It is good, and you're deranged if you enjoy ELEX over it. Mind boggling. It's a better game in pretty much every respect. Just cause you had to follow a guy a few times through the city to do a quest doesn't make it bad.
You didn't even finish the game, did you? Also, again, hilarious that you enjoy ELEX so much and try to lambast Archolos for progression and difficulty curve. ELEX is an absolute joke in that regard. And sure, there were a couple good quests in ELEX, but overall the quest design was not great, and hardly better than what you find in Archolos. On top of that all, I doubt you could find too many instances where Gothic 2 excels over Archolos in quest design. I get that you were a different person when you played Gothic 1 and 2, and nostalgia certainly plays a part, but your bias is a little absurd in this situation. Clearly you can't be swayed, but the only reason I bring it up is because it's so strange to me that this is the opinion you've landed on. I'm just saying that it makes little sense that you could enjoy ELEX as much as you did, yet have such a low opinion of Archolos, given that it does the entire PB formula better than most PB games.
If this is really the only element of quest design you think Gothic 1 and 2 excels in over Archolos, then I'd beg you to go back and take a closer look at everything else surrounding it. I don't feel I'm bending reality by pointing this out, and it seems like your high praise of this single differentiating aspect does more so.
There most certainly is, but they're more along the lines of social navigation, ala Gothic 1 and 2. Text fetch quests, if you will.
It's not a bias, he explained to you in details as to why he is against but you just refuse to listen to his arguments and see the reality in the face.
Roxor hates gaymz that beat his ass in some way. Gets butthurt, proceeds to rationalize why the game is "bad" with petty nonsense like above. Disregard.
If you can become end-game OP in Chapter 1 then that's not ideal in my book either. Then again lot's of people always rant about gated this and gating that so I guess this kind of freedom is their dream - you CAN become a Grand Autist Wizard in the prologue if you really want to.
It's just Ryzer. He unironically posted in gaming subforum how modern Call of Duty is peak FPS gaming.
Wanted to confirm, I believe this worked! Hecking thank you, kind stranger!
I did provide a counterpoint, and it's very simple. Archolos is designed almost exactly like Gothic 2 in almost every respect. If you love Gothic 2, then a couple flaws found in Archolos shouldn't work up enough ire to completely dislike it, especially when those same flaws can be found in its inspiration. Hell, Gothic 2 has design pitfalls that mar the experience for me, and it's still one of my favorite games of all time. I really don't care if someone doesn't like the game. I just find it nonsensical for a fan of Gothic 1 and 2 to so thoroughly reject a game like Archolos when it follows almost every design principle of its predecessors, and is the closest to those experiences you'll probably ever get. If you really hate fetch quests, being forced to complete mundane, humiliating tasks to work your way up the ranks, and having to walk long distances on the map frequently, then you probably don't like Gothic 1 and 2. Or you do, and for some reason because this is a mod, it's deemed unacceptable in this case, but fine in the games you actually do like for some reason.
What does it have to do with a problem? You can drastically downgrade the game in some aspects in a very few simple steps. An example is randomizing itemization in an RPG with static encounters and a static world (see Original Sin) or removing limitations on saving in a game that relies on random itemization or long strings of actions without the ability to save (like Might & Magic I and II - games that allowed saving only at the inn; without this limitation they would be quite different games).
Because in this particular instance, I think the flaws being cited aren't severe enough - or even different enough from the original games flaws - to warrant such a response. I don't know how I could have made that more clear in my post.
But it was the crux of his problems - and why are there any chapters in the first place if you can position your character to steamroll the game in the first one? I believe it's a legitimate, major problem that you just sweep under a rug as "not severe enough." The biggest implication I can think of is that the rewards for exploring the world after becoming a demigod become negligible, even though the world does change quite a bit in later chapters.
Because there are reasons for the chapters, and things in the world do change as a result of their progression/quests become available/enemies appear. You can become absurdly overpowered in the first chapters of Gothic 1 and 2 as well. Just because he decided to abuse the potion system after lawnmowing the entire map in Chapter 1 doesn't mean the game is shit. I would prefer if that weren't an option too, but you have to be intentionally trying to break the game to really take it that far. So what I'm saying is that yes, while you can't abuse the potions to that extent in Gothic 1 or 2, a very similar situation exists where you can become incredibly overpowered in the first chapter and essentially delegitimize the challenge of the rest of the game as a result in them too. I really do think they should patch the possibility of abusing potions that early in out of the game, but it's not anything I would ever devote the time towards doing in a playthrough just because it's a possibility.
Are you sure? I remember I did trivialize Archolos while being much further from the end than both first Gothics. It's usually preferable to solve as many quests as possible before joining a faction, since they can get locked afterwards, which implies exploring the world to a large extent early - and why wouldn't I take potions I already have or can have? Should I limit myself for something?
One day I'll make sure to play all the games in quick succession so I can draw a more concrete comparison maybe. I had just played them both again within about a year of Archolos, and this overpowering situation didn't seem to be particularly egregious in comparison to them, but Archolos is also a much longer game in general, so it's possibly a little harder to gauge. As for the potion thing - yeah, go for it if you want to pump a ton of resources and time into crafting potions. If you've ever played a Gothic game before, you know how it's going to tip the scales in your favor. I wouldn't do it personally until later in the game, because I'd rather progress through questing and combat experience. That's more fun to me. In a lot of ways the potion situation is somewhat similar to having difficulty options in the game: if you go for them you're exchanging time to enter into "easy" mode. That's your choice. I think there's enough effort that goes into it that it's not something you're going to just stumble into doing.
He's not just a contrarian; he's also usually right (not about HoMM IV though).
The protagonist in Elex and Gothic was a cold-blooded, virile male. In Archlos, he was kinda effeminate, I guess. I didn't really appreciate that aspect of Piranha games (that is, dialogues) until I played Archolos. It's the thing I disliked the most about that one.
I respect his opinion a lot, but also disagree with him on a number of views. If I'm ever entering into a conversation with him on such things, it's because I like and respect the guy, not because I'm trying to discredit or smear his opinion.
I prefer Gothic 1-3 protagonist over Marvin for sure. Jax is...I don't know. He was alright. I think I like Marvin more than him. I don't blame the Archolos team for taking a different approach to their protagonist. I do know that he made me chuckle more than a couple times though.
