| |
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
|
|
|
|
Morning.LemoN
Village Leader
Joined: 10 Jul 2003
Posts: 85
|
it's very interesting to watch how gothic has been reviewed in time. in the beginning the german reviews were of course very enthousiastic about the game, giving it almost perfect in every part. then when the english version of the game there were more reviews by english players. still very good reviews. and now the american version is released. and the american reviews are quite different. almost all they talk about is bad interface and presentation and such....
could this be because of the european origin of the game? i mean it probably is....but i also read in a comment by an american fan of gothic that gamers in america don't like games that are not based in presentation, or that differ from the games that they are used to. that could be the case also....
what do you think? |
Wed Nov 19, 2003 8:53 pm |
|
|
Secret Agent Lawanda
The last thing you see...
Joined: 23 Oct 2003
Posts: 1041
Location: World of Darkness (LA) |
8.1 out of 10 is nothing to sneeze at. The person reviewing the game was just giving his honest opinion. The game is great, but it isn't perfect. I've never played a perfect game. Besides, you can't base the entire American game press' opinion on one review. Wait for some more before jumping to some conclusion. That's my two chunks of ore anyway.
_________________
-=Professional Secret Agent=-
Moderator of The Anime and Manga Fan Club |
|
Wed Nov 19, 2003 10:19 pm |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
quote:
Originally posted by Secret Agent Lawanda
8.1 out of 10 is nothing to sneeze at. The person reviewing the game was just giving his honest opinion.
Maybe the Gamespot reviewer was just giving his honest opinion, but he was also doing a lousy job. His review is full of small mistake and it´s quite obvious he didn´t even finish chapter 1 (--> just ask yourself _when_ you receive your first teleport rune!) and was extrapolating his conclusions to the whole game. It was nothing more than luck that the final result wasn´t such a desaster as Gamespot´s G1 review.
8.1/10 is okay. The way he reached this conclusion makes it very clear that this review is worth as much as most (if not all) other professional reviews out there: less than a single opinion by a player who completed the game.
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Wed Nov 19, 2003 10:39 pm |
|
|
Secret Agent Lawanda
The last thing you see...
Joined: 23 Oct 2003
Posts: 1041
Location: World of Darkness (LA) |
I read the review, Gorath. Leaving out the teleport runes was the only mistake in the review. The rest of the complaints can be considered legit.
1. The learning curve can be steep for some players. Especially if they haven't played a game like this before.
2. The inventory is improved but it's far from perfect.
3. Hotkeys for potions are not implemented unless you take the time to search a forum and implement them yourself. It doesn't come standard.
4. You do die. A lot. Especially if you haven't played the original.
5. There is no automap.
6. The accents of characters are nothing short of silly at times.
I think they underrated the graphics, but the rest looks on par.
And if you look at how they rate games, Gothic 2 falls in this catagory:
8.0-8.9: "Great"
This score range refers to great games that are excellent in most every way and whose few setbacks probably aren't too important. We highly recommend games in the upper half of this range, as they tend to be good enough to provide an enjoyable experience to fans of the game's particular genre and to new players alike.
http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/misc/userreview/explained.html
Just because they didn't gush over the game means it's a bad review.
_________________
-=Professional Secret Agent=-
Moderator of The Anime and Manga Fan Club |
|
Wed Nov 19, 2003 11:06 pm |
|
|
Morning.LemoN
Village Leader
Joined: 10 Jul 2003
Posts: 85
|
....i surely wasn't making any conclusions. its just that the reviews got me wondering. and i think that they were more than one i noticed. but i don't know where i came across the otherone though.
and i didn't mean that all those totally enthousiastic reviews were descent either. i just wanted to point out the difference between them.
actually, there was a slight implication in what i wanted to say:
i was just wondering if it could be that american gamers are relying more to the presentation and interface of games, rather than plot and such...
this thought came into my mind, taking into consideration some new game releases from EA from example, whose main emphasis is on those features of the game. and seeing how these games have been reviewed and worshipped, i thought about it in that direction.
of course, i could be wrong. |
|
Thu Nov 20, 2003 12:09 am |
|
|
Cm
Sentinel of Light
Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 5209
Location: Missouri USA |
I don't think being American has anything to do with it myself. I don't want a game that doesn't have a good plot, decent graphics, and is made so that I can't play it. My favorite games are from Europe. I wait for US version due to language and availability only. If I spoke German, Gothic 1 and 2 would have hit my house a lot sooner. Don't judge me by what a few of my fellow nationals say or do. We are not all alike. I will say no more.
_________________
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Member of Worshippers of the Written Word=
A man cannot be comfortable without his own approval.
