Jasede said:
post post post scriptum: VD, really? What are your detail settings?
No clue. I didn't have time to tweak anything. Installed the game, installed the patch, pressed play. The quality was very decent.
Excrement said:
VD is the more biased reviewer I ever seen.
If he review Gothic 3 based on his proper RPG principles (choices and consequences / dialogue/ storyline...) he will arrive to the same conclusion he had for Oblivion.
It's not a review, surely you understand that? These are early impressions, nothing more. Besides, I didn't review Oblivion based on the choices/dialogues/storyline criteria as it's a TES game (in other words, a series not known for any of the above). I reviewed Oblivion's features and I'll do the same with Gothic 3. So far, I like G3 a lot more.
...he just decided for marketing purposes to define this website as the anti-bethesda and the anti-oblivion place
For marketing purposes? I'm surprised that so many people can't get a simple fact: I didn't like Oblivion. I didn't like what I read about when it was in development, and I didn't like the final product. I explained why in many details. Yet some people are still trying to find the *real* reason. The other day I read on another forum that RPG Codex would have loved Oblivion if Bethesda didn't get the Fallout license. I mean, is it that hard to accept the fact that Oblivion had many flaws and overall was nothing but a fantasy shooter with overly linear quests that held your hand so tight they left marks?
Again, I explained my reasons many times; do they make no sense at all, while that "marketing purposes" crap does?
Gothic 3 = potential competitor which can piss Bethesda off so Gothic 3 = Great Game (with great arguments like "I love the graphics!!" and "the combat are not that bad...")
A few hours long impressions, moron, without any "great gaem! lol" conclusions.
As for the graphics and combat, here are some quotes from my Oblivion review:
"Oblivion's dungeons are somewhere in between, and overall, superbly done. They are well designed, very atmospheric, with levers, buttons, and secret doors, and everything else you might expect from a good dungeon."
"Now, let's take a look at the combat from the action point of view. Hmm, not bad. I can hit anything that my sword connects with, I can jump back and forth, I can cast spells without having to disarm, and I can block manually, holding my shield up, while advancing in a totally menacing way. A big step forward from the MW's system."
For the moment Gothic 3 looks to be an excellent action RPG with the specific atmosphere the gothic fans enjoyed but in terms of pure role-playing, sorry to say that, but all the people who played the game didn't show me the famous "consequences" we all want!
Being able to take sides in the conflict already places G3 above Oblivion in terms of role-playing.
Oblivion because of the atmosphere of the game.
No. See above.
but that's a question of taste, some can prefer the gritty graphics and the less childish G3 others prefer shiny graphics with the elderscrolls lore depth.
First, the lore was fucked and there was no depth to it in Oblivion. Second, it's not about who prefers what. It's about a game that was supposed to be dark and feature a demonic invasion, yet ended up looking like Disney's Bambi.
from the art point of view this game is a marvel
RPG Codex has the honoour to announce the beginning of the "Graphic Whores Contest 2006"
let's initiate to the rules :
shiny = bad, xbox kiddie graphics
gritty = art!
Art, moron, not graphics. For example, Fallout had great art that still stands out even today, even though its graphics have faded. MW had fantasic art, Oblivion looks generic and plain. Do I really have to explain that to you?
