I'm an unabashed fan of the Gothic series. The first two games were masterpieces; the third game was still an awesome experience despite its numerous flaws. Risen, developed by the same team that produced the Gothic series (and quite obviously so; it is impossible to review Risen without comparing it to Gothic), is exactly the sort of game I love to play.
Or is it? On the surface, there is no doubt about it; it has the same open gameworld, multiple character classes, and gorgeous graphics of the Gothic series. Despite its developers insistence that Risen is an entirely new property, the gameplay is the same as in their previous games. And I don't mean "the same" as in "an evolution of work they did before"; I mean, it's exactly the same. The combat uses the same mechanics, as does the magic, the questing, the dialogue and the inventory.
Now, as I said, I loved the Gothic games so this poses no problem for me. But it does start to feel very "samey" only a few hours in; there's nothing new in this game that we haven't seen in Gothic 3 (perhaps the "god ray" lighting effects). There's an incredible reuse of materiel from the original series; sounds, textures, models. The story plugs in fairly well with the direction the Gothic series was headed and even the nameless protagonist is a clone of Gothic's hero.
But what is truly disappointing is how short Risen is; the original Gothic 3 occupied me for an entire month as I explored every corner of Myrtana; I completed Risen in a handful of days. Some replayability is ensured by the different career paths but since those quests only occupy the first third of the game that won't add more than a few additional days of entertainment. The main gameworld is smaller than introduced to us in the original Gothic (and less than a third of Gothic 3's massive continent) and much of that area is "dead space" broken into narrow canyons. And just as the story starts to pick up, it suddenly ends with the most embarrassingly poor boss-fight seen in years.
This tighter focus is not without its advantages, however; for all its breadth, Gothic 3 felt bare-boned, populated by space-filling NPCs that had nothing to say and quests that had felt artificially lengthened by having you cross vast distances. Risen offers tighter gameplay; most NPCs have at least one -usually two or three- quests to offer you and the mid-game addition of teleport spells mitigates the travails of back-n-forth questing. Furthermore, the smaller gameworld allowed the developers to put more effort into quality assurance; Risen's has fewer bugs and performance issues that plagued their previous series.
Risen feels entirely like an expansion pack, which it was probably was intended to be before Jowood and Piranah Bytes had their falling out. As an expansion, Risen would have been a tremendous value for its money; Gothic fans would have been ecstatic. As a stand-alone game, however, Risen doesn't give its fans enough of, well, anything. It's too short and doesn't offer anything innovative; it's hard to justify paying full price. Fans of the previous series should definitely pick it up (after it drops in price a bit, of course); for all its lack of length, it is, ultimately more of a good thing. Just don't expect anything new.
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:35:51 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
<spalls_hurgen...@verizon.net> wrote: >I'm an unabashed fan of the Gothic series. The first two games were >masterpieces; the third game was still an awesome experience despite >its numerous flaws. Risen, developed by the same team that produced >the Gothic series (and quite obviously so; it is impossible to review >Risen without comparing it to Gothic), is exactly the sort of game I >love to play.
I still have Gothic III to play (I've started it about eleventy three times since it was released) as well as the Forsaken Gods expansion.
Which patch should I be looking to install? Are there any user mods that you'd recommend (as with STALKER complete). -- Rob
RE Gothic 3 Patches. It can seen confusing with so many of them but just a matter of getting Community Patch 1.73 which contains ALL the previous Community & Official Patch stuff. 913 MB
Same with Forgotten Gods ...get the most recent 1.08 Patch 240 MB it will contain all others.
Gothic 3 since 1.7 patch is completely, as it can be, sorted out, & much better . But we can't use Game Saves from earlier pre 1.7 games with it. (\__/) (='.'=) (")_(") mouse
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 17:34:05 -0000, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
<no-s...@never.spam> wrote: >RE Gothic 3 Patches. >It can seen confusing with so many of them but just a matter of getting >Community Patch 1.73 which contains ALL the previous Community & Official >Patch >stuff. 913 MB
>Same with Forgotten Gods ...get the most recent 1.08 Patch 240 MB it will >contain all others.
>Gothic 3 since 1.7 patch is completely, as it can be, sorted out, & much >better . >But we can't use Game Saves from earlier pre 1.7 games with it.
Trimble Bracegirdle wrote: > Gothic 3 since 1.7 patch is completely, as it can be, sorted out, & much > better .
I bet if I install G3 on on my latest PC with 5870 video card it will still stutter every three steps and perform like a shitty slide show so it will be just waste of good HDD space.
>> Gothic 3 since 1.7 patch is completely, as it can be, sorted out, & >> much better .
> I bet if I install G3 on on my latest PC with 5870 video card it will > still stutter every three steps and perform like a shitty slide show so > it will be just waste of good HDD space.
Wrong. It played smooth as butter on my old ATI x1950pro back in the day. JLC
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:49:12 -0800, Elmer Fudd <e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Spalls Hurgenson wrote: >> I'm an unabashed fan of the Gothic series.
