Review Absolutely idiotic Gothic 3 review

[aries202]

Ok, my first post here, but Im been reading the foruns for a while. For me Volourn has a point: Ive been following VD commentaries on Gothic 3 reviews and although most of those reviews are indeed stupid, he gets way too defensive whenever someone points a a flaw or a problem with this game.

Im playing G3 now and although it is a good game, Im cant help to feel disapointed, since G2, that I played just 2 months ago, is cleary superior in almost everything (everything except the graphics and the interface).

I hate the new combat system: pure mindless button mashing. G2 combat was no Mount & Blade, but was fun and challenging. And even by the end of the game, at level 37, I could never just button mash my way trough dozens of orcs and get away with it. Now I can, is just too easy. Except for beasts of course: I can slaughter 15 orcs all alone just by slamming the right mouse button and killing then all one-by-one while the others wait pacientlly for their turn to get wacked; but if 2 wolves decide to atack me, I better run becouse I will be down in no time).

I hate how movement is slow and clunsy (comparing to G2). Dialogs and quests are also much less interesting, at least so far (maybe it gets better later). Ai is also terrible, terrible, terrible. In G2 it was decent, not brilliant, but decent. Now its just ridiculous.

Also, while the game is indeed beautiful, it does not justifies the horrible performance in decent PCs. Tweaking a bit, Ive managed to get it to be pretty playable on my computer (which is quite a decent one), but I still keep having those annoying little freezes every now and then when walknig around the map (is probably the game loading). The loading times are also outrageous, but I can accept that (when I first played Fallout 2, my computer was pretty weak and loading could take around 2 minutes, but that dint screwed the game for me).

Also, you mocked the reviewr for feeling surprised by not being attacked by orcs, but I just felt the same thing. I just walked into a patrol of orcs (one of the quests of Reddock), expecting to be attacked, or at least aproached, stoped, anything. But they just acted like any friendly npc and ignored me. That doest not make much sense to me: why are they patroling for, after all, if a heavilly armed human can walk across their post without being bothered? There is a rebelion going on and a they let suspicius armed guys roam freely around the country? Thats bullshit. Is like a if an arab bearing an ak-47 on his back would just walk into an american patrol on Iraq and the soldiers just ignores him and only do something when the guy starts shooting at then.

G3 is a good game, but is cleary inferior to G2 (never played G1 to know) and how everyone knows, it was rushed and it is unfinished. The last patches improved the situation a but, but it is have tons of flaws and bugs. They improved the graphics and the interface (vey good in almost all aspects), but let everything else go worst: plot, writing, combat, overall gameplay, performance, AI, everything. Just like most game developers are doing these days, why be so tolerant with PB?

There is no reason to to act has if the game is a masterpiece and bash anyone who disagree with that. VD and most of you just keep ignoring the obvious and huge problems this game has and keep repeating that everyone who does not think G3 is the cat´s pijamas is a dumb oblivion player or hates "true rpgs" and blah, blah, blah. The game is just not that good, and is very sad to think that it is probably the last Gothic game.

I agree with this poster about the, imo, horrendous combat system.
When you play as a sort of a solo character, I think the way combat should be handled is that you ought to control your character's moves in combat. (much like Oblivion does).

As for the reviewer and quoted poster being surprised as to why they have not been attacked by orcs in gothic 3, I feel compelled to remind them of the story behind the game. (or some of the story behind the game).

One of the premises, which Piranha Bytes has been totally open about is the fact that the orcs (sort of) have won the war with the
humans. (it would be sort of if the iraqis did win the war ---- just to follow your own given example). Then the Orcs would have no reason to attack you --- unless you did something to annoy them, say liberated all slaves.
(which the orcs actually profit from selling....).

Actually, there isn't a rebellion going on (against the orcs). Most people just go on about their dialy business, trying to fit in as best they can.
Others like the rebels are in fact trying to get the humans back in charge again.

In this setting, your nameless character arrives, and so he must
choose a path: Does he side with the orcs or does he side with the rebels or does he side with some other faction in Myrtana ? If you and your Player Character decides that you would like to side with the rebels, then
you can do so.

THe reason the Orcs ignored you is because you to them (as of yet) just
is a pawn, a minor human, who they need not to take any notice - yet.
However, if you do not side with the Orcs, but side with the Rebels, or other factions, then, at some point, the Orcs do become interested in you.
(this mainly remembered from info found on the internet and the codex's own G3 review).

