RPGWatch Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2

RPGWatch Forums (https://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/index.php)
-   News Comments (https://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Gothic 3 - Review @ Gamespy (https://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=721)

Kalia November 23rd, 2006 05:14

Gothic 3 - Review @ Gamespy
Gamespy has posted a review of Gothic 3 and assigned it a paltry one and a half stars out of a possible five (a 'poor' rating).

In the end, the greatest tragedy of Gothic 3 is that there are actual moments when what might have been comes peeping through the digital detritus. The basic design of the game is quite sound and if Piranha Bytes could clean the game up, it might end up becoming a classic. As it stands now, my nightmarish trip through the world of Gothic 3 made me want to send my disc on a one-way trip into an incinerator. Here's hoping Gothic 4 turns out better, because this one's a complete miss.
More information.

ToddMcF2002 November 23rd, 2006 05:14

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

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

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

northreign November 23rd, 2006 05:22

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

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

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

Naked_Lunch November 23rd, 2006 05:52


Massive number of bugs;
That can eventually (and are in the process) of being patched

lousy combat system;
it is pretty much the same as oblivion's yet that was praised and got best game evarrr and other such garbage.

poor art design;
What the fuck is this guy smoking? Gothic 3 has the best atmosphere of any game I've played in a loooong while. It looks gorgeous, too.

poor interface;
No better than Oblivion's.

lousy dialogue and voiceovers; generic storyline.
See above. The guy doesn't get that Gothic 3 isn't about the epic story or phat l00tz or whatever, but about utterly and truly creating your own world and story and shaping it. It's the true sandbox game and these retards just can't handle it, even if they've been crying out for it.

TheMadGamer November 23rd, 2006 06:01

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


If there's a real deal-breaker within Oblivion, however, it's the bugs. Lots of 'em. The worst have been problems running the game at all using Nvidia's FX series of video cards, and random, unrepeatable crashes to the desktop. I've seen creatures sometimes float in mid-air and "pop" around rather than turning to attack. There were moments when NPCs got stuck on the landscape, NPC voices would completely change between lines, and quest flags didn't getting tripped. Programming text would sometimes pop up during conversations with NPCs saying things like "Subject Change." The game's animations cause characters to move, fight, and die like a poorly wired Animatronic exhibit at Disneyland. It does little for one's sense of immersion to have beautifully expressive faces when they're attached to bodies that jerk and start in ways no humanoid body ever would and occasionally fall through a wall and twitch while hung up on the world's geometry…
… But yet Oblivion receives 4 Stars. Hmmm….

Unregistered5 November 23rd, 2006 07:23

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

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

Dez November 23rd, 2006 08:23

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

Corwin November 23rd, 2006 08:40

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

Dr. A November 23rd, 2006 10:35

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

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

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

Sem November 23rd, 2006 11:49

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

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

Prime Junta November 23rd, 2006 11:49

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

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

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

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

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

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

The game-breaking situations: check.

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

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

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

Maylander November 23rd, 2006 12:07

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

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

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

Lethal Weapon November 23rd, 2006 12:16

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

Guest November 23rd, 2006 12:57

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

space captain November 23rd, 2006 17:55

pretty accurate score

Naked_Lunch November 23rd, 2006 18:08

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

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

Maylander November 23rd, 2006 18:18

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

GothicGothicness November 23rd, 2006 18:24

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

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

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

Melvil November 23rd, 2006 18:27

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

Guest November 23rd, 2006 18:34

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

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 00:55.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright by RPGWatch