Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Review Gothic 3 trashed at GameSpy - 1.5/5

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Tags: Gothic III; Piranha Bytes

Every time I criticize a stupid Gothic 3 review, someone screams "Fanboy!". The truth is, Gothic 3 has flaws, but most reviewers who give G3 negative scores ignore those flaws for some reasons, and prefer to focus on something stupid.
<br>
<br>
The idiot of the day is Allen 'Delsyn' Rausch of GameSpy. Allen <a href=http://au.pc.gamespy.com/pc/gothic-iii/747441p1.html>gave Gothic 3 1.5/5</a> for massive bugs, lousy combat, <b>POOR ART DESIGN</b>, poor interface, lousy dialogue, and generic storyline.
<br>
<br>
The very same Allen 'Dumbass' Rausch <a href=http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/the-elder-scrolls-iv-oblivion/698423p1.html>gave Oblivion 4/5</a> despite noting bugs and technical issues. He said nothing about the dialogues, so I guess he liked them. Here is what he had to say about Oblivion technical issues:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>Never mind the minimum specs on the box. Those PCs may technically be able to "run" this game, but it's very possible they won't be able to truly play it. Even on our standard GameSpy gaming rigs (far from underpowered machines), I was forced to reduce my resolution and turn off some of the technical bells and whistles to get an acceptable frame rate.
<br>
<br>
If there's a real deal-breaker within Oblivion, however, it's the bugs. Lots of 'em. The worst have been problems running the game at all using Nvidia's FX series of video cards, and random, unrepeatable crashes to the desktop. I've seen creatures sometimes float in mid-air and "pop" around rather than turning to attack.</blockquote>Yet Oblivion deserves 4/5, while Gothic 3 is worth only 1.5. Good work, Allen.
<br>
<br>
Now back to the Gothic 3 review:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>The difference is that while the basic design of the Gothic games is equal (and occasionally even superior) to Bethesda's offerings, they've also labored under terrible coding, a god-awful number of bugs and weird design decisions that make the releases (including Gothic 3, the latest in the series) fail to even come close to fulfilling their potential.
<br>
<br>
Gothic 3 puts the player in the armor of a nameless, goateed hero completely devoid of personality. </blockquote>While Oblivion's main character was loaded with radiant personality and other cool stuff.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>The opening scene is somehow symbolic of the many offenses this game commits against the player. First, the game starts the player off in the middle of combat! It's difficult to find the words to express how galactically stupid this is,</blockquote>If Bethesda did it (and they kinda did), it would have been called "immersive".
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>The good news is that I had a lot of time to enjoy the landscape, as the game frequently hangs for long periods while the terrain loads. The bad news? The landscape simply isn't much to look at. <b>THE ART DESIGN FOR THIS GAME IS PRETTY ATROCIOUS.</b> The game is divided up into three climate zones: a temperate forest where the main storyline happens, a colder zone to the north and a desert to the south. Of the three, it's the desert that's the most appealing, with occasionally beautiful vistas of endless sand dunes, mysterious Persian-style towers and gorgeous skies. <b>The main area is filled with villages and castles that are just squat and ugly</b> with way too few textures and a whole lot of repeated walls, furniture and decorations.</blockquote>"WTF?" is all I can say to that.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>The game's story -- such as it is -- is a boringly generic fantasy tale badly told through atrocious dialogue and voiceovers that run the gamut from acceptable to truly dire.
<br>
...
<br>
For all the good elements in quest and world design, even here the game manages to screw up. Supporting one side or the other will eventually piss off the other side so badly that their strongholds will attack you on sight. That's fine except that in order to complete the main story, players must acquire certain items and complete certain quests from both sides. Since there's no way to go back after falling into one faction's bad graces, it's entirely possible to be unable to complete the game just by playing the game as designed! </blockquote>You can fight your way in and take the items by force, can't you? Too complex for you, Allen?
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>The bad part is the interface the player uses to do this. The player interface for character development (and inventory control and the quest journal and myriad other functions) is simply terrible. <u>Character skills and player controls are laid out in confusing and counterintuitive ways. It's prohibitively difficult to tell exactly what a player's skill progression is and what the prerequisites are for getting a particular skill. This makes character planning almost impossible</u></blockquote>We can take this as a proof that prolonged exposure to Oblivion causes stupidity and inability to understand even the most basic concepts without help.
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.rpgwatch.com">RPG Watch</A>
 

Texas Red

Whiner
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
7,044
Those Oblivion comparisons are amusing. I wish some of these idiots would comment on their reviews.
 

Claw

Erudite
Patron
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
3,777
Location
The center of my world.
Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
Wow. He's basically trashing everything. Not criticising it- trashing it.
If game reviewers had any credibility left with me - and those pariahs who lack the journalistic integrity even of a paper like The Sun or Bild, that is to say the right to call themselves journalists in the first place - they would've lost it now.

You can't even use bias, taste or sheer stupidity to explain this. This man is a criminal.
 

