Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Finishing up Gothic 1 for the first time...

Tags:
  • PC gaming
  • Video Games
Last response: in PC Gaming
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:40:54 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

For the longest time I was afraid to run this game on my 1 Gig Athlon
and Geoforce MX200. From all of the reviews and exclamations over how
great it looks I figured it'd never run near adequately.

I'm glad I took the plunge and decided to play it anyway because its
definately one of the better RPGs. It runs signifigantly better than
Morrowind at 800X600 32bpps. While the weather and day to night
effects seems slightly less detailed than those in Morrowind (I'm
still somewhat awed by Morrowind's night sky and sunsets) I can't
really complain with being able to walk in an actual nighttime forest
(No spriggly limbless posts as in Morrowind) with pretty convincing
nighttime sounds. (GAH! enough with the shooting stars though. That
was way overdone IMO)

Granted, it is *more* of a console RPG than Morrowind was/is (To spare
everyone I won't even go into the lack of proper mouse support :-) ).
Its kinda ridiculous to walk everywhere carrying what has to amount to
5 tons of equipment *g*, but it does help to move things along. But
nearing the end of the game it has seemed that the designers were
prehaps a bit too generous with the amount of items they placed. I've
probably got over 300 potions, lots of high quality swords that I'm
too weak to use and spell after spell that I really don't need.
(Although it was fun summoning a Golem in the Orc Village just to see
if it could take on everyone. Yah..it creamed everyone. :-P).

One thing which didn't impress me as much as I thought it would is in
the NPC interactions. From all the raving, I expected something more
than spoken dialogue and branching responses. Sure, its' funny as
hell when you're running away from a guard and he yells, "Come back
you pussy!", but that hardly equates the 'deep' and interactive NPC
interactions I'd expected. But if I ever want to experience being a
'drug dealer' I know which game to play. :-D

Combat seems even more of a twitch affair than Morrowind was. Even
now I still don't like it. But I suppose it is more realistic in a
way. You definately try to go one on one whenever you can. Its still
annoying to have to hack and hack at a creature and even when it seems
like your blows are connecting, nothing happens to the monsters, so
you don't know if your weapon isn't strong enough or whether they've
blocked it or not. At least the higher-level Orc characters block
your attacks so you know what's going on.

The creatures are sometimes interesting. The snappers brought back
all my worst nightmares from the Alien films. :-P. Just when you
think you've outrunned them all, one of em pops from behind a tree a
half a mile away from where you first encountered it. YIKES! Nice
A.I. pathfinding. Although there are times when you're standing near
speaking distance and they won't recognize you. Most of the time
though I've found myself wishing the A.I. *wasn't* so sharp.

The enviroment is fairly interesting. if a bit static in terms of
roaming NPCs and encounters. It would have been nice if darkness
played a bigger part in determining what sorts of creatures were
about. Roaming pathways for the monssters would have kept things
fresh as well. And it definately needs more variety in terms of
music.

It doesn't really feel as though I'm playing a fantasy RPG. It feels
more like a wierd hybrid of some prison movie (Bad Boys with Sean
Penn) and some post-nuclear movie like Mad Max. :-P. Even the magic
and fantasy creatures can't dispell this feeling for some reason. And
then when I'm in the Minecreeper nests I feel like I'm in an Alien
movie. :-D.

I played the game as a Swamp Camper. I wanted to join the Old Camp,
but followed the wrong quests. I'm guesing if you join the other
camps you get a somewhat different game? If there were more variety
in the encounters and the play area were bigger I would probably
consider playing through again as a New Camper, but as things stand, I
don't think I'll do this. Although I am interested in giving Gothic
2 with its larger area and improved gameplay a go sometime in the
future.

I'm currently in the Sleeper's Temple and it's pretty cool so far.
The puzzles and hidden areas are a real change of pace and welcome.

If things don't get better towards the end of the game I can say I
have no real complaints or issues with Gothic (Even the occasional
crashes aren't too horrible). Its definately one of the best RPGs out
there and should be recognized as a classic IMO. Granted, it is more
consolely and lacking with regards to its interface and character/play
stats, but it is still a fun and enjoyable game.

Next Up? Fallout 2 or IceWind Dale 2..

