, you guys are just as biased and "uninformed" as the reviewers you yell at.

You criticize the reviewer for not seeing the big picture and for giving a low score based an a few bad points yet the whole "level scaling = crappy game" or "psychic guards = crappy game" argumentation is no different.

Am I disappointed that G3 is getting so many bad reviews? Absolutely.

Do I think it is totally undeserving? Unfortunately no. It really shouldn't have been released in the state it was in both in terms of gameplay bugs and technical bugs.

One thing noone can take away from Oblivion no matter how much they dislike the game is the fact that it was one of the most stabile and bug free releases in a VERY long time ... and I finished Oblivion after roughly 300+ hours yet I've put G3 on hold for now after perhaps 100 hours simply because I grew tired of always having to keep count on how many times I had saved to avoid crashing and having to replay a segment all over again.

Mana Garmr

November 29th, 2006, 12:59

I just read the review and I must say I'm not impressed at all. I would expect a much more professional review from a site with IGN's reputation. The reviewer is obviously a Gothic newbie as he complains that beating up a friendly NPC with no immediate consequences is immersion breaking.

He complains that teleportation stones are hard to find. Obviously, what he really wants, is a GPS compass. Who's to blame him?

I notice there was no mention of the fact that you yourself can be beaten up and robbed in the same way. Also it seems to me that people who I've previously annoyed, either by attacking them or robbing them and being seen, are more likely to become hostile if I cause another ruckus later on which seems reasonable.

I also find it interesting that the two teleportation stones he mentioned specifically were two of the ones I had the easiest time finding since, in both cases, there was a quest that involved beating the carriers up and therefore made getting the stones very simple.
It's not like it's even essential to have all the stones. It's convenient, no question, but once you have one that goes to a town that's at least somewhat close to your destination there shouldn't be huge amounts of running required to go anywhere.

I do, however, agree that the information recorded for some of the quests is a little lacking. Sometimes the conversation in my log seems to start right after the point where the NPC gave the directions to where I need to be or the name of the person I need to find. None of it was insanely frustrating though since odds are that I'll run into the person/place anyway while wandering around.

txa1265

November 29th, 2006, 13:17

it amuses me when everyone who whines about bad reviews of gothic stoops to bash oblivion. the games are not mutually exclusive you know. some people, gasp, even enjoy both! WHO KNEW?!?! climb down from your altitudinous equine friend, oblivion is a game that a lot of people who enjoy computer gaming are thrilled by. sure, it's not planescape torment and it's not overly complicated, but it is bloody brilliant.

The problem is that comparisons are being drawn by the reviewers, stated or not - and most of the reviewers are PC & Console players who are younger and draw from the console (i.e. jRPG) experience. Gothic is very much PC centric and much more in line with 'old school' experience. The exploration is a great experience - in Oblivion if someone 'mentions' a place (since dialogue isn't 'real') *bam* it is on your map to go to without thought. In Gothic is can be frustrating, but travel is *work*.

I think this review is much better than the absolute trash at GameSpy ... but apparently Gothic doesn't lend itself to the quick-turn style of play these reviewers are used to. Heck if I got the same $250 or whatever to review the 6-hour FEAR XP, 15 hour Dungeon Siege PSP or Gothic 3 (which I've already done 60+ hours with no end in sight!), I would be hard pressed not to cheat and just try to get to the end as qiuckly as possible. Which is what these reviews sound like - I find Gothic 3 is much less immersive when I try to rush to get stuff done in short bursts ... it is made to lavish in.

Thaurin

November 29th, 2006, 13:21

This makes me really worry about the Gamespot review, since I rate these two game sites about even. I haven't seen a game receive such diversified ratings in years.

Prime Junta

November 29th, 2006, 13:23

txa1265

November 29th, 2006, 13:32

Like Max Payne, for example?

? Max Payne is a global levelling free world game all of a sudden? Or just an example of a fun but over-rated game? Or ... ?

GameC_I_A

November 29th, 2006, 15:18

This makes me really worry about the Gamespot review, since I rate these two game sites about even. I haven't seen a game receive such diversified ratings in years.
IGN uses sweet world about some aspects of Gothic 3 but giving 8.5, 8, 4.5 and 4 synthesizes with a global 4.9 that isn't an average at all. I think that all is linked to the importance that we give to the bugs in a pc game. A console fanatic cannot resist to any bug and rates according this feeling. Complexity has a cost and some people simply cannot tolerate it. But noone can define Gothic 3 "poor" :D it wants to be too rich!

redman5427

November 29th, 2006, 15:40

Sorry, but just watching these sites build up certain games before release while totally ignoring other developers, I can almost judge the review before release. If it's not a Total war franchise, Star Wars or Battle for Middle Earth game they have been pumping up for months you will probably see a bad review. Especially if it is a old school Rpg. Neverwinter Nights and Oblivion seem to be exceptions.