Ladonna

Arcane
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
10,637
There has to be something going on....

Some good news: PC Powerplay mag here in Aus gave G3 8/10, and the review itself was written very well. I got the vibe that finally, somebody had actually PLAYED the game. He admitted the faults, but also talked about the numerous good points as well. When I am not so lazy, I will write it up here.

But this one eyed shit seems to be happening in a few too many reviews lately.
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
1,246
Not a review, just a point of view. I've read a lot of reviews lately that are like this. These 'review sites' are paying attention to what their articles are? A review has to be OBJECTIVE!
 

VenomByte

Scholar
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
271
It's almost like they're trying to prove a point.

"Hey, we have really high standards and credibility and don't give out 95% for every game just because it looks shiny. Don't believe us? Watch THIS!"

I think G3 is suffering from Oblivion backlash.
 

Naked_Lunch

Erudite
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
5,360
Location
Norway, 1967
Plus, you don't need to get the chalices and all that junk to complete the game, or at least that's what I've been hearing and looks like from the walkthroughs I've glanced at. I wish reviewers would try to make at least a half-assed attempt to make it look like they've played the game.

It seems that once the game didn't recognize the mouse he just went apeshit and ignored all the good things. Yet Oblivion doesn't even recongize/play correctly with some cards under the "recommended" requirements. R00FLES!

Then again, this is the same man that gave Gothic 2 a 2/5 because it was too hard so everything is just speculation.
 

Ladonna

Arcane
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
10,637
Huh? He hated Gothic 2? And from that I am guessing he hated G1..

Then why the fuck did they get him to review a Gothic game?
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
890
It's a sad day when retards (R00fles!!!!) are allowed to review games that seem like they are just trying TOO hard to act retarded (remember Ave on the rewired mind thread?). As Admiral Jimbob pointed out more subtley, I think that payoffs are in order at this place. Can't wait for future reviews.

Since most Gothic fanboys are (sadly) too numb in the head to take action, I suggest we bombard Gamespy with Soviet Propaganda Posters demonstrating them as being Bethesda's bitch. Even if Bethesda IS NOT tipping them off, that still means they are too Oblivion-ized to see cleary, therefore, still Bethesda's bitch. Might be a good lesson for other reviewers (or maybe every site will auto-censor us, yay!!! we're so bad *giggle*).
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
890
Ladonna said:
Huh? He hated Gothic 2? And from that I am guessing he hated G1..

Then why the fuck did they get him to review a Gothic game?

Must be their "designated" Gothic reviewer...
 

germx

Novice
Joined
May 28, 2004
Messages
33
Location
Sweden
For all the good elements in quest and world design, even here the game manages to screw up. Supporting one side or the other will eventually piss off the other side so badly that their strongholds will attack you on sight.

Yeah, don't you just hate when you choices matter?
Oblivion is so much better, where you can be the leader of the thieves-guild and the dark brotherhood at the same time (If i'm not mistaken, they really hate eachother?).

Though I do think oblivion is more fun to play, I have to say that this is pretty retarded.
 

Vival

Augur
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
230
The Vanished One said:
Not a review, just a point of view. I've read a lot of reviews lately that are like this. These 'review sites' are paying attention to what their articles are? A review has to be OBJECTIVE!

NO WAY! I want reviews to be as subjective as possible. I want to read true thoughts. Objectivity is nothing more than a facade to disguise your true impressions(think political correctness). If you really think the gameplay, graphics etc. is shit/great/whatever write it! It shouldn't matter for you if someone might feel different because that's unavoidable. Objectivity is weakness while subjectivity is confidence in yourself and your opinion.That's why I love internet forums where you can find endless variety of sentiments and opinions on certain topics.
 

Lumpy

Arcane
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
8,525
Vival said:
The Vanished One said:
Not a review, just a point of view. I've read a lot of reviews lately that are like this. These 'review sites' are paying attention to what their articles are? A review has to be OBJECTIVE!

NO WAY! I want reviews to be as subjective as possible. I want to read true thoughts. Objectivity is nothing more than a facade to disguise your true impressions(think political correctness). If you really think the gameplay, graphics etc. is shit/great/whatever write it! It shouldn't matter for you if someone might feel different because that's unavoidable. Objectivity is weakness while subjectivity is confidence in yourself and your opinion.That's why I love internet forums where you can find endless variety of sentiments and opinions on certain topics.
The difference between a forum post and a large website should be obvious. While the former is clearly perceived as an opinion, the later is seen as the official opinion of the entire site. So it will affect the decision of that site's readers.
So biased opinions should be kept for forum posts.
 

Vival

Augur
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
230
Lumpy said:
The difference between a forum post and a large website should be obvious. While the former is clearly perceived as an opinion, the later is seen as the official opinion of the entire site. So it will affect the decision of that site's readers.
So biased opinions should be kept for forum posts.

