Review G4 reviews Gothic 3 - 3/5

[Kraszu]

In non-computer role-playing (D&D, Gurps, etc.), this ("all choices are possible for all types of characters") is also possible because you have a Game Master (GM) with whom you are working out a story. If you and the GM can agree that something is possible, and you are clever enough to pull it off, then it can happen. A fighter infiltrating the mage's guild? Sounds like a challenging role-playing situation. "I deftly use a scroll to make the mages think I can cast a fireball."

Computer RPGs have no GM, so they can either put restrictions on you (which can inhibit your ability to role-play your character as you envision him), or they give you no restrictions at all (which means you need to put restrictions on yourself when you play, leading to disappointment when you solve a quest and get an outcome that doesn't suit your character). I guess I prefer the latter, but there are games that found a happy medium (Arcanum, imho).

If I do not use magic, then it doesn't make sense for me to join the mage's guild, so I "role-play" and do not join that guild. If you do so, then you are not role-playing. You are exploiting the freedom that the game is giving you. Role playing isn't something that the game engine is supposed to do for you in Elder Scrolls. "Sandbox" Love it or hate it, I guess.

You see in p&p GM limits you, in game game mechanics limits you, when they don't that is no longer a crp game you just pretend that it is. It is like you would play a game whit no challenge at all but to make up challenge you sometimes close eyes, or use only one hand to play (hence jokes about larping). You would no longer beat the game but silly handicap (because it is outside of game rules) that you made up for yourself.[/b]

 

[bat_boro]

It doesn't even have the depth to allow for such a complex idea as "you're teh chosen one". It's just "you're a good dood, kill bad doods".

Whatever, my point is that it's B.O.R.I.N.G.
And shiny.

Gothic 3 story, on the other hand is not for saving the world from the evil orcs.
Even the fact that the orcs are presented as a race, with their own customs and beliefs, makes Gothic 3 story something much more than "yet another orcs' story". And, besides, the orcs are not evil. I mean, really. They're just different. And that, my friend, is what makes Gothic 3 story good. Maybe not THAT good (I hoped for something more) but different at least. Cuz I'm fuckin' sick of saving the world and being teh chosen one.

 

[Volourn]

"And, besides, the orcs are not evil."

They are evil. You'd have to be blind not to see that.

 

[bat_boro]

"And, besides, the orcs are not evil."

They are evil. You'd have to be blind not to see that.

No, they're not.
Same thing as telling that the Predators from AvP are evil - it's just their culture and way of life. They're proud warriors who live in battle.
Same with orcs.
At least that's the way I see the things.

 

[Volourn]

"Same thing as telling that the Predators from AvP are evil - it's just their culture and way of life. They're proud warriors who live in battle."

So.. drow aren't evil?

No. Orcs in G3 are for the most part evil. They fit in the very concept of what has generally been defined as evil. Slavery, wanton murder, theft, bullying, conquering/loridng over innocent people who never did anything to you, their list of evil acts is nearly unlimited.

There are exceptions to the rule; but by and alrge the orc faction in the game is evil, and your character is at best neutral (a mercenary) if not flat out evil to side with them.

To compare the Predators to the orcs is just plain stupid.

There is no gray here. The orcs of G3 are pure evil.

Did you play the same G3 or the pretend one?

Ther eis no difference in the G3 orc's moral code to the typical D&D orc's moral code. The biggets difference is that in G3, they've succeeded in taking over an entire land (but not whole continent). Then again, D&D orcs ahve damn well done the same thing so even that's not new.

G3 are evil.

Period.

 

[Dogar]

Well, they were certainly bad in the way that they invaded, occupied, and enslaved Myrtana. But there was nothing inherently malicious or cruel about them as a people. To be honest I thought the whole Orcish invasion scenario felt authentic, at least compared to most fantasy games. The orcs invaded and enslaved for purely pratical reasons, like most nations would.