Pinhead

November 29th, 2006, 15:53

Being a very avid Gothic fan myself, absolutly love Gothic 1 and 2 and replayed them more times than I would like to count.

Gothic 3 did disappoint me, with the various bugs and what not. So I decided to wait for the patch that will make it more enjoyable. I did play the game when it was first released here in Europe for a couple of days before I got sick of being stunlocked by boars. I am though quite confident that once the game is properly patched I will come to love Gothic 3 aswell.

Prime Junta

November 29th, 2006, 16:05

@txa -- Max Payne is a global leveling game. It keeps tabs on your progress, and if you keep dying, it lowers the difficulty; if you don't die for a while, it bumps it up. Of course it's a very different type of game, but it does have the leveling mechanic and in my personal opinion it works very well to enhance the experience rather than diluting it. I don't see any reason in principle why a global-leveling system couldn't work in a free-form CRPG as well. The fact that it was lousily done in Oblivion doesn't mean it can't be done well at all.

Why do I even bother to comment? Simply because game balancing is one of *the* hardest things to do in a game that allows you a lot of freedom in building your character. If you leave in lots of exploits that allow the player to power level with minimal effort, the challenge is gone and it gets boring. If you take care to close them, the odds are that you'll end up with a game where it's way too easy to create a squib, which will frustrate rather than challenge.

Global auto-leveling is one potential tool that could be used to address this problem. The tough part is doing it subtly enough that it works. How I'd do it would be a bit like it was done in Max Payne:

(1) Create the quests and challenges, and give them a somewhat-imaginary challenge rating, expressed as a character level. Someone above that level should find the quest easy, someone below should find it hard.

(2) Monitor the character's progress. If he's getting constantly whacked/stalled/whatever by challenges of his own level of below, adjust the difficulty/level down. Otherwise, bump it up.

(3) Optional for an Oblivion/Gothic style wide-open world with gobs of side quests that can be taken in any order: create two or three variants of some of them, say low-level, mid-level, and high-level, and instantiate the one appropriate for the character. However, do *not* (VERY important!) do this so much that the player feels that there are no dangerous corners in the world at all.

Rendelius

November 29th, 2006, 16:16

4.9 is harsh, but it isn't undeserved - and that is due to how the game was shipped. Wouldn't G3 be such a buggy game, and would it have some sane system requirements or even some scalability that would help, only the most ignorant could deny it is a great game. But from a technical point of view, it, alas, falls into the "Descent to Undermountain" category. Now: a great, good looking car with a lot of horse power that consantly falls apart wouldn't deserve a high rating either, would it?

txa1265

November 29th, 2006, 16:38

@txa -- Max Payne is a global leveling game.
Hehe ... I guess it is clear that I didn't realize that ;) SiN Episodes did a similar thing. It flowed along at near-perfect difficulty throughout (well, after the patch, initially it had a major jump ~ halfway through)

I think that the thing is that there is a difference between difficulty scaling and monster level scaling. Neither is trivial, but scaling monsters ala Oblivion seems to miss the point being sought through the character tracking and adjustments made in difficulty scaling.

bjon045

November 29th, 2006, 16:51

TheMadGamer

November 29th, 2006, 17:09

The problem with this review, much like most of the other English Language reviews for Gothic III that I've read so far isn't that the problems pointed out in the review are invalid, it's that the reviews do not examine the game in context at all.

Example:
With speedy humanoids combat quickly moves to close range, requiring you to switch to melee and start up another brainless LMB [Left-Mouse-Button] click-fest.

Now, what the reviewer wrote here is true about Gothic 3. But it's also true for a whole bunch of CRPGs. The author was allocated 3-web-pages for his article and spends nearly an entire page railing against the combat system Gothic 3 employs - a style employed by dozens of other CRPGs. Is that very balanced? I don't think so... it's more like G3 is being examined in a bubble. IGN gives Diablo 2 an 8.3 and Morrowind a 9.4 - both games, along with many many others, which have a lot of LMB action as well.

Example:
If you attack an NPC in a town you're friendly with and choose not to perform a finishing stab once they've hit the ground, they'll completely forget you attacked them even if approached only 10 seconds later. They won't even mention the fact that you just randomly beat the crap out of them, instead offering up a standard greeting. This really breaks any kind of immersive qualities about Gothic III.

