Review Absolutely idiotic Gothic 3 review

[Volourn]

"Facts are DEAD."

R00fles!

 

[Roqua]

Okay... I think there is some misunderstanding. Let me know if I'm right:

1. When you said "player skill" versus "character skill", you meant "physical skill" versus "mental skill." If that's what you meant, then I can't disagree that that's the difference between twitch-based combat and turn-based. The thing is, I took you literally, and there IS "player skill" involved in all types of combat.

2. When you say that RPGs are defined by "mental" combat, you mean that RPGs are defined by mental combat AND roleplaying outside of combat. I misunderstood you here, as I thought you meant RPGs are solely represented by non-physical combat. We'll have to agree to disagree here, because my definition of an RPG is different from yours. For me, an RPG is any game that allows and supplements roleplaying (e.g. the ability to do whatever is plausible for your character, and plausible consequences for these actions instead of having to imagine consequences in your head), with no stipulation in terms of combat. For you, if I understand correctly, an RPG is if it does the above, but also must have a strictly mental based combat system. I'm just going to have to disagree with that, as I take the words "roleplaying game" as simply "game for roleplaying" not "game for roleplaying that must be this type of combat."

this was posted while I was typing my last post. So I'll leave that and address this. Your definition is meaningless. I could define a car as anything that has four wheels, but that isn't correct. And if you want to know why your definition is wrong, reread the first post you replied to on this and tell me how my two examples are wrong with your new found understanding of what we are talking about.

edit: p.s. I guess you aren't as retarded as I thought, just a little slow on the uptake.

Your two examples don't coincide with my definition. I don't really care if combat is mental only, or mental and physical. My definition is simply that the type of combat doesn't matter, that an RPG is literally what the letters stand for, a game for roleplaying. As for my definition being ridiculous... Lol. Is there a universal definition for an RPG now? The argument for what an RPG is has gone on for over several different threads in this forum alone. But somehow you can just come up and say you definition is correct and my definition is incorrect. This is why I said to agree to disagree.

For the majority of (mainstream) gamers, an RPG is simply a game that has a combat system that you describe, based on mental skill only. And to them, whether or not it has actual roleplaying (choice & consequence and what not) doesn't matter, it's the combat system (and character development, which is most likely wrapped around the combat system) that matters. So if there were a universal RPG definition, this would be it. Is this what you subscribe to, that RPGs are solely based on what type of combat it is?

I may be slow on the uptake, but part of the misunderstanding is on your part. For example when you say "character skill" and "player skill" but mean "mental skill" and "physical skill", and when you talk about roleplaying when my point originally had nothing to do with roleplaying, simply just the combat system.

I have not mixed up character skill, player skill, mental, or physical. You have failed to grasp simple consepts and got yourself, and get yourself confused. You are now back to full fledged retard status.

Yes, my definition is correct, and what an rpg is is still debated becaus people are stupid. Since my definition cannot be disproved (and I haven';t given my full definition yet) it is right. Any attempt to disprove it result in fallacies, which don't help the person's argument.

Your definition is half correct. And thats why Betrayal at Krondor, a game that lacked your definition of what an rpg is, but included what you described as what the mainstream believe and accept as the definition of an rpg, is not an rpg. Its why the FF series are not rpgs. Its why most jrpgs are not rpgs. Not only do rpgs need to provide roleplaying (or roleplaying options presented by meaninful ingam,e choices and consequences for actions taken or untaken), the character whose role you play must be ruled physically by his own attributes and skills within the rules of the system. You cannot play a role and be a role at the same time. the character you play is the masterswordsman. His skill dictates if he connects in combat (and the skill of his opponent of course), not your skill with a controller, mouse and keyboard, or your timing, reaction, and dexterity.

In Gothic, the Character has a skill called swords or whatever. But this skill only assists you defeat opponents in combat. In a real rpg, that skill would not assists you, the player. it assists the character whose role you are playing and who is the one skilled in sword use (or not skilled as the case may be).

Please, reread the post you originally posted to. Read it slow. Also, look up the theory of noncontradiction.

