| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
KnobZ
Village Dweller
Joined: 09 Aug 2003
Posts: 1
|
| Gothic 2 bad PC Gamer UK Review? |
|
I've been wanting to buy this game, and it received some very positive reviews.
However, PC Gamer UK supposedly gave the game 62%. What exactly was/is their problem with the game? Is their criticism justified or are they bashing the game because it's German? There are some serious assholes working for the US PC Gamer (and they have previously voiced some absurd anti-German opinions), so I can only imagine what it is with the UK edition.
Cheers. |
Sat Aug 09, 2003 4:39 am |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
They are bashing the game for whatever reason. If you filter all the German reviews out of our database you´ll see that the average of 30 or so reviews is an estimated 92%. In short, it´s seen here as the new genre king, together with Morrowind.
The detailed RPGDot review will follow early next weak. The result will be at least 90%.
IMO a realistic lower boarder is 80%. A fair, carefully written negative review could point to the few weaknesses and subtract 20 points.
62% is just so out of this world that it isn´t worth discussing.
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Sat Aug 09, 2003 6:11 am |
|
|
Daedalus
High Emperor
Joined: 04 Jan 2002
Posts: 2516
Location: Estonia |
indeed 62% is tooo low for that kind of game .If Gothic an exellent game imo gets 62% then what is perfect(100%) ? |
|
Sat Aug 09, 2003 11:50 am |
|
|
Kiwi Boy
High Emperor
Joined: 03 Jan 2003
Posts: 1086
|
| Re: Gothic 2 bad PC Gamer UK Review? |
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnobZ
However, PC Gamer UK supposedly gave the game 62%. ... Is their criticism justified or are they bashing the game because it's German?
Probably not. Sorry, but perhaps others who read through the review may comment about it. Don't forget, though, because of the pro-Gothic nature of these forums, most negative G2 reviews will not be credited here. So, I think it may be better if you wait for the actual demo, experience through it, and decide whether it is worth buying.
quote:
Originally posted by KnobZ
What exactly was/is their problem with the game?
Some of the problems can be:- Unconventional controls: You may hate your CTRL key the first time you play the game. But, once you get used to the controls, it won't be a problem.
- Poor voice-acting: Some of the accents and expressions used in the dialogs may be irrelevant to their context. In many cases, voice-actors do not seem to follow the script at all. However, I don't think voice-acting will affect much on gameplay.
- Crashes: Like most other games, G2 crashes frequently on some machines, but does not crash at all on other machines.
- Translations: Some texts remain in German. Clearly, a glaring mistake, and it may demonstrate the incapability of beta testers. Perhaps the lack of polish, like translation mistakes, is why reviewers bash the game.
- Choppy graphics: Some say the AI in G2 is very advanced, thus the CPU load will be very high, even for high-class CPU's. So, don't expect graphics will be smooth like silk just because you have a high-class graphic card.
Generally, none of these problems affects the overall gameplay in G2. So, I don't see a reason why it deserves such a low grade.
quote:
Originally posted by KnobZ
There are some serious assholes working for the US PC Gamer (and they have previously voiced some absurd anti-German opinions), so I can only imagine what it is with the UK edition.
I don't think it's a problem about nationalism. Perhaps it's a popularity contest. Some reviewers generally praise games which are hyped up the most, and G2 is definitely not one of those games. |
|
Sat Aug 09, 2003 4:23 pm |
|
|
DJ Yahari
Village Leader
Joined: 15 Dec 2002
Posts: 99
Location: In your basement |
Yeah, 62% is truly a disaster. It's totally ''out of this world'' and ''not worth discussing'', because it's clear that if someone doesn't rate this game 80%+, then they are wrong  .
Seriously people, everyone is entitled to their opinions. What makes you think that every reviewer will agree with the people on a Gothic 2 fanboard? |
|
Sun Aug 10, 2003 7:17 pm |
|
|
hoyp
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Oct 2002
Posts: 501
|
62 % is Way too low for a game that has a gameworld, combat, characters, AI, graphics and sound as well-developed as Gothic 2. Plus that review is terrible, he only put very few items in the cons list like underwhelming spell effects and he just rated it 62%. Most people who give gothic 2 anything less than 75% discourages innovation and puts polish and presentation over the actual gameplay. |
|
Sun Aug 10, 2003 8:21 pm |
|
|
Daedalus
High Emperor
Joined: 04 Jan 2002
Posts: 2516
Location: Estonia |
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Yahari
Yeah, 62% is truly a disaster. It's totally ''out of this world'' and ''not worth discussing'', because it's clear that if someone doesn't rate this game 80%+, then they are wrong .
Seriously people, everyone is entitled to their opinions. What makes you think that every reviewer will agree with the people on a Gothic 2 fanboard?
First i got gothic i didnt play it also after 1 week i installed it again and got used to the controllers and found out the game is the best i ever seen so i think those who rate the game really badly they dont play it at all the just move a little bit and see that the controls aint like they leet UT controls and put a shjittie rate :\ |
|
Mon Aug 11, 2003 12:30 pm |
|
|
Dez
King of the Realms
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 455
Location: Fortress of Tell Halaf |
well if the develorers of gothic2 would be as famous as lets say ion storm(the guys who made deus ex, which is one of the best games ever as gothic 2 is).Or they would have big pr machine behind them,I bet game would have got for sure 80 atleast.I have read Uk pcgamer sometimes and most of their rewievs are really bad, you can allmoust sense, that those guys dont write about games without any bias..some rewievers just can't stand gothic type of games for some wierd reason??Do they expect that every good rpg must something like morrowind...
_________________
The focused mind can pierce through stone |
|
Tue Aug 12, 2003 3:59 am |
|
|
DJ Yahari
Village Leader
Joined: 15 Dec 2002
Posts: 99
Location: In your basement |
quote:
62 % is Way too low for a game that has a gameworld, combat, characters, AI, graphics and sound as well-developed as Gothic 2. Plus that review is terrible, he only put very few items in the cons list like underwhelming spell effects and he just rated it 62%. Most people who give gothic 2 anything less than 75% discourages innovation and puts polish and presentation over the actual gameplay.
I have never played a game that didn't have any AI, neither have I played a game that didn't have a game world and I have never played a roleplaying game without combat. How does this make Gothic 2 special?
Also, how can you say it's wrong to rate this game lower than 75%? Just because he doesn't agree with you.... Bah, I won't even get into this. It's pointless to discuss with a bunch of fanboys
The guy just didn't like the game that much, thus he rated it 62%. Get over it. |
|
Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:52 pm |
|
|
Chekote
Where’s my Banana?!?!
Joined: 08 Mar 2002
Posts: 1540
Location: Dont know, looks kind of green |
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Yahari
I have never played a game that didn't have any AI, neither have I played a game that didn't have a game world and I have never played a roleplaying game without combat. How does this make Gothic 2 special?
He said they were well developed. Not that they simply exist...
_________________
IMHO my opinion is humble |
|
Wed Aug 13, 2003 4:19 pm |
|
|
DJ Yahari
Village Leader
Joined: 15 Dec 2002
Posts: 99
Location: In your basement |
*Slaps forehead*. My bad, I totally overlooked that. 
But these things still doesn't make the game stand out in any way, except for the AI, which I admit is good. |
|
Wed Aug 13, 2003 4:26 pm |
|
|
Chekote
Where’s my Banana?!?!
Joined: 08 Mar 2002
Posts: 1540
Location: Dont know, looks kind of green |
I agree with your point about personal oppinion.
I personally HATE sports games, and even if I played a sports game that was supposedly the best sports game ever, I would still hate it. Would I be wrong? No, as you say, its just my personal oppinion.