Another true statement about G3. But show me any CRPG over the laste 30 years where you can't criticize the NPCs in the game behaving in an unrealistic or stupid way. Again, Another precious paragraph describing something that is really par-for-the-course when he could at least pointed out that when you attack a faction you are neutral to or opposed to, the NPCs do in fact remember you attacked them. Isn't that to the game's credit? Isn't it to the game's credit as well that you can even attack an NPC without killing him out right? How many games do that? Not many. The glass is half empty in this review.

So while I even agree with the many critisims the reviewer makes about Gothic 3 in this review, his ultimate scoring of the game is woefully out of context. The game deserves a much higher score based on criticims that are largely found in most other CRPGs.

This review, like most of the others, lack any kind of balance and context.

bjon045

November 29th, 2006, 17:27

his ultimate scoring of the game is woefully out of context. The game deserves a much higher score based on criticims that are largely found in most other CRPGs.

The last action RPG that had a combat system as bad as Gothic 3 was dungeon lords and it got a much worse review from most sites. I can't think of many action rpgs that have had this many bugs that have gotten higher ratings.

space captain

November 29th, 2006, 17:58

face it the game is horridly screwed and some people dont have enough "fanboyism" to overlook it

i told ya the american reviews would tear it to shreds

Lethal Weapon

November 29th, 2006, 18:13

I gave gothic 3 a shot for about 4 hours and I would have to agree with this review for the most part. The bugs completely destroy the game, in 4 hours I had 2 "wheres the guru" errors that crashed me to desktop and encountered about 10 really obvious bugs that any play testing would have picked up.

*I sold all my stuff to a merchant then reloaded and noticed the merchant now had a reduced amount of gold equal to what I had sold before. Obviously an issue with the clearing of data when loading games.

*I managed to kill 3 orc ELITES and a couple of regular warriors with ease and was then killed in about 2 seconds by a bloodfly.

*Fell through the ground once

*Not really a bug but the NPC conversdations are appalling and a lot of options should have really have been repeatable questions i.e. you only get one chance to ask milten if you can with him even though he is still sitting at the camp, meanwhile Gorn lets you ask anytime you like.

Gothic Newbie? Hardly - There were immediate consequences in Gothic 1 and 2.....For example in Khornis you could only beat up people in the harbour district and even then they would often have some kind response after you beat them up or it would influence a particular quest. Does this happen with Gothic 3's "one line" of dialogue NPCs?

In Gothic 2 towards the end of the game, if you were a merc, you could kill a merc and the other mercs would assist you. You could go on and kill every1 in Onar's farm without any consequences. You could kill every1 in Khorinis; the bystanders would flee in fear and Lord Andre would make you pay a fine of only 50 gold pieces.

What people like the reviewer and yourelf miserably fail to grasp is that in Gothic 3 as well as in the previous installments, the consequences of your actions depend on your reputation. You claim you have played Gothic 2 but I somehow highly doubt it. If you did you wouldn't have been killed by a low level critter in a matter of seconds and you would have taken the trouble to properly configure your hardware and the ini files to get a good performance, according to the guides in this very site.

You sound like a troll to me.

txa1265

November 29th, 2006, 18:23

You sound like a troll to me.

He's no troll - he is simply not happy with Gothic 3. Personally I love the game, haven't crashed or frozen or gotten stuck or *anything* yet and I'm level 45 and now in the desert. But many people are having *real* issues, the game is clearly not polished, there are bugs, quest issues and so on. He's not making that stuff up. Bringing Dungeon Lords into it is a bit of a 'baiter', but hey ...

Melvil

November 29th, 2006, 18:57

Gothic 3 isn't your mommy, it isn't a family member, it won't save you from death and it isn't going to feed you, so please fanboys, stop defending it like the holy grail :)

When I finished Gothic 1/2 I wanted more, I wanted it to go on and on and on. With Gothic 3 I wanted it to end about 2/3 of the way through. The quests were repeditive errand quests and the overarching story didn't have enough streamlining for my liking. The first two installments had a great balance between freeform and linear story line which was why I rate those games as two of the finest pc rpg's ever.

Gothic 3 is a bloated mess which didn't help itself by having technical problems out the wazoo!

