Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Trigger the codex with a statement.

marek

marek

Educated
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
49
Real time or real time with pause is far superior to turn based combat: Enemies won't wait for you, attack one after the other, or stop moving while you move etc.
 
Cryomancer

Cryomancer

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Jul 11, 2019
Messages
17,025
Location
Frostfell
marek said:
Real time or real time with pause is far superior to turn based combat: Enemies won't wait for you, attack one after the other, or stop moving while you move etc.
Click to expand...

Agree. Another statemente. Turn based is used on tabletop due the ""technology"" limitation
 
Cryomancer

Cryomancer

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Jul 11, 2019
Messages
17,025
Location
Frostfell
Gothic 3 is good.

As longs you don't play on melee, the game is good.

That said, things that Gothic 3 did right IMO
  • Polearms and mostly important : HALBERDS
  • Free aim on archery
  • Many types of arrow types including explosive arrows and poison arrows(could be better. Could have bodking and more historically accurate arrows)
  • More damage types and resistances. Instead of "protection from weapons", now you have piercing, blunt and slashing reduction and makes sense that the Nordmar armor would reduce more from slashes than from blunt weapons.
  • Much more things to learn
  • If you wanna be a mage, you are no longer "forced" to be a fire one. I know, G1 allow you to be a water mage but only at chapter 4 and Swamp Camp limits you to circle 4. Making Corristo the unique viable playtrough for fully mage runs(even if you can become a water and a necro later on)
  • High level magic depends on your decisions. You can't be a fire magician casting army of darkness. A dark mage can learn low level fire mage spells like fireball BUT not meteor for eg.
  • More freedom to decide the outcome of the world. You can even side with Beliar.
I know that G3 also did a low of awful things. I know that the combat "who stunlocks first" is awful, that spears using the same animation of swords makes no sense. Melee characters could learn new combos, be able to throw your polearms and do more cool stuff.

From Magic, IMO should have more quests about investigating ruins and other places for spells like the Ice Explosion quest, it will fit more the narrative than "we lost rune magic but every druid/water mage can teach you almost all spells in the existence and you only need to pray to learn Innos/Beliar magic". Also i would like to see more deatiled progression. For eg, instead of "mana regen", regenerating 5 pts per second you could have "mana regen 1" regenerating 1 per second, "mana regen 2" regenerating 2, each time regenerating a little more with more cost and less trainers available. Free aim for magic would also be amazing. Diminishing returns after STR/DEX/AK reaching 250 like AB also would help to reduce the power creep.

On enemies, Orcs could be more harder, you should flee the Orcs attacking the starting city to Reddorck, be able to free cities from Orcs at lv 1 is ludicrous. Also, Dragons should be far harder to deal and demons too.

DISCLAIMER I an not saying that G3 is better than G2/G1. I an only saying that G3 despite some flaws has his merits. According to user reviews on gog, G3 is 4/5. Gothic 1 is 4.6/5 and Gothic 2 is also 4.6/5. I believe that this scores reflect the game quality. That G3 is a great game but not a masterpiece.
 
Üstad

Üstad

Arcane
Joined
Aug 27, 2019
Messages
8,622
Location
Türkiye
Age of Decadence is better than Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. The only reason Fallout is praised because it's just one of the firsts. Combat in Fallout sucks big time, economic system, skill system also sucks. There is barely any different endings. The game railroads us to "good" ending (wtf) AoD by every aspect is objectively much better game.
 
Ontopoly

Ontopoly

Disco Hitler
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
3,118
Location
Fairy land
The mass decline of RPGs can be directly traced back to dragon age Origins and Dragon warrior 4 caused the decline of all JRPGs.
 
Dramart

Dramart

Learned
Joined
Nov 28, 2019
Messages
540
Location
Argentina
This is going to trigger some people but it's the truth. Some time ago I tried the first Fallout, I had an open minded approach and good humor, I was optimistic about it and tried to be tolerant like I do when I try old games I never played. It was a game with great atmosphere, nice graphics for the time, a creative and unique setting, but I didn't like the combat, it was simple, sluggish. The thing is it was boring so I abandoned it. Now I tried Fallout 2, it doesn't have the same great atmosphere, it doesn't have the "ooooh ooooh ooooh" creepy song. Without these things it just had the combat, and that emphazised how bad it is, the combat is bad, it's not even mediocre, it's bad, baaaaaad. Only people who played it back in the day can think this is good, or Disco Elysium fans who love stories and don't give a damn about gameplay. If somebody plays this game today for the first there's a 95% chance that will dislike it. Fallout 3 is a lot better than these two games, and Fallout New Vegas is like ten times better than Fallout 3. It's just nostalgia,the first two Fallouts have not aged well.
 
Ninjerk

Ninjerk

Arcane
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
14,323
Dramart said:
This is going to trigger some people but it's the truth. Some time ago I tried the first Fallout, I had an open minded approach and good humor, I was optimistic about it and tried to be tolerant like I do when I try old games I never played. It was a game with great atmosphere, nice graphics for the time, a creative and unique setting, but I didn't like the combat, it was simple, sluggish. The thing is it was boring so I abandoned it. Now I tried Fallout 2, it doesn't have the same great atmosphere, it doesn't have the "ooooh ooooh ooooh" creepy song. Without these things it just had the combat, and that emphazised how bad it is, the combat is bad, it's not even mediocre, it's bad, baaaaaad. Only people who played it back in the day can think this is good, or Disco Elysium fans who love stories and don't give a damn about gameplay. If somebody plays this game today for the first there's a 95% chance that will dislike it. Fallout 3 is a lot better than these two games, and Fallout New Vegas is like ten times better than Fallout 3. It's just nostalgia,the first two Fallouts have not aged well.
Click to expand...
"First" Fallout? There's only one, so...
 
laclongquan

laclongquan

Arcane
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
1,870,184
Location
Searching for my kidnapped sister
I play Fallout 1 in Fallout 2 engine, the total conversion that is Fallout Et Tu.

It was much much better than Fallout 1 original, even if you add all the fixpack to it.

Fallout 1 game engine has something to it, that can make people tired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom