Review Pro-G reviews Gothic 3's performance but forgets game

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Tags: Gothic III; Piranha Bytes

Another <a href=http://www.pro-g.co.uk/pc/gothic_3/review.html>lackluster review</a> for <a href=http://www.gothic3.com/>Gothic 3</a> has surfaced on the web, this time from UK based gaming website <a href=http://www.pro-g.co.uk/>Pro-G</a> which gives a <b>6/10</b> to <a href=http://www.piranha-bytes.com/>Piranha Bytes'</a> game. Unfortunately, the review is what's lackluster as it doesn't really say a whole lot about gameplay. Mandatory quote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>
<br>
So, what have I listed up so far for Gothic 3? Terrible graphics, dialogue and narration, and a needlessly resource-hungry engine that renders a large amount of the game unplayable? Yep, check all those. But, ludicrous as it sounds, Gothic 3 has some strangely addictive and compelling qualities that I really have no explanation for. I've been playing the game for a fair while now and I've waged war in one awful duel after another. Each time I've lamented the lack of exciting, realistic sound effects as swords bounce silently off each other. Each time I've been in fear of another game crash or stutter-bug. Each time I've sworn that this is the last goddamn time I will try to kill a bandit in my life.
<br>
<br>
But each time I end up coming back for more. And I don't understand why. The game is obviously unfinished and badly made; it's the very type of game that developers shouldn't be allowed to release as, in my opinion, an unplayable game must be in breach of some trading standards law somewhere. It goes against the very nature of a game.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
On the other hand, a useless review must be in breach of relevancy to readers everywhere.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.pro-g.co.uk/">Pro-G</A>

 

[Greatatlantic]

I see somebody has been picking up VD's snarky method of News Posting.

 

[Hamster]

Speaking of G3 reviews, AG.ru recently posted it's review(which i find to be very good) of the game and gived G3 79%
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe...p=ru_en&url=http://www.ag.ru/reviews/gothic_3
Translation sucks, of course, but you can get a main idea.

 

[sabishii]

I was gonna say something negative but I just read the full article and what he says after your quote is pretty agreeable:

And that's why Gothic 3 is one of the most brilliantly evil creations to ever be released to the games buying public. Well, in a while anyway. There is no other comparable experience in the world to playing Gothic 3, because while you absolutely hate its awful, rushed state and you immediately want to demand your money back, you just can't. The game is somehow too much fun and the world is too massive to leave unexplored. The story, while predictable and unimaginative, is enough to carry the limping gameplay and graphics. It almost seems impossible, but the game, despite being bad on so many levels, gives you an odd sense of excitement, as you push further and further into the world of Gothic 3.

Ultimately, Gothic 3 is like getting into a cold bath on a hot day - it's refreshing, but somehow painful, and no matter how much you love it, you have to admit that it isn't much fun to do. As such, for those considering whether the purchase is worth it (and I'll admit that I present a mixed case) I can only offer the following advice; do buy the game, but wait for a bit before you do. Let the patches pile up and the fan-made tweaks appear before you indulge in what is currently one of the most badly made classics available.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I was gonna say something negative but I just read the full article and what he says after your quote is pretty agreeable

Not really. I mean, you can agree with his stance but just what of it is relevant? What about combat details? Factions? Options open to the player? Customization? Interaction? Consequences to choices and actions?

The problem with the review is that he picks up on elements which are broader in scope and just gives small, self-contained opinions about them without ever lenghtly analyzing them. It's possible the game has more to offer than 'fun' and 'a world that's too massive to leave unexplored'. But he never goes into what or why. He just tells us he can't stop playing in spite of the game being apparently rushed and buggy, but never tells us what is there in the game that entices him to do so.

 

[Top Hat]

I've been reading the reviews from the archived Computer Gaming World magazines. It's horrifying to think of the detail that the reviews went into then versus what we are presented with as a "review" now.

It's really just another facet that the computer gaming "industry" has become just that - an industry. Back when people did these things not primarily for the money, but because they enjoyed doing it AND were reasonably intelligent enough to pull it together, games tended to have either a higher quality, or at least the reviewers would not that a game sucked.

Now we get "games" announced as the "best gaem evar" and genre "saviours" when they are boring, bug-riddled messes and the genre doesn't need the "help".

 

[The Vanished One]

Let the patches pile up and the fan-made tweaks appear before you indulge in what is currently one of the most badly made classics available.

They're right. I should have waited too before buying the game, but I found a review somewhere where they don't even talk about the performance... remember to read always more than one review before you buy a game.

 

[Astromarine]

Terrible graphics? Are these people insane?

 

[Nedrah]

They sure are terrible for me, given the kind of settings I used in the hope of being able to play at all. Still unplayable performance wise. That's on a computer that's well above the min specs.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Terrible graphics? Are these people insane?

Sure looks like it. Must be a new trend in gaming journalism.

 

[Jasede]

They sure are terrible for me, given the kind of settings I used in the hope of being able to play at all. Still unplayable performance wise. That's on a computer that's well above the min specs.

You must be doing something wrong.
Step 1: Apply the .ini tweaks mentioned in another thread here
Step 2: Reduce the resolution to 1024x768
Step 3: Minimize all detail settings
Step 4: Increase Anti-aliasing as high as you can, not changing anything else yet.
It should run fine with 4x if you have an ATI card. If not, just use the basic simple anti-aliasing.
Step 5: Set view distances to medium, see if it runs smoothly. If it does, try maximun VD.
Step 6: NOW slowly work on the other settings. Texture quality is the most important, try getting it to medium.

Summary: To make G3 look nice, you just need AA, good VDs and passable texture details. The other stuff is fluff you can activate if it still runs smoothly.

Note: It runs smoothly for me, and I am well, WELL below min. specs. Also, don't forget to deactivate any fluff your system might be running in the background. And defrag your HD. Should look fine and dandy with 4x AA. Except for a large amount of initial stuttering right after loading a game. That's normal and only means you don't have enough RAM. It should reduce itself a lot after running for a minute.

 

[jiujitsu]

Since when is Role-Player on staff?

I've been away too long.

 

[RadioGnome Invisible]

Terrible graphics? Are these people insane?

Yes... and no. Graphics are really, really good - if you either have something close to NASA supercomputer, or you're "nerd" enough to run thru ini files to tweak all the settings manually. If you meet both requirements - then congrats, you get fantastic-looking game with acceptable performance. If not - sucks to be you.

blah

I DO respect Nomad's opinion, 'cos i do have similar tastes in music / tv shows / movies / games and everything, including musli with yoghurt , but it seems he's too soft towards RPGs. Perhaps, he's not familiar with genre long enough. I mean - 79% to Oblivion? 82% to Titan Quest? WTF? Give me a break, those games are hardly worth 50%. Same goes to G3 - its clearly unfinished, bug-ridden and rushed, so IMHO 79% is way too much for it. It pains me to accept it, but 50-60 is more than enough for G3. On the other hand, his reviews' contents imply the said low score, so "official" highscore rather contradicts with his reviews tones. Don't want to spread conspiracy theories, but he's more likely forced to give higher scores to those games - after all, the original score for Doom 3 was around 50%. It does not hold long enough before being changed for current one.

 

[Hamster]

- after all, the original score for Doom 3 was around 50%. It does not hold long enough before being changed for current one.

I heard this conspiracy theory many times before, and no one was able to support some proff. If you have one, please show it, screenshot will do.

I mean - 79% to Oblivion? 82% to Titan Quest? WTF? Give me a break, those games are hardly worth 50%

AG.ru is not an RPG nerd site, why should it penalise games for not following "The Path of True RPG"? Titan quest was fun and definetly worth one playthrought, it is a big achievment in todays game industry. Many people have found enjoyble aspects in Oblivion(i mean non-retarded people).

On the other hand, his reviews' contents imply the said low score, so "official" highscore rather contradicts with his reviews tones.

It's just the style of reviewing, and i cannot say i dislike it. There hundreds of sites and magazines, that will gladly desribe why the game X is the best game evar, and having sites that focus more on negative aspects of games, while giving resonable scores is very useful. Why spend half of the article describing the strong sides of the Gothic series, when you have reviews of Gothic 1-2?

It pains me to accept it, but 50-60 is more than enough for G3.

G3 have many flaws, but 50-60 means the game is not worth buying, and G3 is definetly worth buying (im going to buy american release myself), hey it's of two if not great, but at least semi-decent rpg's released this year.(second is nwn2)

 

[Claw]

Terrible graphics? Are these people insane?

Yes... and no. Graphics are really, really good - if you either have something close to NASA supercomputer, or you're "nerd" enough to run thru ini files to tweak all the settings manually.

Err, nonsense. My PC is barely middleclass and I didn't do any ini tweaking, at least not successfully. Ir runs well enough after I disabled Depth of Field, which didn't really look better imo.

 

[Hamster]

Terrible graphics? Are these people insane?

Yes... and no. Graphics are really, really good - if you either have something close to NASA supercomputer, or you're "nerd" enough to run thru ini files to tweak all the settings manually.

Err, nonsense. My PC is barely middleclass and I didn't do any ini tweaking, at least not successfully. Ir runs well enough after I disabled Depth of Field, which didn't really look better imo.