Alrik Fassbauer

November 29th, 2006, 20:00

The reviewer is obviously a Gothic newbie as he complains that beating up a friendly NPC with no immediate consequences is immersion breaking. I guess he found Oblivion's psychic guards with stealing a loaf of bread automatically making you the most wanted man all over Cyrodiil much more realistic. He didn't even discover that spamming the right mouse button is more effective than spamming the left mouse button. I'm not at all surprised that he failed to utilize the large variety of combat moves and instead had to exploit the AI together with constant saving/reloading. Oblivion's click-festing combat is, as it would seem, perfectly all-right.

- In earlier Gothics, consequences ARE there.

- All German magazines (and Olnigg, too) also complain that EVERY fight is in principle winnable WITHOUT combat moves. Just with constantly hacking on the mouse button ...

Edit : Just to make it clear : The devs themselves agreed that combat is highly unbalanced and will be better in a few patches !
As far as I know, they even *know*of that "mouse-hammering" style combat !

curious

November 29th, 2006, 20:24

gothic 3 isn't the kid that beat you in school
the teacher that failed you or wouldn't give you an a
the girlfriend that left you or you never got
or that really painful crap that took 15 minutes

...and neither are piranha bytes

so why does everyone feel the need to have such anger?
you're not 'saving' anyone the anguish of playing it by complianing
its definately different than prior gothics in many ways so new people
will like it where as some old ones won't--that's life--change
gaming may comprise a large amount of alot of our lives, but
they are just games which you play and somebody else made!

bjon045

November 29th, 2006, 20:26

In Gothic 2 towards the end of the game, if you were a merc, you could kill a merc and the other mercs would assist you. You could go on and kill every1 in Onar's farm without any consequences.

This is a bug and it can happen anywhere in any chapter. I've had town guards slaughter innocent civilians that I have attacked in the upper quarters of Khornis.

You claim you have played Gothic 2 but I somehow highly doubt it. If you did you wouldn't have been killed by a low level critter in a matter of seconds and you would have taken the trouble to properly configure your hardware and the ini files to get a good performance, according to the guides in this very site.

You sound like a troll to me.

*The reputation systems are completely different. In Gothic 1 and 2 you either belong to a faction or you don't.

*I never said I was killed by a low level critter in gothic 2, I said I was killed in 2 seconds by a bloodyfly in gothic THREE after killing 3 orc ELITES....

*Performance is not as issue I have a rather high end machine, the issues are all the bugs I listed.

*I have played through Gothic 1 and 2 numerous times.....I can quite easily take multiple orc elites in gothic 2 towards the later chapters. I've cleared the entire valley of mines of all available orcs/wargs in the second chapter without using any exploits. Of course it must be because I am not as skillful as you, thats why I was stunlocked to death in about 2 seconds. It certainly wasn't a bug that was partially fixed in the 1.08 patch and is supposed to be fully addressed in a future patch that will address melee combat. No, it certainly must be my skill level *faints*

Gorath

November 29th, 2006, 20:52

Edit : Just to make it clear : The devs themselves agreed that combat is highly unbalanced and will be better in a few patches !
As far as I know, they even *know*of that "mouse-hammering" style combat !
"in a few patches"?
As I understood Mike PB wants to make one more patch and that´s it.

curious

November 29th, 2006, 21:33

simple analogy

fans of the dixie chicks before but not after 'going political'/criticizing the president
=
fans of gothic series before gothic 3 but not after pirahna bytes offering more freedom/choices/world with less polish/depth/traditional story line

txa1265

November 29th, 2006, 21:49

Not such a simple analogy ;)

Are you saying it is politically trendy to bash G3 & PB right now?

lostnumber

November 29th, 2006, 21:56

I think most of the level headed complaints are a mixture of request and disappointment. The precedent set by G1 and G2 had everyone's expectations set reasonably high. Without a doubt G3 failed to deliver. I could back that last claim up but what's the point? The IGN article does a good job of summing up a large portion of the detracting arguments levied by many forum members.

Gothic 3 is nothing more than a product. As we know, the quality of a product is largely determined - in the long run - by its target market. If something of poor quality makes it to market, the market complains and demands a better product. Such complaints are the impetus for change. Companies that deliver an improved product succeed and companies that don’t fail. Without complaint, impassioned or otherwise, nothing would change. If everyone turned a blind eye, bought the game like mad, and gave G3 10/10 reviews with nominations for GOTY we would wind up with a G4 that closely resembles G3. If no one complains there will be no improvement. Complacent delusion is just as bad as wanton criticism. Combat is boring, bugs are bad, perks are missing or underdeveloped, ambient sounds are broken, NPC pain sounds are annoying, dialogue is shallow, and the quest log is horrible; that's just naming a few.