More about : finishing gothic time

Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:40:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Blabbus Blabbibicus" <blabbus@talk.com> wrote in message
news:k4r0611c8pji568en0eqhc1eul1olt3j4j@4ax.com...
>
>
> For the longest time I was afraid to run this game on my 1 Gig Athlon
> and Geoforce MX200. From all of the reviews and exclamations over how
> great it looks I figured it'd never run near adequately.
>
> I'm glad I took the plunge and decided to play it anyway because its
> definately one of the better RPGs.

I kinda thought Gothic was a "so so" game (and engine) but it had a very
interesting and compelling storyline that kept me going to the end and was
enough to get me to buy Gothic 2
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:36:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Blabbus Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> once tried to test me with:

> Granted, it is *more* of a console RPG than Morrowind was/is (To spare
> everyone I won't even go into the lack of proper mouse support :-) ).

LOL.

> One thing which didn't impress me as much as I thought it would is in
> the NPC interactions. From all the raving, I expected something more
> than spoken dialogue and branching responses. Sure, its' funny as
> hell when you're running away from a guard and he yells, "Come back
> you pussy!", but that hardly equates the 'deep' and interactive NPC
> interactions I'd expected. But if I ever want to experience being a
> 'drug dealer' I know which game to play. :-D

But compared to Morrowind's "cardboard cutout" NPCs that all say (ok,
write) the same exact things over and over, I'd say it's an improvement.

> Combat seems even more of a twitch affair than Morrowind was.

And more interesting. YMMV.

> The creatures are sometimes interesting. The snappers brought back

Creatures in MW were actually one of its highlights too.

> The enviroment is fairly interesting. if a bit static in terms of
> roaming NPCs and encounters. It would have been nice if darkness
> played a bigger part in determining what sorts of creatures were
> about. Roaming pathways for the monssters would have kept things
> fresh as well. And it definately needs more variety in terms of
> music.

:)  But any game can be improved. I would say compared to most "RPG"
titles, Gothic does a much better job of "world realism" than others.

> It doesn't really feel as though I'm playing a fantasy RPG. It feels
> more like a wierd hybrid of some prison movie (Bad Boys with Sean
> Penn) and some post-nuclear movie like Mad Max. :-P. Even the magic
> and fantasy creatures can't dispell this feeling for some reason. And
> then when I'm in the Minecreeper nests I feel like I'm in an Alien
> movie. :-D.

Heh.

> I played the game as a Swamp Camper. I wanted to join the Old Camp,
> but followed the wrong quests. I'm guesing if you join the other
> camps you get a somewhat different game?

Key word on "somewhat" but yeah, somewhat.

> don't think I'll do this. Although I am interested in giving Gothic
> 2 with its larger area and improved gameplay a go sometime in the
> future.

Gothic 2 requires a better rig than 1 did, so expect to either make
sacrifices in visuals or upgrade. If your system is a min-spec for G1
probably you'll have to upgrade for G2.

> If things don't get better towards the end of the game I can say I
> have no real complaints or issues with Gothic (Even the occasional
> crashes aren't too horrible). Its definately one of the best RPGs out
> there and should be recognized as a classic IMO. Granted, it is more
> consolely and lacking with regards to its interface and character/play
> stats, but it is still a fun and enjoyable game.

I agree pretty much. I am not sure where you're getting "consolely" from
but I'm not particularly interested in arguing it. ;) 

> Next Up? Fallout 2 or IceWind Dale 2..

Fallout 2 is the better of those 2. Beware the bugs. Patch up first. Then
save often (and not in the same slot over and over).

IWD2 is a fun hack-n-slash but from what you've described that you liked
and wanted more of in Gothic it may not be your cup of tea.