>OK, that's fine and all but I have no plan to buy it anyway because I >felt burned by G3 so I don't support game developers that rip me off.
I can't imagine why you'd feel "ripped off" by the developers; although Gothic 3 did have a good number of problems, on the whole it did deliver what it promised. If you liked the concept of Gothic 3 but were put off by the execution, you may enjoy Risen; I found the experience to be much more smooth -both in performance and gameplay- than its predecessor. But if you didn't like Gothic 3 then Risen isn't going to change your mind.
>But the real question is: why are you posting this to the action group >instead of the RPG group? :)
Well, I could make the arguments that Risen is halfway an action game and worthy of mention here, but frankly it is is because I don't really read the RPG group and I do read this one ;-)
Hell, I voted against splitting comp.sys.ibm.pc.games back in the early '90s; I barely acknowledge the existance of the other groups much less post or read them on a regular basis ;-)
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 17:34:05 -0000, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
<no-s...@never.spam> wrote: >RE Gothic 3 Patches. >It can seen confusing with so many of them but just a matter of getting >Community Patch 1.73 which contains ALL the previous Community & Official >Patch >stuff. 913 MB
>Same with Forgotten Gods ...get the most recent 1.08 Patch 240 MB it will >contain all others.
Has the community "fixed" Forsaken Gods? I bought the game put have avoided playing it because everything I've heard convinces me I'm better off that way.
From what I've read, it doesn't seem possible that a community patch *could* fix the game short of a complete rewrite, but I wouldn't put it past some fans...
JLC wrote: > Wrong. It played smooth as butter on my old ATI x1950pro back in the day. > JLC
That can't be true because it still ran like shit on my last video card which was a 4870 512mb. My PC has 4GB or ram and C...@3.4GHZ so it's no slouch. Next I expect some Usenet keyboard jockey to jump in and say I need to learn how to optimize my PC, probably tell me a defrag of the HDD will make it run great.
>> Wrong. It played smooth as butter on my old ATI x1950pro back in the day. >> JLC
> That can't be true because it still ran like shit on my last video card > which was a 4870 512mb. My PC has 4GB or ram and C...@3.4GHZ so it's no > slouch. Next I expect some Usenet keyboard jockey to jump in and say I > need to learn how to optimize my PC, probably tell me a defrag of the > HDD will make it run great.
I didn't post to argue with you. This is a pretty old game. I played it before the community patches where made, and I ran it at 1280x1024 2xAA, shaders on, everything set to high, and it ran just fine. I'm no fan of this game as I only played it for about 20 hours before I moved on, but as far as framerate goes it was smooth. BTW I also had a C2D 2.6GHz at the time.
>> Wrong. It played smooth as butter on my old ATI x1950pro back in the day. >> JLC
> That can't be true because it still ran like shit on my last video card > which was a 4870 512mb. My PC has 4GB or ram and C...@3.4GHZ so it's no > slouch. Next I expect some Usenet keyboard jockey to jump in and say I > need to learn how to optimize my PC, probably tell me a defrag of the HDD > will make it run great.
It's not the video card; it's adjusting the values in the .ini files and similar tweaks to make it run smooth (mainly increasing cache sizes, reducing draw distances, etc.). You can still find the references in the community forums on how to do it. You have to do the same to G3:FG to make it run reasonably well, although it never got as good as G3.
I'm betting those same .ini tweaks are already in Risen; probably accounts for how it runs so well right out of the box.
>>> Wrong. It played smooth as butter on my old ATI x1950pro back in the >>> day. JLC
>> That can't be true because it still ran like shit on my last video >> card which was a 4870 512mb. My PC has 4GB or ram and C...@3.4GHZ so >> it's no slouch. Next I expect some Usenet keyboard jockey to jump in >> and say I need to learn how to optimize my PC, probably tell me a >> defrag of the HDD will make it run great.
> I didn't post to argue with you. This is a pretty old game. I played > it before the community patches where made, and I ran it at 1280x1024 > 2xAA, shaders on, everything set to high, and it ran just fine. I'm no > fan of this game as I only played it for about 20 hours before I moved > on, but as far as framerate goes it was smooth. BTW I also had a C2D > 2.6GHz at the time.
Yea, I played it after the patch and it ran pretty darn well on a T60 laptop with a measly X1300 ati card I believe (I don't have that laptop anymore) and it also looked beautiful. The trick is in the careful editing of some .ini file (i forget the name) since its default settings will make even the fastest machines slow down to a crawl in some situations.
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:12:14 -0800, Elmer Fudd <e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Spalls Hurgenson wrote: >> I can't imagine why you'd feel "ripped off" by the developers; >Technically it is an extremely poor game, probably close to the worst of >all time. I think that is reason enough to feel ripped off.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree there. Despite some minor performance issues and a few questing bugs, I was generally impressed with the title on a technical front. It looked good, played fairly smoothly, didn't crash and the vast bulk of its quests completed without problem. I was less satisfied with the combat and the lack of development for most of the NPCs, but the size and scale of the gameworld made that forgivable.
I'll grant that a good number of people were dissatisfied with the product -especially considering when Gothic 3 was compared to its much-beloved predecessor- but certainly the "worst of all time" is a gross exaggeration; there are many other games which were released with far worse technical flaws and bad gameplay. I mean, come on, give Terminator 3 War of the Machines its due! ;-)
There is no Community type patch for FORGOTTEN GODS ..the most recent official FG patch 1.08 (last of 4 includes all previous) results in a GREAT improvement in all respects compared to the release condition...which was unbelievably bad... Its still not very good ...not quite as good graphics as G3 ... the game is a sort of lightweight thin story sequel to G3 with much less in content using the central part of same Game World . But thats still a lot. (\__/) (='.'=) (")_(") mouse (Only RISEN has details in the distance !)
>>> I can't imagine why you'd feel "ripped off" by the developers;
>>Technically it is an extremely poor game, probably close to the worst of >>all time. I think that is reason enough to feel ripped off.
>I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree there. Despite some minor >performance issues and a few questing bugs, I was generally impressed >with the title on a technical front. It looked good, played fairly >smoothly, didn't crash and the vast bulk of its quests completed >without problem. I was less satisfied with the combat and the lack of >development for most of the NPCs, but the size and scale of the >gameworld made that forgivable.
>I'll grant that a good number of people were dissatisfied with the >product -especially considering when Gothic 3 was compared to its >much-beloved predecessor- but certainly the "worst of all time" is a >gross exaggeration; there are many other games which were released >with far worse technical flaws and bad gameplay. I mean, come on, give >Terminator 3 War of the Machines its due! ;-)
>>>> Wrong. It played smooth as butter on my old ATI x1950pro back in the >>>> day. JLC
>>> That can't be true because it still ran like shit on my last video >>> card which was a 4870 512mb. My PC has 4GB or ram and C...@3.4GHZ so >>> it's no slouch. Next I expect some Usenet keyboard jockey to jump in >>> and say I need to learn how to optimize my PC, probably tell me a >>> defrag of the HDD will make it run great.
>> I didn't post to argue with you. This is a pretty old game. I played >> it before the community patches where made, and I ran it at 1280x1024 >> 2xAA, shaders on, everything set to high, and it ran just fine. I'm no >> fan of this game as I only played it for about 20 hours before I moved >> on, but as far as framerate goes it was smooth. BTW I also had a C2D >> 2.6GHz at the time.
>Yea, I played it after the patch and it ran pretty darn well on a T60 >laptop with a measly X1300 ati card I believe (I don't have that laptop >anymore) and it also looked beautiful. The trick is in the careful >editing of some .ini file (i forget the name) since its default settings >will make even the fastest machines slow down to a crawl in some >situations.
>>> Wrong. It played smooth as butter on my old ATI x1950pro back in the day. >>> JLC >> That can't be true because it still ran like shit on my last video card >> which was a 4870 512mb. My PC has 4GB or ram and C...@3.4GHZ so it's no >> slouch. Next I expect some Usenet keyboard jockey to jump in and say I >> need to learn how to optimize my PC, probably tell me a defrag of the HDD >> will make it run great.
> It's not the video card; it's adjusting the values in the .ini files and > similar > tweaks to make it run smooth (mainly increasing cache sizes, reducing draw > distances, etc.). You can still find the references in the community forums > on how to do it. You have to do the same to G3:FG to make it run reasonably > well, although it never got as good as G3.
> I'm betting those same .ini tweaks are already in Risen; probably accounts > for > how it runs so well right out of the box.
But WHICH settings are you going to use? Back when I played it there were like a score of different claims that tweeking this or adjusting that .ini setting would make it work/look great. I tried a few and they didn't seem to make much difference.
>>>> Wrong. It played smooth as butter on my old ATI x1950pro back in the >>>> day. >>>> JLC >>> That can't be true because it still ran like shit on my last video card >>> which was a 4870 512mb. My PC has 4GB or ram and C...@3.4GHZ so it's no >>> slouch. Next I expect some Usenet keyboard jockey to jump in and say I >>> need to learn how to optimize my PC, probably tell me a defrag of the >>> HDD will make it run great.
>> It's not the video card; it's adjusting the values in the .ini files and >> similar >> tweaks to make it run smooth (mainly increasing cache sizes, reducing >> draw >> distances, etc.). You can still find the references in the community >> forums >> on how to do it. You have to do the same to G3:FG to make it run >> reasonably >> well, although it never got as good as G3.
>> I'm betting those same .ini tweaks are already in Risen; probably >> accounts for >> how it runs so well right out of the box.
> But WHICH settings are you going to use? Back when I played it there were > like a score of different claims that tweeking this or adjusting that .ini > setting would make it work/look great. I tried a few and they didn't seem > to make much difference.
I'm pretty sure I found it in the worldofgothic forums; you have to adjust a whole lot of values, not just a few here or there.
|