In most fantasy games, the Orcs would have invaded just 'cause they're evil, and you would have been exposed to countless examples of their nastiness to drive home the point: Beating slaves, eating babies, humiliating people, because they're just that evil!!! At the very least, Gothic does a much more interesting spin of "Oh no! Orcs!" than Oblivion does of "Oh no! Demons!"

 

[Volourn]

"But there was nothing inherently malicious or cruel about them as a people"

Yes, they are. Did you actually talk to the orcs? For the most, as individuals they are evil. As a faction, there is absolutely no doubt they ar eembodiment of evil.

There's a reason why G3 orcs tend to worship the Gothic 3 world's verison of an 'evil god'.

R00fles!

 

[Dogar]

*potential story spoiler*

Yes, I did talk with lots of them. They were aggressive, arrogant, and demanding. Not very nice people, but not "pure evil" I didn't see them wantonly killing people or deriving pleasure from the suffering of the Myrtanans. That would be my definition of pure evil. The fact that there are so many survivors in Myrtanan cities and elsewhere gives a good indication that the Orcs don't just kill anyone and everyone. They're certainly a lot better than the D&D orcs. Those orcs kill everyone, often just for something to do. The G3 orcs actually let their subjects integrate with the orcs if they're good fighters and hunters. They're not the same creature at all.

Oh, and I talked to Beliar in game, and I'm not so sure that the Orcs follow him anymore. It's the Hashishi in G3 that are the Beliar faction. Besides, even the Hashishi don't really qualify for "pure evil" either. I'd have to play as the Orc side to know for sure, though.

 

[Kraszu]

In Night of the Raven there are humans that worship Beliar. That proves nothing if in g3 every orc worship beliar but it is not on what I read about before game gone gold..

 

[Volourn]

"Those orcs kill everyone, often just for something to do."

D&D orcs do no such thing. They love having slaves too.


"even the Hashishi don't really qualify for "pure evil"

I never claimed they were so why bring 'em up?

G3 orcs are evil. Pur eevil. Pure evil doesn't equal kill everything that moves. that's silly talk. Slavers tend to try, and not kill their slaves... it's bad for business.

 

[suibhne]

Oh great, not this argument again.

 

[bat_boro]

Well, Volourn, it seems that we have a different vision for "pure evil".
I really think that orcs in Gothic 3 are somehow similar to Predators and if I seem stupid in your eyes because of that - so be it.
And yes, I did play the game.

Orcs' life is the way of battle and war. They respect the strong warriors and actually respect the humans for being good warriors.
Yes, they have slaves. But it's a war, it's a medievil fantasy world so who don't have slaves after all?
If you remember Gothic 1, in the old mine the humans had an orc slave, too. So does this make them evil? You could say so.

And D&D orcs ... they're evil, because they've heard it's cool to be evil. As simple as that.

In Gothic 3 I never saw an orc that would kill a slave just for the pleasure of this. Yes, they are ignorant bastards but they will respect you and eventually trust you if you could prove you're worthy. Which doesn't mean you have to be evil. You just have to follow their rules, the rules of the war. If it means killing a few people, so be it. But it's a war, after all, so killing and raping over the country is normal.
Another thing. They have honor and it means a lot to them. D&D orcs have honor? I don't think so.

 

[Shannow]

Yes, they have slaves. But it's a war, it's a medievil fantasy world so who don't have slaves after all?
If you remember Gothic 1, in the old mine the humans had an orc slave, too. So does this make them evil? You could say so.

of course it makes them evil. in the real world, every evil, atrocious, vile and malicious act is commited by humans. so we are an evil race

 

[bat_boro]

of course it makes them evil. in the real world, every evil, atrocious, vile and malicious act is commited by humans. so we are an evil race

One possible explonation is that there are not orcs or any other races in the real world, don't you think ...?

 

[Shannow]

there were neanderthals,...until we exterminated them. your point being...?

 

[bat_boro]

Fuck that, forget it.