--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 11:04:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 05:40:16 GMT, "Auggie" <Imperial.Palace@Rome.com>
wrote:

>
>"Blabbus Blabbibicus" <blabbus@talk.com> wrote in message
>news:k4r0611c8pji568en0eqhc1eul1olt3j4j@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> For the longest time I was afraid to run this game on my 1 Gig Athlon
>> and Geoforce MX200. From all of the reviews and exclamations over how
>> great it looks I figured it'd never run near adequately.
>>
>> I'm glad I took the plunge and decided to play it anyway because its
>> definately one of the better RPGs.
>
>I kinda thought Gothic was a "so so" game (and engine) but it had a very
>interesting and compelling storyline that kept me going to the end and was
>enough to get me to buy Gothic 2

Yah. I'm not saying its up to the level of say, Fallout 1, Planescape
Torment or Ultima VII, but its original enough and engaing enough to
be a solid addition to any best 50 RPGs of all time list.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 5:50:41 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Blabbus Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> once tried to test me with:

> Actually I think my system is above the minimum requirements (600 Mhz
> P3 w./ 128 MB of RAM??). My Geoforce MX200 (64 Megs of RAM) can push
> things along very well at 800X600 32bpp. It runs *alot* smoother than
> MW does at the same settings.

My previous computer was an Athlon 850mhz, Geforce 2 mx (64mb), with 1gb of
RAM. Gothic 2 was just too stuttery to be fun so I decided to hold off.
YMMV. I didn't play with the default settings to try and tweak it and I
don't even remember what resolution it defaulted to.

I still want to play Gothic 2 some day. I have the PC for it now no problem
but World of Warcraft pwnz me.

>>> If things don't get better towards the end of the game I can say I
>>> have no real complaints or issues with Gothic (Even the occasional
>>> crashes aren't too horrible). Its definately one of the best RPGs
>>> out there and should be recognized as a classic IMO. Granted, it is
>>> more consolely and lacking with regards to its interface and
>>> character/play stats, but it is still a fun and enjoyable game.
>>
>>I agree pretty much. I am not sure where you're getting "consolely"
>>from but I'm not particularly interested in arguing it. ;) 
>
> Well, Gothic is more an adventure game than a RPG for me. There are
> no stats as I said and it has no encumbrance for the character. And
> the control and combat scheme rewards people with good reflexes more
> than tactical thinking. When you think about it, its not that much
> different from Heretic II or Tomb Raider. Granted, there are quests
> and decisions you can make which affect the course of the game, but I
> still don't think of it as a 'true' RPG in the usual sense of the
> word. Its more a bastard child of a love affair between Tomb Raider
> and Ultima Underworld. :-P

Ok yeah but all of those games you mentioned were PC games. Except Tomb
Raider which was ported from PC to console. ;) 

> Another thing which makes it more an adventure game for me is the
> inability to play as another character or to alter the character's
> appearance.

Ah, yeah, you are pretty much stuck in one role. But my personal favorite
single player RPG ever, Planescape: Torment, forces you into the role of
Nameless One. Would you argue that PST is an adventure game?

>>> Next Up? Fallout 2 or IceWind Dale 2..
>>
>>Fallout 2 is the better of those 2. Beware the bugs. Patch up first.
>>Then save often (and not in the same slot over and over).
>
> Yup. I played through IWD 1 and it was all about hack and slashing.
> I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I've got part 2 and want to play
> my characters through the higher levels.

If you ENJOYED IWD, I'd say definitely go for IWD2, at least at some point.
It's more of the same, but the new 3E rules put a cool twist on it. I'd
still argue that Fallout 2 is better, but hey.

> I don't really like hack-n-lash that much.

Heh, well make up your mind. ;) 

> Gothic is more an
> enviromental attraction than anything else; seeing how the game runs
> and plays and what things could have been done to make it a better
> RPG, etc. I've been mostly playing FPS games lately because of their
> immersive enviroments and involving gameplay so a 3rd person
> perspective RPG is about as far as I'm willing to go to play a RPG
> lately. I also have Wizardry 8, but want to wait until I have more
> time to devote to playing it. And someday...someday...I will play
> through those Ultima's I've been promising myself to play.
> (Nope...still haven't beaten a single Ultima game...*cry* *cry* I'm so
> ASHAMED! :-) )

SO many games, so little time. ;) 

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 9:59:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 17 Apr 2005 01:50:41 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:


>I still want to play Gothic 2 some day. I have the PC for it now no problem
>but World of Warcraft pwnz me.

I've been hearing mixed things about WoW. Of course since I don't
have the equipment to run it it hasn't really garnered my interest.
MMORPGs can be fun sometimes, but mostly I think of them as a waste of
time. Too open ended, too shallow and too many distractions from the
other players.

>> Another thing which makes it more an adventure game for me is the
>> inability to play as another character or to alter the character's
>> appearance.
>
>Ah, yeah, you are pretty much stuck in one role. But my personal favorite
>single player RPG ever, Planescape: Torment, forces you into the role of
>Nameless One. Would you argue that PST is an adventure game?

But PST had detailed character stats. If you played as a Mage, Thief,
Fighter or whatever there were stats which would affect your ability
to be whatever class you wanted to be or class skills you wanted to
use. It would be brutal to try playing a Mage or Fighter character
with the minimum stats. Gothic has no stats other than strength, mana
and dexterity if you can really call them stats.

>If you ENJOYED IWD, I'd say definitely go for IWD2, at least at some point.
>It's more of the same, but the new 3E rules put a cool twist on it. I'd
>still argue that Fallout 2 is better, but hey.

No argument from me. I'm expecting Fallout 2 to be better. :-)

>> I don't really like hack-n-lash that much.
>
>Heh, well make up your mind. ;) 

Well, 'not that much' doesn't equate hating it or loving it. If the
game is h&c and has other features I like then hey, why not?
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 3:31:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Blabbus Blabbibicus wrote:
> I've been hearing mixed things about WoW. Of course since I don't
> have the equipment to run it it hasn't really garnered my interest.
> MMORPGs can be fun sometimes, but mostly I think of them as a waste
of
> time. Too open ended, too shallow and too many distractions from the
> other players.

My favorite RPGs are the Gothics, Morrowind, Arx Fatalis, and
Anachronox. The primary things I loved about them were the immersive
nature of the games, the expansiveness of the environments (Arx wasn't
expansive, I guess), and all the weird little ways the games rewarded
players who explored every little nook and cranny of the gameworld. I
promise you, if those are the same things you liked about Gothic I and
Morrowind, World of Warcraft offers all of it in spades. I'm only
playing WoW right now because I've played each of the aforementioned
single-player games at least twice, and there's noting else on the
market right now that gives be the freedom and sense of exploration
that they did.

Of course, sequels to all of the above single-player games (except
Anachronox, sadly) are currently in the works, and I will definitely
make time for them when they arrive. My choice to try WoW was really
out of desperation, and it's proven to be quite an enjoyable stop-gap.

--
*** In World of Warcraft (North America Realms) ***
Gavvyn, Human Paladin on Earthen Ring <unguilded>
Marasmus, Night Elf Warrior on Cenarion Circle <Kalimdor Crusaders>
Mazona, Human Warlock on Cenarion Circle <unguilded>
Schattenlurk, Night Elf Rogue on Earthen Ring <Dark Justice>
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 7:38:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Blabbus Blabbibicus" <blabbus@talk.com> wrote in message
news:a7b361d4tmcqu0orckrvvdqj8b5jc3nptq@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:36:10 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com>
> wrote:
>
> Well, Gothic is more an adventure game than a RPG for me. There are
> no stats as I said and it has no encumbrance for the character. And

No stats? Experience, strength/dex/intelligence, and points in the various
skills don't count as stats?
I agree that the limitless inventory is consoley, and annoying when coupled with
the way in which you have to access it, but it doesn't really detract that
much - I just dumped all the junk in a hut somewhere and carried around the
things I needed.

> the control and combat scheme rewards people with good reflexes more
> than tactical thinking. When you think about it, its not that much

Well, it is twitchy in that you have to choose the right time to attack, but
there is room for tactical thinking in there as well - splitting up groups of
enemies, circling round behind them, using the environment to your advantage. I
remember getting across a bridge which was guarded by goblins by picking some
off from long range with a bow, drowning some more in the river, and finishing
off the rest hand-to-hand.
When it comes to hit/miss calculations, those are worked out depending on your
stats and skills, not just on your reflexes.

> different from Heretic II or Tomb Raider. Granted, there are quests
> and decisions you can make which affect the course of the game, but I
> still don't think of it as a 'true' RPG in the usual sense of the
> word. Its more a bastard child of a love affair between Tomb Raider
> and Ultima Underworld. :-P

Not much different from Heretic or TR? Hmmm. Speaking of UUW, do you class that
as an RPG? You had to choose when to swing your sword, and jump over canyons -
does that make it an adventure as well?

> Another thing which makes it more an adventure game for me is the
> inability to play as another character or to alter the character's
> appearance.

There's no up-front character customisation, true, but you do get to choose your
character's class and direct his advancement during the game, which is good
enough for me :)  And I always felt that customising appearance was just extra
fluff, if we're talking things like hairstyle and skin colour - ok to have in
the game, but doesn't take anything away from the game if it's not there. One
good example was Ultima Underworld - you can customise your appearance, but the
only place you ever see it is on the inventory screen! Fairly pointless...

Rich
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 7:38:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:38:56 +0100, "Richard Wingrove"
<rich@privacy.net> wrote:

>
>"Blabbus Blabbibicus" <blabbus@talk.com> wrote in message
>news:a7b361d4tmcqu0orckrvvdqj8b5jc3nptq@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:36:10 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Well, Gothic is more an adventure game than a RPG for me. There are
>> no stats as I said and it has no encumbrance for the character. And
>
>No stats? Experience, strength/dex/intelligence, and points in the various
>skills don't count as stats?
>I agree that the limitless inventory is consoley, and annoying when coupled with
>the way in which you have to access it, but it doesn't really detract that
>much - I just dumped all the junk in a hut somewhere and carried around the
>things I needed.

Errm..Gothic doesn't have an intelligence stat AFAIK. It does have a
Mana stat however, if you can call it that.

>> the control and combat scheme rewards people with good reflexes more
>> than tactical thinking. When you think about it, its not that much
>
>Well, it is twitchy in that you have to choose the right time to attack, but
>there is room for tactical thinking in there as well - splitting up groups of
>enemies, circling round behind them, using the environment to your advantage. I
>remember getting across a bridge which was guarded by goblins by picking some
>off from long range with a bow, drowning some more in the river, and finishing
>off the rest hand-to-hand.
>When it comes to hit/miss calculations, those are worked out depending on your
>stats and skills, not just on your reflexes.

Its still twitchy. *You* as the player have to time your hits and
blocks and dodging.

Granted, some tactical thinking is involved (And sometimes its
downright necessary), but its usually of the common sense kind and
involves avoidance or long-range (i.e. cowardly, sneaky backhanded :-)
) skullduggery.

I dunno, does Gothic have a stat system for each class/camp of
character type? i.e. Is the old camp character better at hand to hand
than the new camp character? It has no other stats besides Strength
Dexterity and the weapon proficiences.

Well there's also the pickpocketing, acrobatics and sneaking skills,
but I don't see how these would apply specifically to combat.

>> different from Heretic II or Tomb Raider. Granted, there are quests
>> and decisions you can make which affect the course of the game, but I
>> still don't think of it as a 'true' RPG in the usual sense of the
>> word. Its more a bastard child of a love affair between Tomb Raider
>> and Ultima Underworld. :-P
>
>Not much different from Heretic or TR? Hmmm. Speaking of UUW, do you class that
>as an RPG? You had to choose when to swing your sword, and jump over canyons -
>does that make it an adventure as well?

To be honest, I haven't played UU in ages and ages. :-P I'm not even
sure about what sorts of stats and skills it had available or how
these where involved in your advancement. I'm pretty sure it did have
at least some notation of your strength, intelligence and dexterity.
And I remember that if you increased certain skills you could run
fater and jump higher.

But yeah, I do consider it a RPG...in the classic CRPG sense of the
wordl. :-)

>> Another thing which makes it more an adventure game for me is the
>> inability to play as another character or to alter the character's
>> appearance.
>
>There's no up-front character customisation, true, but you do get to choose your
>character's class and direct his advancement during the game, which is good
>enough for me :)  And I always felt that customising appearance was just extra
>fluff, if we're talking things like hairstyle and skin colour - ok to have in
>the game, but doesn't take anything away from the game if it's not there. One
>good example was Ultima Underworld - you can customise your appearance, but the
>only place you ever see it is on the inventory screen! Fairly pointless...

Well, if you wanted to play a female character you'd have to use alot
of extra imagination. :-P Not that you'd want to play a female
character in a lawless enclosure filled with convicts, but it would
have been interesting if the option were available and the storyline
supported it.