Huh? What official opinion? Only because some individuals at some webpage live under the illusion of having a collective opinion it should be treated different?
 

Brother None

inXile Entertainment
Developer
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
5,673
Vault Dweller said:
Every time I criticize a stupid Gothic 3 review, someone screams "Fanboy!".

Isn't that just Volo?

Vault Dweller said:
Yet Oblivion deserves 4/5, while Gothic 3 is worth only 1.5. Good work, Allen.

I don't see the problem in his scoring from his own perception. If Oblivion's bug, which are as far as I know less serious than G3's, weigh in for .5 a point and G3's "massive bugs" (as he calls them) for 1.0 a point, and the rest of Oblivion's bad stuff for the other .5 of a point and the rest of G3's bad stuff for 2.5 of a point (which would make sense since his criticisms of G3 are bigger than those of Oblivion), his math makes perfect sense.

As far as bugs are concerned, at least.

And it's still just his opinion.

But I'm just saying, your logic doesn't really work.

Huh? He hated Gothic 2? And from that I am guessing he hated G1..

Then why the fuck did they get him to review a Gothic game?

Are you saying disliking a game means you can't review any sequels of it? So...uhm...what was VD doing with Oblivion, according to your logic?

PS: I'm also confused as to if this newspost was about Gothic 3 or Oblivion. Don't get caught up in their mindgames, VD, Gothic 3 is not Oblivion and Oblivion is not the basis of comparison for Gothic 3. Fuck them and their stupid comparisons between Gothic 3 and the "best game of all time"
 

Kraszu

Prophet
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
3,253
Location
Poland
Game should not be review by somebody who hate the series, he obviously want the game to be something that people who liked previous games don't want it to became.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
5,933
Location
Scotland
Are you saying disliking a game means you can't review any sequels of it? So...uhm...what was VD doing with Oblivion, according to your logic?

Well, he liked Daggerfall, and there were a few obscure references by previewers to Oblivion having a "more Daggerfall feel".
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Kharn said:
Isn't that just Volo?
Sadly, no.

I don't see the problem in his scoring from his own perception. If Oblivion's bug, which are as far as I know less serious than G3's, weigh in for .5 a point and G3's "massive bugs" (as he calls them) for 1.0 a point, and the rest of Oblivion's bad stuff for the other .5 of a point and the rest of G3's bad stuff for 2.5 of a point (which would make sense since his criticisms of G3 are bigger than those of Oblivion), his math makes perfect sense.
IF. Anyway, assuming that you are right, what's not clear is why Oblivion's bugs go for .5 (see the paragraph from his Oblivion review that I quoted) and why G3 bugs go for 1.0. The biggest "mystary", however, is the other bad stuff's rating. He criticized G3 dialogues, yet Oblivion's dialogues are about the same or worse. He critcized both interfaces. He admitted that the G3 faction system was far more successful than that in Oblivion. He praised RAI, but failed to notice G3's NPCs who behave much more realistically. And so on.
 

Brother None

inXile Entertainment
Developer
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
5,673
Vault Dweller said:
IF. Anyway, assuming that you are right, what's not clear is why Oblivion's bugs go for .5 (see the paragraph from his Oblivion review that I quoted) and why G3 bugs go for 1.0.

More annoying, I guess. He's quite a bit more elaborate in describing his Gothic 3 bugs, and from his description they sound worst. Hell, by most accounts I've heard Gothic 3 was bugged worse at released than Oblivion.

(not counting "terrible design" as a bug here)
(note I haven't played Gothic 3, so I can't really attack or defend the reviewer, his logic isn't just that illogical, I think)

Vault Dweller said:
The biggest "mystary", however, is the other bad stuff's rating.

True, I'll give you that, but then the flaw would be in his *other* ratings, while your newspost seems to indicate the reviewing is imbalanced because of the bug rating specifically.

Might just be my reading, though

Fight the power!
 

denizsi

Arcane
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
9,927
Location
bosphorus
NO WAY! I want reviews to be as subjective as possible. I want to read true thoughts. Objectivity is nothing more than a facade to disguise your true impressions(think political correctness). If you really think the gameplay, graphics etc. is shit/great/whatever write it! It shouldn't matter for you if someone might feel different because that's unavoidable. Objectivity is weakness while subjectivity is confidence in yourself and your opinion.That's why I love internet forums where you can find endless variety of sentiments and opinions on certain topics.

I believe your understanding of objectivity is screwed up. You can find subjectivity anywhere, because it doesn't require any rule or reasoning, any sound explanations, any mental effort in short. However, you can form your own subjective opinion based on objective observations and the objective point of reference will still be there for everyone else to resort to, even after you twist it to fit your own subjectivism. Baseless subjectivity (which is what you said is coming to) takes you nowhere, except for down the shithole.

Also, claiming that objectivity is weak is absurd because it is in subjectivity that you can easily hide behind your subjectivity and turn a blind eye to mere possibilities. That is weak and cowardly.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom