Tags: Gothic III; Piranha Bytes
<a href="http://gamespot.com">Gamespot</a> decided to <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/gothic3/review.html">weigh in</a> on subversive Old European import Gothic 3. With a rating of <b>7.6</b>, the review lauds the game's "substantial, open-ended role-playing experience". To whet your appetite:
<br>
<blockquote>Gothic 3 makes some real improvements over the previous games. For instance, though you're still expected to progress through most of the game by taking quests that are kept in a less-than-organized journal, the overall quest structure is much better defined and more cohesive. You'll find yourself taking on fewer long-term quests that require travel to many different areas and more short-term, local quests whenever you enter a new area. Though they're sometimes a bit shallow and often require you to kill a certain number of monsters or retrieve certain items, these shorter-term quests are much easier to keep track of, and they're designed to keep you moving throughout the game's vast world in a logical progression--one that can actually affect how the world is laid out.</blockquote>But if things are so great, you ask, what accounts for the 7.6 rating? The reviewer's primary criticisms are steep performance demands, funky polygon clipping, and sub-par pathfinding for companions and enemies - and the review wraps up by lamenting Gothic 3's poor luck at being released in the same year as Oblivion, which (apparently) exhibits none of these dire problems.
<br>
<br>
To Gamespot's credit, this is one of the more balanced Gothic 3 reviews to hit the IntarWeb NorteAmericano. The inescapable problem is that, in my dozens of hours in Oblivion, I repeatedly encountered each of these glitches now laid at the feet of Gothic 3. So really, I can't tell you why Gamespot gave Gothic 3 a 7.6 in the context of its other RPG reviews - and I suspect Gamespot can't, either.
<a href="http://gamespot.com">Gamespot</a> decided to <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/gothic3/review.html">weigh in</a> on subversive Old European import Gothic 3. With a rating of <b>7.6</b>, the review lauds the game's "substantial, open-ended role-playing experience". To whet your appetite:
<br>
<blockquote>Gothic 3 makes some real improvements over the previous games. For instance, though you're still expected to progress through most of the game by taking quests that are kept in a less-than-organized journal, the overall quest structure is much better defined and more cohesive. You'll find yourself taking on fewer long-term quests that require travel to many different areas and more short-term, local quests whenever you enter a new area. Though they're sometimes a bit shallow and often require you to kill a certain number of monsters or retrieve certain items, these shorter-term quests are much easier to keep track of, and they're designed to keep you moving throughout the game's vast world in a logical progression--one that can actually affect how the world is laid out.</blockquote>But if things are so great, you ask, what accounts for the 7.6 rating? The reviewer's primary criticisms are steep performance demands, funky polygon clipping, and sub-par pathfinding for companions and enemies - and the review wraps up by lamenting Gothic 3's poor luck at being released in the same year as Oblivion, which (apparently) exhibits none of these dire problems.
<br>
<br>
To Gamespot's credit, this is one of the more balanced Gothic 3 reviews to hit the IntarWeb NorteAmericano. The inescapable problem is that, in my dozens of hours in Oblivion, I repeatedly encountered each of these glitches now laid at the feet of Gothic 3. So really, I can't tell you why Gamespot gave Gothic 3 a 7.6 in the context of its other RPG reviews - and I suspect Gamespot can't, either.
