Duck and Cover Forum Index


Use these links, buy stuff from Amazon and help us out, nubs.
Amazon.com | Amazon.ca | Amazon.co.uk | Amazon.de
  Duck and Cover  •  FAQ  •  Search  •  Memberlist  •  Usergroups   •  Register  •  Profile  •  Log in to check your private messages  •  Log in

 Support DAC!
 Arcania : Gothic 4 View next topic
View previous topic
Post new topicReply to topic
Author Message
S4ur0n27
Mamma's Gang member
Mamma's Gang member


Joined: 01 Jun 2002
Posts: 15132
Location: Motherfucking Plateau

PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:27 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

So, is it any good?

I kinda liked Gothic 3 but I could never really get in Risen. There's something weird about that game.
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's websiteMSN MessengerICQ Number
Frater Perdurabo
Paragon
Paragon


Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 2427
Location: Võro

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:30 am Reply with quoteBack to top

I got it the night of the release. For a massive Gothic fanboy, it's a letdown. A big one. I've tried liking it but just cannot really get into it. Note: the game was developed by Spellbound and not Piranha Bytes.

Tone and setting:
The tone of the Gothic series has got progressively less serious with each instalment. It must be noted that the games have never taken themselves too seriously, but Arcania is substantially more "family-themed" than the previous games. For a comparison, well I'd say that it would be a move such as Indiana Jones' Temple of Doom to the last instalment, what was essentially in my book a move from to an adventure theme to a more family themed one.
At this point, I should note that you are playing another "nameless hero", not that of the previous games. This character isn't quite as likeable as the previous one the initially presented storyline isn't really something that will keep you captivated.
Anyway, not a biggie. It's not that bad, but definitely noticeable.


Dialogue is very much a la Gothic. Not terribly sophisticated, straight to the point and provides the bare minimum to get your stuff done. There is however an extremely annoying 2 second or so pause of staring into a person's face before you are able to start the conversation with them. Gay.


Crafting:
The crafting system is new as well. You now find a recipe for something, learn it, open up your crafting tab and wham instantly create something on the spot. I guess it makes it being used more - I never took shit like forging in any one of my one million playthroughs of G2. It also provides some sort of instant satisfaction - find the plans for something that would be a nice upgrade, get the materials and make it on the spot. However, that is the extent of it.


Combat, spells and other mechanics:
Completely revamped. Every time you get a level up, you get 3 skill points which you can invest down a certain tree of abilities. For example, instead of having 1h vs 2h like in G1/2, you have a two separate ability trees, one essentially being a "flurry" like quick attack sequence and the other one being a hard hitting tree. You invest points into these trees and each point gives you something like +1%hp +1% str and every 5 points or so invested you get to a new ability down the tree, which is ultimately a modification of your standard attack. Obviously the bonuses are different for different trees. There's also a tree for shield based bonuses and attacks, 2 trees for bows and crossbows (no more distinction between the two) and 3 for magic: fire, lightning and frost.

By the way, gone are stat requirements for weapons. You can now equip any weapon in the game. Armor works in different ways too, you now get slots for helmet, necklace, body armor, rings, bracers, etc that kind of stuff. Makes it more customizable and that stuff comes around a lot more often.

By the way, the way stats work has been revamped so all items now give you +str or +mana or +spellpower or whatever, kind of like in Diablo II.

Combat itself is more like Risen's, with modifications. You can use your shield to block but quick rolling has been added in as well (I don't remember if they had rolling in Risen?) Ultimately, this makes combat very easy. Enemies' attacks are very easy to dodge because you can move so quickly. Get a couple of hits in, roll away, roll in get a couple of more hits in. Every enemy has a sort of a special attack which cannot be interrupted and does a considerable amount of damage but it is so slow that getting hit is pretty rare. Ultimately, combat makes you feel like a skilled ninja because you are just all over the place doing all kinds of wacky shit, but in the end it just makes you remember that it's easy as fuck.

Magic is basically like Risen's. Oh by the way, I really haven't played the game all that much, but I don't think that they have all these cool different spells that you had in the previous games. It just seems that whatever you get is combat orientated, but I might be wrong in this.

Oh and potions have been changed entirely. Going into your inventory now pauses the game and you can drink potions from there, the process of which is instant. However, instead of restoring a chunk of health or so like they did in the previous games, potions are now specialised, i.e. +2hp/sec and +10str for 60 seconds or some shit like that.


