Could it be that he means with "slow start" the publishing of the game in international markets ?
Gothic - Matt Chat
- Thread starter Dhruin
- Start date
Could it be that he means with "slow start" the publishing of the game in international markets ?
I think Matt is the #1 guy that speaks for us CRPG nerds. Even if he is a little bit lackluster with his facts sometimes, I don't know of anyone better.
Gothic, though, is a different story. Slow start? Very much. Bad game design decisions? Aplenty. Worst UI in gaming history? Yessir.
IMHO this action adventure is the second most overrated game in CRPG history, just beaten by Ultima IV.
I know that I am quite alone with that opinion in the Watch community, but in this case I don't really care.
Gothic, though, is a different story. Slow start? Very much. Bad game design decisions? Aplenty. Worst UI in gaming history? Yessir.
IMHO this action adventure is the second most overrated game in CRPG history, just beaten by Ultima IV.
I know that I am quite alone with that opinion in the Watch community, but in this case I don't really care.
Burn the heathen at the stake!
Nice troll attempt there...
You know that you might perhaps get some flamish replies to that ?
If you know it - I congratulate you for this well-placed provocation. Very well done.
And if you call Gothic an Action-Adventure - you haven't played any adventures recently, did you ? Adventures NEVER have chracter prograsion, for instance. Character progression just isn't in the definition of "Adventure Games". Just go to any adventure-themed web site like Adventure Corner or Adventure Gamers and ask around if this is true.
Nice one, but what about
"Keef the Thief" or "5th Desciple" or "Gooka"?
@JDR
No trolling here. Just don't get Gothic 1+2. Thought that the original combat in Gothic 3 was a vast improvement over the predecessors and I dare to say that the UI in Gothic 3 is quite good.
Did you know that Gothic 1 was created by Pirhana with a console controller in mind? The (bad) mouse controls were implemented after a German mag demanded one after playing a demo.
Gothic is installed on my machine, though (maybe for 10 years now), but I only fire it up once in a while to realize that this ain't my game. (did just so, BTW).
Holy crap, you thought combat in Gothic 3 was a "vast improvement"?!
I ... don't know how to reply to this.
But I'll say that Gothic really got me hooked (after i figured out the controls) and Gothic 2:NOTR just totally blew me away (still my my fave RPG of all time).
I ... don't know how to reply to this.
But I'll say that Gothic really got me hooked (after i figured out the controls) and Gothic 2:NOTR just totally blew me away (still my my fave RPG of all time).
This is going to be 'wordy' so if it's too long by all means don't read it.
Like some others who frequent this place, I've been gaming for almost as long as videogames have been around. My first console was the original Magnavox Odyssey released back in the early/mid 70s. It was the console where you put an overlay on your TV screen to provide the 'graphics' for the on-screen video 'blibs.'
In those days it was so amazing to be controlling the on-screen action on a TV - it changed the entire paradigm of a video display from passive to interactive. But the early days of videogaming were relegated to fairly simple arcade-style romps; tank battles, plane battles, simple car racing, pong and whatnot.
In 1979 a little game called, 'Adventure' was released for the Atari 2600. For me, this game was the equivelent of giving me tasty chips and salsa after not having eaten for a week - the salivating was gratuitous. I couldn't get enough of that game and it really made my imagination soar. I still remember not being able to fall asleep at night because I wanted to keep playing so much. Previously, this type of insomnia was relegated to anticipation of trips to Disneyland and other rare activities. From that point on, I craved more of this style of gameplay.
Because of Atari 2600 Adventure and my persuit of anything in that vein that could expand on the complexity of the gameplay, by 1980 a little company called, 'Infocom' got on my radar. Although games produced by Infocom were text only, one title caught my attention: 'Zork' - it sounded 'Adventury' enough so I got a copy of it (I'm pretty sure my first copy was a bootleg but eventually I did buy the game so I'm hoping for redemptions from the 'Big Guy' upstairs). Like 'Adventure' before it, Zork really got my imagination stirring. The thirst to explore a fantasy world and discover new things grew inside me like weeds soaking in the morning dew while basking in sunlight.
It was only a year later, in 1981, that a 'real computer game' was introduced into the nerdy consciousness of my universe. It was called 'Ultima.' It promised a graphical world you could freely explore. It also promised that it was so complex that virtually every single key on the computer keyboard had a function (yes, this claim was actually used in marketing this series through Ultima V). And this claim worked, at least on me and led to a series of begging and pleading with my parents to buy me an Apple computer (at the time, that was the only kind of computer Ultima would run on). They never budged and I never got to play the game except for the few times I went to my parents' friends house whose son had an Apple computer and the Ultima game. All I ever got to do was watch because that kid would never give up the keyboard.
