Arcania - Reviews: IGN & German Sites

It's kind of strange to watch the typical home advantage almost every RPG has turn into the opposite. Many German sites and mags give Arcania clearly lower ratings than the flawed Gothic 3 and even lower scores than the G3: Forsaken Gods add-on, a game so broken and terrible that most Gothic fans pretend it doesn't exist. It seems the reviewers punish Arcania for the bonus its predecessors received. Something similar happened to Dungeon Siege 2 a couple of years ago. The original Dungeon Siege was a flashy but boring game which collected one award after the other. Then the much better sequel had to pay the price.
So take the German reviews with a grain of salt. They seem a bit low for a technically intact, nearly bug-free game.
IGN tested both the PC (7.5) and XBox 360 (7.0) version and thinks Arcania is quite okay. "While the PC version is certainly superior to the console port, Arcania: Gothic IV does very little to progress the genre – particularly in mission structure and storytelling areas – but what it ultimately does deliver is a loot-heavy dungeon crawling experience that doesn't tax your skills, but instead lets you leisurely enjoy the world and kill a lot of goblins and swamp flies along the way. [...] as a middle ground between deeper entries and linear adventures, Arcania: Gothic IV hits its stride."
The biggest German core gamer print mag GameStar says "No Gothic and no good game". The main reviewer concludes "[...] The game looks nice, has fast fights and few bugs, in short: it works. But at no point of time is it able to really shine. Arcania has no charm. Therefore I cannot recommend it to anyone." The second reviewer adds (paraphrased): "[...] [A score in the 60s means] >>Still okay for fans of the genre.<< And it's exactly that. Somebody who doesn't play every single RPG on the market can leave out Arcania without missing anything whatsoever. What a sad verdict." - 69%
The article is well worth a read. GameStar analyses razor sharp, one can clearly see where the rating is coming from. They include a video with a summary.
AreaGames.de gives 4/10 for both versions. The XBox 360 version is "a stuttering horror show, [...] an insult for the paying customer."
GamingXP.de says Arcania is "not bad at all". It's "a solid piece of work with strength and weaknesses". - 76%
The gamona.de test is quite a shocker. gamona hosts an Arcania fan site made in close cooperation with the publisher. And suddenly they write a very detailed review talking about a "deadly blow" for the Gothic franchise. "What comes out at the end is a huge disappointment". The reviewer closes: "No tension, no suspense, no adventure." - 46%
More information.

Ouch, it looks like Arcania just got hit with a haymaker. Make that several haymakers...

I didn't know you could steal people's stuff in Dragon Age and Mass Effect...

Sounds like most of the extreme negativity is coming from wanting/expecting it to be more like the other Gothic games and being disappointed that it isn't.

On the one hand I wish they'd just review it as a stand-alone game and leave the other Gothics out of it. But on the other hand they did call it Gothic 4 in the title so PB was kinda asking for it.

I know I'll be getting it anyway eventually but New Vegas & Two Worlds 2 will occupy me till it Arcania comes way down in price I'm sure.

Edit: oops, yes I meant Spellbound of course.

While at some point in the development cycle the title was "Gothic 4 : Something", didn't they rename it to "Arcania - A Gothic Tale" or similar? My take is if/when they announce a sequel they'll probably drop the Gothic part altogether and go with Arcania 2 or the like …

Majnun said:

On the one hand I wish they'd just review it as a stand-alone game and leave the other Gothics out of it. But on the other hand they did call it Gothic 4 in the title so PB was kinda asking for it.

Click to expand...

You mean PellBound?

ProBably.


-------------------

I often get the impression that reviewers feel compelled to piss in everyone's corn-flakes with reviews. Like they know best what a game should or shouldn't be and what gamers expect from a franchise game. I've played G1-3 several times each. Also, NoTR. In my opinion, G1 & 2 were the most closely related in flavor. But to me, each stood on its own merits as a discrete game. You could enjoy each alone, but playing them all gave you a fuller experience in the Gothic World. Just because Arcania may be different doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad game. Each has its positive and negative aspects. I like to experience things on their own merits before I judge whether or not it's a failure.

So take the German reviews with a grain of salt. They seem a bit low for a technically intact, nearly bug-free game.

Click to expand...

So Gorath, you're saying that because G4 is mostly bug free it de facto doesn't deserve such comically low scores as… 7.5? What sort of rating does not having bugs merit these days?

I learned to stop listening to reviews, especially to ratings with discrete numbers. The reasons are:

- Reviews are written by people who do not necessarily share my taste of games.
- Reviews are written by people who play games all day long - which naturally changes the view on games.
- Reviews are written by people who get paid for playing a certain game - which never is my motivation.
- Reviews are never objective and always written with some kind of prejudice. I remember hating Morrowind the first time I played it, but now I love it, because some of my views changed. Reviews on the other side get seldom updated.
- Many reviews get written - and the more reviews are written, the more they tend to just repeat what was said before. Instead of trying some fresh take on it.
- A review is mostly written by a single person. One thing I know by experience is, take ten people, and you get eleven opinions on any matter.
- Reviews with a rating from 0 to 10 or from 0% to 100% try to crunch a whole multi-hour experience in one single number. This can't be healthy.