Environment:
This was a major letdown for me. Exploration always played a significant role in the Gothic series. In Arcania, it is heavily restricted. A substantial part of the world that would in Gothic have been explorable, i.e. clifftops, caves, etc don't really exist. You attempt to climb up something and the game just slides you down it. These areas are marked as grey on your map and unfortunately take up a larger part of the map than would have been expected. Whenever you steer off path, there really is not much besides a lone pack of monsters somewhere. You don't have stuff like interesting, varied environments a la Gothic 2 with hidden caves, goodies (even if it's a skeleton with a couple of arrows), etc. Everything really feels the same no matter where you go. Exploring will essentially reward you with a little bit of extra experience, a couple of more healing plants or mushrooms and no satisfaction whatsoever. This is probably the biggest flaw of the game in my book.

As for questing, it's the same problem. There hardly are any little side quests which made the previous Gothics great. Meh.


Conclusion:
I might not be doing justice to the game right now, considering that I only played for about 8 hours or so in a number of sittings. However, that 8 hours was to get me bored enough not to want to touch it again for a while. It's probably going to be the only Gothic game which I won't be playing to death, if I even ever finish it.

2/5
View user's profileSend private message
Gecko
Respected
Respected


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 87
Location: Hungary

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:17 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

I like it better than FNV and it's way better than gothic 3 and risen. I like the magic system, you can only have fire, frost, lightning but each have 3 version, a single shot, charged shot and overcharged shot, so you have 9 magic skills which take only 3 places in the slot bar instead of 9 and you also have a magic shield which is good against projectiles. Pure mage is fun to play here.
Ranger/Archer is good too but warrior looks boring to play.

You can craft anywhere now but you can enable roleplaying activities in the options so if you want to do it in the old way then you go find an anvil, alchemist table, fireplace, etc and craft there...

Sadly you can pick up anything from houses and the npcs don't care but i rarely play thief chars so it's not a huge mistake for me.
I like the places too except for the last city... that one was boring and too long. The game's a bit linear but not as linear as a bioware games for example.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Kashluk
Grand MF
Grand MF


Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 7498

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:28 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

It seemed entertaining. Very TwoWorlds'ish. The gameplay was a lot more forgiving than in the original Gothics where you were ass-raped by pretty much every single forest critter or bandit all the way to level 30. Now you actually start making a difference a lot earlier, and the critters/enemies get A LOT tougher later on. So coming back to hunt those scavengers after you've explored further already and gained a few levels doesn't feel so difficult it's actually silly (a la Gothic I/II).

I liked Risen very much, though. I thought that it was way better than Gothic 3. But then I also think that Gothic 4 was better than number 3. I like FNV much more than any of these, but that's just a side note since you can't really compare these.
View user's profileSend private message
S4ur0n27
Mamma's Gang member
Mamma's Gang member


Joined: 01 Jun 2002
Posts: 15132
Location: Motherfucking Plateau

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:18 am Reply with quoteBack to top

New Vegas? Seriously? I only played like 20 minutes but so far it looks terrible.
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's websiteMSN MessengerICQ Number
Frater Perdurabo
Paragon
Paragon


Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 2427
Location: Võro

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:49 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Kashluk wrote:
It seemed entertaining. Very TwoWorlds'ish. The gameplay was a lot more forgiving than in the original Gothics where you were ass-raped by pretty much every single forest critter or bandit all the way to level 30. Now you actually start making a difference a lot earlier, and the critters/enemies get A LOT tougher later on. So coming back to hunt those scavengers after you've explored further already and gained a few levels doesn't feel so difficult it's actually silly (a la Gothic I/II).

I liked Risen very much, though. I thought that it was way better than Gothic 3. But then I also think that Gothic 4 was better than number 3. I like FNV much more than any of these, but that's just a side note since you can't really compare these.

I have to admit, Gothic 3 was difficult to get into, but once you give it a chance, it is not a bad game. I wouldn't call it a Gothic game, but it is not a bad game. Make sure you play with alternative balancing.
View user's profileSend private message
Cimmerian Nights
Striding Hero
Striding Hero


Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 1367
Location: The Roche Motel

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:45 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

S4ur0n27 wrote:
New Vegas? Seriously? I only played like 20 minutes but so far it looks terrible.

I'm in the same boat. There's really no other (active) developers I'd rather see make a Fallout game than MCA and crew, but I can't see past the same tired engine and tech (VATS) Bethesda's been using since Oblivion. I wish I could, but I'm just indifferent about NV.