So what is the point of this little recap of one gamer's nerdy recollection of the prehistoric days of gaming? It has to do with why so many of us, typically (but not always) on the older side, don't easily shy away from complexity. We come from an era where the word 'complexity' was NOT a dirty marketing word, but was actually embraced by marketers. The more complex the game, the better. These days, the more streamlined, the better. Either viewpoint can be endlessly debated as being better than the other and I don't want to get too caught up in that in my ramblings here.
Gothic 1 & 2, by today's standards, are complex. The control schemes are counter-intuitive to a degree and need some attention by the player to overcome. The pacing is slow and methodical. Resources, early on, are very scarce. Enemies are tough and oftentimes make your character seem 'weak.' All these things tend to put off contemporary gamers who, in my humble opinion, haven't learned the joy of improving their character's position in a gameworld after having gone through quite a bit of 'scraping by.'
Old farts like me who have a love for exploring fantasy worlds embrace complexity and don't easily shy away from a deep, complex gameworld just because controls are a little confusing and enemies can one shot you halfway through the game. And I know there are plenty of younger people out there who have the fortititude to appreciate this kind of gameplay without having to be an old fart.
Matt is by no means a 'spring chicken' but I think his target audience bleeds quite a bit into the younger crowd who oftentimes cannot or will not appreciate the kind of gameplay Gothic 1 & 2 offer, hence his somewhat childish commentary in his video 'review' of Gothic. Of course, I could be wrong.
Like some others who frequent this place, I've been gaming for almost as long as videogames have been around. My first console was the original Magnavox Odyssey released back in the early/mid 70s. It was the console where you put an overlay on your TV screen to provide the 'graphics' for the on-screen video 'blibs.'
In those days it was so amazing to be controlling the on-screen action on a TV - it changed the entire paradigm of a video display from passive to interactive. But the early days of videogaming were relegated to fairly simple arcade-style romps; tank battles, plane battles, simple car racing, pong and whatnot.
In 1979 a little game called, 'Adventure' was released for the Atari 2600. For me, this game was the equivelent of giving me tasty chips and salsa after not having eaten for a week - the salivating was gratuitous. I couldn't get enough of that game and it really made my imagination soar. I still remember not being able to fall asleep at night because I wanted to keep playing so much. Previously, this type of insomnia was relegated to anticipation of trips to Disneyland and other rare activities. From that point on, I craved more of this style of gameplay.
Because of Atari 2600 Adventure and my persuit of anything in that vein that could expand on the complexity of the gameplay, by 1980 a little company called, 'Infocom' got on my radar. Although games produced by Infocom were text only, one title caught my attention: 'Zork' - it sounded 'Adventury' enough so I got a copy of it (I'm pretty sure my first copy was a bootleg but eventually I did buy the game so I'm hoping for redemptions from the 'Big Guy' upstairs). Like 'Adventure' before it, Zork really got my imagination stirring. The thirst to explore a fantasy world and discover new things grew inside me like weeds soaking in the morning dew while basking in sunlight.
It was only a year later, in 1981, that a 'real computer game' was introduced into the nerdy consciousness of my universe. It was called 'Ultima.' It promised a graphical world you could freely explore. It also promised that it was so complex that virtually every single key on the computer keyboard had a function (yes, this claim was actually used in marketing this series through Ultima V). And this claim worked, at least on me and led to a series of begging and pleading with my parents to buy me an Apple computer (at the time, that was the only kind of computer Ultima would run on). They never budged and I never got to play the game except for the few times I went to my parents' friends house whose son had an Apple computer and the Ultima game. All I ever got to do was watch because that kid would never give up the keyboard.
So what is the point of this little recap of one gamer's nerdy recollection of the prehistoric days of gaming? It has to do with why so many of us, typically (but not always) on the older side, don't easily shy away from complexity. We come from an era where the word 'complexity' was NOT a dirty marketing word, but was actually embraced by marketers. The more complex the game, the better. These days, the more streamlined, the better. Either viewpoint can be endlessly debated as being better than the other and I don't want to get too caught up in that in my ramblings here.