Hindukönig said:

I learned to stop listening to reviews, especially to ratings with discrete numbers.

Click to expand...

True, but ratings combined with my own play experience in a horrible demo is enough to tell me to stay far far away from this game.

The IGN reviewer has obviously not played the earlier Gothics, calling them "more casual" and praising games like Oblivion for their AI when Gothic has been a clear genre leader.

Reviews are handy to read as long as you ignore the score number.

Majnun said:

Sounds like most of the extreme negativity is coming from wanting/expecting it to be more like the other Gothic games and being disappointed that it isn't.

On the one hand I wish they'd just review it as a stand-alone game and leave the other Gothics out of it. But on the other hand they did call it Gothic 4 in the title so PB was kinda asking for it.

I know I'll be getting it anyway eventually but New Vegas & Two Worlds 2 will occupy me till it Arcania comes way down in price I'm sure.

Click to expand...

I agree. I played the demo and its not great. Its not terrible. Its just sort of entertaining in a blah way. Frankly I found it about as interesting as Divinity II which I can take or leave as well. It doesn't deserve a total shellacking.

Good riddance. The gamona.de review is really a haymaker of the Chuck Norris level. (Sorry for the pun... but I couldn't resist.) I never thought gamona would really do low reviews at all, esp. after all their "cooperation". I can't say if the game deserves it. The demo wasn't so bad.

Hm, quite a letdown.

Zephyr said:

I often get the impression that reviewers feel compelled to piss in everyone's corn-flakes with reviews.

Click to expand...

Really? I think many reviewers are far too generous in their reviews, especially here in America.

I agree with JDR13.

I've seen the demo and enough of those videos posted on youtube to form my opinion. The negative points these reviews bring up are mostly all true. Heck they are way too positive for my liking considering the legacy Arcania tries to live up. I'm hugely dissapointed that SB couldn't deliver something more memorable. In fact I was a bit curious to see what a new developer could bring to the gothic saga. Arcania just feels so darn medicore. A lousy attempt is what describes this best. It feels like they never wanted to give their best effort. SB had potential to deliver a great memorable sequel, but they either didn't have the passion or the skills to make it possible.

I think its unfair to judge us gothic fans and say that we had unrealistic expectations. We all knew that this would be a more casual friendly game, but I honestly never imagined that they would take it to such extremes. So I get it now. This isn't aimed for the old fanbase, but then again I can't understand why would any casual player enjoy this carbage. Gameworld and the npcs aren't very responsive, voice acting for one is plain horrible and quests in the deme were quite one dimensional. So that doesn't really promise great storyline.

What about gameplay then? I quess combat is okey and casual players don't mind the extreme linearity, but if you design a linear game, you should come up with a great storyline.

Dhruin said:

The IGN reviewer has obviously not played the earlier Gothics, calling them "more casual" and praising games like Oblivion for their AI when Gothic has been a clear genre leader.

Click to expand...

The casual bit is definitely off, but the AI bit - I'd agree with.

Gothic hasn't got much in the way of AI, as it's mostly scripted. Maybe the combat AI, but that isn't particularly good.

Oblivion had a pretty sophisticated AI - as we all know, called Radiant AI. Now, it might not have worked particularly well, even though I personally think it's been unfairly bashed. That said, Bethesda did advertise it as the second coming - so they were kinda asking for it.

But I had a lot of interesting situations arise because of that AI, and I think that counts for something. I think it's an important step, because eventually - AI of that nature should surpass fully scripted AI - such as the one in Gothic.

I think it's one of the few things Bethesda did that was actually a step in the right direction, and since I like to bash them for all that other crap they've been doing, I just think it's fair to give credit where I think it's due.

DArtagnan said:

The casual bit is definitely off, but the AI bit - I'd agree with.

Gothic hasn't got much in the way of AI, as it's mostly scripted. Maybe the combat AI, but that isn't particularly good.

Click to expand...

You've focused on my use of the term "AI", rather than the context of the review, which is NPC reactions to stealing stuff. Gothic's system works beautifully and reliably and long pre-dates the games he mentions (which, by and large, aren't as good at it, anyway).

Dhruin said:

You've focused on my use of the term "AI", rather than the context of the review, which is NPC reactions to stealing stuff. Gothic's system works beautifully and reliably and long pre-dates the games he mentions (which, by and large, aren't as good at it, anyway).

Click to expand...

Yeah, when I respond to people - I tend to focus on what they've said.

You'll find that a pretty common approach, and if you use the wrong words - this will happen to you again

That said, now that I know what you mean - we completely agree.