Review ActionTrip reviews Gothic 3 - 79%

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: Gothic III; Piranha Bytes

<a href=http://www.actiontrip.com>ActionTrip</a> has posted a <a href=http://www.actiontrip.com/reviews/gothic3_2.phtml>review</a> of <a href=http://www.gothic3.com>Gothic 3</a>, praising the game overall, but reducing the score to 79% for poor performance.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>When you take the time to install the necessary updates and fixes, Gothic 3 becomes a highly involving action RPG with a variety of quests to complete, an endless number of unique-looking locations to explore and plenty of characters to interact with. Although you won't find a lot of character depth and the back-story certainly seems vague at the outset, there's still enough to reel you in. It's important to emphasize that Gothic 3 becomes progressively interesting after you've spent a few days immersed in its intriguing world of interactivity, exploration and combat. The open-ended world is teeming with foes to fight and treasures to discover. Furthermore, the game brings forth many new fighting styles, spells and other abilities to use during your adventures. Again, I definitely recommend you try the game, but I also stress that you're gonna need a solid rig as well as the latest release of the game.</blockquote>No arguing here.
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.rpgwatch.com">RPG Watch</A>

 

[HardCode]

Reduced score for performance? These reviewer are double-standard, on the payroll, fucktards. Oblivion scored 9/10, 10/10 by these morons, but the ESF forums flooded with cries for help with performance right on release. Oh, meybe because the reviewers got a shiny new XBox 360 courtesy of the big B to review the game.

 

[jiujitsu]

From the way things sound, I won't be able to play Gothic 3 for a very long time.

 

[flushfire]

Id reduce the score cause of performance too. I cant believe my pc which ran Oblivion perfectly fine at high can't run Gothic 3 decently at the lowest settings. Even the bane of hardware F.E.A.R. runs ok on my PC, but Gothic (patched)? noooo. And I don't get it either, it's not like it looks better than most SPs or MMOs out there that require half the PC power.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Since when Oblivion is a benchmark?

RPGs always take more power than FPSs. See Bloodlines & Half Life 2 as an example.

 

[RadioGnome Invisible]

Since when Oblivion is a benchmark?

RPGs always take more power than FPSs. See Bloodlines & Half Life 2 as an example.

Yeah. It's mostly due to piss poor optimization. Smaller budget, less development time or both. I just can't beleive those simple scripts they use require that much computing power.

And yes, i still think Far Cry looks better than Oblivion. And it performs three times faster, too.

 

[Balor]

RPGs always take more power than FPSs. See Bloodlines & Half Life 2 as an example.

TESF-worthy! RGI's right... and VD, you either drunk, or high, or both, or senility is overtaking you.
Your post is just... dumb. Sorry.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Explain.

 

[Sae]

RPGs always take more power than FPSs. See Bloodlines & Half Life 2 as an example.

TESF-worthy! RGI's right... and VD, you either drunk, or high, or both, or senility is overtaking you.
Your post is just... dumb. Sorry.

There's a lot more silly crap that the AI in an RPG has to keep track of than the AI in a shooter. NPC schedules, factions, how much they like you, etc., whatever. In a shooter it's typically just "I am teh kill at u. oh noe u r liek teh kil me 2 so i go hide behind barels."

So assuming an RPG uses the same level of technology as an FPS, the RPG will run slower. Not that Gothic 3 uses the same technology as *insert latest "ZOMG I TAEKED COVAR SO SMART AM I" FPS*. Just explaining why RPGs run slower than FPSs.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Isn't that what I said?

 

[Sae]

Mostly a response to Balor.

 

[aweigh]

I believe Balor's point is that what you said, VD, is simply incorrect. I also share Balor's opinion that FPS'es feature much more complex code and tech than an RPG. It's certainly true that Bloodlines and Gothic 3 run like ass, but that's mostly due to time constraints, funding and resources, and the almighty publisher demands.

You know Valve or iD didn't have publishers breathing down their neck to release their products after one year, or a year and a half. Of course Half-Life 2 is going to look amazing and run like butter on any spec after 6 years and 40 million dollars spent; same with Doom 3.

However, if VD's assertion that the A.I. routines in modern 3D RPG's are so complex they considerably slow down the game is correct, hopefully future dev teams will properly utilize multi-core CPU's in order to offload some of that workload. The upcoming physics-related projects in the pipeline for both ATI and NVIDIA should bring good tidings in those aspects.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I believe Balor's point is that what you said, VD, is simply incorrect. I also share Balor's opinion that FPS'es feature much more complex code and tech than an RPG.

Like I said, Half-Life 2 vs Bloodlines. Same code and tech - different complexity level.

Of course Half-Life 2 is going to look amazing and run like butter on any spec after 6 years and 40 million dollars spent; same with Doom 3.