Btw, some time ago I learned that some American scientist proved that Hobbits existed ... wtf?
Is Frodo my long lost cousin I never met? :shock:

 

[The_Pope]

So the roman empire, and, for that matter, every other empire ever to exist was pure evil? They all did exactly what the orcs do in Gothic 3.

 

[aweigh]

Cry for the Indians.

 

[Volourn]

"D&D orcs have honor? I don't think so."

Yes, yes they do. You obviously know very little about D&D orcs.

Or honour.

You can be evil if have an honour system.


"Yes, they are ignorant bastards but they will respect you and eventually trust you if you could prove you're worthy."

And? Being evil doesn't disqualify you from any of this stuff.

Irenicus from BG2 is evil; but he trusts his sister. Heck, he even respects the PC. This proves nothing.


"But it's a war, after all, so killing and raping over the country is normal."

So.. it's not evil to rape during a war? So... those Amerikan soliders who got caught raping an iraqi girl, and killing her family arne't evil... because, to you, that's 'normal' in war? Give me a break.


"In Gothic 3 I never saw an orc that would kill a slave just for the pleasure of this."

You better pay closer attention.


Alos, it should be noted. Not every Gothic 3 orc (or D&D orc for that matter) is evilk; but the Orc Faction most cetrianly is.

This is undisputable.


"If you remember Gothic 1, in the old mine the humans had an orc slave, too. So does this make them evil? You could say so."

I cna't even remember playing G1; but the description you provided, yes, that human is evil.

However, we're discussing G3. The G3 orc faction si evil. The human rebel faction is good.

It doesn't mena there is non evil orc or non good human rebel; but those are the exemptions to the rule.


"And D&D orcs ... they're evil, because they've heard it's cool to be evil. As simple as that"

That's the dumbest thing i've heard since VD whined about me whining about his ME article and took a fit over it. D&D orcs have never heard of the word cool.

G3 orcs are pretty much a copy cat of D&D orcs except they actually have gained power through the orcish way - murdering, war, pillaging, summoning demons, slavery, theft, you name it.

Once again, NEWSFLASH: Evil creatures can have honour too. The fact you think otherwise shows how much of a lost cause you are.

 

[sabishii]

If I do not use magic, then it doesn't make sense for me to join the mage's guild, so I "role-play" and do not join that guild. If you do so, then you are not role-playing. You are exploiting the freedom that the game is giving you. Role playing isn't something that the game engine is supposed to do for you in Elder Scrolls. "Sandbox" Love it or hate it, I guess.

That's not exploiting the freedom in a game; that's a game with freedom but no adverse downsides to any choice so that you don't have a meaningful decision between anything. In that situation, if I were roleplaying a non-magic character that had any sense of practicality, I *would* join the Mage guild because I'd have more opportunities to get some magic weapons I could use and there would be no adverse consequences.

Just having choices does not make a game a good RPG. They mean nothing unless they are developed so so that there is some actual roleplaying reflected in further gameplay, not just roleplaying in your head. Not just consequences in terms of restrictions but as in new gameplay opportunities, changes in the setting, changes in your character, all of which help you roleplay your character. For example, you said you can be a thief and steal from peoples' houses. So what? What's your motivation for stealing? You can't give your "earnings" to the poor as there won't be any ingame reflection of them being happier or becoming less poor. You can spend it on yourself, but your only options are to buy kewl magic equipment or to furnish your house. On the other hand, you can't spend it to say bribe your way to the top of a guild or political system, as the former can only be achieved through a linear sequence of quests and the latter isn't possible at all. So, yeah, you can steal and commit acts of thievery - but you aren't really a thief.

