Does Gothic have bad controls?

[thesheeep]

The controls in Gothic games have always been clunky, as in there is little to no fluidity to them, but I really wouldn't call them bad. That's reserved for other titles...

 

[DJOGamer PT]

Dungeon Crawler's/Metroidvania's is the more correct term as exploration is their focus and not the combat (although this changed with Bloodborne)

I dispute this notion. Dark Souls only rewards combat. It doesn't have any exploration focused power ups and and even items are mostly either dropped by enemies or bought with the currency you get from combat.

I agree that the game heavly relys on combat to "create" difficulty, but I still would say the game is more of Dungeon Crawler than a proper Hack 'n' Slash like Severance or NIOH are.
For starters both DeS and DS are King's Field spiritual sucessors - a game that itself is a spiritual sucessor to Ultima Underworld (only difference being in 3rd person); secondly the world design and it's mysteries are clearly the aspects of the game that got more focus and not the combat - also when you compare DS combat to that of other good hack 'n' slash games you realise DS combat is not remarkable in any way; and lastly (and this is something DeS does very well), the game just has to many damn unconvential design decisions and "curveballs" to feel like a tradional action game (just think on the amount of non-bosses DeS has).

Also the power ups (the itens and spells) are only gained if you explore the game's locations, and alot of them even require you to partake in quests and factions.

 

[Black Angel]

The controls in Gothic games have always been clunky, as in there is little to no fluidity to them,

I disagree. Try leveling up your weapon skill, and you'll see it's as fluid as a proper Action-RPGs should have been, where level 1 weapon skill your character can't even hold the weapon properly, and then fast forward to max level weapon skill he swing it like a master swordman.

If you mean other controls like movement and interaction with object, if you know what button does what it's as fluid as your hand-coordination could allow.

 

[thesheeep]

The controls in Gothic games have always been clunky, as in there is little to no fluidity to them,

I disagree. Try leveling up your weapon skill, and you'll see it's as fluid as a proper Action-RPGs should have been, where level 1 weapon skill your character can't even hold the weapon properly, and then fast forward to max level weapon skill he swing it like a master swordman.

If you mean other controls like movement and interaction with object, if you know what button does what it's as fluid as your hand-coordination could allow.

Dude.... I love the game(s), but let's get back to reality for a moment.
Gothic = clunky combat
Assassins Creed = fluid combat

Fluidity comes from animations, from how the actors interact with each other, from when you can do an action in contrast to being locked in some state. In Gothic games (and their spiritual successors), animations have always been stiff, suddenly interrupted by actions, jumping instantly between animation states, etc.
Due to all of that stiffness, fluid controls aren't even possible in theory.
Do I even need to remind you of boars?

I know that much of this is because Gothic games are way more RPG-heavy than something like AssCreed, but we're talking about controls here and so genre doesn't give excuses.
It is entirely possible that truly fluid controls are in contrast to being an RPG - and I sure prefer Gothic combat over AC combat -, but again, that's not the point here.

 

[Black Angel]

Dude.... I love the game(s), but let's get back to reality for a moment.
Gothic = clunky combat
Assassins Creed = fluid combat

Fluidity comes from animations, from how the actors interact with each other. In Gothic games (and their spiritual successors), animations have always been stiff, suddenly interrupted by actions, jumping instantly between animation states, etc.
Due to all of that stiffness, fluid controls aren't even possible in theory.
Do I even need to remind you of boars?

I didn't play any of the AC games, but from what I saw from my brothers playing AC3 and Black Flag, considering they aren't even RPGs, is it even proper comparison?

Also, you specifically mentioned controls, and while animations of the Gothic games were definitely outdated and doesn't age well, the controls are pretty fluid especially for an Action-RPGs. And I'm pretty sure of this because I finished Gothic 1&2 for the first time last year, and I have no impression of it being clunky or whatever, even after full exposure to Soulsborne games. Janky, yeah, but I don't see what you mean with it being clunky and not fluid.

 

[thesheeep]

Clunky and janky have the same meaning to me, tbh.

 

[samuraigaiden]

Gothic is an RPG. Assassin's Creed is a glorified beat'em up. It's a very misguided comparison.

 

[cloudropis]

Gothic controls fine. Even 1. It takes 10 seconds on google to understand how the button + direction system from 1 works, and even less to rebind the button to M1.

Doesn't help how retarded the rest of the game (1) plays like between the useless weapon spasms you unlock levelling up weapon skill, the backstep with no iframes that doesn't cover any distance, the block with longass startup that makes blocking impossible on reaction, the non-existent hitboxes on weapon meaning they are only active against the enemy you are targeting (fuck the wolves in the pathway to Ogre Galore City from the Old Camp), the enemies with fucked up frame data and telegraphs that makes playing reactively impossible, the non-sensical RNG based enemy dodge (what the fuck is up with that? Especially against big enemy compositions, the last enemy alive ALWAYS dodges indefinitely until you let it attack once, hopefully beating his attack with faster moves or just eating it with your face. I have no fucking idea. I tested against the zombies in Xardas' submerged tower and I managed to keep the last one alive for like two full minutes just by attacking him as he played the dodge animation 100% of the time), the flat damage formula that has no reason to exist in a game that's considered good for its combat, etc etc

I specified 1 because 2, to be fair, actually fixed a good chunk of it, before making all the changes pointless thanks to the new retarded crit damage formula.

