Why? It's a very different game from Fallout3. I wouldn't call it top 10 material, but as an open world action rpg it's pretty good, that's of course assuming that you play the patched version (i played it when it came out and saw things that no gamer should ever see... clapping skeletons and zombies). The characters are pretty quircky, but that was the style of all Gothic games, as opposed to really terrible characters in F3 that were not ment to be terrible. The story though nonexistant you still had 3 or 4 different ways to end the game and all that while exploring without those fucking arrows. Actually that was the most "explorie" exploring in a game i have ever witnessed. And yes, the combat sucked ass, compared to the previous 2 games, so it's a solid 7.. 7.5 maybe.
Combat of G3 is actually enjoyable.
it's more challenger than G1,2 which is simply beat the most enemy with interaction key+left and right.
too bad wolves are overpowered.
as a open world RPG, I think there aren't much game has better usage of 3D openworld than G3.
I even think it's better than NV for it's quest construction despite of each story of small chores are not interesting as NV.
you can beat the game without important character or receiving quest from someone.
and it is the only Gothic openworld game.
Risen 1? G 1,2? theses are actually linear game.
NotR is good non-linear quest expansion but it's just expension.
and Risen2 will give you to freedom to progress story by yourself but more than half of islands are kind of linear.
so G3 is only game which have openworld element among Gothic.
too bad storys and characters are not interesting as G1 and 2.
comparing fo3 and G3 is like comparing linear boring dragonquest bullshit with Fallout.
while fo3 uses openworld or open theme park, it's quests are for linear game.
fo3 fail to make quest open while G3 very good job on that.
The comparison between Gothic 3 and Fallout 3 isn't that far-fetched. Both games have little to do with their predecessors, which goes as far as even changing the entire genre in some ways. Gothic 3's atmosphere and story are complete and utter garbage, a punch in the face for anyone who liked the first two games. Piranha Bytes' premise of creating an open world and ultimate player freedom destroyed the game and robbed Gothic of its identity.
They mutilated the orcs (changed their culture entirely to the point of being unrecognizable, only for the player to be able to join them), their war against King Rhobar (Where are the burned fields, and why do orcs deal with humans? Why so they even speak their fucking language? Where is the orcish presence at sea, their slave-driven ships? Where is the harbour of Vengard by the way? The Esmeralda started from there, OH SHIT, THEY HAD TO SCALE DOWN ALL THE LOCATIONS IN ORDER TO CREATE A GIANT WORLD MAP), all of your initial companions (they were just there for brand recognition, just like BoS, enclave and super mutants in Fallout 3. They lost all credibility and became pretty bland characters. By the way, why is Thorus even on the mainland? And why is he mad at you initially? Makes absolutely Zero sense) and every new addition to the lore was childish, boring and unoriginal (Muslims in the south, barbarians in the North. Varant was described as swampy in Gothic 1 btw.). No city in G3 even scratched the surface of what was the brilliant and believable Khorinis. There is just so much wrong in this game. Choices mean nothing without consequences. The few consequences that were there often made little sense. Abandoning the guild system was a huge mistake. Gothic 3 might have had it's qualities, but it was by no means a TRUE Gothic.
See, I agree with you. I don't like Gothic 3 at all. As I said, I got about 3/4 through it, and simply quit because it was so boring I couldn't stand it anymore.
The difference I see compared to Fallout 3 is an absence of malice. When I played Gothic 3 I could understand why PB made the choices they did, even though I thought every single one of those choices was wrong. It's like they were travelling on a road, and each time they came to a fork, they picked the wrong direction. Even so, I think they always intended to make a great Gothic game.
With Fallout 3, Bethesda never had any intention of following the road. They were always going to make a crappy Bethesda game, and they bought the rights to Fallout so they could use its brand recognition to pump sales.
The difference I see compared to Fallout 3 is an absence of malice. When I played Gothic 3 I could understand why PB made the choices they did, even though I thought every single one of those choices was wrong. It's like they were travelling on a road, and each time they came to a fork, they picked the wrong direction. Even so, I think they always intended to make a great Gothic game.
They didn't. They wanted to go big. They wanted to become the next best shit in the world, not a studio nobody outside of Germany ever heard of. They wanted to create a Bethesda Game.
Just compare the World of G3 to that of G1. First one is generic, cheap, unbelievable, boring, pretty. Second one is unique, harsh, has a strange yet sympathic metal-vibe you cannot really define. You need to play the game to get it. You don't need to play G3, there's nothing new in it.
Edit: Proof that PB didn't give a fuck about their franchise: Vatras is fucking WHITE in Gothic 3.
while they looks like black, I heard both of Vatras and Saturas are not nigro. so it's not a big problem.
in fact, they care thier franchice a lot unlike beth.
I agree with enhancing dungeon, but aspect of quest of G1 isn't good enough to be a model for sequels.
it's nothing better than JRPG.
Be creative. You know you don't have to recreate EVERYTHING from a previous game IN THE SAME WAY. But the factions of Gothic 2 were very meaningful. The chapter system was a quality that honored and distinguished Gothic - abandoning those qualities is dangerous and (as seen with G3) can harm the game.
It's more like an mmo with percentage reputation and boring fetch and kill quests, no interaction between locations and every decision can be spared until the end. The world and story were generic as FUCK. They shat on previous lore.
while they looks like black, I heard both of Vatras and Saturas are not nigro. so it's not a big problem.
in fact, they care thier franchice a lot unlike beth.
Also why is Saturas black in Gothic 3 then? WHY ARE THERE EVEN WATER MAGES IN G3? Leaders of nomads? What bullshit is that, nobody ever talked about that. Lead the conflict between the magi ad absurdum.
The dialogue and story and characters and general atmosphere of Gothic 1 qualify it. It doesn't have linear world design or combat mode, like JRPG. The comparison is utter nonsense.
Only difference between G1 and 2 is subquests.
while alomost every G1's sub quests are congested at chapter 1, G2 has more subquests and spread chapter to chapter.
but, that's all. faction doesn't make mainstream different. it's still linear.
without NotR, G2 worse than G1 since dungeons are dumbed downed.
they already try something new at G3 and Risen2.
but it wasn't good for old fans of Gothic, so what they want new?
this interview can explain about that.
What is this desperate need for a new Gothic game? What is expected? Well, a Gothic 1 extension is expected. Basically the same game, but more of it and in a fresh looking environment. Despite the fact, that our company is no more the same like back in the day and we would have a hard time, getting back that “feel”, chances are, we would be accused of plagiarism and lack of innovation. Like “copy-pasting” our selves. These are accusations, we actually have to face very often; nearly after every new project. But in combination with a new Gothic, this would be terrible for the Gothic world.
and skin of Vatras means that much?
there aren't any reference about racism or something.
and water mages were teleported by focus stone.
if you played G2 NotR, you can learn it can be used to something about teleport.
and they surely mention about that.
did you played G3 seriously?
even the small chores(called sub quests) are boring, struction of RPG is far progressed from linear game.
what you have to do is find Xardas, or find something important or how about meeting king?
you know nothing about where is Xardas or what is true main goal so you have to find out.
boring subquests( actually, it's not that boring to me compare to fo3 or skyrim's chores) doesn't mean G3 is failure.
because it's just tool to finding goal.
and it's big diffrence between JRPGs(including G1, G2(withour NotR) and TES(4,5 and fo3))
and G3. and that's the reason why I think G3 is great.
it looks boring to you because you played G3 like playing TES.
it's not the game for enjoying storys of subquests like TES, but solving mainquests like good old RPGs.
The dialogue and story and characters and general atmosphere of Gothic 1 qualify it. It doesn't have linear world design or combat mode, like JRPG. The comparison is utter nonsense.
The right direction is to expand and improve the core mechanics, writing, storytelling, and artistry.
