Gothic 3 - Review @ Game Industry News

[Dhruin]

The latest site to review (http://www.gameindustry.com/review/item.asp?id=796) Gothic 3 is Game Industry News. The score is 3.5/5 and here's the conclusion:
Unfortunately any praises given to Gothic 3 within this review are negated by The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Oblivion set the bar so extremely high for single player role-playing games that Gothic 3 regrettably can’t match it. While Oblivion suffered from an enormous catalog of bugs (almost all have since been fixed) the sheer incredible amount of immersion, freedom, exploration and addictiveness is something that Gothic 3 sadly lacks. If your decision boils down to purchasing Gothic 3 or Oblivion I absolutely recommend Oblivion.
All things considered as a fan of the Gothic series this third iteration is a welcomed addition. I highly recommend it for series fans. For everyone else the quirks and bugs will probably drive you mad. However if you can look past them then Gothic 3 could perhaps be a game to your liking.
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=3203)

[screeg]

I wasn't a priori a fan of the Elder Scrolls or Gothic. Now that I've logged considerable hours in both games, I have to say I disagree completely, 180 degrees, with this review's conclusion.

I found Oblivion, comparatively speaking, to be weak, redundant, spoonfed pablum compared to G3. With a dozen or so much needed mods, Oblivion was playable and fun, but Gothic 3 blew me away with how much MORE fun this type of game could be.

And that's with the bugs.

Viva Gothic 3!

[Wulf]

This reviewer guy is obviously aware of the G3 v Obli' scenario and is doing no more than 'playing to the band' and trying to raise more hackles, a shame he's a little late and others have beaten him to it! ..........:D

[txa1265]

For most people I would recommend Oblivion as well - but that is because simple action games with role-playing elements play better to a mass audience than a hardcore game.

[RatavuK]

I dont care the reviewers opinion. We all know that every serious RPG gamer would rather play G3 than O any day.

[Cormac]

We all know that every serious RPG gamer would rather play G3 than O any day.

I didnt know that. Thanks for the heads up !

[Acleacius]

I am glad Dhruin highlighted that paragraph as the review seem fair up to that point it took a complete nose dive in the the realm of bs.

[Dez]

oblivion might be an excellent game, but hell it ain't an excellent roleplaying game. Where is the roleplaying if there are no real consequences for player's actions.

[Cormac]

Since OB is a roleplaying game, it cant be an excellent game without being an excellent rpg. If it's a bad rpg, then it's a bad game.

[roqua]

Since OB is a roleplaying game, it cant be an excellent game without being an excellent rpg. If it's a bad rpg, then it's a bad game.


I like the way you think.

[Dajjer]

the sheer incredible amount of immersion, freedom, exploration and addictiveness is something that Gothic 3 sadly lacks.

And there goes that reviewers credibility. It's hard to believe that he even played the game.

[Acleacius]

Yeah in this case I would have to say your right and he must have fake it.
It's not possible to be a Gothic fan of G1 and G2, then come to the conclusion Oblivion is a real RPG and G3 is no comparison, so he is lying about something.

[Dr. A]

That site awarded Oblivion with 5 stars in all categories - Gameplay, Graphics, Audio, Value and Fun.

*sigh* We need more review sites which do not pander to the unjustified hype of mainstream games. Probably an impossible dream, I guess.

[Corwin]

My complaint is that NO reviewer should use comparison with a different game as the yardstick for giving a score!! Take Oblivion out of the equation; assume there was no such game. Now, what score should G3 get? Anything else is crap!!

[txa1265]

Since OB is a roleplaying game, it cant be an excellent game without being an excellent rpg. If it's a bad rpg, then it's a bad game.
Your zeroeth assumption is flawed, therefore your logic train is derailed.

My complaint is that NO reviewer should use comparison with a different game as the yardstick for giving a score!! Take Oblivion out of the equation; assume there was no such game. Now, what score should G3 get? Anything else is crap!!
I completely agree - I got crap from GamerDad early on by referencing other games as yardsticks. It shouldn't be done.

[roqua]

What about G1 and G2 as yardsticks. I would think any review was flawed if it didn't take into account rpevious games from the series.