Mark Twain
Last edited by Cm on Fri Nov 21, 2003 5:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Thu Nov 20, 2003 1:49 am |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
quote:
Originally posted by Morning.LemoN
it's very interesting to watch how gothic has been reviewed in time. in the beginning the German reviews were of course very enthusiastic about the game, giving it almost perfect in every part. then when the English version of the game there were more reviews by English players. still very good reviews. and now the American version is released. and the American reviews are quite different. almost all they talk about is bad interface and presentation and such....
could this be because of the European origin of the game?
Ok. I’m American. Californian to be specific. I’m 36 years old. Been playing computer and video games since the 1970s, and an avid reader of gaming magazines (and their reviews of games) and current day internet gaming sites (and their reviews of games). I think I’m qualified to share an opinion on this remark.
First of all, without a doubt, in the last few years several small European developers have stepped up to the game-developing plate and cranked out some of the best CRPGs since the glory days of Ultima, Wizardry, and The Bard’s Tale.
Games like Divine Divinity, Gothic 1 & 2, and Arx Fatalis all capture an elusive gaming style not seen by American developers for some time. I enjoy games like Morrowind, Baldur’s Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and TTOEE. But the aforementioned European games, in my opinion, have an air of ‘life’ breathed into them that as far as I can tell, can only be achieved through the dedication of a small developer – a team of people who have a passion about building a very custom gaming world without being overly pressured by a publisher to cater their game to a mass-market audience in order to maximize profitability.
If you consider games like Baldur’s Gate, Morrowind, or Neverwinter Nights, those games were all intended to reach the broadest demographic possible for what has historically been quite a niched demographic. To do this, you need a lot of polish. Polish means a streamlined, easy-to-use interface and easy to learn and understand functionality. A lot of effort goes into this because this type of polish can broaden a demographic and that’s what publisher’s want to see because that leads to more dollars.
But attention to polish eats away from the game-developing-time-pie for other things. Enter stage left the European developers. Some of the newer European developers to surface recently are very small, and while they want to make some money of course, are cranking out some games with most, if not all the emphasis on game play (yay!). Polish takes second seat. You can see this in all three of the aforementioned games (Divine Divinity (being the best polished), Arx Fatalis, and Gothic 1 & 2). But as far as I’m concerned, that’s ok.
As an avid CRPGer, I’ve never been too worried about polish because I’m part of that old niched CRPGer demographic – that niche that likes subtly, and even difficulty in grasping all the little game play elements from statistics to controls. In one two-hour sitting with TTOEE, I learned all the different game play elements in that one sitting. But even toward the end of the game, I was still discovering new things you could do in Arx Fatalis. But Arx Fatalis too had a lot of negative comments about ‘polish.’
American reviewers complaining about the controls of Gothic 2 is somewhat laughable to me. But here in America, polish in a CRPG is important to publishers. And because of that, the importance of polish becomes over-amplified in gaming reviews. With the success that games like Divine Divinity, Gothic 1 & 2, and Arx Fatalis have achieved, these developers will begin experiencing increased pressure by publishers whom these developers have caught the attention of, to try to ‘polish’ their games to reach a broader and broader audience. I hope and pray that none of these developers sell their souls to a large publisher who will ruin a great CRPG series like what happened when Origin was bought by EA which led to the demise of the single-player Ultima series. Big publishers are about big bucks. Games like Gothic appeal to a natural demographic that would represent ‘chump change’ to a developer like EA. But can make quite a nice living for a small team of people trying to create a fantastic little game.
quote:
Originally posted by Morning.LemoN
i mean it probably is....but i also read in a comment by an American fan of gothic that gamers in America don't like games that are not based in presentation, or that differ from the games that they are used to. that could be the case also....what do you think?
So I have to disagree with your comment. I don’t think the not-as-positive-as-European-reviews has anything to do with the idea that these games are coming out of Europe. I think it is, like most things, rooted in money, and the culture that is created across the gaming industry here in the U.S. by that mindset.
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Thu Nov 20, 2003 5:39 pm |
|
|
Zappas-Ghost
Village Dweller
Joined: 21 Nov 2003
Posts: 1
|
Wise Words Neptiofpovar.
The priorities of small manufacturers and the priorities of large companies are different 
Origin DID create Worlds , EA (and comparable) creates shallow
maintstream. But thats life....
Wish u only the best
ZappasGhost (U are what u is F.Zappa 1987 live in NY)
Berlin , Germany |
|
Fri Nov 21, 2003 4:14 pm |
|
|
Morning.LemoN
Village Leader
Joined: 10 Jul 2003
Posts: 85
|
I understand what you way, Neptiofpovar, and i also find it very correct. but the thing is that this policy of large companies must have a reason for existing. i mean, this must mean that people want this mainstream-kind of games.....these super-polished games.
...but of course.......this is the meaning of mainstream, actually.
yeah....it's like with anything that ends up being mainstream. i guess i just had a hope that rpg's wouldn't....
you're right....that's life. |
|
Fri Nov 21, 2003 5:11 pm |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
quote:
Originally posted by Zappas-Ghost
The priorities of small manufacturers and the priorities of large companies are different.
Yes, I couldn’t agree more. And when it comes to money, the ‘chump change’ of a large company is quite lucrative from the perspective of a small company.
quote:
Originally posted by Morning.LemoN
...but the thing is that this policy of large companies must have a reason for existing. i mean, this must mean that people want this mainstream-kind of games.....these super-polished games.
After reading my initial post, I did come off a bit negative in my reference to large publishers. That was not my intention.
I’ve been playing computer and video games all my life. When I buy a new game, it’s a real lengthy process for me to fill out the registration card, particularly the part that asks which types of geners I enjoy. I have to check everything; strategy, RPG, Adventure, Simulation, Action, Sports and whatnot. Usually I have to add a few more gener’s not listed on the registration card and then check those boxes too.
I agree that there is a huge demand for mainstream type games that companies like EA crank out. I’m part of that demand.
Like any respectable computer and videogame freak, I have everything from Half-Life to War Craft to King’s Quest to Gotham City Racing to Baldur’s Gate to, well, you name it. Games that allow you to sit down for 10 or 20 minutes and play something exciting are as great as games that take months to complete, such as Morrowind.
My only hang-up with companies like EA is that sometimes a hit CRPG catches their attention (money-wise) and then they, in Microsoft style, maneuver to acquire the developing rights of future releases of that title. They did this with Origina/Ultima and Westwood Studios/Lands of Lore.
In these two instances, it’s as if EA forgot their core competency (cranking out fast-paced action and sports titles) and got entangled, perplexed, and irritated with the long development cycle of a CRPG game, then threw down the gauntlet with the CRPG developer to release a poor CRPG title in an unready state. In the end, the single-player Ultima series and the Lands of Lore series became casualties.
The developers in Europe, though cranking out games that EA would consider to be quite niched, can still make a lot of money for themselves as small companies. But if their success leads to mergers or acquisitions to large publishers, you can expect future releases of some of these critically successful titles to be dumbed-down for mainstream, as we’ve all seen happen in the past. And when that happens, those titles lose the focus that originally made them a hit, and then they disappear from gamers radar screens forever.
In short, my opinion is that big publishers have no business acquiring CRPG licenses simply because of their size and cashflow needs. They should stick to short development cycle games and leave the small developers with a passion for making a stimulating CRPG alone - those developers will see a great return (money wise) on their investment as a small company.
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Fri Nov 21, 2003 6:41 pm |
|
|
Morning.LemoN
Village Leader
Joined: 10 Jul 2003
Posts: 85
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neptiofpovar
In short, my opinion is that big publishers have no business acquiring CRPG licenses simply because of their size and cashflow needs. They should stick to short development cycle games and leave the small developers with a passion for making a stimulating CRPG alone - those developers will see a great return (money wise) on their investment as a small company.
...yes, this seems to be the most fair opinion......i guess i took the whole RPG thing too personally...
quote:
Originally posted by Neptiofpovar
But if their success leads to mergers or acquisitions to large publishers, you can expect future releases of some of these critically successful titles to be dumbed-down for mainstream, as we’ve all seen happen in the past.
and this is the saddest thing, when it happens...
good thinking... |
|
Sun Nov 23, 2003 2:42 pm |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
I’m glad I could give you an alternative perspective on your original conclusion. Yes, there are a lot of idiots and plenty of ignorance here in America. But if you stay away from American television programming, you’ll start to become aware of the fact that not all of us have some kind of weird superiority complex over the rest of the world.
Like I originally stated, I’m an American and have been playing CRPG games for over 20 years now. And some of the very best content in the last 3 years has been coming out of France and Germany. And that’s fine with me. I hope these companies continue to be successful while maintaining their own visions of game design, rather than the visions of large publishers.
I also wanted to point out something else based on your original post:
quote:
Originally posted by Morning.LemoN
it's very interesting to watch how gothic has been reviewed in time. in the beginning the german reviews were of course very enthousiastic about the game, giving it almost perfect in every part. then when the english version of the game there were more reviews by english players. still very good reviews. and now the american version is released. and the american reviews are quite different. almost all they talk about is bad interface and presentation and such....
I think gamers, more than reviewers, are guilty of this syndrome, which goes basically like this:
1) CRPG Game X is announced!
2) Message boards are flooded with gamer chatter about the game
3) Excitement about the game builds during development – very positive forums
4) Game goes gold, very positive forums
5) Game is released, initial posts are positive for a little while
6) After a few weeks, forums become largely negative
I’ve seen this with just about every single game out there. And it’s us gamers who are the perpetrators.
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Mon Nov 24, 2003 5:59 pm |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
Good posts, Neptiofpovar. 
quote:
Originally posted by Secret Agent Lawanda
I read the review, Gorath. Leaving out the teleport runes was the only mistake in the review.
No. And it was not a 'mistake'. The author thought he was right! He didn´t play until chapter 2. 2 of the 3 teleport runes in the valley of mines are easy to find. In chapter 3 at latest you simply cannot avoid to get teleport runes in the new world. This is something you can neither miss nor forget. He stopped before he got them.
So he only played chapter 1 (okay, maybe he had a brief look in chapter 2 and didn´t find the rune near the abandoned mine; it makes no difference). He finished only 20-30% of the game and felt qualified to write a review about the whole thing. Unfortunately this is typical of professional reviewers. Their time has to be paid, so of course the time they can spend on a single game is limited.
(On a sidenote, this is one of my favourite topics. The German print mag GameStar tested Knightshift (~70%). Editor A received a CD and some infos. Editor B, a SpellForce fan who knew he would leave the GameStar soon, tested KS for 5 (!) hours. KS has 1. a RPG part 2. a RTS part 3. both also in multiplayer. So far it´s confirmed. Gamestar says (a) we had a review copy, (b) permission to write a review and (c) 5 hours was enough to test the whole thing. The publisher says (a) they received an incomplete preview (!) copy on Friday afternoon, (b) of course without permission to write a review, (c) the copy expired on Monday and (d) the provided multiplayer activation key was NOT used.
The court will decide this.)
This case -and the explanations of the pros from the gamestar- are the reason I value professional reviews so low. The GS is not an exception. They work as everybody else in that business, simply due to time and money shortage.
IMO a reviewer has to complete a game before he writes a review. If this isn´t possible he has to play the game for a long time. In case of an RPG I would say 50 hours should be enough. Playing only 1/10th of a game is a lottery. In this case the reviewer was relatively successful, the end result is okay. I could point you to a dozen Gothic 1 reviews - one is on Gamespot for example - where it didn´t work.
The other big mistake is the combat controls thing. G2 has two completely different sets of combat controls. If he says they´re problematic he should mention which one he tried plus the fact that there are two of them. If both suck in his opinion he should still mention them both.
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Mon Nov 24, 2003 6:11 pm |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
quote:
Originally posted by Gorath
Their time has to be paid, so of course the time they can spend on a single game is limited.
Time and Money are always the reasons blamed why a product or service is somehow 'incomplete.'
With the Internet and all the online gaming 'review' sites that have appeared, the problem of 'reviews' of games where the reviewer has only played for a brief amount of time has become quite a problem, at least for me - a person who uses reviews to help with deciding which games to buy.
I understand the business side of the problem, especially so for CRPGs... where there is a huge time investment needed to properly review a game and they 'pay' for such time spent on just one game isn't worth it.
As a gamer however, a 'review' of a CRPG isn't worth its salt if the reviewer didn't complete the game.
But there is a solution for gamers. The solution is that, if you as a gamer rely on reviews to help you decided if you are going to plunk down your hard earned cash for a game, you simply make it a point to read as many 'reviews' as you can find. It takes more time and effort on your part, but you can usually build a 'complete review' of a game by reading 'many reviews.'
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:18 pm |
|
|
konny666
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 219
Location: Babylon 6 |
A few things. First, I am not surprised at the overzealousness of Gothic fans who think "8.1/10" is such a horrible score for G2. For the 30 days I played Gothic2 intently and did nothing else (skipped all classes, assignments, outings) I would have also been mad if any review site gave it less than 10/10. But then I finished the game (for the third time) and I stopped playing it (because I had done everything) and I realized it did have a number of faults, and that it was far from perfect.
And 8.1 is exactly what I'd rate it too. As a sidenote I tried Gothic1 recently, since many people here claimed that Gothic1 was better than Gothic2. That's a load of BS. Gothic1 is worse than Gothic2, I couldn't even finish it. There were so many little things that annoyed me (things that were not present in G2); after getting halfway through I stopped playing. However, the basic premise of G1 is more interesting than G2, I just feel it comes across as poor execution for someone weaned on G2. However I will most certainly obtain the first english version of Gothic 3 when that becomes available.
Also, please stop considering BioWare an American company. It is not. It is a Canadian company. Canada != America. We differ in a number of aspects; I daresay in culture as well, which is how a 30M population country has made its mark in the International computer gaming and entertainment industries (Bioware, Relic and EA Sports (need for speed etc.) are all Canadian and Digital Extremes who developed the Unreal series is Canadian. ATI is also Canadian, the current top dog in the 3D video card market (Ask Valve).
BTW a "bad review" of Gothic 2 would be the one from Gamespy, not the one from Gamespot. I wonder if they would have given it such a bad review if G2 was a multiplayer game which used "Gamespy Arcade" as its internal match-making system, hmm? |
|
Fri Nov 28, 2003 1:26 am |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 13, 2019 2:30 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