I also agree with the qouted poster that movement is sort of slow and
chops a lot, the fps is sometimes a little behind. However, I think this has more to do with my Nvidia 6600 GT than Gothic 3 itself.

I, for one, having played only the demo so far, are looking forward to playing the full game.


aries202

 

[cutterjohn]

Review: His openeing paragraph implies that the only other "RPG" that he has played is Oblivion, and the rest of the review follows right along like an Oblivion fanboy would've written.

BTW Volourn are you a closet Oblivion fanboy?

Would a "r00fles!" here be too predictable?

I've been meaning to ask, WTF is a r00fles?

Just some dumbass Volourn dumbfuck comment?

In any event, Volourn, if you don't like teh Gothic series, at least put in some coherent remarks. It's not my favorite series either, but it's still a decent game and there aren't exactly a shitload of recent choices to pick amongst... And reading you trite remarks in almost every single thread, which have no meaning other than to re-inforce your tag is becoming slightly annoying. After all a few weeks ago you seemed like any other poster around here except for your tag...

Addendum: Hanlon's razor postulates:

Never attribute to mallice that which can be reasonably explained with stupidity

I believe that it actually goes something more like:
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.

Also, I believe that it's attributable to N. Bonaparte.

 

[Volourn]

"Volourn, if you don't like teh Gothic series, at least put in some coherent remarks."

I see there's a fuckin' moron here who didn't bother to read the ntire thread yet decide to comment on the D R A M A. Hilariously R00flefied! :D


"And reading you trite remarks in almost every single thread, which have no meaning other than to re-inforce your tag is becoming slightly annoying. After all a few weeks ago you seemed like any other poster around here except for your tag..."

Bullshit. My posting style hasn't changed AT ALL. Fuckin' moron. I am not like 'every other poster'. I'm not a part of ANY Hivemind. Dumbass.


"No, I haven't. I criticized Bio games for the lack of meaningful choices, and certain other design decisions, but not the combat ratio."

Denial is the root of all sin. Believe me I know that when I call myself handsome and then look in a mirror. R00fles!


"It's a well done action RPG. You have a shitload of skills that create and support a shitload of unique builds, which creates and supports a shitload of different ways to play the game."

Except the Action part (80% of the game as you point out) is NOT well done. It'
s very simple, and is nothing but a click fist. What an evidence. Boars. If I click fuckin' fast enough alternating right and left clicks; I can squash the boar without any dmaage. hwoever, if I make one slip up and the boar gets a lucky hit in; I'm pretty much toast. It's nearly impossible tor ecover. I have; but it's luck. Thankfully, I prfetty much always get first strike in so the combat has been relatively easy thus far. It's too bad because outside of combat the game is really good. Too bad the rest of the game is only 20%. L0LLERZ


"I feel that way about ToEE because it's a great dungeon crawler featuring the best turn-based combat todate."

Yeah. Let's go with that theory. Others here may believe that story; but the evidence proves otherwise. Afterall, accoridng to you both G3 and TOEE have no or very few bugs and all those who are suffering major problems ar emaking the shit up. Sounds fanboyish to me. At least I have the ballz 9not that it really takes anything toa dmit the truth) that NWN1 did have its shar eof bugs and people did have problems getting it to work even though I didn't. The day you can admit that these games had bugs that caused otehrs' to have problems with the game and not because said person was stupid then I'll stop labelling you a fanboy. Deal, 'my buddy'?


"Let me worry about that, and you worry about not getting what you deserve."

Why are you worried about it? It's NOT that big of a deal. I'm certainly not worried about it. Consideirng I've pratucally begged for it before, and I'm surely not gonna change my posting style which I've been doing for years just for the 'privlege' of posting on this board. I may like the Codex overall; but I'm not gonna beg to post here either. I don't handle intimidation well. In fact, it tends to make me do the opposite of what the fool trying to thretaen me wants me to do.


"So now "tactical" is a new requirement for an RPG, is it?"

If an RPG is going to have combat and lots of it; you better damn believe it better be tatical, challenging, and fun. If I'm gonna be doing soemthing for that much of my playing time I friggin better enjoy. That's why I liekd FO. It had role--playing; but it also had a lot of combat (unless you role-played a coward); but the combat was fun and for the most part (at least on the first play through) decently challenging yet logical combat (within reason). So, yeah fuckin;' damn fuckin' straight, I'm gonna jduge G3's combat.


"Well, if I'm so biased, how about a simple link or some quotes? Shouldn't be hard to find."