Unlike Bloodlines featuring multiple areas accessible all the time, NPCs, dialogues, quests' status, global and local data, etc, you play Half-Life 2 one level at a time (anything else is discarded) filled with agrressive bots and a handful of triggers. See the difference?

 

[flushfire]

Since when Oblivion is a benchmark?

since tomshardware uses it in its charts.

What I dont get is why Gothic 3 is graphics card intensive, while the game (at the lowest settings) looks like it could run on a Gfx 5200. If its the AI thats the culprit then Id imagine it should be CPU or memory intensive.

At least I was able to play Bloodlines back when i had a Gfx 5200, a budget card of its generation.

 

[Bradylama]

Bloodlines wasn't made with the same code and tech as Half-Life 2. Sure, they received a build of the same engine, but the Source build Troika had to work with was a mid-production one.

I'm pissed over Gothic 3 becuase I have a sneaking suspicion that it caused a massive system failure for me and the last 3 day's worth of hair-pulling agony.

I'm sure I'll enjoy the game someday, but at the present it's just not possible.

 

[Balor]

RPGs always take more power than FPSs. See Bloodlines & Half Life 2 as an example.

I think your understand that asking for explanation actually makes things worse?
Ok.
"RPGs always take more power then FPSes." Do you realize that your ‘always’ means that means Darklands MUST use more resources then FEAR!
How dumb is that?
Also, FPSes do NOT have to be 'dumb and simple'. Some can feature quite complex AI and whatnot... and the real stuff, one that makes RPG (at least 'classic' one) - takes NO additional resources.
After even most indepth dialogue, with LOTS of skill checks, takes much less resources then simply running and gunning.
And such things like 'plot' and 'actions&consequences' dictate sequence of events, not how much CPU they drain. Well, at least they are negligible in comparison to drawing complex geometry.

Ok, let’s assume you just worded you sentence incorrectly to a point it lost all it’s original meaning. OK, you wanted to say that RPGs using same engines must take more power then FPSes.
Perhaps, but see above, RGI’s post. Especially the ‘piss-poor optimization’ bit. There was nothing they added to HL2’s engine that warranted such jump in resource usage… I’m positively sure that they just didn’t have time&money to tweak it as much as guys at Valve did, and besides, they are just not as familiar with the engine as people that made it.
After all, you don’t think that they were handed the FINAL version of the engine, the one that used in release of HL2? I bet they were quite different by the time both games were released. I might be wrong, but I doubt by much.
And besides, what does that has to do with anything? Oblivion and Gothic3, for instance, use different engines. Only speedtree part is the same, so much as I recall. And besides, it's not technically a shooter.

I find it strange that choose not to see that. And I find it impossible that you 'simply' don't see it. That would mean that you are dumb, and that contradicts with all my previous impressions about you.
Unless you took a heavy blow to the head recently.

 

[Claw]

Ok.
"RPGs always take more power then FPSes." Do you realize that your ‘always’ means that means Darklands MUST use more resources then FEAR!
How dumb is that?

It's incredibly dumb. In fact, it's retarded. Any by that, I mean you are retarded. People rarely say precisely what they mean; instead they trust in the common sense of their counterparts to filter out a reasonable interpretation.
Mentioning this utterly idiotic interpretation just shows that you don't meet the basic requirements for an intelligent conversation.

 

[Vault Dweller]

"RPGs always take more power then FPSes." Do you realize that your ‘always’ means that means Darklands MUST use more resources then FEAR!
How dumb is that?

You are acting goofy, Balor. OBVIOUSLY, I didn't mean that Darklands used more resources than Fear or Doom 3. That's just plain fucking crazy. I meant games with similar graphics and/or the same engine. If you can prove me wrong, go ahead, but pulling semantics out of your ass is silly.

Another example: Deus Ex vs Unreal (during the fight in the hotel DE slowed to a crawl)
Ultima Underworld vs Wolfenstein 3D

Also, FPSes do NOT have to be 'dumb and simple'.

Even the most complex FPSs are "dumb and simple" comparing to RPGs.

And besides, it's not technically a shooter.

Technically, it is.

That would mean that you are dumb, and that contradicts with all my previous impressions about you.

Everyone who disagrees with you is dumb. Gotcha.

 

[Balor]

Sorry, it's you who are stupid. His post is an illustration of 'hasty generalization' fallacy. I just pointed out at the most glaring implication.

And besides, it's rather pointless anyway. There is a great thread pretty active now: "How should the "power" of today's PCs be used for".

In RPGs, mostly, of course. And general consensus that for classic RPGs we DO NOT need great computers, just great designers and writers.