I'm not discounting it as a RPG, but its just not much of one in the
classic sense of the word.

And with that being said, let me say that though I do enjoy all types
of RPGing, I also like to make distinctions between the classic (and
for me, true) and the general variety.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 7:38:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Blabbus Blabbibicus wrote:

>>When it comes to hit/miss calculations, those are worked out depending on your
>>stats and skills, not just on your reflexes.
> Its still twitchy. *You* as the player have to time your hits and
> blocks and dodging.

To an extent. The character stats also can change how well you do in
combat. Your weapon master level 1 hero isn't as good at swing his
sword or blocking blows than your weapon master level 3 hero. Plus
things do happen automatically (like combos sometimes just happen or
sometimes you will block a blow that you didn't block)

> Granted, some tactical thinking is involved (And sometimes its
> downright necessary), but its usually of the common sense kind and
> involves avoidance or long-range (i.e. cowardly, sneaky backhanded :-)
> ) skullduggery.

Not always. Go to the light house and tell me you don't have to be
tactical.

> I dunno, does Gothic have a stat system for each class/camp of
> character type? i.e. Is the old camp character better at hand to hand
> than the new camp character? It has no other stats besides Strength
> Dexterity and the weapon proficiences.

No, why would they? Each camp has its point of view. The only camp
that is different is the Swamp Camp. They focus on magic as well as
fighting (plus they have the best armor)

> Well there's also the pickpocketing, acrobatics and sneaking skills,
> but I don't see how these would apply specifically to combat.

Acrobatics can get you out of trouble by jumping further and being able
to jump on top of things (or in one case jump away from something VERY
large)

> But yeah, I do consider it a RPG...in the classic CRPG sense of the
> wordl. :-)

How is it different from Gothic (other than graphics)?

> Well, if you wanted to play a female character you'd have to use alot
> of extra imagination. :-P Not that you'd want to play a female
> character in a lawless enclosure filled with convicts, but it would
> have been interesting if the option were available and the storyline
> supported it.

IMHO that would have weakend the game and made some of the choices
pointless. A female character could not have survived, nor could she
escape slavery.

> I'm not discounting it as a RPG, but its just not much of one in the
> classic sense of the word.

What is this classic sense of the word? A classic RPG is about stat
building. Gothic has that.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 9:53:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Blabbus Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> wrote:
>
>
>For the longest time I was afraid to run this game on my 1 Gig Athlon
>and Geoforce MX200. From all of the reviews and exclamations over how
>great it looks I figured it'd never run near adequately.
>
>I'm glad I took the plunge and decided to play it anyway because its
>definately one of the better RPGs. It runs signifigantly better than
>Morrowind at 800X600 32bpps. While the weather and day to night
>effects seems slightly less detailed than those in Morrowind (I'm
>still somewhat awed by Morrowind's night sky and sunsets) I can't

I like how in Morrowind the horizon is in front of that giant mountain
half a mile away from you.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 9:53:55 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:53:54 +0800, Bateau <Gamera@work.stomping.aza>
wrote:

>Blabbus Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>For the longest time I was afraid to run this game on my 1 Gig Athlon
>>and Geoforce MX200. From all of the reviews and exclamations over how
>>great it looks I figured it'd never run near adequately.
>>
>>I'm glad I took the plunge and decided to play it anyway because its
>>definately one of the better RPGs. It runs signifigantly better than
>>Morrowind at 800X600 32bpps. While the weather and day to night
>>effects seems slightly less detailed than those in Morrowind (I'm
>>still somewhat awed by Morrowind's night sky and sunsets) I can't
>
>I like how in Morrowind the horizon is in front of that giant mountain
>half a mile away from you.

Heh..too realistic eh? :-)
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 5:55:59 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Blabbus Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> once tried to test me with:

> On 17 Apr 2005 01:50:41 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I still want to play Gothic 2 some day. I have the PC for it now no
>>problem but World of Warcraft pwnz me.
>
> I've been hearing mixed things about WoW. Of course since I don't
> have the equipment to run it it hasn't really garnered my interest.
> MMORPGs can be fun sometimes, but mostly I think of them as a waste of
> time. Too open ended, too shallow and too many distractions from the
> other players.