I shouldn't have to. Read any of your 'reviews' of reviews and replies to those who dislike G3 or some aspect of G3. Most of it is about bashing the person just as much (or nearly as much) as replying to the actual points the person is trying to make. This thread (your first post so we won't count our litle D R A M A) illustrates it fully.


R00fles!


"BTW Volourn are you a closet Oblivion fanboy?"

You claim to hate my posts hinting that you've read your fair share of them and you feel the need to answer this question? Moron.

 

[Vault Dweller]

"No, I haven't. I criticized Bio games for the lack of meaningful choices, and certain other design decisions, but not the combat ratio."

Denial is the root of all sin. Believe me I know that when I call myself handsome and then look in a mirror. R00fles!

Prove it. Alternatively, feel free to shut the fuck up.

"It's a well done action RPG. You have a shitload of skills that create and support a shitload of unique builds, which creates and supports a shitload of different ways to play the game."

Except the Action part (80% of the game as you point out) is NOT well done. It'
s very simple, and is nothing but a click fist.

I was talking about Diablo 2 there.

Too bad the rest of the game is only 20%. L0LLERZ

Too bad indeed, but the 20% is pretty damn good, which was the point of my review.

Afterall, accoridng to you both G3 and TOEE have no or very few bugs and all those who are suffering major problems ar emaking the shit up.

I didn't have any problems with neither game, thus I'm unable to confirm the horror stories and bugs that happened to other people.

The day you can admit that these games had bugs that caused otehrs' to have problems with the game and not because said person was stupid then I'll stop labelling you a fanboy. Deal, 'my buddy'?

I admit - not that I have ever denied - that ToEE and Gothic 3 have bugs and technical issues that may prevent other people from enjoying/playing said games properly. HOWEVER, I do believe that both ToEE and G3 "bugginess" has been vastly exaggerated.

Consideirng I've pratucally begged for it before, and I'm surely not gonna change my posting style which I've been doing for years just for the 'privlege' of posting on this board.

Once again, you've already changed it and I thank you for that.

In fact, it tends to make me do the opposite of what the fool trying to thretaen me wants me to do.

It's so cute.

 

[Volourn]

"Prove it. Alternatively, feel free to shut the fuck up."

Prove that I'm ugly? No fuckin' way. Shut up? No fuckin' way.


"I was talking about Diablo 2 there."

Good on you. Then again, I didn;t make fun of your comments about Diablo 2. So pont not found.


"Too bad indeed, but the 20% is pretty damn good, which was the point of my review."

So... 80% of the game is 'shitty' combat; but 20% is good so the game si worthy of 80-85%? L0L0LLIPOP


"I didn't have any problems with neither game, thus I'm unable to confirm the horror stories and bugs that happened to other people."

You, and otehr Troika fnaboys didn't stop there. You also accused those who had problems - like me - of making the problems up, having shitty computers, or being stupid. And, before you ask for a stupid fuckin' link, use the search button provided by the Codex Gods. That's why its here.


"Once again, you've already changed it and I thank you for that."

No, I haven't. You wish i did; but you'd be wrong as per usual. Are yout alking about me using paragrpaghs and defending my views? I've always fuckin' done that when i felt it was warranted. Otherwsie, peopel get fuckin' R00fled like theyd eserve. Damn. I though as my 'good buddy' you'd be smart enoough to remember all those posts. R00fles!

 

[denizsi]

It's obvious that the reviewer is a retard, to write a pretentious review without any real effort put into it and with logical inconsistencies, which doesn't go beyond initial impressions and gives false impressions with the "review" title. As someone who hasn't played the game yet, I still have no fucking clue about the game simply based on that "review".

Volourn is annoying indeed and very often lately, with his practice of "anti-VD fanboyism" and coming up with stupid explanations regarding the review in this case, but still, I'd say nay to banning, for anyone unless (s)he's a genuine disruptor for all purposes. I think Volourn still has some way to go until he hits that low spot.

That said, the banning threat wasn't in place or necessary in my opinion. However, here's a Volournian explanation of the threat, just to needle Volourn for the same kind of thing he does (not that I actually expect him to care enough to comprehend it though):

We all know banning isn't a regular moderation option in Codex, that this is RPG Codex and not VD Codex, and neither he or another admin would really ban anyone short of a real retard being a retard. So, he treated Volly just to shape him up, as can be evidenced by his comment where VD is calling Volly "cupcake".

 

[Vault Dweller]

"Too bad indeed, but the 20% is pretty damn good, which was the point of my review."

