Review Arcania - Less Gothic than Risen

[Jason]

Tags: Gothic 4: Arcania

<p>Our Vlach friends over at ComputerGames.ro are the latest to <a href="http://computergames.ro/en/games/viewitem/id/2216/name/arcania-gothic-4/section/review.html" target="_blank">share their thoughts</a> on <strong>ArcaniA: Gothic 4</strong>.</p>
<blockquote>After a tormenting adventure with a similar ending, the conclusion is obvious. It&rsquo;s a pity for that Gothic 4 in the title, the game would have been better off with ArcaniA - A Gothic Tale, considering they decided to make the series mainstream. On the other hand, games like this one make you appreciate Risen even more, although it too was criticized; truth be told, Risen is more Gothic 4 than the game which bears the name officially.<br /><br />ArcaniA is functional, it looks good, but it offers nothing special in its 20 or so hours. And if this is the bright future of the series, I can already say &ldquo;May it rest in peace&rdquo;.</blockquote>
<p><br /><em>Thanks to Mr Rosca</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[StrangeCase]

ArcaniA is functional, it looks good, but it offers nothing special in its 20 or so hours. And if this is the bright future of the series, I can already say “May it rest in peace”.

The first sentence doesn't really reflect the review, IMO. He trashes the game in much the same way Darth Roxor did, but ends with "functional", "looks good", and "nothing special" (though the final sentence is pretty damning, I will admit.) Plus he scores it 57/100. Just call it like it is, already. The game is garbage and you just spent 4 pages explaining why, no need to be shy about it.

 

[DalekFlay]

The first sentence doesn't really reflect the review, IMO. He trashes the game in much the same way Darth Roxor did, but ends with "functional", "looks good", and "nothing special" (though the final sentence is pretty damning, I will admit.) Plus he scores it 57/100. Just call it like it is, already. The game is garbage and you just spent 4 pages explaining why, no need to be shy about it.

Most reviewers save <5 for games that are basically non-functional. From the demo I can say Arcania looks pretty and has some mindlessly amusing hack n' slash gameplay... assuming it has inventive locations to see I could understand giving it a 5 based on that, as long as the text of the review makes it clear that is why.

 

[Bossman]

The first sentence doesn't really reflect the review, IMO. He trashes the game in much the same way Darth Roxor did, but ends with "functional", "looks good", and "nothing special" (though the final sentence is pretty damning, I will admit.) Plus he scores it 57/100. Just call it like it is, already. The game is garbage and you just spent 4 pages explaining why, no need to be shy about it.

There's only so much we could detract before going into "complaining just for the sake of complaining" territory. Yes, the game is bad, but it's not that close to the "beloved" Forsaken Gods either.

 

[StrangeCase]

There's only so much we could detract before going into "complaining just for the sake of complaining" territory. Yes, the game is bad, but it's not that close to the "beloved" Forsaken Gods either.

I guess that's fair. I just thought the review's tone was pretty uniformly negative, and was expecting a score of 3 or 4 instead of almost 6. Then again, I'm accustomed to the Codex, where complaining for the sake of complaining is gleefully encouraged.

Also, I never played Forsaken Gods. I might just have to.

 

[Andhaira]

News post did not contain any joke(s).

 

[CraigCWB]

ArcaniA is functional, it looks good, but it offers nothing special in its 20 or so hours.

And Risen did? I must have missed the "special" parts. Maybe that's because I got bored in the beginning of Chapter 2 and never got any further. I enjoyed Gothic III more than Risen, and I didn't enjoy Gothic III very much. I don't know what's happening with these developers, but somebody needs to tell them that their games are supposed to be getting better over time, and not worse.

 

[MicoSelva]

Risen is more Gothic 4 than the game which bears the name officially.

That's quite an epic [Perception] check success.

 

[DalekFlay]

And Risen did? I must have missed the "special" parts. Maybe that's because I got bored in the beginning of Chapter 2 and never got any further. I enjoyed Gothic III more than Risen, and I didn't enjoy Gothic III very much. I don't know what's happening with these developers, but somebody needs to tell them that their games are supposed to be getting better over time, and not worse.

I loved Risen (until the endgame anyway)... what was your issue with it?

 

[CraigCWB]

I loved Risen (until the endgame anyway)... what was your issue with it?

I didn't have any particular issue with it. I just didn't find it very interesting. What was it you loved about it? How would you rate the combat? The quests? The environment? The story? I can't think of any category where Risen was above average, in my estimation. Games don't have to do everything well, but they should excel at SOMETHING, right? For instance, Mass Effect 2... not my favorite game, but I enjoyed the combat enough that I wish there'd been more of it. And the story was pretty good, though I wish maybe it'd been presented in a less intrusive way. I give ME2 about a 7/10. So what does Risen which didn't have anything to recommend it (for me at least) rate in my book?

In fairness, these Gothic games have always been pretty dull compared to the competition but when Gothic 1 shipped it contained a lot of innovations, and the combat system was actually better than what other RPGs like Morrowind were able to pull off. Now, ~10 years later that stuff is (gothic) cliche and they have the same combat system as far as I can tell, and it's not better than what other RPGs are doing anymore.