[Corwin]

NO, a game must stand on its own merits when being given a review score!!

[Danicek]

And we have another Gothic to Oblivion comparison instead of a review...

[20mithrandir]

A game CANNOT stand on its own. You played Gothic I, you played Gothic II. Both great games. So Gothic III just has to be as deep as its predecessors. It isn't. It is the weakest game in the series. If you did'n know the first two games you'd probably think: "Hey, a great game!". But people who know them think: "Hey, that's not so good at all...". You cannot ignore the fact that Piranha Bytes already made far better games when coming to a review score. Of course, that's my opinion. We haven't to agree in this point ; - )

[lilithn]

And we have another Gothic to Oblivion comparison instead of a review...

Well said. I'm really sad.

I just finished G3 the last week and I'm very very pleased. Can't wait for the expansion.

Happy Xmas everybody! (my NWN2 and MTW2 is already under the tree....:p)

ps: and I'm thinking of giving my Oblivion to my nephew. He really likes shooters. ;P

[ikbenrichard]

OB might be better on some parts but overall gothic 3 is more hardcore and less consoled...

if i have to choose il choose gothic3 despite the bugs and lesser graphics.

[Acleacius]

20mithrandir you are contradicting yourself, thousands of people like G1, G2 and G3.
It's most of us "Fans" realise it's Jo"Whored Gothic"Wood's fault the game was released 6 months early, PB didn't have a say in it.

We "Fans" know that PB has a concept here which is yet unfinished, yet you are pandering to Oblivion which clearly is Not an RPG only an Action game with RPG elements of the starting characters choices which all are Equal by long before anyone could come close to seeing the contantly reguratated levels, textures and dungeons, Nor can you have any effect on your decsions in Oblivion.

Wth makes Oblivion a RPG to you if you have played real RPGs?

[20mithrandir]

I'm not pandering anything, I never mentioned any Elder Scrolls game at all.

Yes Gothic 3 is not a bad game, but it never will be able to compete with the ambience of the first titles. There're too few unique NPCs, the story is plain simple and the "free choice" design is poorly implemented. But that's another discussion. The point is: If you know the predecessors you cannot rate the game without thinking about the good design they had...

[Corwin]

20, you are still wrong. The reviewer is reviewing the GAME, not the SERIES!! As a game reviewer, I focus on what is in front of me, not on what has gone before. I may be disappointed, knowing a game is not up to the standard of previous games in the series, but it would be unprofessional of me to allow that consideration to affect my judgement!!

[20mithrandir]

Then I guess a lot of (semi-)professional reviewers are unprofessional ; - )

[Thaurin]

I do believe strongly that it is the duty of any reviewer to provide a context for the object of the review. A reviewer should consider the previous instalments in the series, and luckily most reviewers do just that. Of course, it should not weigh things down too much, but if the game is considerably worse than what has gone before it, it certainly is regression. I also appreciate this context when I read a CD review or a movie sequel review. Isn't it just common sense to do this?

I think a review is worthless if it's not compared to previous games in the series-- not especially to other games in the genre! (But even that can be helpful to the reader). I don't care what you think about the issue as a game reviewer. I just want context. :D

Other than that, yeah, sure. The game should be rated on its own merits for the most part. But it's not the same as for instance a book to the silver screen conversion, which is a completely different kind of product, unlike another game in a series or the latest album of band X.

[Corwin]

I didn't say you shouldn't compare, or refer to previous games in a series, I just don't believe you should allow them to influence your SCORE for the game being reviewed!! For the score, I look at the game in isolation and measure it against the criteria we use to reach that score. Let me suggest an analogy. As a onetime high school teacher, when marking a student's work, I could in my mind compare it to that students previous work, but the mark would be determined by the piece I was reading. Similarly, it would have been wrong for me to use another student's work to assess the one I was marking!! This is what this reviewer has done. It might ostensibly appear to make doing the job easier, but in my opinion, it is manifestly unfair!!

[Wulf]

Let's be openly honest,

...the 'anticipation' surrounding a pending or recent release of a fan-based series/follow-on type game (the gothic series being a candidate) cannot go ignored and it is essential and inescapable not to compare the pros, cons and similarities with that of it's predecessors, this is warranted and justified by the fact of their close association and is inevitable that comparisons will be drawn between these two series games.
Oblivion is also a fan-based series/follow-on type game also, therefore these "similarities" will always remain even though the gameplay strains are different in their design concepts.

A Wulf-quote....

"If any game cannot stand on it's own two feet (merits) within a review then it isn't worth reviewing in the first place and one must then question the motives of the reviewer for "introducing" another game within that review as being media-ulterior or otherwise"

[doctor_kaz]

I think that it's impossible to avoid the comparison between the two games. As long as the differences are accurately pointed out, it's okay to do so. Oblivion blows Gothic out of the water in both graphics and physics, and most of all, performance. It's an incredible cutting edge engine that runs beautifully vs. one that is on par with 2004 that runs like absolute shit. I think that Gothic 3 would have gotten better scores if it didn't run so poorly on machines that easily run games that look way better and have robust physics engines.

[txa1265]

I think that things that provide context, allowing for drawing inferences, are all reasonable. But it can become a crutch - instead of doing a *critical review* you are 'comparison shopping' (I like the blue one better, thanks).

I think it depends on many things:
- Looking at a generic, semi-budget WWII FPS like the recent (and really crappy) "World War II Combat: Iwo Jima", it is OK to mention Call of Duty or Medal of Honor Allied Assault. But that mention should be an aside, perhaps to mention that the budget pricing of those games and similar system specs makes them a better deal - but that should happen *after* you've eviscerated the game for being crap.
- Expansions have free-reign to *reference* the 'mother game', but need to review the actual expansion itself! However, reviews that start out "I didn't like Star Wars: Empire at War" and are reviewing the expansion ... not good.
- Sequels definitely owe the audience some context around where to place the game in a series in terms of pretty much everything that is considered a 'hallmark' of the series.
- Direct competitors are allowed to reference one another and possibly even do a bit of a comparison - in this I'm referring to things like "NBA 07" vs. "NBA Live 07" vs. "NBA 2k7" ... they are the same 'game' for the same platforms using the same players ...

Beyond that it gets very iffy - as some have said, it is valid to draw some references between series enjoyed by the same people. For example, the above-mentioned Call of Duty and Medal of Honor series always get compared. And we have no issue comparing Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate through contrasting their different aims.

I don't think it is anathema to mention one game in the review of another. However, paraphrasing what Corwin implied, just because Half Life 2 looks great and performs excellently shouldn't lower the score of Prey.

[BillSeurer]

Wow, the Gothic fanboyz are out in force.

Gothic3 is a fine game, or rather, it WOULD be a fine game IF it had been finished. The lack of pollish is everywhere evident from the weird graphical errors (get near a wall and your head sticks through it for example) to crashes (many, including corrupted save files!) to broken combat (you can slaughter entire cities full of orcs but a wolf takes you down without being able to land a blow). Oblivion on the other hand (and despite the reviewer's mention of bugs) ran great right out of the box, was much more pollished, and looks vastly better. I like Gothic3 a lot but even I am getting frustrated with it and I am about as hardcore a CRPGer as you can get.

There is just NO WAY that Gothic3 is going to be anywhere near as popular and successful as Oblivion without major changes and fixes. I can imagine more casual gamers really getting into Oblivion but they will be totally frustrated by Gothic3 and likely abandon it in the first few hours.

Don't blame Oblivion for Gothic3's problems.

[txa1265]

Wow, the Gothic fanboyz are out in force.
I don't necessarily agree - there is some extra emphasis on this because of the fact that many of us don't believe that Oblivion deserves anything like the adulation it gets, and that then taking the 'over-hyper-praise' as fact and using it on Gothic 3 - which has plenty of problems of its' own - is really unneccessary.
Don't blame Oblivion for Gothic3's problems.
Our point is that reviewers shouldn't be sanctifying Oblivion based on Gothic 3's problems.

[Jabberwocky]

Wow, the Gothic fanboyz are out in force.

