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.

On the ages-old question of whether "Gothic 3 could have been good if finished"

Jacob

Pronouns: Nick/Her
Patron
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
3,336
Location
Hatington
Grab the Codex by the pussy
Your mom could have been good if she finished me.
 

OctavianRomulus

Learned
Joined
Aug 21, 2019
Messages
480
No, for the simple fact that the world is too big. Gothic is not Elder Scrolls and Elder Scrolls is not Gothic. I know many people like to compare the two but they are actually extremely different games with different objectives.

The main and most important ingredient of Gothic is a small, intimate, interconnected world where everything you do matters. It makes more sense if you look at it like you would at a really big Doom map. You just can't get that level of complexity in a much bigger map. Not because the developers aren't talented or anything like that but because of the sheer workload and amount of moving parts. Sometimes it works, like in Witcher 3 but if you look at what was sacrificed for the size of the world, you will see that it wasn't worth it. What definies Gothic is the clever level design, the flawed but very fun combat, the music and guilds.

Everything is also different in Gothic 3 from the character models, musical style, gameplay, combat. Gothic 2 was a clear upgrade of the previous game whereas Gothic 3 was more of a reboot. For example, the scavanger model in G2 is the same as the one from G1 but higher res. The music of G1 and G2 is either rugged and rythmic or what I like to call "tense campfire music" where you can almost feel the soldiers' boredom combined with constant fear. The G2 VOM music perfectly exemplifies this. In contrast, Gothic 3 has peaceful picnic music. In G1 and 2 nature was threatening and foreboding, with a constant feeling of danger while the forests of G3 feel like a peaceful nature vacation The combat in G2 is clunky but very enjoyable whereas G3 has button spam combat.

I could go on, you get the point.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,110
As someone who shat on Gothic 3 for decades, and earlier in this very thread, I have to say, I changed my mind on it very recently. It has a lot of flaws, and in some ways it is definitely way worse than G1 and G2, but you know, with the community patches installed, and with the right settings, it is possible to have a lot of fun in Gothic 3.

As I mentioned in another thread here, install the Community Patch 1.75, then the update pack. Set Alternative AI ON, and Alternative Balancing ON, and put it on Medium difficulty. Try to use a single one-handed sword, as 2-handers are too slow, unless you want to cheese things with their range. Shields also seem to be slow to block.

With these settings, combat becomes decent against humanoids, as CP introduces timed blocks, and you have to dodge power attacks, so it's not a bad system. Block regular attacks, side-step power attacks, and they attack aggressively and in different patterns, so you will always have your hands full. Against beasts, archery is best methinks, as melee generally sucks.

So once you get past the combat system, the rest of the game is ... clunky as fuck, different in some ways from G1/2, but still ... fun. It's huge, it's dangerous, it has that Piranha Bytes vibe that no one else seems to be able to reproduce, and it's real. Instead of being the chosen one, you get to participate in a massive 2 faction conflict, with everybody treating you like shit.

Yes, it lacks much of G1/2's design tightness, with a much bigger and perhaps emptier world (in some parts), but it still has a lot of PB magic. There are factions in the game, and you have to work your way up their ranks, by doing things for them. You get faction armor as you progress. Quest hub locations are still fun as hell, with quests feeling a lot more engaging than your typical Bethesda/Ubisoft crap. There is a ton of stuff to discover and explore, there are no quest markers, but actual directions. A ton of skills to develop and play around with.

So to all of you who hate Gothic 3, I say take it from me, I've hated it for 15 years or so, and as a recovering anti-Gothic 3 addict, I just want to say, if you can make the effort to get through the bullshit, its a fun RPG.
 

MWaser

Arbiter
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Messages
607
Location
Where you won't find me
As someone who shat on Gothic 3 for decades, and earlier in this very thread, I have to say, I changed my mind on it very recently. It has a lot of flaws, and in some ways it is definitely way worse than G1 and G2, but you know, with the community patches installed, and with the right settings, it is possible to have a lot of fun in Gothic 3.

As I mentioned in another thread here, install the Community Patch 1.75, then the update pack. Set Alternative AI ON, and Alternative Balancing ON, and put it on Medium difficulty. Try to use a single one-handed sword, as 2-handers are too slow, unless you want to cheese things with their range. Shields also seem to be slow to block.

With these settings, combat becomes decent against humanoids, as CP introduces timed blocks, and you have to dodge power attacks, so it's not a bad system. Block regular attacks, side-step power attacks, and they attack aggressively and in different patterns, so you will always have your hands full. Against beasts, archery is best methinks, as melee generally sucks.

So once you get past the combat system, the rest of the game is ... clunky as fuck, different in some ways from G1/2, but still ... fun. It's huge, it's dangerous, it has that Piranha Bytes vibe that no one else seems to be able to reproduce, and it's real. Instead of being the chosen one, you get to participate in a massive 2 faction conflict, with everybody treating you like shit.

Yes, it lacks much of G1/2's design tightness, with a much bigger and perhaps emptier world (in some parts), but it still has a lot of PB magic. There are factions in the game, and you have to work your way up their ranks, by doing things for them. You get faction armor as you progress. Quest hub locations are still fun as hell, with quests feeling a lot more engaging than your typical Bethesda/Ubisoft crap. There is a ton of stuff to discover and explore, there are no quest markers, but actual directions. A ton of skills to develop and play around with.

So to all of you who hate Gothic 3, I say take it from me, I've hated it for 15 years or so, and as a recovering anti-Gothic 3 addict, I just want to say, if you can make the effort to get through the bullshit, its a fun RPG.
Sorry, but I'm inclined to disagree regardless.

I have played Gothic 3 in a very similar fashion to you, a few years ago, which played basically how you just described it. I can say, the combat against humanoid enemies was quite engaging. Traces of fun were to be had in it, especially in 1v1, a bit less fondly in multiple vs 1 due to the janky GENOME-tier AI that has an unpleasant tendency to avoid attacking when someone else is already engaged with an enemy - the alternative AI in the CP has fixed this, partially, as well, but it's still pretty obvious that the AI simply doesn't behave right when it's not 1v1 except for a few very specific hyper-aggressive enemies like zombies.

However, simply put, this just doesn't hold. The fighting against animals will be annoying, magic is still an imbalanced, abhorrent mess that will one-shot you and ruin any encounter where mages are present, the quest and world design are 99% copypasted horribly boring fetch quest, copypasted treasure with nothing worthwile in it or fully/partially randomized content - it doesn't have anything interesting in it.

You can, indeed, somewhat enjoy Gothic 3 like that, but my question is - why would you? Patched Gothic 3 is a borderline playable game, but it's still just deluding yourself by playing it over just simply playing a better fucking game, that could probably offer better combat / quest / etc while just being a new experience at the same time. Clinging onto hope for getting some fun out of Gothic 3 is just unwilingness to move on and experiment with new stuff, more than anything else, and remaining with the old comfort of the known jank.

The community patch and subsequent fixes have succeeded in making Gothic 3 no longer one of the worst games ever that are actively painful and cringeworthy to play 100% of the time, true. But it just made it into a mediocre-bad action RPG, therefore it doesn't make the game "good" in any definition of the word. Even the "fun" it can briefly provide with the more-functional combat is very transient.
 

MWaser

Arbiter
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Messages
607
Location
Where you won't find me
No, for the simple fact that the world is too big. Gothic is not Elder Scrolls and Elder Scrolls is not Gothic. I know many people like to compare the two but they are actually extremely different games with different objectives.

The main and most important ingredient of Gothic is a small, intimate, interconnected world where everything you do matters. It makes more sense if you look at it like you would at a really big Doom map. You just can't get that level of complexity in a much bigger map. Not because the developers aren't talented or anything like that but because of the sheer workload and amount of moving parts. Sometimes it works, like in Witcher 3 but if you look at what was sacrificed for the size of the world, you will see that it wasn't worth it. What definies Gothic is the clever level design, the flawed but very fun combat, the music and guilds.

Everything is also different in Gothic 3 from the character models, musical style, gameplay, combat. Gothic 2 was a clear upgrade of the previous game whereas Gothic 3 was more of a reboot. For example, the scavanger model in G2 is the same as the one from G1 but higher res. The music of G1 and G2 is either rugged and rythmic or what I like to call "tense campfire music" where you can almost feel the soldiers' boredom combined with constant fear. The G2 VOM music perfectly exemplifies this. In contrast, Gothic 3 has peaceful picnic music. In G1 and 2 nature was threatening and foreboding, with a constant feeling of danger while the forests of G3 feel like a peaceful nature vacation The combat in G2 is clunky but very enjoyable whereas G3 has button spam combat.