I agree, i have GeForce 6800GT, 2Gb Ram P4 3600. It's a pretty good rig , but very far from

NASA supercomputerar

. With 2.0 shaders, medium textures, medium shadows, no ini tweaks, and DOF turned on the game still looks great and fps is at least playable.
The performance could be much better but it is not that bad, as peoples describe it.

 

[RadioGnome Invisible]

I heard this conspiracy theory many times before, and no one was able to support some proff. If you have one, please show it, screenshot will do.

You know me, i think, so feel free to take my word for it. Can't prove it tho - never thought they're going to change the score, so never felt the necessity to take the screenshot. So, take it or leave it.

AG.ru is not an RPG nerd site, why should it penalise games for not following "The Path of True RPG"? Titan quest was fun and definetly worth one playthrought, it is a big achievment in todays game industry. Many people have found enjoyble aspects in Oblivion(i mean non-retarded people).

OK, both games were boring crap even as simply "games". Even outside "RPG" genre. Bad story and characters, uninspiring design, all that shit. No redeeming qualities whatsoever, unless you count construction sets as one.

It's just the style of reviewing, and i cannot say i dislike it. There hundreds of sites and magazines, that will gladly desribe why the game X is the best game evar, and having sites that focus more on negative aspects of games, while giving resonable scores is very useful. Why spend half of the article describing the strong sides of the Gothic series, when you have reviews of Gothic 1-2?

Still, there's nothing in both those reviews to justify 79%.

 

[RadioGnome Invisible]

Hamster[wh40K]
Claw
Yep, that's exactly the biggest complaint - GIII-s performance is unoptimized to the point of unpredictability. Sometimes weaker system performs better than total high-end in GIII. Remember that dumbfucked AVE having slideshow? His PC (videocard, memory, etc) is pretty much close to mine, and i - personally - have no problems at all.

Hamster[wh40K]
I've played with tripled detail (vegetation, objects, everything) range, with acceptable framerate. Check AG forums - some guys with dual videocards can't run it in minimal details at all.

And yes, just now GIII is not worth buying. My brother bought the british release, so i had the chance to test it and form my own opinion. Perhaps, good addon (NOTR, anyone) will fix some deeper issues, like AI and sandbox design flaws.

 

[Hamster]

OK, both games were boring crap even as simply "games". Even outside "RPG" genre. Bad story and characters, uninspiring design, all that shit. No redeeming qualities whatsoever, unless you count construction sets as one.

It's a matter of personal preferences, Titan Quest kept me entartained for a few weeks and this is enought for me to rank it 7-8/10. Good monster killing game.

You know me, i think, so feel free to take my word for it. Can't prove it tho - never thought they're going to change the score, so never felt the necessity to take the screenshot. So, take it or leave it.

For what period of time 50% score was up then? I remember reading this review the same day, if not the same hour it showed up and the score was 70%, it happened 2 years ago, my memory may be failing me...

 

[RadioGnome Invisible]

For what period of time 50% score was up then? I remember reading this review the same day, if not the same hour it showed up and the score was 70%, it happened 2 years ago, my memory may be failing me...

Five minutes? Fifty? Hour-two-three or so? Not sure. The first time i saw that review it was ~50%. When i checked back the next morning it was already the way it's now.

 

[Claw]

I agree, i have GeForce 6800GT, 2Gb Ram P4 3600. It's a pretty good rig , but very far from

NASA supercomputerar

. With 2.0 shaders, medium textures, medium shadows, no ini tweaks, and DOF turned on the game still looks great and fps is at least playable.
The performance could be much better but it is not that bad, as peoples describe it.

Wait, you got a GF6800GT any only use Shader 2.0? That's odd. I have only a GF6600GT and I use 3.0 even. I hardly feel a difference performance-wise, but the water and shadows look much better iirc.

 

[Hamster]

I agree, i have GeForce 6800GT, 2Gb Ram P4 3600. It's a pretty good rig , but very far from

NASA supercomputerar

. With 2.0 shaders, medium textures, medium shadows, no ini tweaks, and DOF turned on the game still looks great and fps is at least playable.
The performance could be much better but it is not that bad, as peoples describe it.

Wait, you got a GF6800GT any only use Shader 2.0? That's odd. I have only a GF6600GT and I use 3.0 even. I hardly feel a difference performance-wise, but the water and shadows look much better iirc.

Well, i havent really tested 3.0, turned it off right after first launch(everything maxed), wich gave me ~5 fps. I assumed my pc won't handle it...I will go and test it right now.

 

[Hamster]

I tried 3.0 - runs a little bit slower, but still playable.