Gothic 3 Why the bad reviews?

kalniel said:

Gothic 3 is the first game I've ever owned that didn't work out of the box. .

Click to expand...

Count yourself lucky on that one

Alot of posters in this thread could easily be accused of the same sort of bias as this reviewer. Oblivion is not without design problems - but how many other games can you play 100+ hours without a patch? In a land that size smoothly? Without broken quests?

Or a game so open to modification? Don't like the hand holding, compass and map pointers? Install the mod. Don't like the leveling system and the risk reward issues? Install Obscuro's.

I've played hundreds of hours of G1/G2/G2+NoTR and hundreds of Morrowind and Oblivion. They are both great series. Only one can be modded though - and yet somehow it seems its easier to complain than install a mod...

Gothic can be modified, too. There were several modifications for both first and second installment, although they were all in German. And I hear there is already a mod for Gothic 3 that makes one's life a bit easier. So, what's your point again?

My point is that some people like Gothic, some people don't, and the same goes for Elder Scrolls. Some people like them both, I guess. But you just can't compare two things of different type, that's one thing a coder understands more than anybody else on this world.

I guess most of the negative comments concerning oblivion in this thread are related to the reviewer who gave G3 2/10 points while praising at the same time Oblivion as the deliverance from all the pain in the world.
I agree with that person that G3 is severely bugged but a score of 20% is something that a game like deer hunter deserves, but not an epos like G3.

And personally I don´t dislike Oblivion, it´s just like comparing apples with pears when you rate both games against each other.

JonNik said:

Anyway, I have observed that when people refer to RPG elements in conjuction
with CRPGs they either mean:

#1 The possibility to make moral/and or character related choices that will have
an impact to the quest/game progression possibly resulting in different paths
(story or quests) and or XP/stat rewards/penalties

#2 The possibility to customize your character through stats and skills as you
gain XP/Level up, that changing his direction actually results in a different
gameplay experience/approach in solving quests.

(damn I must stop using so many dashes )

Both are valid in my opinion. There may be more but these are the ones I find
relevant.

Oblivion fails, imo , at both of them because:

#1 its quests are binary: Take it or leave it. finish with way A or fail the quest.
It is a massively open ended game with some of the most linear quests I have
ever seen. Mixing the order does not make them unlinear imo...

#2 It pretty much defeated the value of leveling and stats relevance with its
bad scaling implementation. Changing chars feels to me like changing from the
RailGun to the BFG in a shooter in the difference it does to my gameplay
experience (Ok I am stretching it a bit here to make my point )

Scaling also killed the exploration aspect that some I am sure would add as an
important RPG element in my two item list...

Well my 2 cents anyway....

Click to expand...

I find both your definition points (#1 and #2) useful and relevant. I also find your criticism of Oblivion (both #1 and #2) valid.

However, I still think that it's incorrect to state that this means that Oblivion isn't an RPG.

Why? Because criticisms #1 and #2 refer to the implementation, not the design. (Also, if #1 was the gold standard, lots of games that are very hard to characterize as anything else than RPG's would be left out, since many RPG's are massively linear. Hell, even classics like PS:T -- its side quests are also "take it or leave it" and "succeed or fail," your character's wondrously rich moral choices don't mean jack in the conclusion, and so on.)

Oblivion is designed like an RPG -- the game mechanics and character progression permit radically different characters and gameplay experiences, running the full fantasy gamut from tank to thief to fireball-spamming sorcerer to healer. This is evident both in the character progression rules and the quests: even if the quests are linear, there are lots of different ways to solve them -- brute force, stealth, magic, etc.

IOW, the elements are designed in, but the implementation is terrible. Oblivion *is* an RPG, it's just a terribly bad one.

That said, Gothic 3's role-playing elements are pretty damn thin too. You have a couple of skill trees, some of which are just about useless, the NPC's are pure quest-o-mats, you have no meaningful interaction beyond "wait here," "go back," and "have a potion" with party members, and the amount of meaningful choices you can make with regards to developing your character are pretty much nil. Yes, it does have meaningful choices in the plot branches and alternative endings (always a strength of the Gothic series), and yes it's significant (in fact, other than the very strong exploration aspect of the game, the only thing that kept me going for 50 levels before finally quitting), but if Gothic 3 is an RPG, then Oblivion sure as hell is too.