I could go on, you get the point.
I get what you're trying to say, but hear me out: I feel like you're missing the point a bit.

The point you itarated points out that Gothic 3 could not have been a good Gothic game in particular - a point which, absolutely, holds true in every regard. It wasn't even trying to be a Gothic game, it was trying to be some kind of an epic experience that was more of just an epic proportions failure.

However, I would like to say that in the example I presented an idea of how Gothic 3 could have been a good game overall - irrespective of the design paradigms and ideas associated with the prior series. I presented it specifically as an idea that was structured and extrapolated off the presented focus of the game on subterfuge, rebellion and guerilla combat - and indeed, if Gothic 3 had really focused on those with some cleverness and more clear vision in terms of game design, perhaps it could have legitimately been a good game about a concept you don't really see - fantasy guerilla combat where you're your own little squad leader, somewhat of a Mount and Blade but where you are not leading a consistent band, but only organizing people in hand-crafted, local situations for predefined combat purposes, and in a more fantasy setting than the realism-centered M&B. This, while I am claiming it would make Gothic 3 into a good game, would still leave it a terrible Gothic game, since it would miss the entire point, and be pretty much a complete betrayal and a non-sequitur follow-up to the series, but I could at least then lay claims for it being a game with some worth on its own. While, as it is in reality, is has no genuine worth in basically any point of view or approach.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,110
You can, indeed, somewhat enjoy Gothic 3 like that, but my question is - why would you?

Because if you haven't noticed, there are very few good to excellent open world RPGs out there, in fact, very few have ever been made. And most of them also have a lot of flaws. Gothic 3 after all the patches might not be great, but compared to what's actually out there (Bethesda open world games, Ubisoft open world games, Mass Effect Andromeda, Dragon Age: Inquisition, Two Worlds, GTA, RDR2, etc), it's a pretty fun game if you can get into it.

I mean I dare you to name 10 open world RPGs better than Gothic 3. Maybe you can, but I bet by the time you get to number 6, it's going to start being difficult and memory intensive.

Also, as I mentioned, Piranha Bytes just has a magic touch with open world RPGs. Their games, even the not so good ones, have a certain feel, a certain atmosphere, a certain feeling that no one else does. The way NPCs talk to you directly, with no bullshit. The way you feel after finally obtaining some cool faction armor. The way there is a cool cave out of the way behind some ruins. The way melee combat becomes super fun even when by all rights it should be terrible.
 

Baardhaas

Cipher
Patron
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
576
Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here
Given more time PB probably would have written better quests, might have implemented acceptable melee combat and probably would have released the game in a lot less buggy state. But there are some fundamental issues with this game that aren't caused by a lack of time.

One of the worst offenders is the engine. Even on todays hardware the game suffers from horrible stuttering, only after killing 80% of the AI and picking up most items will it actually run smooth. There's no way of brute forcing it either, since the engine is incapable of using mutiple threads, nor will it utilise more than 2GB of RAM.
So not only did they release a game wouldn't run on any hardware available back in the day, they also coded it with hardware in mind that was outdated even in 2006. Remember, multithreading and even dual core CPU's were a thing back then, as was the onset of 64-bit operating systems.
To be fair, they probably were working on that engine since 2001/2002 and changing it late in development is probably no small matter. But, if they were working with this engine in 2002, and everything ran like utter shit on their top of the line pentium 3's/AMD thunderbirds, why did they think it was a good idea to go ahead with this engine?

I love the game though, there's just something about the atmosphere, the presentation, that's hard to pinpoint but really works for me.

The game has one of the best designed open worlds, by which I mean the geography not the way it's filled with content. The maze like structure of Nordmar, making it feel huge and difficult to traverse, despite being a small area. The desert feels vast and empty, like a desert should. In Myrtana the castles are placed at logical chokepoints, cities have a clear purpose (Trelis is where the grain is produced, Geldern has its mines, Silden is for logging and hunting) i.e. it answers the basic question that so many open worlds fail: How do these people live?
It is a true seamless open world with no quest compass and no level scaling (as opposed to its contemporary, Oblivion).