:lol: I just pictured a group of nerdy looking guys in streetclothes walking seven across, all having an assortment of wicked looking medieval weapons strapped to their backs, on the prowl for any yellow skinned anorexic elves they can throttle.
The elves see them coming and try to cast a spell, cueing up a cliche sound effect. But alas! the spell proves ineffectual, as the Gothic Fanboyz dilligent exploration of every inch of the countryside has yeilded them a limitless supply of cure everything potions!
They draw their weapons and close in for the kill. The elves land a hit, well, actually they land about fourteen hits, due to stun-lock, but suddenly and most expectedly the huge GPS arrow the elves were using for guidance malfunctions! Apparently there are too many Gothic Fanboyz for it to keep track of! With one hit from a Battleaxe, Bastard Sword, Two-Hander, Orc-Slayer, Halberd, Crossbow, and a couple of Fireballs for good measure, the elves are rendered lifeless, much like the world they came from. :p :p :p

[kalniel]

*token hard core RPG fan that also happens to love Oblivion here*

I agree a game should be scored on it's own merits and failings, and the bulk of a review should be just that. Regardless of what games there are and have been, I still want to know in a review about *this* game.

However I think it's also the duty of a review to mention other games in so far as they add context and advice for the reader. A comment such as 'this is a great game, however if you have to buy one X genre game you'd be better off with Y' I find helpful.

[Dajjer]

20, you are still wrong. The reviewer is reviewing the GAME, not the SERIES!! As a game reviewer, I focus on what is in front of me, not on what has gone before. I may be disappointed, knowing a game is not up to the standard of previous games in the series, but it would be unprofessional of me to allow that consideration to affect my judgement!!


insert nelson laugh

nobody but me understands your point

[Melvil]

/snore

Wha...another less than perfect review for a flawed game?

/hits snooze
/snore

[Burress]

I didn't say you shouldn't compare, or refer to previous games in a series, I just don't believe you should allow them to influence your SCORE for the game being reviewed!! For the score, I look at the game in isolation and measure it against the criteria we use to reach that score. Let me suggest an analogy. As a onetime high school teacher, when marking a student's work, I could in my mind compare it to that students previous work, but the mark would be determined by the piece I was reading. Similarly, it would have been wrong for me to use another student's work to assess the one I was marking!! This is what this reviewer has done. It might ostensibly appear to make doing the job easier, but in my opinion, it is manifestly unfair!!

The high school teacher is not a good analogy because there are objective answers to questions in subjects like math or physics to offer grades on but not in video games. Every score is relative to the market's current standards (ex. how do the graphics and gameplas of a new fps compare to FEAR). Each new blockbuster title like Oblivion changes the standard and more is expected of future titles. Its the only way to do a review, there are no objective equations to work out graphics or gameplay scores, they are all relative to the standards similar games have set. If you are not comparing a game to its contemporaries in score you are just giving it random numbers.

[Viking_Berserker_2]

"the sheer incredible amount of immersion, freedom, exploration and addictiveness is something that Gothic 3 sadly lacks"

and thats where we all stop reading.

[crpgnut]

Ah, this site almost needs to be renamed GothicWatch. All Gothic posts get mucho attention. Add me to the list of folks who prefer TES over Gothic. I haven't played G3yet so I won't get involved in Ob vs G3, but Oblivion is much, much better than either of the previous games in the series. The single thing that Gothic offers over Oblivion is combat difficulty. If hard combat=best crpg in your mind, Gothic wins. In any other comparison it fails dismally. Graphics, number of locales, exploration, spells, choice of skills, customization of character, loot, NPC interaction, etc. One other area that might be a watch favorite, is that the handful of NPCs that actually exist in the G-series are more fully realized than the multitudes that exist in TES. This makes for a better main storyline, but give me the multiple quests of TES over the linear main quest with very few sidequests of Gothics.

It almost seems like some folks want to say, "Hey I'm geeky enough to beat G3, even with its bugs and harsh combat. Aint I the greatest?" The answer, of course, is no. Most people wonder why you bothered. Oblivion has modability going for it as well. Ob has its faults but with 1000s of programmers vs. a handful, Ob gets to flower into the perfect game for almost any taste. Just pick mods that will make Ob into what you want.