And yes, it is sad that Oblivion pretty much defines the genre at this time.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Oblivion and I think it's a great game. It's just an actionadventure, not an RPG.

As for what is needed to make a game an RPG? Simple, you need to be able to roleplay it, and you can't roleplay properly in a world where nothing ever has any impact or any consequenses. A static, neverchanging world is not the world of RPGs; those worlds are all dynamic in one way or another, and when you do quests and help people out it feels as if you can make a difference. Without this feeling, the game fails to be an RPG.

This is what Gothic has that Oblivion does not. You CAN impact the game world, when you remove some boars for a couple of woodcutters you'll see them go back to work. When you liberate cities those cities will be filled with freed slaves and rebels instead of the orcs that used to be there. Your decision as a roleplayer actually has an effect on the gaming world - in Oblivion there are no decisions, no choices at all. As previously said in this topic, mixing the order of doing quests will not make the quests any less linear; they still do not impact the world or have any choices or consequenses tied to them.

There are no RPGs without this element. If you find a game without that element that is defined as an RPG, it is wrongly defined as one. Morrowind was definetly an RPG, because even though the gaming world was fairly static, at least you could choose between factions and how to solve certain quests, but Oblivion is not.

I have to stress this again so people don't missunderstand me - I do not disslike Oblivion, I think it's a great game and I enjoyed playing through it more than once, but being a good game is not equal to being an RPG; there are good games in other genres too, hehe.

@Maylander -- We seem to have a rather a different understanding of what roleplaying means. What you're describing is consequences; impact on the game world. What I understand by it is meaningful interaction with NPC's -- characters I get to know, understand, empathize with, even care about. Of course, meaningful interaction implies choices and consequences. I came to care about the Ashlanders in Morrowind, and I felt that my interaction with them, and the impact my choices had on them, were meaningful. I came to care about my shipmates in the KOTOR's, and I felt that the influence I had on their personality and actions, even the way I got them to "open up" and share their stories, was meaningful.

This, to me, constitutes role-playing.

However, there are lots of games that have just about none of this element yet are almost universally regarded as RPG's.

Gothic 3 has virtually none of this element, and you regard it as a RPG. Seriously -- I haven't run across a single dialog tree with any meaningful choices in it, for example: you meet a character, click until all the dialogue options are exhausted, and move on. All of the factions are basically painted sticks with funny accents, with no characteristics distinguishing Basir from Ali, Ingvar from Pedar, Urk from Grunt. (OK, I made those ones up but only because I can't even remember the orc names; they're so generic.)

Conversely, "choices with consequences" -- what you're describing -- or at least the illusion thereof, are present in games that are *not* role-playing games in any sense of the word. For example, your choices (not to mention success or failure) in Rome: Total War has an immense impact on the way the campaign unfolds, much more so than in G3. Does that make it a RPG? Hardly. Yet you're "role-playing."

Second, you say that a static, never-changing world is not the world of RPG's. Yet, for example, Planescape: Torment takes place in precisely this kind of world. Well, OK -- Curst does go to hell and back again, and you play a part in pulling it back, but that's the exception rather than the rule. What effect does TNO have on the world? Almost none. Hell, he's been by hundreds of times, and barely left a mark, other than on the few lives he's touched. The story is almost perfectly linear. The side quests are "take it or leave it" and "succeed or fail." Character development is more limited than in almost any D&D style CRPG I can think of. But is it a RPG? Hell yes.

So, basically, it seems to me that if your definitions would make Rome: Total War a RPG, and make Planescape: Torment not a RPG, there must be something wrong with your definitions. Get my drift?

Decisions in Rome is of a tactical nature, not a roleplaying one. The ones in Gothic are from a roleplaying perspective - "I'm the good paladin and want to save us all! Onward to glory", "I'm the evil necromancer and want nothing more than to gain power, Power, POWER!!!", "Aaah rats, who gives a crap anyway? I'll just screw them all and take what I want".

As for Planescape: Torment. Has it been long since you played it? The sidequests there have different ways to solve them(loads), even the game itself has different endings. In fact, you can even end the game without fighting the main boss at all. Trying to say that this is a world without any impact is way off - whether you help out mr. burnzz or not, how you solve the brothel quest, whether you are good or evil, all this has an impact on gameplay and characters in the world.

