Gothic 3 Gone Gold.

[Sander]

did you patch? that's supposedly one of the things that was fixed in the first patch.

Yeah, I patched. Didn't fix it for me, though.

 

[SuAside]

dunno, if it fixed it for me. i finished the game before it was released and haven't really played since.

 

[Pladio]

Hello, the demo is out for people who don't want to buy the game just yet.


On another note... I can't seem to play the game, I get the same error as Kotario (sp?) noted on page 3 I think.

On Rpgwatch someone said it might be my graphics card which can't run the Shader Model, but maybe I can fix it some other way. Does anyone know how ?
:

 

[Ratty Sr.]

On Rpgwatch someone said it might be my graphics card which can't run the Shader Model, but maybe I can fix it some other way. Does anyone know how ?
:

How about buying a new graphics card?

 

[Pladio]

Well, I hoped that would be the last option for this...
I rarely buy new things without trying out 90% of the workarounds available.

 

[Sander]

Try to put all of the graphics details on as low as possible, especially the shader model.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Well, I played the demo and I must say I'm really unimpressed. I wanted to like this game, I really did, but it's long loads, horrible, terrible performance, crappy skill system, button-bashin' combat and the general "oblivion-was-teh-roxxorz-let's-copy-it" feel prevented it. I'm sorry but I honestly dislike this game very much.

 

[Brother None]

This game is getting slaughtered in the reviews.

They're averaging 7.1/10 gaming review average (which is really low, just compare to Oblivion's 9.4 average).

And GS's average hasn't even added the Gamespy 1.5/5 review slaughtering the game.

Most reviews seem to circle around 7 to 8, those that dislike it blast it around 2-3 out of 10 possible points.

I've not read most of the reviews, 'cept the Codex one. And that review makes me less excited about the game as it seems to struggle to gloss over its errors.

...

Maybe I should play Gothic 2 first.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

I've not read most of the reviews, 'cept the Codex one. And that review makes me less excited about the game as it seems to struggle to gloss over its errors.

A-HA! So you *do* read the Codex!

 

[Brother None]

A-HA! So you *do* read the Codex!

Heh, funny, I pm'd VDweller about a week ago to point out they were still referring to Drakensang as Realms of Arkania 4, which is incorrect. *He* didn't feel the need to rub my nose in it.

But yeah, I started reading the Codex again.

Still, the assesment that Gothic 3 is 80% combat doesn't make me particularly fond of the idea of playing it.

 

[Tannhauser]

Don't you love GameSpy? Not only do they fail to understand what exactly a RPG is, but they seem to have some sort of grudge against the Gothic series. Or perhaps they are simply morons, which does seem more likely.

While VDweller is a bit too defensive of Gothic III, the GameSpy review is simply beyond the pale. No secret that they lack any editorial standards, the review reads like nothing more than a personal tirade. As the Codex news bit points out, the following excerpt makes little sense, seemly picked from the air to further belittle the game.

The landscape simply isn't much to look at. The art design for this game is pretty atrocious ... The main area is filled with villages and castles that are just squat and ugly with way too few textures and a whole lot of repeated walls, furniture and decorations.

My advice on Gothic III is to hold off on the game until it receives major patching. I have fairly high hopes for the patches, considering Piranha Bytes record in this regard.

 

[VDweller]

I've not read most of the reviews, 'cept the Codex one. And that review makes me less excited about the game as it seems to struggle to gloss over its errors.

Your impression isn't accurate. I didn't try to present Gothic 3 as a better game than it actually is, which is why I started by pointing out that the game is 80% about combat. The rest, however, is pretty damn good and sucks you into the gameworld easily. The game is very immersive, and it immerses you not with graphics, but with living & breathing (pardon me for the cliche) towns. It does have its flaws, of course, but overall it's one the best games released in the last few years.

My advice on Gothic III is to hold off on the game until it receives major patching. I have fairly high hopes for the patches, considering Piranha Bytes record in this regard.

My advice is don't play it unless you have a really good PC. If you do and the demo runs well on it, there is no need to wait for another patch.

My 2 cents.

 

[Brother None]

Your impression isn't accurate. I didn't try to present Gothic 3 as a better game than it actually is, which is why I started by pointing out that the game is 80% about combat. The rest, however, is pretty damn good and sucks you into the gameworld easily. The game is very immersive, and it immerses you not with graphics, but with living & breathing (pardon me for the cliche) towns. It does have its flaws, of course, but overall it's one the best games released in the last few years.

Wasn't the impressions I got from it. Glossing might be the wrong word, but while a bigger part of the review is dedicated to the good parts than the bad parts (which makes sense, in a way), my personal impression is simply that the game doesn't have much to offer me. I like playing PC games 'n all, but I'm pretty picky, once I like a game I play it a lot, if I don't like it I'll dump it.

That said, I haven't even played Gothic II, so it might be advisable for me to keep my big trap shut before <s>I get owned again</s> <s>I'm forced to eat my words</s> ... uuuh, cookies

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

Is that cookie a reference to my fallout sitcom story?

 

[Sander]

I don't know, VD, it certainly didn't mention the numerous bugs and I do feel it glossed over some crucial problems, such as the poor combat system and the ridiculously overpowered wildlife (even patched).

Ah well, it's still a decent game but decidedly worse than its predecessors in my opinion.

 

[VDweller]

I don't know, VD, it certainly didn't mention the numerous bugs...

I didn't see any, and I don't like to pass for facts what I read on the internet.

... and I do feel it glossed over some crucial problems, such as the poor combat system and the ridiculously overpowered wildlife (even patched).

"One of the problems with the new system is the stun lock. It's deadly when your hit points are low, so whether you live or die in the beginning of the game will often be determined by whether or not you managed to strike first. The biggest problem, however, is that it’s very, very easy to hit a human or orc first. That means that you can easily become the champion of many arenas in the game and can defeat pretty much any single opponent without losing any hit points. Considering that many times you will be fighting angry mobs of humans and orcs, the challenge remains, but it would have been nice if the single opponent combat was challenging as well. "

I didn't feel that the wildlife was overpowered. It's humans and orcs who were underpowered, which is what I mentioned in my review.

Ah well, it's still a decent game but decidedly worse than its predecessors in my opinion.

What makes it "decidedly worse"? Just curious.

 

[Sander]

I didn't see any, and I don't like to pass for facts what I read on the internet.

A somewhat odd approach, but fair enough.
Mentioning those things with the added note that you personally didn't encounter any would've been a lot better, though.
Also, you didn't notice that the cheapest sword (the flame sword) was also one of the best ones in the entire game?

"One of the problems with the new system is the stun lock. It's deadly when your hit points are low, so whether you live or die in the beginning of the game will often be determined by whether or not you managed to strike first. The biggest problem, however, is that it’s very, very easy to hit a human or orc first. That means that you can easily become the champion of many arenas in the game and can defeat pretty much any single opponent without losing any hit points. Considering that many times you will be fighting angry mobs of humans and orcs, the challenge remains, but it would have been nice if the single opponent combat was challenging as well. "

This doesn't mention the ridiculous always-winning strategy of constant right-clicking, or the removing of the more timing oriented system of the previous game (which I felt was a lot more

I didn't feel that the wildlife was overpowered. It's humans and orcs who were underpowered, which is what I mentioned in my review.

Compared to the previous Gothic games, both are true. I'm at level 40 now and a group of wolves is still ridiculously hard to deal with when in the previous games this was certainly not the case with a comparable character: as soon as you could deal with some humans, you could also easily deal with a bunch of wolves.

What makes it "decidedly worse"? Just curious.

Aside from the problems I've already mentioned? The lack of backtracking makes the world feel incoherent and your actions somewhat more meaningless. Character progression is very quick and skill points become almost useless very quickly (in the previous games you'd have to think hard before spending some skill points, and you'd want to spend them as quickly as possible. Now it's just a case of 'hey, a trainer, let's spend those 40 skill points I've amassed over the past two hours). I loathe the logbook as it is currently. The addition of stamina in that way doesn't do anything at all, other than limit the amount of time you can run (whoopdidoo), it doesn't even have a noticeable effect in combat. Large, empty, useless wastes. Quests have become much easier in most cases. Ridiculously easy to wipe out entire rebel camps, yet incredibly hard to kill 3 sandcrawlers. Orcs are wimps.

Still, as I said, it's a decent game. But it's a lot worse than the previous games.

 

[VDweller]

Mentioning those things with the added note that you personally didn't encounter any would've been a lot better, though.

Why? Gothic 3 is a resource-intensive game. It's very easy to get a shitty performance and a trackload of low RAM problems. Should I report every "Gothic 3 runs like shit on my PC" outcry?

To be fair, many people and even reviewers like GameSpy reported many technical issues and tons of bugs in Oblivion. Since I didn't have a single problem with it, I didn't take this opportunity to trash it and create a negative impression. Fair enough?

Also, you didn't notice that the cheapest sword (the flame sword) was also one of the best ones in the entire game?

Didn't bother me. In fact all weapons are fairly powerful, even the one you start the game with. I kinda liked it though. A typical progression from a shitty sword that you can't cut bread with to an uber powerful blade of death that cut through reinforced concrete is kinda silly, don't you think?

This doesn't mention the ridiculous always-winning strategy of constant right-clicking, or the removing of the more timing oriented system of the previous game...

Does the strategy works on the wild beasts as well? If yes, my fault for not noticing. If not, than the problem is still related to the humans/orcs stun lock.

Aside from the problems I've already mentioned? The lack of backtracking ... Character progression ... I loathe the logbook ... Large, empty, useless wastes. ... Quests have become much easier in most cases. Ridiculously easy to wipe out entire rebel camps, yet incredibly hard to kill 3 sandcrawlers. Orcs are wimps.

The last problem is the same combat problem we've just discussed (overly long stun lock for humans and orcs). Agree about backtracking and character progression; the logbook could have been better, as for the quests, I'm not sure that G2 quests were so much harder.

Anyway, these are the negative sides, what about the positive? Were there any addition/improvements over the previous games that you liked?

 

[Sander]

Why? Gothic 3 is a resource-intensive game. It's very easy to get a shitty performance and a trackload of low RAM problems. Should I report every "Gothic 3 runs like shit on my PC" outcry?

I wasn't talking about the performance (although that might have deserved a mention) but about bugs.

To be fair, many people and even reviewers like GameSpy reported many technical issues and tons of bugs in Oblivion. Since I didn't have a single problem with it, I didn't take this opportunity to trash it and create a negative impression. Fair enough?

If that's a consistent attitude, yes. I still like to be informed about bugs, though.

Didn't bother me. In fact all weapons are fairly powerful, even the one you start the game with. I kinda liked it though. A typical progression from a shitty sword that you can't cut bread with to an uber powerful blade of death that cut through reinforced concrete is kinda silly, don't you think?

Not my point. The weapon progression would be fine, if it weren't for this. It was an example of a 'bug'. The flame sword costs 1000, but is much, much better than the broadsword (which costs 12000) or, say, Hashishin blades that cost even more. If that's deliberate, then the creators are retards. Otherwise, it's a bug.

Does the strategy works on the wild beasts as well? If yes, my fault for not noticing. If not, than the problem is still related to the humans/orcs stun lock.

Yes.

The last problem is the same combat problem we've just discussed (overly long stun lock for humans and orcs). Agree about backtracking and character progression; the logbook could have been better, as for the quests, I'm not sure that G2 quests were so much harder.

I think they were. Although I did only play Gothic 2 with NotR so that may have influenced me.

Anyway, these are the negative sides, what about the positive? Were there any addition/improvements over the previous games that you liked?

Yes, as I said, I think it's a good game.
I like the fact that there's (at least at where I'm now) some real consequences to your choices, and the choices are all valid ones.
I like the fact that almost all the Orcs got intelligent and have a culture, instead of being just monsters that you run away from (and later kill) on a large scale.
I like the fact that there are no more invincible characters.
I like the fact that the character system got expanded, although I dislike the cheapness of skill points.
I like the fact that it's big.
I like the originality of some quests (such as the 'kill the cows' one), although they are still somewhat ordinary.
I like that there seem to be some quests that give it a form of continuity (goblets of fire, get respect with the orcs/hashishin/rebels).
I like the addition of more cultures (I'm particularly fond of the Hashishin).
I like the fact that you can outright betray your previous friends, to the point of killing all the water mages just to get in a good light with the people you're working for

Some more likes, probably. But I still feel the game is 'worse' than its predecessors, since most improvements (aside from the choices) aren't huge improvements.