When we are both on the same page and up to speed, we can continue this.

 

[sabishii]

"I have not mixed up character skill, player skill, mental, or physical. You have failed to grasp simple consepts and got yourself, and get yourself confused. You are now back to full fledged retard status."
If we're using the English language... physical skills and mental skills are both skills that the player uses. "Player skill" simply was not the most clear term to represent what you meant, and that is that.

Well, your post here actually convinces me a lot towards your view. It helps a lot that your argument is a lot more clear. Your main persuasion was, "the character you play is the masterswordsman. His skill dictates if he connects in combat (and the skill of his opponent of course), not your skill with a controller, mouse and keyboard, or your timing, reaction, and dexterity." I had not thought that a character's .. "characterization".. is involved in combat, but I do see now that a non-twitched based system helps define and support it moreso. I still have a little bit of doubt though so I'm going to think upon it.

 

[Elias_Maluco]

Late anwser, but here it goes (I hope your are stillr reading this, VD):

You claimed that wolves are almost impossible to kill. I replied. Short attention span?]

No I dint. And stating that wolves are easy to kill at level 27 is just completelly meaningless.

Your point was silly and your arab example was stupid, because it's a game and you can't expect real-life realism from it. Friendly NPCs react to drawn weapons, like they always did in Gothic games. Expecting anything else like why won't they arrest me, beat me up, and torture me to tell them where the rebels are is plain fucking silly.

Im not talking about realism, Im talking about coherence. It doest not makes sense that in an occupied country an armed soldier-looking guy would be able to freely walk trough a patrol without being adressed. It doest not makes sense that the orcs treats us like any " Friendly NPCs" unless, of course, you joined the mercenaries. It does not makes much sense and ruins the atmosfere for me.

You talk about realism, yet the fact that you can destroy an army when another army can NOT doesn't seem to bother you at all.

I said expected, not must.

Again, Im not talking about realism. And anyway, NO, your were NOT expected to kill the orcish army. Your were expected to run past then. You could kill then all, of course, by leveling up too much and exploiting the enemy AI. But you were never expected to do it. As far the plot goes, the orcish army was still sieguing the castle when you finish the game.

[Borat] Great success![/] Let's leave it at that then.

Yeap, great. You, however, seens to be unable to respect other people opinions G3 (unless, of course, they agree 100% with you). You react to every criticism like a true histerical fanboy.

Then what the fuck are you doing criticizing my position if you don't know what my position is?]

I dont need to read your review to know that: Ive read enough of your rants in every single topic about G3.

You are making a very disappointing first impression.

I feell the same about you and your forum. And after such a nice welcome, I dont think I will be coming back here too often. Anyway, no hard feelings though.

 

[Volourn]

"You, however, seens to be unable to respect other people opinions about G3 (unless, of course, they agree 100% with you).You react to every critic like a true histerical fanboy."

O noes u din't! Thems fightin' words!!!



Watch out! VD will thretaen to ban you! He might actually have the balls to do it sometime soon!

 

[Vault Dweller]

You claimed that wolves are almost impossible to kill. I replied. Short attention span?]

No I dint. And stating that wolves are easy to kill at level 27 is just completelly meaningless.

"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".

The line about lvl 27 isn't meaningless, it shows the progression and results of your skills. What was once hard and nearly impossible will become easy when you build up your character.

Im not talking about realism, Im talking about coherence. It doest not makes sense that in an occupied country an armed soldier-looking guy would be able to freely walk trough a patrol without being adressed. It doest not makes sense that the orcs treats us like any " Friendly NPCs" unless, of course, you joined the mercenaries. It does not makes much sense and ruins the atmosfere for me.

It does make sense. When the Nazi occupied the Europe, did they treat the locals like "friendly NPCs" or did they kill them on sight, because rebels/partizans were blowing shit up nearby? No. There you go. As for the weapons, it's a game. Nobody reacts to weapons on your back - that's how the game works and asking for more, asking for enemies to notice the unequipped weapons or to go through your bag or to tell you to surrender your weapons would have been truly ridiculous. I can tell you that much as a game designer.