Baldurs Gate, PS:T, Fallout and so on all have worlds that I descripe - you can decide for yourself what kind of character you want to roleplay, and decisions you make will affect people in the gaming world.

So, no, my defintions are perfectly fine. You are just trying to ridicule me by claiming tactical decisions are anywhere near those I speak of. Of course they're not. I don't roleplay Command & Conquer just because I get to choose whether I want to be GDI or Nod. The decisions I speak of, and I honestly thought this was obvious, are decisions regarding how I want my character to be, who I want him to be. Is he evil? Is he good? Does he care about power, gold or honor? In Oblivion you can do everything in every game, without ever having to make a sacrifice(in other words, no decisions) - in PS:T you certainly have to make sacrifices (read the topic about PS:T in the general RPG forum where people talk about how they cried when they made a certain sacrifice in the game. I won't spoil anything else in this thread).

My point still stands - no decisions, no roleplaying. Roleplaying requires you to be able to solve a quest according to what kind of character you want to be, otherwise you get a forced character roleplayed by someone who wrote the game, not someone you personally want to be.

Edit: I just took the time to count endings in PS:T. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are eight different ways to end the game. Quite an impressive amount really.

To me, role-playing is simply taking the role of someone else and loosing yourself in that character. Both story-driven games where you have limited choices, but can imagine yourself in the role of the character (PS:T) and open ended games that allow you to define your characters own motivations (Oblivion) are role-playing. They're different types of role-playing, but both equally role-playing, and both equally fun.

I do feel sorry for people who only enjoy only one type, though maybe they don't spend as much on good games

txa1265 said:

Count yourself lucky on that one

Click to expand...

I do - even Daggerfall worked out of the box for me

@Maylander -- I'm doing my level best to be polite, and I resent that you accuse me of trying to ridicule you.

As stated, our opinion of what constitutes "roleplay" seems to differ a bit. The characters in G3 are basically painted sticks, and the concept of "roleplay" with regards to them doesn't make much sense.

And yes, there are different ways of solving the sidequests in PS:T -- talk, stealth, combat, magic -- but the resolution is always the same -- succeed or fail. Just like there are different ways to solve the sidequests in Oblivion -- sneak, snipe, whack, spell. And again the resolution is always the same -- succeed or fail. However, the plot in PS:T always follows the same sequence and same trajectory, you face the same bosses in the same order, and so on. It's the very definition of a linear plot (and a damn good one).

Again, I was not knocking PS:T -- on the contrary, IMO it's the epitome of a certain type of RPG. I brought it up precisely *because* it's such a great RPG, yet it doesn't seem to fit your definition of "dynamic world that your actions impact." All the choices you make in it impact *YOU* -- TNO -- which is precisely why they're so damn meaningful. The whole game is about discovering *yourself*. And yes, it is one of the very few games that can actually make you cry.

Again, the role-playing dimension in G3 is almost nonexistent in my book. It's 99% about overcoming challenges. Can you name one single choice in the game that you can describe as "moral?" I sure as hell can't. You can pick a *side,* yes, but there are almost no cues in the game giving a moral dimension to the choices. You can make up stuff in your own head, of course -- "I'm siding with the orcs because I'm an opportunist only looking out for myself" or "I'm siding with the orcs because I'm a basically good guy who feels the rampant bloodshed inherent in an uprising would be more wrong" or "I'm siding with the orcs because I'm pissed off at the King for sending me to Korinis" or "I'm siding with the orcs because my mentor Xardas sez so" or "I'm not really siding with the orcs, I'm only doing it to spy on them" and so on. But all it boils down to is that you're siding with the orcs. (Replace orcs with any other faction name if you like.) There simply aren't any real, fleshed-out characters, or even any real, fleshed-out cultures in the game; nothing to give *meaning* to those choices. You have to make it up out of whole cloth, just like in Oblivion.

What there is, is a lot of challenges to overcome and a lot of ground to cover, and a sense that whatever you do, you're making some progress in an overall plot, which is enough to keep the player interested (or would be if so much of it wasn't borked due to bugs and lack of balance). But all that has absolutely zilch to do with role-playing in any reasonable sense of the word.