Its quest design is servicable, with some outliers being quite good and some rather bad. I guess the worst offender is Al Shedim where they throw a ton of fetch quests at you without even trying to disguise it anymore. Running around collecting the 7 buttplugs of the priests and the 5 stained undies of the witch, in the same monotonous looking ruins for hours while the music is just Fatima having a never ending orgasm that brings neither joy to her nor to the player is something no man should have to endure. This area, coupled with the endgame is where the game really starts to fall apart. Yet this is something I'm confident PB would have done different if given more time.

Voice acting is a mixed bag too. I've played with English and German voices on. Both have some especially cringeworthy voices, notably the German voice for the 'dumb Hashishin' and the English voice for the 'nutty mage'. The people who did that should be forced to drink paint stripper until their vocal cords have dissolved.

Pathfinding is horrible, enemies have a weird tendency to strafe sideways while also moving forwards, clipping through objects and terrain, or just staying still because they can't reach you.

Yet I still would recommend this game, because for all its flaws it does so many things right, or at least so much better than other games in its genre.
 
Last edited:

curds

Magister
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Messages
1,098
To add insult to injury, if you free enough cities, you will get declared an enemy of orcs
Oh no, I hate when actions have logical consequences in my role playing games.

Gothic 3 is a decent game. Not on par with 1 and 2 but it certainly isn’t bad. Yeah, the combat isn’t very good but same could be said for Arcanum, PST, VtMB, KotOR, Deus Ex, Morrowind and a bunch of other Codex favourites.
 

OctavianRomulus

Learned
Joined
Aug 21, 2019
Messages
480
No, for the simple fact that the world is too big. Gothic is not Elder Scrolls and Elder Scrolls is not Gothic. I know many people like to compare the two but they are actually extremely different games with different objectives.

The main and most important ingredient of Gothic is a small, intimate, interconnected world where everything you do matters. It makes more sense if you look at it like you would at a really big Doom map. You just can't get that level of complexity in a much bigger map. Not because the developers aren't talented or anything like that but because of the sheer workload and amount of moving parts. Sometimes it works, like in Witcher 3 but if you look at what was sacrificed for the size of the world, you will see that it wasn't worth it. What definies Gothic is the clever level design, the flawed but very fun combat, the music and guilds.

Everything is also different in Gothic 3 from the character models, musical style, gameplay, combat. Gothic 2 was a clear upgrade of the previous game whereas Gothic 3 was more of a reboot. For example, the scavanger model in G2 is the same as the one from G1 but higher res. The music of G1 and G2 is either rugged and rythmic or what I like to call "tense campfire music" where you can almost feel the soldiers' boredom combined with constant fear. The G2 VOM music perfectly exemplifies this. In contrast, Gothic 3 has peaceful picnic music. In G1 and 2 nature was threatening and foreboding, with a constant feeling of danger while the forests of G3 feel like a peaceful nature vacation The combat in G2 is clunky but very enjoyable whereas G3 has button spam combat.

I could go on, you get the point.
I get what you're trying to say, but hear me out: I feel like you're missing the point a bit.

The point you itarated points out that Gothic 3 could not have been a good Gothic game in particular - a point which, absolutely, holds true in every regard. It wasn't even trying to be a Gothic game, it was trying to be some kind of an epic experience that was more of just an epic proportions failure.

However, I would like to say that in the example I presented an idea of how Gothic 3 could have been a good game overall - irrespective of the design paradigms and ideas associated with the prior series. I presented it specifically as an idea that was structured and extrapolated off the presented focus of the game on subterfuge, rebellion and guerilla combat - and indeed, if Gothic 3 had really focused on those with some cleverness and more clear vision in terms of game design, perhaps it could have legitimately been a good game about a concept you don't really see - fantasy guerilla combat where you're your own little squad leader, somewhat of a Mount and Blade but where you are not leading a consistent band, but only organizing people in hand-crafted, local situations for predefined combat purposes, and in a more fantasy setting than the realism-centered M&B. This, while I am claiming it would make Gothic 3 into a good game, would still leave it a terrible Gothic game, since it would miss the entire point, and be pretty much a complete betrayal and a non-sequitur follow-up to the series, but I could at least then lay claims for it being a game with some worth on its own. While, as it is in reality, is has no genuine worth in basically any point of view or approach.