If you don't believe my "change" argument just look at the release notes for the patch that fixed the stun lock issue. By and large, the most common complaint was about wild boars and their stun lock inducing attack. What happens? Boom, we get a patch to address it, and the fix is highlighted by a comment in the release notes.

There is no need for defense or offense, just unadulterated judgment. PB is a company; they don't care if our comments hurt their feelings. PB wants our hard earned money, and I'll give them mine if they give me a worthy product. If anything is going to hurt PB it is telling them that G3 is a great game and that nothing needs to be changed! If G3 was a better game it would have sold more and PB would have seen more money. I just want a better product, that's all; constructive criticism of a product is an effective means of attaining this end.

lostnumber

November 29th, 2006, 21:58

Just one more patch?! I hope it's a good (read: large and effective) one.

Lethal Weapon

November 29th, 2006, 22:12

This is a bug and it can happen anywhere in any chapter. I've had town guards slaughter innocent civilians that I have attacked in the upper quarters of Khornis.

This again shows your utter failure to comprehend Gothic's reputation system. I'll take the trouble to explain, not for you, but for all those who happen to read these comments.

How an NPC will react in any given situation is determined by a large number of factors. In G2, if you were a novice, and attacked another novice, the mages would interfer; not so if you were a mage yourself; you could then beat up novices at will.

Attacking a merchant in Khorinis would provoke an immediate response by all bystanders if you were a level 1 nobody. But once you achieved paladin status people would cheer you. Were you a dreaded dragon hunter? They would flee in terror.

A guard will attack a civilian if he's under the impression that he started the fight. Even then he will think twice depending on the civilian's status.

As a mercenary, draw your weapon in the market square and everyone turns hostile. But as a militia man, no problem at all.

A high mage will get his ass kicked if he dares look a mercenary the wrong way. But a guildless character can beat the crap out of any mercenary without any consequences.
Why? Because it's just friends fighting.

At the end of the game you are so powerful and *everybody* knows it, that very few will dare oppose you. Usually they will either flee or assist you. They know they have no other choice. *Certainly not a bug*.

After having completed Gothic 3 I may assure that this is the exact system used. I' m not going to go into details as I would have to give spoilers. The only difference this time is that you get to see the exact reputation numbers and NPC names are colored according to their disposition. It would seem that this makes things easier. Well not easy enough for some people I guess.

@Alrik

I would be grateful if you would explain how you can defeat a minecrawler at level 1-5 with simple button-mashing. I'm playing on hard mode and I have to use combos. 'Broken' and 'unbalanced' are two different things. And Gothic 3 combat is certainly not broken.

@lostnumber

we are in total agreement. But there is a huge difference between constructive critique and poor reviews. Also keep in mind that the same sites have given very high scores to a number of buggy and bad games.

Dez

November 29th, 2006, 23:38

A bit offtopic, but I think this needs to be said about reviews in general.

Many journalists praised half-life 2 like it was a gift from heavens. Some (*cough* pc gamer) even claimed it to be "the best game all time". I don't know what they were smoking, but I want the same stuff! It wasn't a revolutionary game, like it's predecessor was. Half-life 1 is still a blast because of:

1) Level design. Just think of black mesa complex! I must have played it non-stop that xmas. And the game was long. When you thought you had seen it all, the game set a totally location for your.

2) Different kind of puzzles that kept the playing experience fresh throughout the game. For example do you remember the unbeatable monster in the rocket tube? Can't kill it with guns? So whats the most obvious thing to do? :)

3) guns. Unlike in hl2. they were diverse, powerfull and fun.

4) Structure of a game, in other words there were no clear levels. When playing it felt like was I finding my way naturally from a begining to an end.,

5) Ai and enemies At that time it was nothing like we had seen before. I still remember my first contact with Marines as a one of the best gaming moments ever. And each of the xen aliens behaved totally diffenrely too.

6) Scripted scenes. No more watching some boring cutscenes, let the player be part of them!

Half.life 2 certainly had many of those elements, but the game was less fun and it didn't offer anything new aside gravity gun. I'm still wondering how i can't see the same greatness in it as many of those journalists see.

Its the same thing with games like oblivion, black and white. Overpraised and overhyped. When playing them i feel like i'm playing a whole different games than those journalists did.

So in a way it didn't come to me as a surprise that most of the press couldn't understand g3. Certainly it ain't the best game out there, but it doesn't derserve such bashing. In many reviews it is said that its annoying that player doesn't know what to do? heck it isn't a game's duty to do that. Use your brains damnit. The beauty of g3 is the freedom of doing what ever you like, but just be ready to carry the consiquences! Some gamers cry why the orcs attack you...well why do work against them then?

Most of the journalists simply try to find the negative things instead of focusing what is good. Do those negative things weight more than all the good things? Is 4 out of 10 a fair score? I think not. I have played great deal of different games over the years. I have owned consoles (nes, sega megadrive, psx), and computers (amiga and many pcs). And if I simply put love this game, its rather odd for me that many of those game-journalits can't see the good sides in this game. Maybe i'm just a blind fan-boy. Well so be it if i'm having fun :)

curious

November 30th, 2006, 02:03

@lostnumber
-i completely agree with most of what you are saying but i think it is jowood who wants our money. i am sure pirahna bytes would have waited a few more months for release if they had there way. pirahna bytes is the 'creativeness' in the equation and while i can't speak for them most creative peoples endeavours strive for the best that they can do and while their staff is small, it has gotten larger so everyone agreeing on creative direction has probably become more difficult. gothic 3 may be just an object, but the game has lots of beauty to it, and the talent/love put into it is undeniable. i love the game but would give it a much lower score than the other gothics because of its release state ~85% but after the next patch i would bump it up almost 10% more. it still is the best rpg in a long time to me.

oh and for the record i would give oblivion an 82-83%. theres was actually lowered from 85% simpily for the audacity they showed by releasing the smallest size patch of any game in the last five years! ironic for a game that is suppose to be the biggest.

a games rating should also not really reflect how much you like the game unless you count the tilt category. for example i enjoyed gothic 3 infinitely more than oblivion but their scores were similar. unfortunately most reviewers use the exact opposite logic and there tastes are usually horrible and all to similar.

@mike
i wasn't saying that people bashing the dixie chicks was political. i was trying to point out that artists take different directions and often have to ostracize a portion of their fan base. but no one owns an artist and i think when people get upset with peoples artistical direction shifts they need to look at the fact that they didn't care about the person who created it as much as they derived 'pleasure' from it and now since they aren't recieved this 'pleasure' they are upset. this is a problem with modern culture and so many products, the connection to their production and creators is lost and is usually devoid of meaningful emotion.
do i think much about my shoes, no. but hundreds of years ago if the town shoemaker made you some shoes, i bet you would be grateful to him if they kept your feet dry and warm all winter long. to me if games lose this special bond to the creators...then i guess i will have outgrown gaming.

Elwro

November 30th, 2006, 03:15

I'll take the trouble to explain, not for you, but for all those who happen to read these comments.Thanks, it was an interesting read.

roqua

November 30th, 2006, 03:28

I don't follow curious, what bond? I never felt a bond with any company, even ones that I'm a fanboy of, like Troika.

And unlike games, musicians usually have a following, whereas games or series have a following. Its not really comparable. If you make a game with a 2 or 3 in the title as part of a series, it should fit in that series or not change drastically. The same could sort of be said for the music industry. Mike D couldn't expect that Beastie Boys fans would all pick up his Country Mike album. And if the Beatles came out with a White Album 2 that was a rap or techno album (yes I know this is silly) I'm sure the fans that would buy it expecting the usual Beatles (yes I know they also changed drastically over the years) type album would be validly disapointed.

If I follow what you are saying, you might be saying that the G1 and G2 fans aren't true fans since they don't want what should be the true focus of their fandom (fanness?), PB, to explore the gothic series creatively? But what if you are a fan of the creation and not the creator? ANd what are the limits?

Would Rockwell still be popular if he started painting child pornography? Should his fans, through being a fan of him and connected to him, be supportive of his child pornography? Or were they a fan of him because they like what he makes, and should stop being a fan when he stops making what they like?

I like creations, not creators. Because creations are steady and reliable when it comes to getting what you like, creators are fluid and changing and the next thing they create you might not like. Being a fan of someone/a group that used to make creations you like, but stopped doing that, seems a little silly to me. Just as some of the fans of the Dixie Chix stopped liking them (even though the music stayed the same) because of a political disagreement. But being a dixie Chix fan in the first place ment you like country music, and are therefor retarded and tasteless to begin with.

bjon045

November 30th, 2006, 05:15

This again shows your utter failure to comprehend Gothic's reputation system. I'll take the trouble to explain, not for you, but for all those who happen to read these comments.

Childish comments don't help your credibility.