After all, a great RPG does not need to be 'EPIC!!1'. Does not need great graphics, huge open spaces filled with eye candy, etc (FPSes need that the most, cause they have little else to lyre people with. It can be a bonus, but not required.).
It needs choices&consequences, meaningful quests and setting that makes sence. (Well, at least in my book).
Of course, a procedural content generation is a great thing, and it can be have a great impact on gameplay and performance, heh, but we don't have that so far.
So, congratulations for winning the special Olympics, Claw.

 

[Balor]

@ VD
Ok. But does those 'slowdowns' stem from 'RPGness' of those games with comparative engines, or from different things, like lame optimization?
You can have your opinion, of course, but until you will list all features that must used more resources in RPG games, and are NESSESARY for an RPG game, in comparison to FPS, I consider your opinion retarded... and not just retarded, but clashing with your own previous words and general Codex consensus that RPGs do not need great graphics to be good RPGs.

For instance, in RPG there could be a scene of where you are attacked by 100 enemies, and in FPS game you never attacked by more then 10. Of course, that scene will run extremely sluggishly.
But is that scene important for the game to be RPG? And what prevents FPS authors from making a scene where you are attacked by half thousand enemies? Does it make that FPS - RPG, if they do?

 

[Vault Dweller]

His post is an illustration of 'hasty generalization' fallacy.

Here is a better one. When I said RPGs did I mean role-playing games or rocket propelled grenades? Hmm? That's a real question. So, what uses more power, rocket-propelled grenades or, perhaps, a family pairwise search (FPS) to look for protein family libraries?

In case you are wondering, that's what you are doing now, Balor.

There is a great thread pretty active now: "How should the "power" of today's PCs be used for".

In RPGs, mostly, of course. And general consensus that for classic RPGs we DO NOT need great computers, just great designers and writers.

What's that gotta do with anything? We were talking about RPGs with graphics and technology matching those of FPS games.

After all, a great RPG does not need to be 'EPIC!!1'. Does not need great graphics, huge open spaces filled with eye candy, etc (FPSes need that the most, cause they have little else to lyre people with. It can be a bonus, but not required.).
It needs choices&consequences, meaningful quests and setting that makes sence. (Well, at least in my book).

Awesome out of topic rant. Now here is what I have to say on the subject:

Between 4500 and 2400 B.C., complex societies appear in the form of cities, with craft specialization and writing. These features were associated with the Sumerians, but they quickly spread to other parts of Mesopotamia, including Assyria. In Assyria, settlements had become large and guarded by fortifications walls, which implies the risk of attack from outside, and hence the need for defense and warfare.

What do you have to say to that, Balor?

Ok. But does those 'slowdowns' stem from 'RPGness' of those games with comparative engines, or from different things, like lame optimization?

Well, you can't throw "lame optimization" every time someone offers you a fact. During that fight, you have probably 8-10 enemies storming your hotel room. For an FPS 8-10 enemies is nothing, so even assuming that the game was poorly optimized, we still need a better explanation, which brings us back to my original post.

You can have your opinion, of course...

Thank you kindly.

...but clashing with your own previous words and general Codex consensus that RPGs do not need great graphics to be good RPGs.

Balor, unlike you, I respect the regulars and would rather avoid throwing labels like dumb and stupid at them, but you are really, really asking for it.

Yes, RPGs don't need great graphics and great graphics always come at a cost, but that was NEVER discussed or argued against in this thread. The point was that RPGs that do have great graphics and latest tech ALWAYS run slower than FPSs with similar graphics and tech. Can you comprehend that concept and stick with discussing it, if you disagree, without bringing anything else to the table?

 

[Balor]

*scratches head*
Well, after rethinking your point, I guess you are right.
I am sorry. However, *RPGs always take more power than FPSs.* is a far cry, heh, from *The point was that RPGs that do have great graphics and latest tech ALWAYS run slower than FPSs with similar graphics and tech.*
Because first is WAY too blurry. A good post should not be open for too many interpretations unless it's was inteneded as a flamebait, IMHO.

Anyway, I do think that you are right after all... and me too, heh. Because even with same engine, RPG devs will concentrate on story, dialogues, balance, etc (and will have less human/money resources to begin with, cause RPGs, unless we are talking SO action-RPGs that they lose all right to be called RPGs, have less public appeal)... and FPS devs will concentrate on, right, optimising the graphics, cause in case of FPS it's one of the main selling points. And they have more money to begin with.

So, like in that joke:
"He is right, and you are right too.
- But our oppininons are mutually exclusive!
- That is also correct."
Heh. Again, sorry for flaming. I think I need more rest, I've noticed I've getting snappy of late.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, after rethinking your point, I guess you are right.

Thank you.

Heh. Again, sorry for flaming. I think I need more rest, I've noticed I've getting snappy of late.

Not a problem, don't worry about it.

 

[Claw]

Moreover, never forget we're all participants in the special Olympics, Balor.

 

[Vault Dweller]

In unrelated news, my Gothic 3 review is almost ready and will be posted tonight.