Game News Risen gone gold

[Oarfish]

bugfree coding... JoWood

I totally associate those two concepts.

 

[Ausir]

Gothic 4 was given to some company that never made an RPG before?

Well, to be fair, Arcania is not Gothic 4 but a spin-off.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Just because they call it "a Gothic tale" for politically correct "please don't hate us for taking someone else's IP!" reasons doesn't make it a spin-off. It was originally called Gothic 4, then Gothic 4: Arcania, and finally Arcania: a Gothic tale. It's an open-ended RPG featuring exactly the same gameplay, set in the same land, and continuing the story. Why would you call it a spin-off?

 

[Ausir]

Well, it's not exactly that open-ended. It's divided into chapters and you can't go back to areas from previous chapters.

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

Wow, Humps, you're like the avatar of coolness. It emanates from you, turning everything into shit.

"That's bad... Because I've already bought it. Like, twice." :badass:

So, Humps, are you like trying to tell me that all 3.5 Gothic games were the same game, basically? I'm eagerly awaiting for your explanation.

Sure thing, bro. You see, Gothic 2 didn't really expand on the first game. It added some new monsters (that didn't really require new tactics in order to defeat), some new weapons (that handled exactly like the old weapons), some new areas (some of which were reskinned old areas). I've seen winter expansion packs to WW2 RTS games that did way more than that. You may argue that Gothic 2 was different from Gothic 1 by the virtue of having a different story, but you don't play games like Gothic for the story. You play them for exploration, combat, character development and phat lewt - all of which remained unchanged in Gothic 2. QED.

Oh, and I've said nothing about Gothic 3 in my previous posts, so make that "all 2.5 Gothic games". Gothic 3 is irrelevant to this discussion because PB are saying that Risen is kept closer to the first two games.

He wants INNOVASHUN.

I want VARYATY. BioWare gets mercilessly mocked for its copy-and-paste approach to game design. Why should Risen be given a free pass?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

And that's a bad thing because...? The Gothic games has different issues but were pretty good overall. So let them continue doing what they do best. They lost the rights to their own setting, but not the interest in making "Gothic" games.

That's a bad thing because I've already bought this game. Twice, in fact. Three times, if you count NotR.

I don't get it, if it's good it's good.

If it's good you do it once, then next time you do something different and better.

 

[Nedrah]

Actually, the point is that the way that story, exploration, world-building and combat come together in Gothic (1,2,2.5) is absolutely unique and basically a genre of its own. A LOT of players were left with what plain simply amounts to a desire for *more* of that and for many of those players G3 just didn't deliver. So, those of us who fall into the category described above are understandably pretty happy to hear about a game that's pretty close to the original Gothics. Of course, if you're someone who would believe that the only difference between G1 and 2 were some more monsters and shit, you probably wouldn't understand why people might be excited about Risen.

 

[Elzair]

So, Humps, are you like trying to tell me that all 3.5 Gothic games were the same game, basically? I'm eagerly awaiting for your explanation.

Sure thing, bro. You see, Gothic 2 didn't really expand on the first game. It added some new monsters (that didn't really require new tactics in order to defeat), some new weapons (that handled exactly like the old weapons), some new areas (some of which were reskinned old areas). I've seen winter expansion packs to WW2 RTS games that did way more than that. You may argue that Gothic 2 was different from Gothic 1 by the virtue of having a different story, but you don't play games like Gothic for the story. You play them for exploration, combat, character development and phat lewt - all of which remained unchanged in Gothic 2. QED.

Oh, and I've said nothing about Gothic 3 in my previous posts, so make that "all 2.5 Gothic games". Gothic 3 is irrelevant to this discussion because PB are saying that Risen is kept closer to the first two games.

Actually, I mostly played them for the exploration of the world. Gothic II mostly delivered in that regard. Sure, many things were the same, but a lot changed! With a series like that, I not only look for what is new but what has changed as well. By your logic, Ultima IV, V, VI & VII are the exact same game! Sure, the mining valley makes a reappearance, but it is nothing like what it was in the first game! When I went through an already familiar area, I would get a sense of nostalgia. There were only a few areas that set off that sense: the ledge near the hunter's hut and Xardas's tower. I also liked how the game expanded on the gameworld established in the first one. The established fauna also contributed to that sense of continuity. New worlds are always nice, but it is always nice to expand on an established world if that expansion can be justified. One of the worst things to do is to create an entirely new world and set of gameplay mechanics while still holding onto the same formula. This is one of the major criticisms of the Final Fantasy series. In fact, one of the things that worries me is that PB is mostly going to create a mostly similar world and plot with only the names (and a few other minutiae) changed to avoid a lawsuit. This destroys any sense of surprise while also not allowing any sense of familiarity or nostalgia.

He wants INNOVASHUN.

I want VARYATY. BioWare gets mercilessly mocked for its copy-and-paste approach to game design. Why should Risen be given a free pass?

Actually, Bioware is mostly accused of recycling tropes: the twist, various character archetypes, zOMG T3h 3P1C BATTL3, etc. This is what I discussed above. Baldur's Gate took place around Baldur's Gate and used 2ed D&D. Baldur's Gate II used the same engine, but it took place around Amn. TOB centered around Cormyr(?). Neverwinter Nights used a 3D engine and 3rd Edition D&D and centered around the city of Neverwinter Nights, which was far to the north. KOTOR used the Star Wars ruleset and took place in the Star Wars universe. Jade Empire was a realtime fighting-like game that took place in a ripoff of Ancient China. Mass Effect was a shooter-like game that took place in a ripoff of Star Trek: Enterprise. These games are very different, but their copy-paste approach still shows through.