I couldn't play NWN2 or KOTOR2 either for the same reason.

You have to start asking yourself, what is Obsidian?
They're all about the sloppy seconds. And that's sad to say.


I remember a few years ago when FO3 was in development, there was a restrospective interview with a lot of the old BIS staff and MCA said this:
http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=39341
Quote:
10. What advice would you have for someone making another Fallout game?

Chris Avellone
Don't do one. Do something better and raise the bar even higher.

Yet here we are, NWN sequel, KOTOR sequel, FO3 sequel...
I want to think that Obsidian is better than this, but they're not giving me a reason why.
View user's profileSend private message
Frater Perdurabo
Paragon
Paragon


Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 2427
Location: Võro

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:40 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Cimmerian Nights wrote:
S4ur0n27 wrote:
New Vegas? Seriously? I only played like 20 minutes but so far it looks terrible.

I'm in the same boat. There's really no other (active) developers I'd rather see make a Fallout game than MCA and crew, but I can't see past the same tired engine and tech (VATS) Bethesda's been using since Oblivion. I wish I could, but I'm just indifferent about NV.

Pretty much the same sentiment here, the engine is a massive turnoff. Same reason I couldn't play PS:T and any of the BG series, despite having an interesting story, I hated the engine and D&D.

However, I will give F:NV another go today.
View user's profileSend private message
Retlaw83
Goatse Messiah
Goatse Messiah


Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 5327

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:25 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Cimmerian Nights wrote:

I want to think that Obsidian is better than this, but they're not giving me a reason why.


Alpha Protocol was a good sign they're better than this; unfortunately, game reviewers didn't understand you can't always hit the target you're aiming at in an RPG, so there won't be a sequel.
View user's profileSend private message
Blargh
Überkommando
Überkommando


Joined: 09 Nov 2003
Posts: 6316

PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:29 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

At the very least, SEGA does not retain rights to AP, so a continuation of some sort isn't outright impossible. Far more likely, though, is wholesale lift of certain gameplay elements (i.e Dragon Age II flashback+unreliable+narrator(s) and so on). For which Bioware the guilty parties will be lauded for. For which AP and the minds behind it will likely receive at best, marginal, recognition.

With regard to the role of Games Journalists, it cannot be convincingly denied that the entire Saudi Arabia extended tutorial section wasn't a shotgun to the ankle. The game only began with its end. What a shame THEY are permitted to run with their patented play-for-20-and-project practice. Pricks. icon_drunk
View user's profileSend private message
Tofu Man
Paparazzi
Paparazzi


Joined: 06 Jul 2010
Posts: 1078

PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:07 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Cimmerian Nights wrote:
I want to think that Obsidian is better than this, but they're not giving me a reason why.

They are, CN, and you just have to look at those same games you called sloppy seconds.

NWN2 created Bioware-style games for Bioware. (like it or not - I'm not the biggest fan) Try and look at all of BW's games prior to NWN2 and you'll notice it's a long line of completely interchangeable and forgettable "epics" with one exception, Kotor.

Then came Kotor II. Honestly, I'm not a big SW fan but I like to call Kotor II the most memorable game I've played since Fo2. Comparing Kotor to Kotor II is like comparing Episode I to Episode V (Edit - In retrospect, it's more like comparing Star Wars to Solaris). Phenomenally written (for a game), it takes Lucas' child of a story by the hand and makes a proper adult out of it. Seriously, rushed ending or not, playing Kotor II is something absolutely essential as far as I'm concerned. Whether you're a star wars fan or not.

What some of us think of New Vegas you can see for yourself on the NV board. Although (IMO) Walter's praises are a touch exaggerated, it more than adequately fixes most non-technical problems with Fo3. It still isn't "Fallout" from a gameplay perspective, but then who honestly still thinks we can get a turn-based shooter/RPG out of the Fallout brand?

Edit (Since I forgot to summarize) - There you have three sequels that are vastly superior to the originals in all but graphical achievements. Is that so unremarkable these days that it justifies the stick you're giving them?

Retlaw83 wrote:
(...)unfortunately, game reviewers didn't understand you can't always hit the target you're aiming at in an RPG(...)

Come on Walter, you know that is utter bullshit. Games reviewers aren't 15 year-olds in most cases. They, as well as us, know what originally constituted a RPG before Bioware (with the space soap-opera) and Shitesda (with Fo3) changed it up so RPG all of a sudden means a shooter with level-ups. If moron kids want to whine "but teh shotganz are brokenz!!!111one1!!" when they never bothered to level them up is one thing, but from people who've played games for as long as they have that can't be an excuse.