 

[Multidirectional]

Gothic is an RPG. Assassin's Creed is a glorified beat'em up. It's a very misguided comparison.

Would be a fine comparison because the conversation is about controls specifically, except that I don't even think Assassin's Creed has better controls. In fact, fighting shitty controls is the only source of challenge in AC games. Yes, the control scheme is more conventional than that of Gothic but at the same time Gothic doesn't make your character do things you didn't want him to, while AC games do it constantly. I've lost count how many times I climbed up the wall and was left hanging there like retard for several seconds when I was merely trying to turn a corner while chasing some asshole. I would rather have to press more buttons for one action than have multiple actions tied to same fucking button and have it constantly fuck me over.

 

[TheBurpingGirl]

What you call "clunky" is realistic and what you call "fluid" is just action for more speed. I say more than 99 % of all games have a combat system that is too fast. Publishers think more action looks more interesting for the mainstream - especially in trailers, while a Gothic gameplay trailer would just be too boring. Action is for more fun. But a real combat system is what people would call too slow or clunky.

Assassin's creed has a horrible combat system. If you call Gothic clunky, I like clunky combat.

 

[TheBurpingGirl]

And notice you are not a super hero in Gothic. You are a normal man, who has no skills in combat. So it's absolutely authentic. And the combat will become faster and more fluid as more you spend XP points in it.

 

[luj1]

Does Gothic have bad controls?

All Piranha Bytes games do. They all feel janky, wonky and uncalibrated.

 

[thesheeep]

Gothic is an RPG. Assassin's Creed is a glorified beat'em up. It's a very misguided comparison.

As others have said, their genre is irrelevant for talking about their controls. As long as two games feature real-time combat with action-controls, their controls can be compared.
A beat'em up will have more fluid controls than a game like Gothic, a game like Gothic will be more clunky than those are.

It is what it is.
Too many people here seem to confuse "fluid" with a synonym for good and "clunky" with one for bad.
That's just not the case.
Morrowind combat is clunky AF, but one of the best RPG combat systems around, due to how little influence the player actually has on the outcomes.

Assassin's creed has a horrible combat system. If you call Gothic clunky, I like clunky combat.

I agree.
But it IS more fluid than Gothic's clunkyness.

Gothic is an RPG. Assassin's Creed is a glorified beat'em up. It's a very misguided comparison.

Would be fine comparison because the conversation is about controls specifically, except that I don't even think Assassin's Creed has better controls. In fact, fighting shitty controls is the only source of challenge in AC games. Yes, the control scheme is more conventional than that of Gothic but at the same time Gothic doesn't make your character do things you didn't want him to, while AC games do it constantly. I've lost count how many times I climbed up the wall and was left hanging there like retard for several seconds when I was merely trying to turn a corner while chasing some asshole. I would rather have to press more buttons for one action than have multiple actions tied to same fucking button and have it constantly fuck me over.

Now that you mention it
Maybe AC was not the best example, but a lot of games have a combat situation comparable to Gothic, but control way more fluid.

 

[Reinhardt]

Gothic is an RPG

 

[sullynathan]

Gothic is an Action rpg. Your stats literally don't matter at all and it has heavy doses of combat.

It's perfectly fine to compare to ass creed

 

[samuraigaiden]

In an Action RPG, combat is not supposed to be exclusively dependent on player skill.

For example, in Deus Ex you can miss at point blank while aiming at the middle of the enemy's chest if you have low shooting skills. Comparing that kind of shooting mechanics to Counter-Strike makes no sense! It's not supposed to play like regular shooter, because it's an RPG.

In Gothic, combat in the beginning of the game is supposed to be clunky and unmanageable because the character you are playing SUCKS at combat. The best you can do is swing the sword like a retard. By the end of it, you actually have a bunch of moves and move around pretty decently.

Would you compare the combat in Ultima Underworld or Dungeon Master to games like Hexen and Quake? To what end?

Also, Assassin's Creed is retard fodder for HD babies all the way. It removes almost all control from the player to the point of almost playing itself. The notion that anyone would mention it as an example of quality controls is alarming. It's exactly the modern gaming equivalent of those 2D beat'em ups that flooded the 90s like Final Fight. Videogames designed to be played by people too stupid to play good videogames.

Gothic controls suck compared to Severance Blade of Darkness or Dark Souls, but are superior to The Witcher 1 (haven't played the others) and Elders Scrolls in general.

If you are going to compare it to Assassin's Creed, you might as well compare it to Bayonetta and God of War too.

 

[cloudropis]

Gothic is an Action rpg. Your stats literally don't matter at all

I have no idea what Gothic you played

 

[TheBurpingGirl]

All Piranha Bytes games do. They all feel janky, wonky and uncalibrated.

Haha, you are funny.