 

[Vault Dweller]

So, Humps, are you like trying to tell me that all 3.5 Gothic games were the same game, basically? I'm eagerly awaiting for your explanation.

Sure thing, bro. You see, Gothic 2 didn't really expand on the first game. It added some new monsters (that didn't really require new tactics in order to defeat), some new weapons (that handled exactly like the old weapons), some new areas (some of which were reskinned old areas).

What did you expect? Think before you answer.

Put yourself in the developers' position. You make Gothic 1 and people like it. What's the next step? The way I see it, you do it bigger and better, and that's exactly what G2 was. If all you see are new monsters, new weapons, and SOME new areas, then you're either blind or full of shit. My money is on the latter.

Should I elaborate or will you continue feigning ignorance?

I've seen winter expansion packs to WW2 RTS games that did way more than that.

You're truly a fortunate man.

You may argue that Gothic 2 was different from Gothic 1 by the virtue of having a different story...

Yeah, because this is such an awesome argument, aint it?

You play them for exploration, combat, character development and phat lewt - all of which remained unchanged in Gothic 2. QED.

Empty, meaningless words. According to your logic, NWN2 OC and Mask of the Betrayer are the same game.

Exploration is a feature. A world is either fully explorable or not. Character system and combat didn't have to change, especially in a sequel. Loot? It wasn't that ph4t if I recall correctly and overall, neither game was loot oriented.

 

[franc kaos]

I'm actually gonna pay for this game! I loved Gothic2. The only other game I'm excited for coming out is...

Well, I guess I'll play Mass Effect 2 and whatever Bethesda are working on.

 

[Genma:TheDestroyer]

What, you want it to be something other than Gothic? Haha. Too bad.


http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/09 ... more-18365


Read the setup of the first town you come across, and tell me that's not the Old Camp.



Guy in power taxes everyone, the guards are hopelessly corrupt, and there's even a friendly fellow who lures you out of the camp to beat you senseless and steal your stuff.


Where's Diego with my list, dammit?!

 

[Lysiander]

Sure thing, bro. You see, Gothic 2 didn't really expand on the first game. It added some new monsters (that didn't really require new tactics in order to defeat), some new weapons (that handled exactly like the old weapons), some new areas (some of which were reskinned old areas). I've seen winter expansion packs to WW2 RTS games that did way more than that.

Please define what you mean by 'expand'. The whole design of Gothic 2, from a world and story perspective, was the logical conclusion from the events in the first game. You destroyed the barrier, the convicts run free, but your still on an island, trying to get off. You are still in a hostile enviroment, but now it is larger and the political landscape changed in the old areas. There are few major changes in terms of magic and equipment, all of which is completely logical seeing as almost no time has passed. The lack of new monsters, items is the result of that. In terms of areas your simply wrong. The mine valley made up about a third of the game (could be a fourth, but that seems a bit much). So instead of doubling the size, they trippled it and saved some time.

Creating a familiar enviroment works. Thats why the term franchise exists. People like to pick up something new and find their familiar, liked characters within. You argue that this is what Gothic II did wrong. I think that this is exactly what they did right. When I play the "2" of anything, I expect things to be at the very least, similar to the "1". While I do expect mistakes, bugs etc. to be fixed, I don't want a 3 line explanation why all of a sudden the world is upside down. I do want a new story, but not at the expense of the old. Its a sequel, the events of the "1" should matter, even if they happen to contrain some things.
(Quick example: One reason why Gothic 3 didn't work for me, among many many others, was the one liner explanation of how the magic system changed. They could have had the same effect by simply saying you have learned how to research your own spells and create your own runes and it would have left a far less sour taste in my mouth at least.)

You may argue that Gothic 2 was different from Gothic 1 by the virtue of having a different story, but you don't play games like Gothic for the story. You play them for exploration, combat, character development and phat lewt - all of which remained unchanged in Gothic 2. QED.

Honestly, I never played a single player game for the loot or the combat. Its an AI. I know I am smarter and I know I am supposed to win. Sure, every once in a while a game with interesting mechanics shows up that poses a challange, but at the end of the day, when I want challenging combat, I can always play PvP in a game designed for that. I play RPGs for the story.

You are right about the exploration and character developement part however, and in these two areas, Gothic 2 delivered. I'd even argue that it did even more so than most games, because it reskinned previously familiar areas because unlike most games, I went into the mine valley with an expectation of what I would find, but ended up finding out it had changed. And on top of that, I got a new world that was roughly double the size of the old. Essentially, I got to explore a fresh new game, but I also got a sense of nostalgia and felt like playing the first game again. I'd call that win win.
And while Gothic 2 was fairly linear in terms of character developement, knowing I played a character with a backround that would be recognized by people beyond the usual 'Oh right, you're the guy that did xyz 10 minutes ago', created more imersion than most contemporary games do. The game felt alive because my characters wasn't only made up of my choices in this game but also choices in a previous game. It felt like talking to people I had known a long time ago but havent seen since.


As others point out, there are other examples of the same concept and most of them worked rather well. Frankly, I wouldn't complain for a single second if a company managed to publish multiple installments on the same story line, with the same characters, always preserving the basic character system (slowly working out the kinks as they go along), the same loot (slowly progressing upwards), continiously adding to the big picture.
I'd probably forgive many games way more flaws if only they managed to properly build upon their predecessors in terms of story and setting.

Lands of Lore did that for instance, even though they changed the engine in every game and you always played a different character. But Gladstone was the same in every game and I felt right at home when the game started, eager to find out what had changed.

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

It seems that my idea of sameness is different from everyone else's. This discussion won't get anywhere because we speak different languages. Ciao.

 

[toro]

For some is quite normal to piss in everyone's drinks before the party.
On the other hand, in less than a week we could actually play a NEW Gothic game. No further comments are necessary.