So... 80% of the game is 'shitty' combat; but 20% is good so the game si worthy of 80-85%?

KOTOR and especially KOTOR 2 also had a lot of combat (at least 70%). What's your point? You can't judge games like that. Well, you can, but that would be stupid, which may explain why you like it.

You, and otehr Troika fnaboys didn't stop there. You also accused those who had problems - like me - of making the problems up, having shitty computers, or being stupid.

I don't think we were entirely wrong on the last one.

No, I haven't. You wish i did; but you'd be wrong as per usual. Are yout alking about me using paragrpaghs and defending my views?

Yes, dumbo. Not defending your views, but presenting your views and explaining your disagreements.

I've always fuckin' done that when i felt it was warranted.

Not lately.

 

[Vault Dweller]

We all know banning isn't a regular moderation option in Codex, that this is RPG Codex and not VD Codex, and neither he or another admin would really ban anyone short of a real retard being a retard. So, he treated Volly just to shape him up, as can be evidenced by his comment where VD is calling Volly "cupcake".

Exactly. Borrowing a line from Mallrats: What can I say? I love the retard.

 

[Volourn]

"Not defending your views, but presenting your views and explaining your disagreements."

That's bullshit, and anyone who reads this forum knows that. Sure, I have my share of one liners (as do most); but I also discuss and back up my claims inbetween all my bashing and insults and swearing.

I did it when if irst got here, I did it 6 months ago, and I did it now. The only time I ever changed my posting style here for any reason was the fun I had in the Feedback forum awhile back. So stop the bullshit.

Example: The recent NWN2 threads while full of my insuolting others also has plenty fo posts by me backing up why I think what i do about NWN2.

So, whya re you fuckin' making shit up?


"Not lately."

Stop lying. It's embarrasing. The key her eis when *I* feel it's warranted. Not when you or Buckeroo thinks it is. demanding me to 'prove' soemthing is lame and gets one nowehre and definitely not any links except .1% of the time.


"I think Volourn still has some way to go until he hits that low spot."

Actually, I hit that low spot awhile back and I still didn't get banned. R00fles!

 

[cutterjohn]

retardo land?

@Volourn
r00fles

 

[ixg]

Vault Dweller and Volourn are just doing this to raise their post counts.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

demanding me to 'prove' soemthing is lame and gets one nowehre and definitely not any links except .1% of the time

Interesting thought. Not a great surprise it leads nowhere if you're going to completely ignore it though.

Now darling, you accuse VD of saying something which he denies ever doing; you have the entire Codex history at your disposal -- drive your point home. Or, shut the fuck up. Don't try to drag your sorry ass in circles around the point. Christ, I don't remember you ever being this asinine.

And screw you for fucking up my first post too -- I just couldn't hold it any longer.

 

[Roqua]

This game didn't reach its full potential, shipped buggy, even unplayable to a lot of users, with unbalanced and crap combat, due to putting too much emphasis on trying to out0graphic oblivion.

This, sadly, appears true. The question is though:

Was this a commercial necessity?

You see, I think it was. I suspect huge numbers of potential buyers nowadays are put off by comments on 'review' sites which say "the graphics are OK, but not as good as Oblivion" - heck, let's face it, the majority of reviews would outright say "the graphics suckz!" if its merely at the standard of the previous games, ie not DX9 shaderised and shit. At any rate, it's probably not worth the risk to the publisher for a game to not have the latest supa shinies.

Is it a commercial necessity? Wouldn't that be saying all of Gothic's fans are superficial bitches, or enough of them that the graphics not being super awesome would make the game not worth making?

G3 very well could of made this game with half the budget, and released it with less shinny graphics with better combat and in better shape. The developers chose the wanted this game to lead the way with graphics. It 100% wasn't a necessity. They are chasing the Oblivion fans and reach for the stars, instead of making the best game possible for the fans who made a G3 possible, mainly through word of mouth.

Selling out is never a necessity. Resource allocation and the terms of debt aquisition are all changable/negotiable. We all know that PB wanted a Blockbuster hit. I can't hold that against them. If PB has share holder's that would actually be their fiscal duty. I can't hold wanting to make as popular a game as possible against them, but I can blaim them for deciding that making the most popular game ever equals having the best graphics ever, as this mind set makes me want to kill people. The most resource intensive part of any game should never be the presentation, but always the gameplay.

And if the graphics weren't as fancy, all these oblivion reviewers would never have given the game a try, and then never would have written reviews, and this post would never have been here.

