Arcania: Gothic 4 is a good game

[Chuck Norris]

I bought Arcania when it was released, but due to the negative word of mouth and the fact that it put a bad first impression, I really didn't have much motivation to play it. But since this summer sucked ass in terms of games, I played it reluctantly and this time, I started to see its charm.

Best thing about the game is its visuals. I'm not a graphic whore, but Arcania is both technically impressive and goddamn beautiful. I mean look at these screen-shots:



Check out the shadow effects:


Lighting effects:


The beauty of draw distance.


Obviously, scenery in Arcania isn't always distinctly beautiful. But the fact that there are beautiful non-scripted moments like those above exist in a non-mainstream game like this, is respectable.

Other impressive part is Arcania's combat. It's not as engaging or satisfying as previous Gothics. But if you play the game on the highest difficulty, you see that it can be extremely enjoyable and rewarding to shoot fireballs and chain lighting to enemies who will kick your ass if they get near you. Also the difference between combat styles ( melee, ranged, magic ) and the fact that you only can make one of them efficient is notable and also similar to previous Gothics.

Also characters development for old characters like Diego, Lester, Gorn, Xardas is excellent and they look and act like before. ( For example, Xardas still has his skeleton servant in his place which is a heart-warming reference and Lester is till obsessed with Swampweed. )

I don't want to write a review, so I get to the point. Arcania is no Gothic. It's not open-world, it doesn't have a proper C&C, it's not challenging, it replaced the LP and tutor based RPG system with the idiotic skill points, it doesn't have that gripping atmosphere that made previous Gothics special, etc. But it can be appreciated by Gothic fans who doesn't take it too hard. It has many shortcomings and faults, but considering the level of quality in the most single player RPGs in the past few years, ( even the praised ones ) I can definitely say that Arcania is criminally underrated and unreasonably hated.

Just a simple advice. Give it a try IF you are in the mood for it and don't give up soon.

 

[Morgoth]

Fuck off.

 

[Chuck Norris]

Fuck off.

If I remember correctly, you have posted fuck off or something similar as the first reply to some threads I have seen before. If you're trying to make a trade mark for yourself, it's OK. If not, think of something new.

 

[Morgoth]

Why isn't this in the console popamole section anyway?

 

[Micmu]

Marketing plant.
We had these after Dungeon Lords, too.

 

[JarlFrank]

Those sceneries look good, too bad the game is too shit to make it worthwile.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Best thing about the game is its visuals.

I wholeheartedly agree

 

[Chuck Norris]

Why isn't this in the console popamole section anyway?

Mods will move it if it's necessary.

Marketing plant.
We had these after Dungeon Lords, too.

Marketing plan for what? Jowood and Spellbound are both dead.

Those sceneries look good, too bad the game is too shit to make it worthwile.

Well I have finished the game and I can definitely say it was far from shit. At least it was better than any Diablo clone I have ever played.

@Darth I hope you didn't try to prove me wrong.

 

[ohWOW]

The problem with this game is with leveled exploring zones and shitty dungeons, re-using same models, shitty leveling system, shitty side-quests and being castrated from nice little shit from previous Gothics like thievery, sleeping, better crafting system and all that shit, and being ridiculously goddamn easy as romanian whore.

The highest difficulty is shit, not satisfying. It changes nothing but makes an every our enemy a fucking HP bloat, which still can't deal any damage to you.

Too bad, because it has some good shit to tell (for gothics standards), better than "omfg kill all orcs/humans"/"collect the ancient as fuck godlike artifacts" (which are fucking useless) Gothic 3.

Anyway, it's still 90% shit I regret paying for.

 

[Turjan]

Marketing plant.
We had these after Dungeon Lords, too.

Weirdly enough, I had a friend who seemed to love that game to bits. I never understood why, because I found it pretty horrible, but there you are. I think it's a bit late for a marketing plant, anyway.

I guess some people just have a weird taste.

 

[Rpgsaurus Rex]

It's not open-world, it doesn't have a proper C&C, it's not challenging, it replaced the LP and tutor based RPG system with the idiotic skill points, it doesn't have that gripping atmosphere that made previous Gothics special, etc. But it can be appreciated by Gothic fans who doesn't take it too likes it hard.

Fix'd

How can it be appreciated by Gothic fans if it lacks everything that we play the Gothic games for?