Gothic 1 & 2, by today's standards, are complex. The control schemes are counter-intuitive to a degree and need some attention by the player to overcome. The pacing is slow and methodical. Resources, early on, are very scarce. Enemies are tough and oftentimes make your character seem 'weak.' All these things tend to put off contemporary gamers who, in my humble opinion, haven't learned the joy of improving their character's position in a gameworld after having gone through quite a bit of 'scraping by.'
Old farts like me who have a love for exploring fantasy worlds embrace complexity and don't easily shy away from a deep, complex gameworld just because controls are a little confusing and enemies can one shot you halfway through the game. And I know there are plenty of younger people out there who have the fortititude to appreciate this kind of gameplay without having to be an old fart.
Matt is by no means a 'spring chicken' but I think his target audience bleeds quite a bit into the younger crowd who oftentimes cannot or will not appreciate the kind of gameplay Gothic 1 & 2 offer, hence his somewhat childish commentary in his video 'review' of Gothic. Of course, I could be wrong.
Last edited:
@TheMadGamer
I play video games since my dad won a little pong machine on a fairground in the late 1970ies. My first own computer was C64 which makes me a member of "generation C64" while you are probably a "generation VCS" guy.
My first roguelike was "Sword of Fargoal" in 1985 and my frist real CRPG was Bard's Tale 1 in 1986. If you know these games they were complex (for their time) and unintuitive. Nevertheless I mastered both of them.
Since then I never ran from any complex game or UI, but Gothic's controls are not complex - they are bad. Everything else is fanboy thinking. I tried to like it when it was released (not on my machine, though - it wasn't powerful enough) and still try to like it, but they could have done so much better. I can't overlook its obvious problems. They could have improved the game in patches. Look at The Witcher 2. The original controls and the balance sucked in the original release, but they got it right with v1.2. Combat is still twitchy and complex, but it is intuitive to a certain degree and the difficulty is okay on "normal".
I cannot overlook the problems of other semi-godlike RPGs that noone dares to criticise while everybody in his right mind can see that / where they suck.
Examples? I mentioned U4 but there are more: Daggerfall, UU1+2, all M&M games and of course Wizardry 6,7 and 8.
@all
I am not a casual gamer, but if I am not hardcore enough any more then I am getting old…
EDIT:
P.S.: I think that in most bad games there is somewhere a good game that wants to get out. But the barriers I am ready to overcome can only be so high. I played through the whole of "Pool of Radiance 2 - Ruins of Myth Drannor" and enjoyed 90% of it. Don't tell me I shy away from complexity ....
I play video games since my dad won a little pong machine on a fairground in the late 1970ies. My first own computer was C64 which makes me a member of "generation C64" while you are probably a "generation VCS" guy.
My first roguelike was "Sword of Fargoal" in 1985 and my frist real CRPG was Bard's Tale 1 in 1986. If you know these games they were complex (for their time) and unintuitive. Nevertheless I mastered both of them.
Since then I never ran from any complex game or UI, but Gothic's controls are not complex - they are bad. Everything else is fanboy thinking. I tried to like it when it was released (not on my machine, though - it wasn't powerful enough) and still try to like it, but they could have done so much better. I can't overlook its obvious problems. They could have improved the game in patches. Look at The Witcher 2. The original controls and the balance sucked in the original release, but they got it right with v1.2. Combat is still twitchy and complex, but it is intuitive to a certain degree and the difficulty is okay on "normal".
I cannot overlook the problems of other semi-godlike RPGs that noone dares to criticise while everybody in his right mind can see that / where they suck.
Examples? I mentioned U4 but there are more: Daggerfall, UU1+2, all M&M games and of course Wizardry 6,7 and 8.
@all
I am not a casual gamer, but if I am not hardcore enough any more then I am getting old…
EDIT:
P.S.: I think that in most bad games there is somewhere a good game that wants to get out. But the barriers I am ready to overcome can only be so high. I played through the whole of "Pool of Radiance 2 - Ruins of Myth Drannor" and enjoyed 90% of it. Don't tell me I shy away from complexity ....
Last edited:
SpoonFULL
SasqWatch
This is music to my ears. The younger generation is accustomed to being able to acquire and achieve matters quickly and easily in life, at the expense of patience and hard work that old folks are used to. There is nothing wrong with that as times are changing, the technology is advancing quickly and one is always striving to make their children's life easier and more comfortable than theirs.