I think it would have worked if the original Gothic "trilogy" was finished. Why I mean by this is a hypothetical third game made on the same but improved original engine, that improves the formula rather than replace it and with a game world maybe 30% bigger than G2 NOTR with at most three MAYBE four settlements. An engine is more than just graphics. It's a big part of the overall feel of the game. Basically, if Gothic 3 had been what Gothic 2 was for 1 and finished that story arc, they could have done something like the Gothic 3 we got after that game. A big reason why I feel betrayed by G3 is because we never really got to see the end of what was started, except for perhaps story. I would have liked to see improved combat with a stamina bar, shields, the importance of a day/night cycle (some monsters are stronger or weaker at night, some quests can only be acquired at night, orc patrols are different at night etc.), perhaps each chapter could have a different season that influences the gameplay too, expanded NPC routines and stuff like that. You might argue that we did get a stamina bar and shields but we got them within a very different combat system. I meant those features as additions to the original combat system.

That's why I have a love/hate relationship with the Gamebryo engine. I'm sure many of you will disagree but all of the TES games from even Morrowind to Skyrim have a sense of familiarity, like they are clearly made of the same stock, at least visually. To see that continuity preserved across many years and across different game design paradigms is part of the TES DNA for me. Also, I guess the reason why I can enjoy both Gothic and games like Skyrim is because I can see they are actually very different games with different objectives. I think you could make a TES game with a smaller game world like Gothic but not the other way around.
 

Lord_Potato

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,837
Location
Free City of Warsaw
With all the fan made patches Gothic 3 is a very decent game and provides lots of fun. There is emergant gameplay: I liberated my first town by provoking a three sided battle between its garrison, some bandits and several packs of wildlife and then just ran around slashing everyone who seemed to get an upper hand. The battle lasted for several in-game hours, from an evening, throughout the night, until the morning, in a large area. Not many games written today would support such a conflict.

Also it was fun later, after getting lots of power, to take on entire garrisons. In the southern towns I ran on the rooftops like some freaking Aladdin, raining death from above. And fighting the hordes of Orks in Geldern while using bows and magic and only sometimes closing in for a melee kill was a treat. Loved every minute of it.

Sure, there are some underdevelopped areas, the game was much too ambitious for its time. But my 2020 modded experience with Gothic 3 was immensly pleasureful one.
 

thesecret1

Arcane
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
5,681
Oh no, I hate when actions have logical consequences in my role playing games.
Yeah, no, fuck off with that bullshit, the game straight up locks you out of half its content if you decide to do some quests early, and doesn't even bother to warn you about it. Therefore, the best way to play in order to get the content is to tour all of Myrtana, finish all the quests in every city except the last one, where you'll just go "Yeah, let's overthrow the orcs, attack on my signal" and then fuck off to another city, and then, finally, revisit each and every city and finally give the signal to attack. It's stupid and it's just bad design.
 

Lord_Potato

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,837
Location
Free City of Warsaw
Oh no, I hate when actions have logical consequences in my role playing games.
Yeah, no, fuck off with that bullshit, the game straight up locks you out of half its content if you decide to do some quests early, and doesn't even bother to warn you about it. Therefore, the best way to play in order to get the content is to tour all of Myrtana, finish all the quests in every city except the last one, where you'll just go "Yeah, let's overthrow the orcs, attack on my signal" and then fuck off to another city, and then, finally, revisit each and every city and finally give the signal to attack. It's stupid and it's just bad design.

If you speak to Orcs between liberations, you get warning signs that they know someone is undermining their rule and that you are a prime suspect. And yes, first you need to prepare events in every town before starting a series of uprisings. This way you capture orks by surprise.
 

OctavianRomulus

Learned
Joined
Aug 21, 2019
Messages
480
Gothic 3 still could have had a large open world but let's be honest, if you cut half of the content in all 3 continents, you would not have noticed and the game would have been better for it. A maximum of 3 for Myrtana and 2 settlements for the other regions. Maybe Nordmar could have been a separate island. Or the other two could have been expansion pack areas.

Honestly, this applies to every Open World game in the last decade.
 

Baardhaas

Cipher
Patron
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
576
Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here
Gothic 3 still could have had a large open world but let's be honest, if you cut half of the content in all 3 continents, you would not have noticed and the game would have been better for it.
Sure, PB was obviously in over their heads, they didn't have the resources (time, manpower, expertise) to realise a game with such a large scope.
Or the other two could have been expansion pack areas.
No, just no. Locking content in DLC's is Oblivion tier levels of decline. And it would completely mess up one of the strongest points of G3: the way the map is designed.
Honestly, this applies to every Open World game in the last decade.
Time flies, G3 ws released between 2000 and 2010, 2 decades ago.
 