You know what's going on, I know what's going on, shit, most of us know what's going on, so one might as well just out with it. No professional (and I'm using the term VERY loosely) reviewer is going to cut Obsidian the slack they cut most everyone else. Maybe they don't get their pocket's worth (although I'd expect Bethesda to provide this once) but you can't read an Obsidian review without happening upon the word BUG more times than you can count. And you, as well as anyone with as many gaming years, know that that's just bullshit. Obsidian's games aren't any buggier than their contemporaries, they just got struck with the branding iron and they're not shaking the mark until they pay up.

Really, the level of aggro towards Obsidian (whetever "professional" reviews or posts in boards about their games) and their "bug problems" is getting ridiculous (to be fair, it was probably worse at the time when AP came out), to a point where you'd begin to think there's some sort of professional smear campaign going on.



I just don't think what little is remarkable about the industry these days can afford to lose one of the dwindling numbers of developers that, unlike 90% of the competition, don't focus on graphic hoo-ha to the expense of everything else in the game.

As for the future, I'm with CN on this one, I'd like to see an "new" game. Alpha Protocol was a great game whose storyline's exhausted, so I don't think it needs a sequel (and god knows there's plenty of those to go around already). Now let's see something original, this time with a proper publisher. Or hell, no publisher at all.
View user's profileSend private message
Mismatch
Hero of the Glowing Lands
Hero of the Glowing Lands


Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 2160
Location: Over yonder hill

PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 10:56 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

What is wrong with you ppl.
View user's profileSend private message
Stalagmite
Wandering Hero
Wandering Hero


Joined: 26 Feb 2009
Posts: 1192
Location: IN YOUR PANTS AUSTRALIA

PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:07 am Reply with quoteBack to top

I liked Gothic 1 quite a bit but after 2: NoTR it slipped. Risen was banned here but from what I hear it isn't all that great, and I doubt Spellbound could crank out anything to further the franchise in the positive if PB can't even recover.
View user's profileSend private messageMSN Messenger
Retlaw83
Goatse Messiah
Goatse Messiah


Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 5327

PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:26 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Tofu Man wrote:

Come on Walter, you know that is utter bullshit.


I have a pretty low opinion of game journalists. If you read through the AP reviews, the consensus seems to be they're upset they can't shoot people without leveling up their weapon skills. It's one hell of an act to pretend to be that fucking stupid so convincingly.

Quote:
You know what's going on, I know what's going on, shit, most of us know what's going on, so one might as well just out with it. No professional (and I'm using the term VERY loosely) reviewer is going to cut Obsidian the slack they cut most everyone else. Maybe they don't get their pocket's worth (although I'd expect Bethesda to provide this once) but you can't read an Obsidian review without happening upon the word BUG more times than you can count. And you, as well as anyone with as many gaming years, know that that's just bullshit. Obsidian's games aren't any buggier than their contemporaries, they just got struck with the branding iron and they're not shaking the mark until they pay up.

Really, the level of aggro towards Obsidian (whetever "professional" reviews or posts in boards about their games) and their "bug problems" is getting ridiculous (to be fair, it was probably worse at the time when AP came out), to a point where you'd begin to think there's some sort of professional smear campaign going on.


While I laude your analysis, I think the gaming journalism industry is too fucking stupid at the reviewer level to pull off a conspiracy like this.

Quote:
I just don't think what little is remarkable about the industry these days can afford to lose one of the dwindling numbers of developers that, unlike 90% of the competition, don't focus on graphic hoo-ha to the expense of everything else in the game.


I agree that the industry can't afford to lose innovative developers at a cultural level. And I think it's heartening that sales figures have shown a sharp drop-off in gamers willingness to eat the same shit over and over again. However, publishers are going to be looking for the safest way to protect their bottom line; spurring innovation and risking losing money in the process is not it.
View user's profileSend private message
Tofu Man
Paparazzi
Paparazzi


Joined: 06 Jul 2010
Posts: 1078

PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:16 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Retlaw83 wrote:
(...)It's one hell of an act to pretend to be that fucking stupid so convincingly.(...)

Good god, for a second I thought we'd lost you there.


Retlaw83 wrote:
While I laude your analysis, I think the gaming journalism industry is too fucking stupid at the reviewer level to pull off a conspiracy like this.