As for the Gothics, I only played Gothic 3 (Gothic 2 on my GoG shelf to do next) with over 150 hours in my belt and I have yet to finish it (taking my time and enjoying the scenary). It took me about 80 hours before I had decent armour and mana regeneration (it took me 8 minutes in KoA demo to get better than these), but the trip and quests were worth it. Moreover, hunting, cooking, smithing, alchemy and prospecting were all natural tasks that one can relate to in real life and made the Gothics more personal. The combat in Gothic 3 is debatable but is very good to me and later in the game is tactical with no button mashing. The physics in Gothic 3 were ahead of their time as well. The 'really' open world is massive and full of surprises. Gothic 3 to me is a master piece up their with Fallout:New Vegas and probably the same apply to the other Gothics.
I REALLY wanted a C64 but never managed to acquire one. I wasn't from a poor family but we weren't rich either and something like a C64 just wasn't gonna happen. But I did work at a computer store for 2 years and they had a C64 setup for customers to 'test' software. Got some good playtime on that machine 'after hours' with a store-wide selection of games to choose from. Good times.
You're right. Gothic 1's controls are bad. There's really no way around that. But was willing to work around that because my 'hunch' was that the underlying game was great. As it turned out, G1 is a great game, at least to me. Gothic 1's controls are bad because they are unnecessarily overly-complicated (complex) by today's standards and would have been much better if keyboard+mouse control had been taken into account from the very beginning of development.
I think most people (at least those who actually are willing to work hard (and smart) and who generally 'try' in life) eventually become very patient as you get older. No matter how much media wants to gratify everyone instantly, most learn that anything truely lasting and satisfying generally only comes from putting in a lot of time and hard work into something.
Although I am sort of hard wired from the get go to like large CRPG style games that don't always instantly gratify the player, I can think of a good number of other things I was very impatient about when I was younger.
As for KoA - it is a very different kind of game from games like Gothic. It is much more fast paced and arcade like. But I also like these kinds of games from time to time. To me, KoA has an interesting mix of features and is why I think I'm interested in it.
In the end though, it's games like Risen 2 that REALLY get me excited - I am looking forward to the release of that game more than any other this year.
SpoonFULL
SasqWatch
It is fun to play and reminds of playing Soul Reaver 1 and 2. So I find this to work in my advantage with my limited time trying to juggle work and family.
I am excited and looking forward to this one too and I hope Risen 2 will deliver a larger world in the spirit of the Gothic games. I am also looking to see what they have done with graphic engine - I am very impressed with what they have done with Gothic 3.
Dhruin
SasqWatch
Yes, Gothic was originally intended for a console release and carries some obvious baggage as a result. I'm sure there are people who are blind to that reality but I'd imagine most of us know some aspects could be much improved but we balance that against the fantastic world design and (for most of us) pretty good combat.
I think it's great CDPR were able to release a patch….what? a year later? but PB don't have the luxury of being owned by their own self-funded publisher. It's a different situation. One of the reasons the Enhanced Patch for the The Witcher took so long was because CDP were using the patch to re-release the game at retail, increasing the longevity of the product. Nothing wrong with that but it was - at least in part - a marketing exercise.
Just goes to show different strokes for different folks. For me, PoR2RoMD was interminably dull, which is a much bigger barrier for me than some unusual controls for Gothic.
I don't know these games. They are at least not sold here, otherwise I would know of them.
Very well put, very well put.
I also fear that this whole "complexity yes/no" thing is also a question of generations.
Younger generations of gamers don't know what *really* complex games are - the infamous "unplayable" conclusion is a clear sign of this in my eyes.
Another point is the fact that older gamers might have other interests than pursueing overly complex games, but instead rather spend the time with spouse and children. This is another point where people want an easily accessible game - but not a "dumbed down" game either.
What seemingly only few companies managed to do nowadays is to maintain the fine line between the cboth extremes of "dumbing down" and "overly complex/crunching numbers", to use a cliché.
I had a similar experiernce. The combat was very good for my taste, challenging ( had to revive at least 1 character every second or third fight), but the environment was so dull ... It could hve been a great game if the developers had fleshed this (the environments) out, too.
In some early magazine articles, this game was even positioned as a "Baldur's Gate Rival" ! Some thought it to be even much better than BG !
But I think that was all lost when the environments weren't made ... running through all of these same-looking, boring, dull halls in the depths broke the gam for me.
Finally, I had reached the surface at one point again - but the boring, almost lifeless look of the whole game had already taken all of the fun from me.
Plus its infamous bug. This definitively pulled the game's reputation down, too.
Sir_Brennus said:
Sir_Brennus said:
That's exactly what I meant. These games seem to be beyond criticism these days. Even debating their weak spots is considered heresy.
This is a bad thing, you know.