The same goes for the rest of the "choices" you have. You can join a guild but all that really means is that you do a linear sequence of quests to get to the top. And then you can't even do anything with that power. You can try to be a trader but like mentioned above, what would you do with the profit? You can try to be an explorer, but you can't come home to tell tales to the townfolk or produce maps for royalty. Basically, all you can do is say that you are an "X" but it is not developed or reflected at all in your gameplay, so you might as well roleplay in Notepad with the same degree of consequence. Furthermore, there's a lot of characters you CAN'T roleplay, such as being a diplomat or politician, being a religious missionary/inquisitor, being a rebellious proletariat or an aristocratic noble, etc. etc.

In essence, the only real choice (i.e. the only well developed choice... Aside: "the only choice", I guess that's not really a choice) you have in Oblivion is in playing an Adventurer type. There are loads of dungeons to explore, treasures to loot, multiple ways to fight in combat, etc. IMO this degree of depth needs to be applied to all the character types in a good RPG.

Now, looking at G3, true, there are less choices in character (from first glance, at least, as we deduced there is only one *real* choice in Oblivion), but these are more developed so that they actually mean something. Whichever side you help, you will see them slowly take over the continent. The consequences of your choices aren't only indicated in your amount of gold and quality of your equipment as in Oblivion, but also in the game world itself. If you take out the Orcs in a town, then the next day you'll see Rebels populating and restoring that town, so that town by town you'll see the Rebels regaining power. If you side with the Orcs, you'll slaughter Rebel camp after Rebel camp so that no Rebels would be alive in the country anymore and you'd have regained peace for all (or whatever your motivation was). Yes, many of the aspects of G3 can be improved, but in terms of *supporting* roleplaying (not just "allowing roleplaying") it does its job much better than Oblivion.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Geminto, I disagree with your view on what makes a good role-playing game, but after reading your posts in this thread, I don't hate you anymore. I don't assume that matters all that much to you, but it was significant enough to me I thought I should make a note of it.

I haven't played Gothic 3 and haven't gotten far in Gothic 2, but aren't the orcs behaving toward the humans similarly as the humans behave toward orcs (and other humans)?

 

[Dogar]

"D&D orcs have honor? I don't think so."

Yes, yes they do. You obviously know very little about D&D orcs.

Or honour.

You better pay closer attention.

Once again, NEWSFLASH: Evil creatures can have honour too. The fact you think otherwise shows how much of a lost cause you are.

Yeesh! I know this is the Codex, but I think it'd do you good to lay of the condescension and incredulity you heap onto people who politely disagree with you. Mocking people who don't hold your particular opinion on the definition of the pure epitome of evil doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look like a jackass. The truth of your opinions is harldy self-evident.

Eh, everyone including me should just stuff it anyway. This is a pretty retarded debate, even by Internet standards.

 

[Volourn]

"Yeesh! I know this is the Codex, but I think it'd do you good to lay of the condescension and incredulity you heap onto people who politely disagree with you. Mocking people who don't hold your particular opinion on the definition of the pure epitome of evil doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look like a jackass. The truth of your opinions is harldy self-evident.

Eh, everyone including me should just stuff it anyway. This is a pretty retarded debate, even by Internet standards."

You are correct to point this out, kind sir. Thank you for correcting my nasty behaviours. I will make sure be kinder and gentler much like you in the futures.

Good day.

 

[One Wolf]

^ creepy.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I think the Codex (and I myself) needs to accept that the concept behind Oblivion is here to stay, because, like it or not, it has created longlasting fun for many customers, and has honest fans. There are many arguments that within the RPG scene there should and could be that different type of games that the Codex advocates, but the emotional vendetta that apparently still hasn't quite abated here, was and is, as I have said before, counterproductive.

For all the reasons that this review mentioned I am enormously pissed at whoever is responsible for the premature release of G3. It should have been that game that would have allowed to argue; "yeah, look: open, freeform 3D, gamel like Oblivion are cool, but look how much cooler they are if you add a truly responsive world, and true choices and consequences". Instead they shot themselves in the leg by releasing an unfinished product, making it so easy for reviewers to shrug the game off. And because of this, the best chance we had last year for creating precedence that such concepts can be commercially attractive has apparently been wasted.