Ok, I was kinda pointing at EA and Zenimax's PR departments there and not at the reviewers themselves but on this instance I guess I'd better stop before someone calls me a crackpot.


Retlaw83 wrote:
(...)However, publishers are going to be looking for the safest way to protect their bottom line; spurring innovation and risking losing money in the process is not it.

The ridiculous of it all is that, for all intents and purposes, Alpha Protocol was a safe bet. Story we'd heard before, mechanics we'd played with before, characters we could relate to and then we all know what happened. Life ain't fair? You tell Obsidian about it.


Retlaw83 wrote:
(...)And I think it's heartening that sales figures have shown a sharp drop-off in gamers willingness to eat the same shit over and over again.(...)

Have they? Disregard that, I'll take your word for it and take a step back, in that I'll share of your optimism for the time being. I guess your taste in games warrants as much. Next multi-platinum shitfest will have you owing me a beer, though.
View user's profileSend private message
Retlaw83
Goatse Messiah
Goatse Messiah


Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 5327

PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:31 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Tofu Man wrote:

Ok, I was kinda pointing at EA and Zenimax's PR departments there and not at the reviewers themselves but on this instance I guess I'd better stop before someone calls me a crackpot.


Sorry, I misinterpreted you. On this track though, I've seen a funny trend at IGN. They give a game that they're heavily advertising a good review, then they bring up the bad points in an editorial. With the New Vegas version of the article, it was "Fallout 3 had a deeper story looooool" which just about made me gag, and the Fable III editorial basically said the game was garbage despite IGN giving it an 8.5 and ads for it being everywhere on the site.

It's pretty disgusting when the organizations you're supposed to be reviewing own you. I remember, over a decade ago now (holy shit I'm old) reading PC Games magazine. Their editor was dedicated to journalistic integrity, and it wasn't uncommon to see a terrible game get shredded in a review, then see an ad for that game next to the review.


Quote:

The ridiculous of it all is that, for all intents and purposes, Alpha Protocol was a safe bet. Story we'd heard before, mechanics we'd played with before, characters we could relate to and then we all know what happened. Life ain't fair? You tell Obsidian about it.


The unsafe part of the bet was the result of the choices you made weren't immediately clear - which seems to get a lot of Xbox players goats - and the fact the game doesn't use a shooter system for deciding if bullets hit. In this day and age, any complexity in a game will automatically mean it doesn't become a mass-market title, unless that complexity can be side-stepped like in New Vegas.


Quote:

Have they? Disregard that, I'll take your word for it and take a step back, in that I'll share of your optimism for the time being. I guess your taste in games warrants as much. Next multi-platinum shitfest will have you owing me a beer, though.


I've seen several sources prior to October stating that video game revenue was down 50-75% of what it was last year. I think that there's a couple of factors, which is people won't buy the same shit over and over during a recession. The industry has been basically sitting around all year waiting for Halo: Reach and New Vegas to save them.

As for a multi-platinum shitfest, I may well owe you a beer depending on what Fable III's sales figures look like.
View user's profileSend private message
Tofu Man
Paparazzi
Paparazzi


Joined: 06 Jul 2010
Posts: 1078

PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:53 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Retlaw83 wrote:
Sorry, I misinterpreted you. On this track though, I've seen a funny trend at IGN. They give a game that they're heavily advertising a good review, then they bring up the bad points in an editorial. With the New Vegas version of the article, it was "Fallout 3 had a deeper story looooool" which just about made me gag, and the Fable III editorial basically said the game was garbage despite IGN giving it an 8.5 and ads for it being everywhere on the site.

It's pretty disgusting when the organizations you're supposed to be reviewing own you. I remember, over a decade ago now (holy shit I'm old) reading PC Games magazine. Their editor was dedicated to journalistic integrity, and it wasn't uncommon to see a terrible game get shredded in a review, then see an ad for that game next to the review.

On IGN I can't say I'm surprised, even though it's news to me since I've basically stopped "attending" any major games site for the better part of the last decade, bar Gamefaqs (now owned by Gamespot, another marquee act), Kotaku and Escapist and then only occasionally. I will, however start checking out editorials vs reviews on IGN at your behest, hipocrisy always makes me laugh whenever it doesn't make me outright annoyed.

I unfortunately can't say I knew of PC Gamer's integrity. At the time when it was an imposing presence at the newsagents I was more interested in lower rack magazines, (as in console mags, yeah I know) so I'll speak of what I do know.