If they want to see a real return on this game, they need to fix the bugs and release it on the Xbox and PS3. That seems to be their target market anyway with clickfest combat and heavy emphasis on graphics.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

Is it a commercial necessity? Wouldn't that be saying all of Gothic's fans are superficial bitches, or enough of them that the graphics not being super awesome would make the game not worth making?

Good point. The previous Gothic games were ugly as sin compared to other games on the market, really -- they certainly were never on the cutting edge, graphics-wise. They still sold enough to warrant two sequels. Can't blame them for wanting to make their game look beautiful, but making it first priority is a rather sad decision. Then again, there's no real reason to have rushed it out; it could've looked good and have been thoroughly tested.

 

[Grandpa Gamer]

Vault Dweller and Volourn are just doing this to raise their post counts.

Actually, between real life and playing both Gothic 3 (a lot) and NWN 2 ( a bit) I can't find time to keep up to speed with the Codex, let alone post here more than once in a while. How Vault Dweller and Volourn can find time to argue the same points over and over as well as under and under is amazing.

Do they have some kind of S&M thing going here or what?

Also, how Volourn can think anybody would be (seriously) interested in his lengthy impressions of Gothic 3 after playing the demo for a few hours (as posted elsewhere) is beyond me.

My conclusion must be that arguing about games is much more fun that actually playing them. At least to some people...

 

[galsiah]

G3 very well could of made this game with half the budget, and released it with less shinny graphics with better combat and in better shape.

How? I'm not saying it'd necessarily be impossible, but it's far from obvious.

For a start they don't self-publish, so it's not wholly their decision (presuming they wish to remain employed). Second, unless they sack half the team - which is unlikely to do much for the gameplay either -, you have a fixed amount of funding going in salaries. Adopting a gameplay centred stance doesn't reduce that part of the budget.

They use their own engine, so there're no sky-high licensing fee to lose by adopting a lesser focus on graphics. Sure they could spend less time on their engine and save on salaries, but that means less time overall spent making the game. As a rule, spending less time overall on a game probably makes gameplay worse, not better.

I just don't see how you get a 50% budget cut from a non-cutting-edge-graphics focus by any other logic than "It stands to reason...".
You could always sack most of the artists, but that leaves you with lower quality, more limited art - not an absense of shininess.

The developers chose the wanted this game to lead the way with graphics. It 100% wasn't a necessity.

Publishing realities aside, I agree. However, without being sure of your figures (i.e. would it have been a 50% saving? 20%? 70%?...), you have no idea whether it was the best way to make the best game they could - even for the loyal fans.

By all means illustrate your ideas with a few figures - perhaps you're right. Until you do your opinion has little basis in reality.

...but I can blaim them for deciding that making the most popular game ever equals having the best graphics ever...

Who can say that they thought this? Perhaps getting great graphics was something they could do without huge extra funding, which would guarantee more sales. Perhaps the graphics were something desired by the publisher, giving PB more room for negotiation in other areas.

"selling out" might never be a necessity, but it can be the best thing to do. There's never going to be a perfect option.

The most resource intensive part of any game should never be the presentation, but always the gameplay.

Is this a joke? How many games can you name where this is true?
In any game without thousands of objects running thousands of scripts, the "presentation" is always going to take up the vast majority of resources.

I'm sure there are games where "gameplay" does take more processing, but there'd either be strategy games or games with e.g. complex physics systems.

I don't see how any traditional RPG is going to get anywhere close to this - or how it'd be desirable for such a game to do so. [vast RPG-strategy hybrids are clearly a different matter, but once you get into such resource-intensive gameplay, any "cut the graphics to reduce development costs" rationale is long gone]

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

My conclusion must be that arguing about games is much more fun that actually playing them. At least to some people...

If only Volly was actually arguing about a game, eh.

 

[Volourn]

"Futile Rhetoric"

Who the fuck are you?

 

[galsiah]

misapplied edit
fuck it

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

"Futile Rhetoric"

Who the fuck are you?

Your daddy.

 

[Volourn]

O RLY? So... a dead ghost of a scummy criminal cna post? WOWSERS! Good stuff.

And, oh, fuck you, "Daddy". R00fles!

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

O RLY? So... a dead ghost of a scummy criminal cna post? WOWSERS! Good stuff.

And, oh, fuck you, "Daddy". R00fles!

You should probably keep at least some of this stuff private; why would you want people to know where your mental problems stem from?