If Gothic was a candy store, all it would sell would be black licorice. Now its black licorice would be much better than the Oblivion candy store's, but the Oblivion candy store carries all forms of licorice and many other forms of candy as well. For the 4% of folks who love black licorice the Gothic store is supreme. The rest of us will just have to "settle" for Oblivion candy.

[Danicek]

Honestly this discussions are getting bit too tedious in my opinion. All was said and repeated several times. I'm making New year's resolution to not read any discussion below Gothic review on this site until Gothic 4... :].

[crpgnut]

Honestly this discussions are getting bit too tedious in my opinion. All was said and repeated several times. I'm making New year's resolution to not read any discussion below Gothic review on this site until Gothic 4... :].

Sounds good, Danicek. I'll leave it alone too. If a topic post contains the word Gothic, I'll just bypass it. Of course, without Gothic posts rpgwatch has no forum traffic :)

[txa1265]

Sounds good, Danicek. I'll leave it alone too. If a topic post contains the word Gothic, I'll just bypass it. Of course, without Gothic posts rpgwatch has no forum traffic :)

There is always room for fair debate, so long as people realize that these are *opinions* we all have and that engaging in hyperbole (like in your last post, and plenty of them regarding Oblivion) is never the means to a productive discussion.

[Dhruin]

Ah, this site almost needs to be renamed GothicWatch. All Gothic posts get mucho attention. [...]

In any other comparison it fails dismally. Graphics, number of locales, exploration, spells, choice of skills, customization of character, loot, NPC interaction, etc. [...]

It almost seems like some folks want to say, "Hey I'm geeky enough to beat G3, even with its bugs and harsh combat. Aint I the greatest?" The answer, of course, is no. Most people wonder why you bothered. Oblivion has modability going for it as well. Ob has its faults but with 1000s of programmers vs. a handful, Ob gets to flower into the perfect game for almost any taste. Just pick mods that will make Ob into what you want.


I really shouldn't encourage turning this thread into an O vs G3 thread but I just wanted to respond on a couple of items.

Yes, we have a lot a Gothic fans. RPGDot was the largest English-speaking Gothic site on the 'net and it's natural we bought quite a few of them with us to RPGWatch. Sorry. It's just the way it is.

On the second part...no, it doesn't fail dismally on all of those. A couple are definitely to O's advantage, such as customisation. On the other hand...exploration? Not a chance in hell. I find absolutely no point in exploring Oblivion. All I will find is the same levelled enemies in a myriad of cloned dungeons. Or I could explore the same-y height-mapped overland with it's identical-except-for-the-flowers-colour grasslands. There are no real mountains or crevasses, no significant points of interest. Sure, I'll find shrines with the same acolytes worshipping (robe colour aside) but not much else.

On the other hand, what about different ways to complete quests? What about actually changing the gameworld? Interesting NPCs? Are there mods that actually introduce choices into that dreadful main plot?

Anyway...my point is not to argue -- you like Oblivion and I like Gothic and that's cool. But it isn't because it's a badge of honour - it's because we have a very different view of what we want out of things like exploring.

[Acleacius]

20mithrandir
" I never mentioned any Elder Scrolls game at all."
Apologies, I actually thought you were the reviewer. :blush: :)

BillSeurer
"Wow, the Gothic fanboyz are out in force."
I referenced the word "fans" so many times, since the reviewer (I mistaking took as 20mithrandir) kept using the word and saying he was a fan, yet making statements/accusations no fan would make knowing the situation.
Now most gamers may not have an idea what happened and perceive it as PB's fault but a reviewer (falsely?) claiming knowledge and being completely wrong in premise is not excusable, since he portends himself as a professional and there's a difference. :)

[Jabberwocky]

I agree Danicek! That's why I decided to entertain myself with a little story on my last post, it was quite enjoyable to picture in my head! I'm through debating a topic that is unresolvable. I mean, c'mon, we've reached a point where someone actually compared Gothic to a candy store for crying out loud!