When eventually the veneer started wearing thin on my monthly magazines of choice circa 1998, I hopped on to Future Publishing's (IIRC) Edge magazine, and let me tell you what a difference it made. Games were rated out of 10 and you'd rarely see any achieving 8 or over. Hyped games would regularly get 5s and 6s and you know what? There wasn't (again IIRC, I haven't bought an issue in years, imported magazines tend to go for 15 dollars or more) a single game advertised in the mag. We're talking about a +-130 page magazine, often with 35+ pages of ads, and every single one of them, either for some big studio like Eidos or some unknown, ads for job placements within the industry. Ads looking for 3d artists, ads looking for animators, ads for educational courses, anything you can imagine requires doing within the industry had an ad there.

The point? Well, if that doesn't generate revenue while allowing you to keep the minimum required journalist integrity (let's face it, it's games were talking about, we're certainly not asking for a nobel laureate or anything) then I don't know what does.

Why not apply the same tactic on different publications? 15 year olds aren't always going to be 15 years old. And 15 years ago 15 year olds made entire games, remember?

Quote:
I've seen several sources prior to October stating that video game revenue was down 50-75% of what it was last year. I think that there's a couple of factors, which is people won't buy the same shit over and over during a recession.(...)

First off, LOL, there's the upside to the recession.
Second, you're right. Recessions have the upside of imposing choice between products and thus making the consumer more aware of what's on offer. A discerning customer is perfect grounds for product evolution.

I'm still thinking it needed to hit harder, particularly in the biggest market (the US, sorry bout that), to have the kind of effect I'm hoping for but for now I guess we'll wait and see. It's not like the games can get much worse anyways.

Who knows, maybe Fable 3 turns out to be what you hoped Fable 2 would be. Tell you what, I'll owe you a beer if it does. icon_drunk
View user's profileSend private message
Frater Perdurabo
Paragon
Paragon


Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 2427
Location: Võro

PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:05 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Stalagmite wrote:
I liked Gothic 1 quite a bit but after 2: NoTR it slipped. Risen was banned here but from what I hear it isn't all that great, and I doubt Spellbound could crank out anything to further the franchise in the positive if PB can't even recover.

Once again, it took me years but after I gave Gothic 3 a serious try, I found it not to be a bad game. It's not a Gothic game, nor is it anywhere near as good as Gothic 2, but it does it's own thing well.
Risen was once again, different. Different from G2, as well as G3, but still quite a good game in the end. Only play the first half of the game since the 2nd half is a dungeon crawler.

Gothic 4 is by far the weakest instalment in the "series".
View user's profileSend private message
Retlaw83
Goatse Messiah
Goatse Messiah


Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 5327

PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:24 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Tofu Man wrote:

I unfortunately can't say I knew of PC Gamer's integrity.


The magazine was PC Games, not PC Gamer. I don't even know if they're still in print. Like the magazine you read, they were pretty harsh on what they reviewed, with most spectacular games getting a 4 out of 5 (it's what they gave Planescape: Torment and Half-Life). The only exception I remember that actually got a 5 was the original Fallout.

Quote:
Who knows, maybe Fable 3 turns out to be what you hoped Fable 2 would be. Tell you what, I'll owe you a beer if it does. icon_drunk


I have no plans to find out, unless I find Fable 3 in a bargain bin a few years down the road.
View user's profileSend private message
Tofu Man
Paparazzi
Paparazzi


Joined: 06 Jul 2010
Posts: 1078

PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:44 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Retlaw83 wrote:
The magazine was PC Games, not PC Gamer. I don't even know if they're still in print. Like the magazine you read, they were pretty harsh on what they reviewed, with most spectacular games getting a 4 out of 5 (it's what they gave Planescape: Torment and Half-Life). The only exception I remember that actually got a 5 was the original Fallout.


Oh, my mistake. I take it this is the one you meant?

Obviously, not that exact one since that's in german.
Can't say I've heard of it in any case.

Anyways P:T, HL and Fo not getting full marks is kind of harsh. Well I guess one can't really defend Fo and P:T from a reviewer that doesn't like slow games but HL? That's a hard to please reviewer. However, I'll sooner take a over-critical review over one full of praise anyday. I reckon I'd rather know what's wrong with a game beforehand and discover what's right with it on my own than the opposite.
View user's profileSend private message
Display posts from previous:      
Post new topicReply to topic


Jump to:  



View next topic
View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group