I think that Gothic is a tough one to review, mainly because of all its problems. I personally love the game, but I can see the trouble PCGamer would have, because they are reviewing the game for the masses, not just for RPG freaks like us.
That is one of the main reasons why I dont listen to a specific review. You need to get a spectrum of oppinions and use your own judgement. Hell I have loved plenty of games that EVERYONE has said was complete shite.
We are all individuals, just try it and if you like it thats all that matters. Who gives a crap what anyone else thinks.
That said and done, it obviously annoys us because the gaming press dictates the success of a game which then dictates the likelyhood of sequels. We all know that the lack of a Gothic sequel would be a very very big loss.
_________________
IMHO my opinion is humble |
|
Wed Aug 13, 2003 4:32 pm |
|
|
Iron Man
Dazed and Confused
Joined: 07 Dec 2002
Posts: 773
Location: Location Location |
Well I would be with you Yahari, but it didn't get a fair review. Judging by the screenshots included (except a few of the various armour, which could have easily been inserted), the reviewer didn't play past chapter 1. I don't think that is enough to get a good feel of the game.
_________________
This box secretly turns into a picture and laughs at YOU personally when you're not looking. |
|
Wed Aug 13, 2003 4:39 pm |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
Maybe we have a different opinion about how a 'review' should come to its rating. I´m talking about reviews to be published on websites and in print mags, not personal opinions in forum posts or our Top 100 list.
I think a reviewer should strive for objectivity, as much as this is possible in such a subjective thing as a review. Every game has certain qualities a reviewer has to notice. Things like overall graphics quality (-->visible), amount of sound track & voice acting (-->audible), controls (-->manual, options, readme, etc.) and distinct identification of things like 3rd person view, real time combat, loading times, save system, character development, amount of quests, number of opponents, size of world, ... and so on...
(edit: okay, the list is a bit chaotic but I think you get the point)
leave only room for a limited amount of personal opinion because most of these features are either implemented or not. Take Unreal 2 for example. Can there be any discussion whether or not the graphics where at least good (if not better) at the time of release?
If you, after processing a feature checklist, compare each of them to the closest competition (depending on the scope of your publication) you come up with a rough idea of the overall quality of the game, this time with some but still not much personal opinion. Given this was done thoroughly chances are low you are considerably below the average rating this game received in other publications.
The reviewer´s personal opinion comes in when he makes up his mind if all the features work as a whole. And again I expect him to have his emotions under control. There is a difference between 'it doesn´t work' and 'I don´t like it'. If something is disappointing for him I want to know why exactly, so I can make up my own mind.
After all this is done the reviewer can clearly state his opinion. I like Gamespot´s idea of a 'reviewer´s tilt' because it decouples his opinion from the actual review score.
This is what I meant with lower boarder. If you try to stay objectivite as long as possible extraordinarily low sores for good games are almost impossible.
Of course this takes a lot of time. Print mags don´t have unlimited time, so it´s unlikely small games receive an equal treatment. In their case the rating is probably more emotional and based only on the game´s first few hours.
Seems to be a problem of all print mags I know. Without a big publisher behind you it´s hard to get good reviews.
btw., wasn´t this the print mag which gave NWN a 100% score ? 
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Wed Aug 13, 2003 5:17 pm |
|
|
hoyp
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Oct 2002
Posts: 501
|
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Yahari
Also, how can you say it's wrong to rate this game lower than 75%? Just because he doesn't agree with you.... Bah, I won't even get into this. It's pointless to discuss with a bunch of fanboys
The guy just didn't like the game that much, thus he rated it 62%. Get over it.
Ok, I never said that the reviewer was wrong, I just said that the only reason that people give Gothic 2 a really low rating is because it's not like unconventional and buggy.
And te only reason that I'm annoyed at this review is because if other people see it, they'll think that the game sucks and wont even think about trying it out. |
|
Wed Aug 13, 2003 5:45 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:02 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