Again, Im not talking about realism. And anyway, NO, your were NOT expected to kill the orcish army. Your were expected to run past then.

Says who?

Yeap, great. You, however, seens to be unable to respect other people opinions G3 (unless, of course, they agree 100% with you). You react to every criticism like a true histerical fanboy.

I'm getting tired of it, so whatever. There are plenty of people who have different opinions about G3, including the negative ones, and as long as these opinions are presented in an intelligent manner, I have absolutely no problems with them. I don't expect everyone to like games I like and to dislike games I dislike. I do, however, have a very low tolerance for idiotic opinions, and for some reasons I see a lot of those lately, including yours.

Then what the fuck are you doing criticizing my position if you don't know what my position is?]

I dont need to read your review to know that: Ive read enough of your rants in every single topic about G3.

That's probably the stupidest statement you've made so far.

You are making a very disappointing first impression.

I feell the same about you and your forum. And after such a nice welcome, I dont think I will be coming back here too often.

Not like anyone gives a damn.

 

[Shannow]

well, i do. vd, you behavior towards Elias_Maluco in this thread is pathetic. while volourn seems to finally have managed to post some arguments between his mental diarrhea you are slowly loosing it.
especially the orc-patrol argument is valid and not just "stupid and silly". patroling orcs could ask you questions, what you are doing there, for who you are working, etc. you cannot claim that such behavior (opposed to just ignoring you) would add to the atmosphere and open opportunities for quest and or "chioces and consequences".

calling people stupid because they experience bugs in games you like is on the same level of inmaturity and destructiveness as volly's "lolololipop, r00fles, moron"-posts. just that volly is alot more honest.

i'm disgusted with the whole direction the codex is taking.

i don't think, i'll bother lurking anymore,
but

Not like anyone gives a damn.

 

[Volourn]

"calling people stupid because they experience bugs in games you like is on the same level of inmaturity and destructiveness as volly's "lolololipop, r00fles, moron"-posts. just that volly is alot more honest."

Fuck you, asshole. No one is at my level. Moron.

 

[Vault Dweller]

well, i do. vd, you behavior towards Elias_Maluco in this thread is pathetic.

Thank you for your valuable feedback.

especially the orc-patrol argument is valid and not just "stupid and silly". patroling orcs could ask you questions, what you are doing there, for who you are working, etc. you cannot claim that such behavior (opposed to just ignoring you) would add to the atmosphere and open opportunities for quest and or "chioces and consequences".

They DO ask you such questions. Any more "out of your ass" points you'd like to make?

calling people stupid because they experience bugs in games you like is on the same level of inmaturity and destructiveness as volly's "lolololipop, r00fles, moron"-posts. just that volly is alot more honest.

When did I call anyone stupid for experience bugs in games I like? Can we have some quotes or links with this bullshit?

i'm disgusted with the whole direction the codex is taking.

There is an easy solution to your problem.

i don't think,...

I know.

 

[CreamyBlood]

It's amazing that people go to such lengths building arguments around games they've obviously never played and reviews they've never read.

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

I was wondering the same thing, according to Wikipedia and the Uban dictionary, it's another way to say LOL and comes from AOL'ers (America Onliners).

My turn to ask a question, what is 'JE' and 'BL'? I'm sure they're acronyoms for popular games you've all played, but I can't figure it out. (BL=Bloodlines?)

I haven't played G3 yet so I can't comment on the thread. I did just finish playing G2:Night of the Raven a couple of weeks ago and enjoyed it.

And yes, I destroyed most of the Orcish army besieging the castle. I didn't have to, in fact I left a group of them in the north east because I got bored and wanted to continue on with the storyline. So you can kill 'em all, or seak/run past them, your choice.

 

[Claw]

Jade Empire, and yes.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's amazing that people go to such lengths building arguments around games they've obviously never played and reviews they've never read.

Indeed.

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

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

Google, some of the top results:

The Codex Forums :: View topic - 1UP torpedoes NWN2 - 5/10
Bob:BG is not dead! Volourn: LIAR! r00fles!!! *kills bob* Volourn: BG is dead! r00fles!