You seem to have missed the point of what I said again. I said the system in gothic 2 is FACTION based. i.e. you join the paladins and you get the benefit of being a paladin. You become a dragon hunter you get the benefits of being a dragon hunter.

You are not rated on a scale as in Gothic 3 based on your reputation in the current town or with a particular group.

Attacking a merchant in Khorinis would provoke an immediate response by all bystanders if you were a level 1 nobody. But once you achieved paladin status people would cheer you. Were you a dreaded dragon hunter? They would flee in terror.

They certainly didn't do that in the savegame I just tested as a Paladin before leaving for final isle. There was no cheering, even lord Andre came running.

A guard will attack a civilian if he's under the impression that he started the fight. Even then he will think twice depending on the civilian's status.

This is the bug I was talking about. Happens with the mercenaries too sometimes in the second chapter. I have seen no evidence of "status" having anything to do with it. It is quite humorous watching the town ground drive their sword into an innocent civilians chest though.

As a mercenary, draw your weapon in the market square and everyone turns hostile. But as a militia man, no problem at all.

Just did it as a mercenary . Got the calls to put my weapon away as per usual.

Well not easy enough for some people I guess.

Learn how to make an argument without insulting someone. Read what I have written next time and don't take it so personally ;) Or is Gothic 3 your "baby"? ;)

Lethal Weapon

November 30th, 2006, 05:58

It is interesting that you keep describing G2' reputation system as a bug. Do you have a save as a mage? Load and go in the Khorinis market square then draw your weapon. Nobody will say anything, since mage =highest authority.

I was not talking about Lord Andre running after you, but about the civilians. Try murder a civilian as a very high level dragon hunter. No other civilian will dare say anything. Now murder a mercenary. Watch how the other mercs assist you. Do the same as a novice for example and observe the different behaviours. Now try and start a fight with Sentenza and lure him at the city barracks. See what happens.

I might be wrong about some of the details since it's been a while and I can't recall everything. But this is not the point. The point is that there is always a rationale for every different behaviour and NPC behaviour changes as the game progresses according to your guild, power and reputation. It is exactly the same with Gothic 3.
Sure you can't join a guild in Gothic 3 but having a 75% reputation with a faction is equivalent for all purposes. Sure you can't see the reputation numbers in Gothic 1+2, but they are still there. You can tell from how people behave differently as the game progresses, even though your guild remains the same.

Is Gothic 3 my baby? Most certainly not. But, having invested 200+ hours already, I think I have more things to say about the game than someone who has played for less than 4 hours.

[edit] I just remembered that after having killed almost everyone in the market square, a maid was screaming at me: "Didn't you have enough?". How's that for immersion? And the only way mercs would attack another merc in the second chapter would be in case of an unfair fight, such as Bulco beating you up, especially if you just stood there doing nothing to defend yourself (after he warns you to leave Onar's farm a couple of times, he will attack you with no provocation). Now I'll be leaving these fora for a while since I've started a new G3 game.

bjon045

November 30th, 2006, 06:58

It is interesting that you keep describing G2' reputation system as a bug. Do you have a save as a mage? Load and go in the Khorinis market square then draw your weapon. Nobody will say anything, since mage =highest authority.

Nowhere did I say the reputation system is a bug. I said it is a bug when sometimes they help you murder an innocent civilian or one of their buddies. It can happen right at the start of the game and has nothing to do with you being high ranking.

Is Gothic 3 my baby? Most certainly not. But, having invested 200+ hours already, I think I have more things to say about the game than someone who has played for less than 4 hours.

4 hours was more than enough for me to wipe the game and wait for a patch to do something about the broken combat. Again I say, read what I wrote. I never wrote anything about the reputation system in Gothic 3, I wrote about the reputation system in Gothic 2, and I asked a question "Does this happen with Gothic 3's "one line" of dialogue NPCs?" which you did not seem to answer.

Danicek

November 30th, 2006, 08:55

Well, I have to say that I'm playing Gothic 3, I'm enjoying it very much and I did not encounter single crash. There are several bugs I ran into but nothing big enough to make me worry. I see some things I don't like (How can someone put a '?' skill into your skill tab? This seem like ignorance... and other things).

This review is bad review because to some degree reviewing should be not that much subjective. Game is good or bad. Reviewers may give it slightly different rating based on their personal opinion and likings (after all some subjectivity should be there).

People try to play games and give up after few hours. They don't like the title and there are many reasons and combination of reasons that make them to do so. Does it necesserally mean that the game is bad? I did not enjoy Oblivion, Half-Life 2, Doom 3 - do I think that these games are bad? No. Do I think that these games are worse than Gothic 3? No. Do I think these games should be rated lower than Gothic 3 in reviews? No. They should be probably rated higher even though I did not enjoy them and I'm enjoying Gothic 3.