Come to think of it, I don't think I came across a single quest in G3 that had more than one solution. It's always "kill X" or "bring me Y" or something like it. Can you?

Finally, you can play Rome: TW from a role-playing POV just as well. I have, and it's great fun. Even better in Rome: Total Realism. For example, suppose I play Carthage. I decide that I prefer trade and prosperity over conquest. This means that I'll make certain types of choices when building up my cities, working out alliances, and favor defensive over offensive military builds. The campaign unfolds rather slowly, as I get drawn into wars by more aggressive neighbors, and regretfully end up having to subdue them by force. Or suppose I play as the Romans -- the people with a mission to conquer the world. Or the Parthians, whose reason for existence is to get back at the Seleucids starting from their two little mountain cities. My choices are driven by the kind of empire I want to be and how I feel about my neighbors, rather than cold tactical calculation (unless, of course, I want to role-play a faction that's big on cold, tactical calculation). How is this difference from the "role-play" in G3?

PS:T quests do not always have the same outcome, as I already tried to explain, they have several outcomes based on what you wish to do, what bandit leader you wish to side with and so on. You can't do that in Oblivion, all quests are done a-b-c-d with d always being the same outcome, in PS:T you are able to do quests and get different outcomes based on what you decide to do - such as the endings. How you solve the quest, not just what weapon you wish to use, but actually HOW you solve it(who's side you take and so on) will change the outcome of the quest, just like in BG2 and so on and so forth. If you don't believe me, replay PS:T and see for yourself - far from all quests there are linear and always have the same outcome, unlike Oblivion.

Moral decisions.. so, deciding whether you want to capture the slave outside Cape Dun and get the cash reward, or let him go and get no reward at all, is not a moral choice? What, then, is a moral choice?

With enough fantasy you can roleplay ANY game, you can be a sniper in counterstrike and roleplay that you're a sniper trying to kill terrorists to keep them from blowing up that lovely innocent girl you saw two years ago on a yacht in the caribbean when she visited with her mother and seven siblings. What's to keep you from doing that and calling CS an RPG? Does that define CS as an RPG just because some people manage to roleplay the game?

I'd say no, because the designers did not decide to put in the elements that define the genre. I can decide to call counterstrike an adventure game because I happen to enjoy exploring the few buildings and various locations, but that certainly does not put the game into the genre "adventure games".

As long as 98% of what Rome contains fall into the strategy genre, the game as a whole will as well. All games have certain elements from all genres if you decide to twist the perspective, but you need to put them into certain categories regardless, based on which genre they contain key elements from - Rome contains the most key elements from the strategy genre, hence it is a strategy game. Oblivion contains the most key elements from action adventures(with a huge focus on exploration and not how the world actually reacts), and Gothic 3 from action RPGs. Both Gothic 3 and Oblivion fall into the action genre due to their heavy combat focus, but where Gothic 3 has a focus on what you do in the world and how the world reacts to that, Oblivion has a focus on exploration.

Just to add a distraction to this very interesting discussion; would both og you say that Japanese RPG is an oxymoron? (ie the FF series for example)

I never played a Japanese RPG, so I can't say much about it.

________

to the discussion:

For me the Gothic series and the Elder Scrolls series are both action adventures with role playing elements.

I like both series - they have different emphases.

Elder Scrolls Series:
emphasis: Free world exploring - do what you like, any time, anywhere,
less choices - less consequences, small story elements - YOU are the story,
NPCs are exchangeable.

Gothic Series:
emphasis: Free world exploring - if the beasts and enemies let you , make choices all the time, try to survive, deal wit restrictions, many consquences, the environment reacts to your doings, you remember NPCs in Gothic, stronger story (at least in part 1 + 2 -> chapters)

Best to worst in each series:

1) Gothic 1
2) Gothic 2 - NOTR - (not to forget the Mod: Piratenleben: brilliant)
3) Gothic 2 (Original)
4) Gothic 3

1) Daggerfall
2) Redguard and Battlespire
3) Morrowind
4) Oblivion
5) Arena

Corwin said:

Just to add a distraction to this very interesting discussion; would both og you say that Japanese RPG is an oxymoron? (ie the FF series for example)

Click to expand...

I agree - the characters are preset, the progression is automatic, and so on.

I suppose this won't be popular, but don't you think the bad reviews are due to the poor performance, buggy coding, and save game corrupting memory leak?

just maybe?

Stopped me from playing for now, had my quicksave go bad when I crashed a full 10 to 20 seconds after saving. That was it for me, later Gothic boards

Very interesting discussion indeed.

Almost made me wish I had stayed late at work yesterday

Anyway, I would have to agree that even based on my own
perceptions of what a CRPG should offer, both Series offer
these elements in moderation (I like them very much all the
same).

I just happen to think that for the ES Oblivion was (as many have
previously agreed) a regression compared to Morrowind. I was
initially disatisfied with M. too but it quickly grew on me and I used
to think that "hey with a little gothic liveliness this would be an
excellent experience..." Hearing at the hype that seemed to be
the case, alas...

But this is the last I'm going to "moan" about it here.
Someone recommended the OOO mod above. Excellent
work, go check it out if you were dissapointed and would like
to give the game another try...

As for G3, well the jury is still out on that one so to speak
(I am still waiting for patches to minimize the chances that
I give up in frustration next). I did think that the reputation
per faction angle presented a possibility for meaningful choises,
moral or otherwise, regardless of if a dialogue option enables
you i.e to lie to an NPC etc... Is it not the same taking a quest
and lately betraying the faction or at a point switching factions
with all the relevant consequences ?

It seemed like a solid idea anyway. I still have to see what
they did of the implementation and if they are going to Iron
out any more of their logical mistakes in later patches...

@Maylander -- actually, you get a better reward by freeing the slave than by returning him. He can teach you acrobatics, which is a pretty damn useful skill IMO, given all the precipices in the game.

And even if there was *one* little side-quest in the game that could conceivably be interpreted to have a moral dimension, that's more like the exception that proves the rule.

Point being: G3 is absolutely terrible in its *role-playing* elements. It has no meaningful character interaction, no meaningful characters. Even the ones from the previous installments have been reduced to a few lines, and what should be an encounter of climactic significance, namely, meeting the guy who started the whole mess, HRH King Rhobar II, turns into, well... yet another quest-o-mat. In fact, it's exactly as weak in its *role-playing* aspects as Oblivion. Where it's stronger than Oblivion is in having (some, but not that many really) mutually exclusive quests and being much more challenging; it's a much better design choice to block you out from Nordmar simply by making sure you'll get eaten alive if you go there too early than e.g. by putting a magical barrier there until you complete some quest.

Thing is, challenges and mutually exclusive branching "storylines" are certainly not exclusive to RPG's -- as stated, Rome: Total War has both in abundance, and it's *not* a RPG.

Therefore, either both Oblivion and G3 are RPG's, or neither is one. In my view, both are RPG's, simply because both implement the game mechanics of an RPG, which is what has come to define whether a computer game is a RPG or not. That's what makes them RPG's and makes, say, Escape from Butcher Bay (which has much stronger characters and much more meaningful character interaction, not to mention voice acting that actually sounds like acting and not bored-to-tears amateurs reading lines into a mike) a first-person shooter/sneaker.

@HiddenX -- Yep, I think your definition describes both series better than simply "RPG" that lumps them with the likes of Fallout, BG, and PS:T, which are completely different games in terms of just about everything. But that's not the industry usage, unfortunately. Let's hope NWN2 works out and shifts the meaning of the term a bit back towards content. I just put in an order.

@Corwin -- I haven't played any JRPG's either, so I can't really comment. However, from what I've heard, I'm not quite sure they qualify; if both the plot and character progression are linear and there are no meaningful choices you can make with regards to either, they sound more like "interactive movies" or adventure games with bells on to me.

And finally, to everyone, I think that it's quite right to deplore the direction RPG's have taken. It's not *right* that Oblivion defines the state of CRPG's today, especially if the upshot is that CRPG's with deeper character interaction and content stop being made. However, I'm not really that pessimistic about that -- classics are still talked about and played. It seems that NWN2 has taken several pages out of them. If it's the success it's likely to be, it'll introduce yet another generation of gamers to the concept at least, and there will be another classic in the genre one of these years, depend upon it. Even if NWN2 turns out not to be it.