| |
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
|
|
|
|
Moriendor
Black Ring Leader
Joined: 19 Jul 2001
Posts: 1306
Location: Germany |
| Gothic 2: Review @ Games Domain |
|
Also on Games Domain is a <a href="http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/nov03/gothic_2.html" target="_blanK">review</a> of PB's/Atari's 3rd person fantasy RPG sequel 'Gothic II' which scored 3.5 out of 5 points.<blockquote><em>In the end, Gothic II is a classic with one major flaw. Or potential flaw, depending on your hand-eye coordination and tolerance level for wonky interfaces. Regardless, it's still worth a look. Especially if you're in need of a rich and well-designed alternative to the standard Dungeons & Dragons-derived RPG experience on PC, or are a first-person shooter fan looking for something different with depth.</em></blockquote> |
Mon Nov 10, 2003 10:01 pm |
|
|
hoyp::.
Guest
|
Hmmm....
I guess some people just cant appreciate an rpg with reflex-based combat. |
|
Mon Nov 10, 2003 10:02 pm |
|
|
hoyp::.
Guest
|
And I cant believe that they gave that stupid dungeon siege expansion a 4/5.
That Mike Smith guy has made some terrible reviews. |
|
Mon Nov 10, 2003 10:05 pm |
|
|
hwfanatic
Average Fanatic
Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Posts: 2850
Location: Belgrade, Serbia |
Then again, he would probably think the same about your review, if you'd made one. C'mon, people tend to think differently, you know that...
I personally think it was about time for a lower score. Don't understand me wrong, I adore Gothic, but all it ever got so far were words of praise. There are people who don't like Gothic, and this one review is for them...  |
|
Mon Nov 10, 2003 10:54 pm |
|
|
hoyp
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Oct 2002
Posts: 501
|
I wasnt really complainin, it was just a thought 
I actually like the 3.5/5 score on Gothic 2, although I personally would give it a 4.
Anyway, I seriously think that that Mike Smith guy (author of DS arana review, not the Gothic 2 one) has written some horrendous reviews and he doesnt care about originality and puts more emphasis on polish rather than originality and gameplay.  |
|
Tue Nov 11, 2003 4:42 am |
|
|
Phalanx
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 19 Dec 2001
Posts: 122
Location: Australia |
seems like he spent next to no time on both games. A prejudice view, his played gothic 1 and glanced at gothic 2 for 20 mins. |
|
Tue Nov 11, 2003 10:44 am |
|
|
Guest
|
quote:
Originally posted by Phalanx
seems like he spent next to no time on both games. A prejudice view, his played gothic 1 and glanced at gothic 2 for 20 mins.
Thats not entirely fair, he probably spent something in the range of 5 to 15 hours going over the game, and the review reflects this. Also he does make some valid comments about the combat, it's not the best system and it is unforgiving. It's also overall a positive review. If your a fan (as we are) you're almost bound to have a biased opinion. |
|
Tue Nov 11, 2003 4:39 pm |
|
|
elkston
High Emperor
Joined: 21 Sep 2002
Posts: 691
Location: North Carolina, USA |
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous
quote:
Originally posted by Phalanx
seems like he spent next to no time on both games. A prejudice view, his played gothic 1 and glanced at gothic 2 for 20 mins.
Thats not entirely fair, he probably spent something in the range of 5 to 15 hours going over the game, and the review reflects this. Also he does make some valid comments about the combat, it's not the best system and it is unforgiving. It's also overall a positive review. If your a fan (as we are) you're almost bound to have a biased opinion.
It is fair for the most part, but I do beleive that a game should always be completed (if possible) before it is reviewed.
By not going through the entire game, you can avoid prematurely dismissing a product. And by the same token , you prevent overrating by finding deficiencies in the game that do not prop up unless it is played at length.
_________________
All shall hear the words of Karras...the words of Karras |
|
Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:07 pm |
|
|
hwfanatic
Average Fanatic
Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Posts: 2850
Location: Belgrade, Serbia |
quote:
Originally posted by elkston
By not going through the entire game, you can avoid prematurely dismissing a product. And by the same token , you prevent overrating by finding deficiencies in the game that do not prop up unless it is played at length.
I concur. Having been in a position to review several games for a site, I must say that those that were published differed from my actual impressions after I've finished the games. The thing is, the reviews had a deadline on them... |
|
Wed Nov 12, 2003 8:15 am |
|
|
StarkeRealm
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Posts: 38
Location: Louisville, KY |
I wish someone had mentioned that the quote button defalts to Guest when not logged in...
quote:
Originally posted by elkston
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous
quote:
Originally posted by Phalanx
seems like he spent next to no time on both games. A prejudice view, his played gothic 1 and glanced at gothic 2 for 20 mins.
Thats not entirely fair, he probably spent something in the range of 5 to 15 hours going over the game, and the review reflects this. Also he does make some valid comments about the combat, it's not the best system and it is unforgiving. It's also overall a positive review. If your a fan (as we are) you're almost bound to have a biased opinion.
It is fair for the most part, but I do beleive that a game should always be completed (if possible) before it is reviewed.
By not going through the entire game, you can avoid prematurely dismissing a product. And by the same token , you prevent overrating by finding deficiencies in the game that do not prop up unless it is played at length.
It was the 20 minuets line that I didn't think was fair, the reviewer didn't seem to simply take the merits of the prevous game and then blow off the remainder of the review, he certainly spent some time with the game.
And your right, a reviewer should if possible finish a game before writing a review, but sometimes things like deadlines, and branching plots get in the way, it idealy should take someone three to four times to truly fininsh Gothic II, to the satisfaction of a reviewer. Unfortunately, most magizenes and websites, won't except a month long turnaround on a game review.
Now that I've blown off my steam, and (hopefuly) clarified my posision, remember: It's just my opinion
_________________
The problem with programers is that we can type out 32 character long strings without errors, but we can't spell worth a damn. |
|
Sun Nov 16, 2003 9:38 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
I didn't think this was a bad review. As a general comment, though, if a reviewer does not finish a game (and 5 hours is not enough), then I consider the review suspect. I don't care what the pressures of his deadlines are - it's not reliable.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Sun Nov 16, 2003 10:16 am |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
I agree with Dhruin. Plus, I suck at RT combat; my reflexes are slowing down. However, I had very little difficulty with the combat in either Gothic or G2. A little timing is all you need. I think the combat is fine. It's not just a clickfest and it's not just one click and wait. It a sense, it's far more realistic.
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Sun Nov 16, 2003 10:42 am |
|
|
GhanBuriGhan
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 208
|
The only problem I have with this review is that it assumes a-priori that RPGamers dislike the reflex oriented combat and that in fact it places Gothic in a line to classic RPGS with turn-based combat. That is not entirely fair, Gothic has at least as many elements of an Action Adventure game as it does of an Role-Playing game, and it should be judged on this premise. The question is not whether reflex combat is good or bad, the question is how well was the reflex-based combat implemented. And there I think Gothic does a reasonbly good job; Combat is moderately interesting, both player and character skill factor into combat success, the interface, once mastered, does not get in the way of the action, hit-and run tactics etc. are possible and the group behavior of enemies (cited as something negative in the review!) forces the player to adopt a careful, strategic approach, increasing suspense. |
|
Sun Nov 16, 2003 11:53 am |
|
|
hoyp::.
Guest
|
Yeah, the reviewer obviously doesnt like reflex based rpgs so the review is a little biased. |
|
Sun Nov 16, 2003 6:59 pm |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:05 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