OctavianRomulus

Learned
Joined
Aug 21, 2019
Messages
480
Gothic 3 still could have had a large open world but let's be honest, if you cut half of the content in all 3 continents, you would not have noticed and the game would have been better for it.
Sure, PB was obviously in over their heads, they didn't have the resources (time, manpower, expertise) to realise a game with such a large scope.
Or the other two could have been expansion pack areas.
No, just no. Locking content in DLC's is Oblivion tier levels of decline. And it would completely mess up one of the strongest points of G3: the way the map is designed.
Honestly, this applies to every Open World game in the last decade.
Time flies, G3 ws released between 2000 and 2010, 2 decades ago.

Anyone is over their heads when they want to make a game this size. You WILL have to make sacrifices if you want that size. ESPECIALLY if you are not a AAA company like PB is. I think lots of people think PB have the same resources as Bethesda when in fact they are somewhere between an indie company and a big company. Even Bethesda and CDPR have a hard time making these kinds of games work. There is no game the size of Gothic 3 that also has deep, intricate gameplay and worlds. Witcher 3 was a clear downgrade when it comes to choice and consequence, quest complexity compared to Witcher 2.

I said they could have made them expansion content because this would have allowed them to focus on one area at a time. Perhaps the game would have had less bugs and stability issues this way too.

It doesn't matter if it came two decades ago, the flaws you see in G3 are present in every huge open world game, even the good ones. Better technology won't fix this, there are simply too many moving parts.

There is nothing wrong with making a game like Oblivion and Skyrim, I like them very much but that size comes at a price and for Gothic it wasn't worth it, especially not for Gothic. What bothers me is that Oblivion and Skyrim are basically the Call of Duty of RPGs, they are the games everyone wants to copycat nowadays even if the formula doesn't always fit.
 

Zanzoken

Arcane
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
3,559
Flaw #1 - Basic gameplay mechanics and balance
Flaw #2 - Story, faction and quest system

Gothic 3 could've been a good game, but it couldn't have been a good Gothic game. Even with better combat and story / quests, it just deviates too far from the winning formula of G1 and G2 to be worthy sequel.

An easy analog is Larian and BG3. Maybe it'll be good for what it is, but it's so radically different from the first two games that it's really Baldur's Gate in name only. The irony in the case of Gothic is that it was Piranha Bytes themselves who torpedoed their own flagship franchise.
 

Tigranes

Arcane
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
10,350
Oh no, I hate when actions have logical consequences in my role playing games.
Yeah, no, fuck off with that bullshit, the game straight up locks you out of half its content if you decide to do some quests early, and doesn't even bother to warn you about it. Therefore, the best way to play in order to get the content is to tour all of Myrtana, finish all the quests in every city except the last one, where you'll just go "Yeah, let's overthrow the orcs, attack on my signal" and then fuck off to another city, and then, finally, revisit each and every city and finally give the signal to attack. It's stupid and it's just bad design.

If you speak to Orcs between liberations, you get warning signs that they know someone is undermining their rule and that you are a prime suspect. And yes, first you need to prepare events in every town before starting a series of uprisings. This way you capture orks by surprise.

Yep. Of all the things to complain about Gothic 3, this is a dumb hill to die on.

Anyway, "finishing" Gothic 3 would likely involve cutting snowland and desert land...
 

OctavianRomulus

Learned
Joined
Aug 21, 2019
Messages
480
It's not all Doom and Gloom, the Chronicles of Myrtana and History of Khorinis teams are working hard to bring us more Gothic. Maybe they really are as good as they look.

Fucking hell, at this rate I'mma have to make my own Gothic spiritual successor one day. We got Risen, but they fucked that up too after the first one. ELEX is crap, it doesn't know whether it wants to be Gothic or something else, it feels weird and schizophrenic.
 

demoman

Educated
Joined
Sep 11, 2020
Messages
32
lay off cocaine

(presumably in between cocaine snorts)

damn...i picked the wrong career, game development sounds dope!

Anyway, my biggest gripe is that i compare it to 1 and 2 which are both incredible experiences for me, so it comes out reeeeeally shitty.

Still i believe that creation is a continual process so in a way i feel that what ELEX is (which i fucking adore, warts and all) wouldn't be what it is without gothic 3 before it.
 

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