RPGWatch Feature: Best RPG of 2009 Results

I do like DA more, but you can't argue that dialogues are better written, characters a lot more developed (only two of them in Risen actually had some personality and purpose, other than being there to hand you FedEx quests), world a lot more detailed… I could never be immersed in a world populated by a bunch of robots. Story in Dragon Age actually has some meaning, whereas Risen's is a total mess, there's no intrigue, no depth to it at all. Those are the facts, you can like Risen more, but DA objectively beats it in so many aspects. The only thing which is subjective is combat.

Sorry … pretty much all of it is subjective. Not saying I disagree, as I voted dragon age over risen as well, but you need to stop thinking your opinions are facts. They aren't.

Originally Posted by Malk
Such as…?

I'm surprised anyone disagrees. I quite enjoyed Gothic 3 and believe it would have been capable of being one of my favourite games if but for a few things.

For Gothic fans in general, I think the attempt at true non-linearity lost sight of interesting characters - particularly "friends", a better story, more "density" (interesting locales packed with stuff to discover) and more detailed quests.

Gothic 3 nearly overwhelmed Piranha Bytes and they resorted to too many "kill 10 wolves" type quests. The original Gothics (particularly G2+NotR) are much, much stronger on these points.

Originally Posted by Malk
I do like DA more, but you can't argue that dialogues are better written, characters a lot more developed (only two of them in Risen actually had some personality and purpose, other than being there to hand you FedEx quests), world a lot more detailed… I could never be immersed in a world populated by a bunch of robots. Story in Dragon Age actually has some meaning, whereas Risen's is a total mess, there's no intrigue, no depth to it at all. Those are the facts, you can like Risen more, but DA objectively beats it in so many aspects. The only thing which is subjective is combat.

I think one could probably argue that Bioware objectively puts more effort into the dialogues and character development. However that does not objectively make them better. There are plenty of people who find all the party chatter obtrusive and the characters cliché - at least after you played a few of their games. Personally, I am somewhere on the fence regarding the Bioware formula, sometimes it has worked for me, sometimes it hasn't. Gothic has you playing a loner, but something can be said for the more offhand ways they developed their NPC characters, although it is with much less words - for some reason Diego, Xardas or Milten have at least as much presence in my memory than Biowares best.
Likewise and can be said that the Gothics objectively put more effort in creating a seamless explorable world. Doesn't make it a better game though, many people hate that because it leads to loss of direction.

That is true, Bioware's characters (and story, in this case) are usually filled with cliches. However, better to have characters with deja vu personalities than characters with no personality at all. My two cents. Your point regarding Gothics is interesting, maybe I'll change my opinion when I finish them once more. I've played Risen three months ago, so I can safely stand by my words.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
I'm surprised anyone disagrees.

It's not that I disagree, it's just that I have played Gothic 3 a couple of years ago, so I couldn't think of anything which would make it worse than G2… I do agree with you, I remember thinking exactly the same things while I was playing.

Originally Posted by txa1265
Sorry … pretty much all of it is subjective.

Ok, we agree to disagree. I don't think all of my opinions can be taken as facts, but some things can be objectively measured (such as quality of writing, etc.).