The Codex Forums :: View topic - 2007 RPGs?
The Codex disagrees. Once again, you prove why you are a cowardly moron who doesn't know how to spend his millions properly. R00fles!

Obsidian Forum Community > Kotor - Neverwinter
KOTOR series ia 'rip off' of NWN (though, honestly, it's kinda ahrd to rip off your own games, R00fles!). NWN2 has the most in common with NWN and it acts, ...

Obsidian Forum Community > What are you playing now?
NWN1 (mostly my mod r00fles), NWN2, Madden 2007, and MVP baseball 2005... ... (mostly my mod r00fles). *.

BioWare Forums: Diary of a Newbie
"R00fles!" _________________ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who ... "R00fles!" That looks like a dog's name...


Neverwinter Nights: Act 3 Lizardfolk Chief Shaman Major Game ...
R00fles! Reloading doens't help! HAHAHAHAHAHA! And, here I thought NWN2 was a a relativley unbuggy game. Oops... That's two major bugs found in the last 24 ...

----------

These don't all have explicitly stated author's names, but I have a sneaking suspicion...

 

[Volourn]

"It's amazing that people go to such lengths building arguments around games they've obviously never played and reviews they've never read."

Except, amazingly, I've read the reviews, played the demo, and I wans't arguing really about eitehr but about VD's obvious fanboysness.

Idiot.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Because there is NO WAY people can talk about someone other than Volourn. He's both the center of attention and of the entire fucking universe.

 

[Volourn]

That's the way you guys act soemtimes when you always refer to me. I keep telling everyone I'm not important. Why wouldn't he be talking to me since I'm one who started in on you? It would be logical he was at least partly referring to me. Fanboy.

 

[CreamyBlood]

Except, amazingly, I've read the reviews, played the demo, and I wans't arguing really about eitehr but about VD's obvious fanboysness.
Idiot.

If you didn't say or imply that you never played the game or read the review then I obviously wasn't talking about you.

If you started arguing about the review and admitted that you didn't even read it, then I was talking about you. If you started bashing the game and you obviously hadn't played it, then I was talking about you. Pretty simple.

 

[Volourn]

So.. you admit you were just spouting random nonsense hoping it would stick? R00fles!

Damn. The only thing worse than VD being a fanboy are VD fanboys.

 

[CreamyBlood]

Umm. Noooo. I was commenting on how people people get all worked up and argue about a game they haven't played or a review they haven't read, such as in this thread.

Or in this thread: http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic ... sc&start=0

Where 'dabomberman' explains how his system crashed after two minutes and he took the game back the next day then goes to great lengths to explain why the gameplay sucks.

I'm not sure what you have to do with anything.

 

[Volourn]

But, he did play it. In fact, he seemed to have bought it. Two minutes is two minutes. He may not have given it a 'fair chance'; but he did play it. So, why are you using him as an example?

 

[galsiah]

Two minutes is two minutes.

And two pages is two pages. It's nonsense to suggest that someone who has read two pages of a book has "read the book".
That's effectively what you're doing.

 

[Rosh]

And two pages is two pages. It's nonsense to suggest that someone who has read two pages of a book has "read the book".
That's effectively what you're doing.

And playing a demo while being able to read a review or three, makes the reviewer in question correct! Especially about the orc things!

That would be retarded, or as known in the local dialect of English, "Volourn".

 

[Chip]

Roqua, when the only person who agrees with you is volourn that is not a good sign.

 

[Roqua]

Well, chip, I don't think volourn agress with me. And it depends on what issue you are talking about, since I argued one and stated another. 1st being Gothic 3 would a better game if they placed less of an emphasis on graphics, and more on the meat of the game and QA. The other being what an rpg actually is. On both issues I had supporters, on the last issue every agreed with, or ended up agreeing with me. So, Chip, I'd like to point out that when you say stupid nonsense shit, that is not a good sign, Chip.

 

[Claw]

Most people just ended up not caring about your posts anymore.