 

[Chuck Norris]

It's not open-world, it doesn't have a proper C&C, it's not challenging, it replaced the LP and tutor based RPG system with the idiotic skill points, it doesn't have that gripping atmosphere that made previous Gothics special, etc. But it can be appreciated by Gothic fans who doesn't take it too likes it hard.

Fix'd

How can it be appreciated by Gothic fans if it lacks everything that we play the Gothic games for?

Those are not the only things that made Gothic, Gothic. Also I didn't say Arcania lacks them entirely. Just has a weaker version. For example, there are still choices to be made in some quests. But they don't have a deep impact like those in previous Gothics did.
Good story ( for the most part ) and character development is another reason for a Gothic fan ( who doesn't take it hard, this is very important )to appreciate Arcania.

 

[JarlFrank]

Gothic without an at least halfway freely accesible world, no inbisible fucking borders, and good exploration is not Gothic.

 

[Rpgsaurus Rex]

Chuck Norris

Good story ... eh, the stories in the Gothics that I've played (1,2,NotR) were rudimentary at best. I'd go as far as to say that only the premise of G1 was somewhat decent with an isolated mining colony being an interesting place to survive in as a stranger who was just a whipping boy for others at the start and died to a lowly wolf, in complete contrast to most RPGs where you were "the chosen one" and the center of the story from Chapter 1. Other than that the story was OK at best, forgettable and cliche most of the time and downright derpy at its worst (the sleeper awakens, sword from the stone - actually a decent start - right into "zomg the dragons are coming!!!)

The best parts (at least for me) about G1+2 were open-ended, fun exploration and one of the best implementations of the "growing more powerful" feel, what with new armor tiers making a tremendous difference to your survival and being status symbols to boot, on top of a a combat system that felt very rewarding to master. Hearing that G4 has none of these things (linear aka no exploration, primitive combat), well, makes me sceptical to try it.

 

[hoverdog]

'sup drog

 

[ohWOW]

But they don't have a deep impact like those in previous Gothics did.

Wait, wat.

Show me that deep impact. (killing humans instead of orcs in 3rd doesn't count). First gothics are linear as FUCK, scripted from quest to quest, etc. and bunch of piranhatards pushes "omfg it's so real and so non-linear, look at that YOU CAN CHOOSE YOUR ARMOUR'S COLOUR IN THE FIRST ACT", that deep choices and consequences mang!

 

[Metro]

For once I agree with Morgoth. Obviously this is a troll thread but Arcania is one of the few games I started to play and just couldn't continue. The engine is shit. The combat is shit. The character development is laughably shallow (Boderlands is deeper). The writing is fucking terrible. The quest design abysmal. If I were on the development team I would literally be embarrassed with the pathetic amount of effort that went into this game.

 

[ohWOW]

Anyway, the graphics are fucking good and I would throw dosh at Gothic 1 remake with such modern graphics that don't rape eyes with large amounts of bloom, hdr and oversized weaponry, without some original's bugs.

 

[Brayko]

The game started out promising but making the quests banal shit boring and making the game linear as shit with each section of the world leveled off. Let's just say that if PB designed this game, and was actually allowed to finish it properly, it could have been amazing.

 

[IDtenT]

I actually enjoyed the demo a bit. Not enough to go out and buy this, but enough to play the full version if it ever fell in my lap.

Dungeon Lords made for a very confusing and broken game, but it was quite fun playing it with my brother in co-op - but that might just be because it's almost the only game we ever played co-op.

 

[titus]

The game is shit.

 

[Johannes]

Not enough bloom.

 

[sser]

Arcania is both technically impressive and goddamn beautiful. I mean look at these screen-shots

 

[sea]

It looks pretty.

That's about all you can say that's good about it. I played the demo and got bored 10 minutes in. That is not a good sign. The problem isn't even that it's a mediocre game, it's basically a bastardization of everything that was good about the Gothic series in the first place. Even if it's not outright terrible in every way, do you really want to buy and spend time playing a thoroughly sub-par game because it has pretty graphics?

Oh, wait...

 

[Roguey]

Witcher 2 and even Skyrim look better. I guess it looks ~okay~. But you know your second pic has clipping and I'm not fond of the blade or the helmet in the third and fourth. Plus it looks so generic medieval fantasy bland.

What are your thoughts on Risen 2, Chuck?

Also you know who else liked Arcania? Mastermind. You know what other games he likes?

Do you really want to like the same game as someone who white knighted Hellgate London?