I strongly believe this game deservers score at least 7 out of 10. Usually I don't care how people rate games I like. Gothic 3 reviews really make bit mad...

doctor_kaz

November 30th, 2006, 14:58

What is it with PC games being reviewed by utter numbskulls nowadays? First the attrocious NWN2 review that had to be pulled by 1up.com. And now there have been some really stupid Gothic 3 reviews. Okay, the complaints about combat with beasts and poor technical performance are definitely valid. But the teleporter stones being hard to find? Give me a break! I have found every stone in Myrtana easily without even looking.

bjon045

November 30th, 2006, 15:13

I heard some of the stones are randomised so maybe he lucked out if this is true. I've never been a fan of randomisation in games (apart from during character creation - I love rolling for good characters in Wiz 6 and the old D&D games).

ABC

November 30th, 2006, 16:12

Gothic 3 hasn't the usual chapters that gave a quest order to previous gothics. mabe the right solution is 4 starting chapters and a final permanent chapter with all the quests available just like now from the start to give a shape to the main quest.

ToddMcF2002

November 30th, 2006, 22:28

curious

December 1st, 2006, 00:47

@roqua
i sense you have a hard time grasping what compassion and love are. and just to start i am not a fan of any country music, including the dixie chicks. there is more to love in the world than yourself and your family. emotions exists between everything living, so why not be moved or care about something or someone. i agree that games are obviously not music, but they have music and kai rosencranz is reason enough for me to buy gothic 3. the fact that games originated from simpleness like pong, to some just fancier graphics, while others devlop storytelling is worth noting. but for you to not acknowledge it as an art form is ludicris. it is evolving at an uncomparable path to other forms.

fan is just a word after all. but emotions are not. if the world spent some time trying to unravel them and less time debating 'words'...things would be much nicer.

the beatles are worth bringing up since this is a case of where the whole world followed peoples side projects. someone may have liked the beatles but maybe they appreaciate one of the 4 more than the other and so they were able to follow their 'solo' careers. everyone has a solo career called life and following that 'current' can be wonderful. to me as gorn so wonderfully put in gothic 2 i think it was 'i live for this ****'. to me its like present day archeology and each facet of works i enjoy and the people envolved make me feel connected in a world that often feels the opposite.

roqua

December 1st, 2006, 04:53

I understand compassion and love just fine, I just believe that being a fan of a game makes more sense than being a fan of a company. I don't see where compassion and love are involved. I love ToEE. I am also a fan of Troika. If Troika came out with a flight sim I wouldn't buy it because Troika made it, I wouldn't buy it because I don't want to waste my money on a flight sim.

My favorite group is the Beastie Boys. Mike D came out with a country album under the name of Country Mike. I skipped that release also. I guess I could of bought it out of love and compassion, but I guess I love and am more compassionate about not wasting my money on things I don't want.

curious

December 1st, 2006, 06:18

i bought all troika games, however i wouldn't say i really had a great interest in them until bloodlines, one of my favourite games. i then purchased toee but could never get into it as it had no story. but i am still interested in following future companies that they work for as i enjoyed arcanum also. this fascination is how i noticed that the same guy who worked on voices in bloodlines also did gothic 3. this is exactly what i am reffering to when i talk about 'connections' to the content.

personally although i have owned a few beastie boy albums, i think they make better producers than musicians. the question is though do the beastie boys write that much meaning and depth to their music or is a more 'fun' factor like some games are no story but great fun. fun is awesome sometimes but that usually will build no 'connection' for me, game or otherwise. i totally agree on you not wanting to waste your money. i love 'irrational games' and bought both freedom force games since they made them at around $10 each. i knew i probably wouldn't like the games all that much, but i got some value out of them so while it may have been somewhat of a waste i don't feel to jipped.

Danicek

December 1st, 2006, 08:44

Having taken a few days off here to buy/sell a car I see how silly it is to get so emotional about a video game. Alot of people have big problems with it but arent trolls while another group sees the charm but arent fanboys. Neither are actually wrong ya know.

That being said - in a few days I'll be back in gaming world full force and be just as single minded as always! :)

That's fine with me. But reviewers should actually try to stand in the middle. If they are fans, well they may put part of it into their review. If they are un-fans, they may put it there as well. But the biggest part of the review including the conclusion and score should reflect that.