Also, I think their whole "world" map for Risen was about the size of one zone in Everquest. Where's the sense of exploration when the game map is the size of a postage stamp? Especially when they don't even let you access the whole postage stamp at the same time.

 

[Konjad]

Forsaken Gods > Arcania (though I didn't play more than 2 hrs any of them, they were unplayable imo)

 

[Felix]

Risen's combat > shitty combat in Bioware's games.

 

[commie]

Risen's combat > shitty combat in Bioware's games.

Risen's world > shitty world in Bethesda's games.

 

[CraigCWB]

Risen's world < Sebilis

Maybe the problem is that people have forgotten what good games are actually like...

 

[Azrael the cat]

See I don't get this thing of marking a game you've reviewed as awful as still scoring over 50%. It makes sense when you're grading undergrad essays, as you need to leave a large buffer between 'crap essay' and 'didn't bother handing it in', so a 'total' fail is only around 40%, making you mark between 40-90 instead of 1-100. But that's just pragmatic - it stops students from thinking 'I'm going to go crap anyway, so I won't even try', and provides a basis for distinguishing the students who might deserve conditional passes from those who ought to be booted out of the course. In highschool marking, I presume it's got a lot to do with self-esteem - give a teenager 8% in an essay and he'll probably give up on that subject for life.

With game reviewing there's no pragmatic upside to putting an artificial floor at 50%. It just means that readers have to be familiar with the reviewer in advance, so they can interpret the score correctly. Ok, leave a bit of room for games that don't actually work, or for the odd possibility that a game developer sends out mpgs of Rick Astley on their CDs instead of the game. But 50%?

I know this all complaining about the obvious, and is news to nobody here, but it does seem to be accelerating. We're getting grade score inflation in a self-perpetuating manner. I'm hoping that eventually the grade floor will hit 90%. That way we can all go back to reviewing games out of 10, and just happen to put a 9 in front of the score.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Risen's world < Sebilis

Maybe the problem is that people have forgotten what good games are actually like...

Yeah, I've seen a bunch of comments from folk complaining about how NV is rude enough to not let them open every door and accomplish every task by maxing out every skill in the one character. One guy at gamefaqs was whining about how it requires so much grinding, because he can't open every door at the start of the game. Others are saying it ruins their roleplaying because they're limited in what parts of the game they can do, instead of being able to do whatever they want whenever they want - as though it's better for a game not to take any notice of your build or actions so you can LARP without interruption.

Even if you don't like NV - or especially if you don't like NV - it's simply retarded that folks complain about it being too hardcore simply because it has some token rpg elements.

 

[flushfire]

Risen's combat > shitty combat in Bioware's games.

I liked Risen (the first 2 chapters at least) but I have to disagree. Sure, the early fights were challenging because you didn't do a lot of damage and was still probably learning the timing, but after gaining a few levels the combat declines into few varieties:
1. (chapter 1) approach enemy with shield, wait for it to attack, combo, repeat
2. charge attack 1-hit kill if alive dash back repeat
3. kill enemy in 1-3 hits with bow
4. freeze enemy, fireball other enemy, run/dash back repeat
5. reload

Basically in Risen just pump whatever stat your chosen weapon bases it's damage off of and combat quickly becomes less entertaining. While DA:O isn't as challenging as Risen's 1st 2 chapters at least it had some situations where you needed tactical advantage and not just more damage to win. And yeah, DA:O had the derp roads but Risen had entire chapters that were full of derp.

 

[DalekFlay]

Risen's combat was simple, but it was a standard action RPG. Not sure what else it could have done really.

 

[flushfire]

maybe add more enemies with ranged attacks that were actually a threat. maybe give enemies the same animation recovery & hit priority that you did. maybe give your character a proper "step-in" attack instead of the charge attack that's either 1-hit or miss/repeat.

 

[Shannow]

Risen's combat was simple, but it was a standard action RPG. Not sure what else it could have done really.

It could have used G2's combat mechanics
Either way, still better than DA.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

Risen's world < Sebilis

Maybe the problem is that people have forgotten what good games are actually like...

You say this after praising Mass Effects combat, and Gothic 3? Yes, that will indeed encourage me to take your opinion seriously...

Risen combat is not G1 or 2 that is true, but it is much better than Gothic 3 or Mass Effect combat.

 

[TsongaKralj]

Risen's world < Sebilis

Maybe the problem is that people have forgotten what good games are actually like...

You say this after praising Mass Effects combat, and Gothic 3? Yes, that will indeed encourage me to take your opinion seriously...

Risen combat is not G1 or 2 that is true, but it is much better than Gothic 3 or Mass Effect combat.

I love Gothic 1&2(especially the first one)but I'd say combat system and voice acting are two things PB did better in Risen.Not that I don't like combat in G1/2,I do but IMO as far as ARPGs go Risen IMO has the best combat system I've ever seen which is one of the reasons I enjoyed even the 2nd part of the game which basically consists dungeon crawling and whacking lizards(has some nice puzzles as well with elevation and telekinesis though which was a nice touch).

Overall I'd say Risen is definitely true to it's Gothic roots and is a worthy sequel.Aside from that G3 fiasco PB has stayed loyal to its fanbase(a rarity in a modern gaming era)which is why I'm really looking forward to Risen 2.