The wrong direction was to alter the things that already worked, like exchanging a smaller, more detailed game world for a larger, more bland game world, and tampering with the lore of Gothic 1 and 2. I'm not nearly as bellicose about it as General Garbage, but I do think he makes some good points about the problems with Gothic 3. I was turned off by the nomads too, and it was somewhere around the desert that I quit.
And then of course there's that miserable opening scene to Gothic 3. I honestly give the designers a little bit of credit for trying to do something different, but it was a horrible decision to dump the player into a difficult battle with no warning. I don't remember whether I ever figured out how to get to the start without re-watching the introduction videos (I do remember being forced to watch them several times), but I know I shouldn't be spending my first hour with a new game trying to find a way to do that. Nor should my character be dead before I even understand what's happening, which is how Gothic 3 begins.
IIRC, the first time I tried to play I was dead before I knew what was happening, and since there was no autosave, and no way to manually save during combat, I had to watch all the intro videos again, or a least skip through them. The second time I died again almost immediately, but at least I had a chance to look around and try to understand why I was getting killed. The third time I made an effort to not die, but failed. It probably took me six or seven tries just to survive so I could start playing the game. Then I got a bow somewhere and with ranged combat I could kill even really tough monsters effortlessly. At least, that's what I recall. The whole thing gets off on the wrong foot.
Risen isn't perfect, but it's much closer to the right way to do a Gothic-esque game than Gothic 3.
Eh.. I don't think storytelling and writing of G1 and G2 was good.
and how to improve storytelling and writing?
to have better story telling, the game have to be more linear and simpler.
because story telling is against with non-linear construction.
and for artistry, I agree with you.
G3's armor design is really sucks...
but environments of G3 was awesome to me.
can't argue with that.
while I like G3, it feels like too different from G1 and 2.
but Risen looks too similar to G1,2 too feels like nothing original in Risen.
at least, some map design was good enough to enjoy platforming and stealth(warehouse was good!),
and dungeon is best among Gothic and Risen(Risen2's dungeon isn't good as G1 and Risen 1).
but overall, too much things are copied from G1.
For example, you could have skill-based dialogue checks and other sorts of conditional responses.
Conversation in PB's games so far is not really conversation. The only reason clicking the dialogue options is there at all is to break up the speech between the PC and the NPC. For example, if you talk to Diego, he will tell you everything he needs to tell you for the story to proceed. It could be one long monolgue or a cutscene of Diego telling you things you need to know, but the button clicking is there just to make it feel more like the player is participating.
But what if Diego had something else to say if your character met a certain skill requirement? If the PC has a 1-handed weapon skill > 80, maybe Diego could tell you something about swords, and point you to a side-quest.
woo1108 said:
to have better story telling, the game have to be more linear and simpler. because story telling is against with non-linear construction.
Better story telling is a big topic, but I'd be happy with more different endings, and more ways to accomplish the endings; like in Fallout you can kill the Master, or talk him into killing himself, or sneak in and blow him up with a bomb.
Also, it seems to me that PB's games have a massive incongruity between the PC at the begining of the game, and the PC at the end of the game. At the start, you're a prisoner or a castaway, and you spend a long time leaning how to do simple things like hunting, skinning animals, cooking, and sweeping floors. By the end of the game the PC is an invicible hero who saves the entire world from destruction. I like the first part better, so I wish the heroic goal of the game was toned down. Maybe simply saving the island in Risen from being overrun by lizardmen is a more fitting goal than saving the entire world from eternal destruction.
Combat can always be improved. Also adding more levels and complexity to skills like acrobatics, stealth, and skinning, and adding skill-based climbing and swimming. There could also be more interactivity with the environment. In Gothic 1 you can use a torch to light campfires and stationary torches, and you can climb inside open barrels to hide.
I'd also like to see more compex traps and secret levers in dungeons. The ones in Risen are all rings on the walls, so you can find them very easily. Instead of all metal rings, there should also be buttons to push (like in Gothic 1), books on shelves, and maybe statues where you pull the arm or push a button in the eye socket or something.