 

[Roqua]

G3 very well could of made this game with half the budget, and released it with less shinny graphics with better combat and in better shape.

How? I'm not saying it'd necessarily be impossible, but it's far from obvious.

For a start they don't self-publish, so it's not wholly their decision (presuming they wish to remain employed). Second, unless they sack half the team - which is unlikely to do much for the gameplay either -, you have a fixed amount of funding going in salaries. Adopting a gameplay centred stance doesn't reduce that part of the budget.

They use their own engine, so there're no sky-high licensing fee to lose by adopting a lesser focus on graphics. Sure they could spend less time on their engine and save on salaries, but that means less time overall spent making the game. As a rule, spending less time overall on a game probably makes gameplay worse, not better.

I just don't see how you get a 50% budget cut from a non-cutting-edge-graphics focus by any other logic than "It stands to reason...".
You could always sack most of the artists, but that leaves you with lower quality, more limited art - not an absense of shininess.

The developers chose the wanted this game to lead the way with graphics. It 100% wasn't a necessity.

Publishing realities aside, I agree. However, without being sure of your figures (i.e. would it have been a 50% saving? 20%? 70%?...), you have no idea whether it was the best way to make the best game they could - even for the loyal fans.

By all means illustrate your ideas with a few figures - perhaps you're right. Until you do your opinion has little basis in reality.

...but I can blaim them for deciding that making the most popular game ever equals having the best graphics ever...

Who can say that they thought this? Perhaps getting great graphics was something they could do without huge extra funding, which would guarantee more sales. Perhaps the graphics were something desired by the publisher, giving PB more room for negotiation in other areas.

"selling out" might never be a necessity, but it can be the best thing to do. There's never going to be a perfect option.

The most resource intensive part of any game should never be the presentation, but always the gameplay.

Is this a joke? How many games can you name where this is true?
In any game without thousands of objects running thousands of scripts, the "presentation" is always going to take up the vast majority of resources.

I'm sure there are games where "gameplay" does take more processing, but there'd either be strategy games or games with e.g. complex physics systems.

I don't see how any traditional RPG is going to get anywhere close to this - or how it'd be desirable for such a game to do so. [vast RPG-strategy hybrids are clearly a different matter, but once you get into such resource-intensive gameplay, any "cut the graphics to reduce development costs" rationale is long gone]

How could I give you actual numbers? Do I have PB's books? Its common sense. Why have budgets for games gone from next to nothing to millions/10's of millions? It has nothing to do with salaries.

And you are mixing up development resource allocation with computer prcessing somehow.

Think of it this way. You have an iceberg. The size of the iceberg was decided during debt acquisition. You place the iceberg in water. About 1/3rd of the iceberg is underwater, that part can't changed once its placed. That part is costs that can't change, or are fixed, like rent and labor. The part above the ice is liquid costs that can be allocated and reallocated as the person in charge of the iceberg see fit, we'll be crazy and call these costs variable costs. Now the variable costs aren't so variable when one of the terms of debt was to really push the graphics, because that means you have to have an art team this big, who needs to draw, then 3d, then layer, then bumpmap, then pixel shader, then do this, then do that, then add another layer of gloss, etc.

Now lets say they had the same size team, but there artists created more art instead of super graphic awesomest graphics, and they had less artists employed but more quest designers and content designers, and faction designers, and dialogue writers. Now combat only takes up 50 or 60% of the game. Lets say they put just 10% less into art and graphics and added those resources into designing and implementing the best combat system they could. How would that have impacted the game. With the same size team? Paying the same salaries?

If they reused all the graphics, engine, and content from g1 and 2, they could have made the same game with at least 1/4th the budget. I'll stand by that number without even knowing the numbers, because every designer that talks about the costs of games always says the cost of graphics have skyrocketed.

If you look at it as a pie with set resources, and graphics are taking up a king's majority chunk of those resoruces, the other pieces of the pie have no choice but to be slammer than they used to. If you shrink the size of the circle to half size, and increase the size the other pieces of the pie take up, while reducing the size the graphics slice of pie takes, you get a game with the same resource allocation placed into all the important pieces of the pie, for half the price.

Now, I tried to explain this in as simple a way as I could.

 

[Volourn]

"You should probably keep at least some of this stuff private; why would you want people to know where your mental problems stem from?"

Heh. I don't have any secrets. Secrets are for pussies. And, besides, my mental rpoblems have nothing to with RL but the internet. Game over.

 

[Jasede]

what