The reasons you don't like an MMORPG are the reasons I like it, except for
the "shallow" part. If you mean there's not much in the way of an overall
story with a point, I'll grant you that, but just how "deep" are most
single player story lines?

BTW, WoW does HAVE a story, it's just that it's told through a series of
quests, and you kind of make your own. The thing about the "story" that is
unrealistic is that everyone is doing the same quests. Repeatedly. No way
to make an impact on the story yourself, so to speak.

I thought Morrowind was pretty open-ended. Essentially it's a single player
MMORPG.

>>Ah, yeah, you are pretty much stuck in one role. But my personal
>>favorite single player RPG ever, Planescape: Torment, forces you into
>>the role of Nameless One. Would you argue that PST is an adventure
>>game?
>
> But PST had detailed character stats. If you played as a Mage, Thief,
> Fighter or whatever there were stats which would affect your ability
> to be whatever class you wanted to be or class skills you wanted to
> use. It would be brutal to try playing a Mage or Fighter character
> with the minimum stats. Gothic has no stats other than strength, mana
> and dexterity if you can really call them stats.

Gothic has skills and stats. And levels. Your success depends, at least in
part, on your character, which you choose to develop how you want. IMHO,
that's the very definition of RPG.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 5:59:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Blabbus Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> once tried to test me with:

> Errm..Gothic doesn't have an intelligence stat AFAIK. It does have a
> Mana stat however, if you can call it that.

Maybe they're relying on the player to supply the brains. ;) 

> Its still twitchy. *You* as the player have to time your hits and
> blocks and dodging.

Correct, which IMHO makes it an action game. But it's also an RPG, so
that's why I'd put it in the "Action/RPG" category. It's a hybrid.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 6:00:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> once tried to test me with:

> What is this classic sense of the word? A classic RPG is about stat
> building. Gothic has that.
>

It has that, but it's not ABOUT that, maybe that's why he's making a
distinction.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 2:15:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Knight37 wrote:
> James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> once tried to test me with:
>
>
>>What is this classic sense of the word? A classic RPG is about stat
>>building. Gothic has that.
>
> It has that, but it's not ABOUT that, maybe that's why he's making a
> distinction.

Ok...I was going too far off the deep end. ;-)

I think RPGs include:
1) Strong story lines with multiple quests and hopefully multiple
solutions to quests
2) Character building, not just in that stat way, but building your
character in the game world. You gain/lose reputation and gain/lose
popularity.
3) Character and game depth. You are just killing things to get through
the level, there are puzzles, mazes, traps, mobs, etc to get through.
4) At least a little combat strategy. While you don't have to be the
next Patton, you do have to think and fight/run accordingly.
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 5:36:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Blabbus Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:53:54 +0800, Bateau <Gamera@work.stomping.aza>
>wrote:
>
>>Blabbus Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>For the longest time I was afraid to run this game on my 1 Gig Athlon
>>>and Geoforce MX200. From all of the reviews and exclamations over how
>>>great it looks I figured it'd never run near adequately.
>>>
>>>I'm glad I took the plunge and decided to play it anyway because its
>>>definately one of the better RPGs. It runs signifigantly better than
>>>Morrowind at 800X600 32bpps. While the weather and day to night
>>>effects seems slightly less detailed than those in Morrowind (I'm
>>>still somewhat awed by Morrowind's night sky and sunsets) I can't
>>
>>I like how in Morrowind the horizon is in front of that giant mountain
>>half a mile away from you.
>
>Heh..too realistic eh? :-)

How do you tweak the view distances past the max in game setting?
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 6:01:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> once tried to test me with:

> Ok...I was going too far off the deep end. ;-)
>
> I think RPGs include:
> 1) Strong story lines with multiple quests and hopefully multiple
> solutions to quests
> 2) Character building, not just in that stat way, but building your
> character in the game world. You gain/lose reputation and gain/lose
> popularity.
> 3) Character and game depth. You are just killing things to get through
> the level, there are puzzles, mazes, traps, mobs, etc to get through.
> 4) At least a little combat strategy. While you don't have to be the
> next Patton, you do have to think and fight/run accordingly.
>

I agree. And I also think a game can fit in more than one box. Gothic is
about as much a third person action game as it is an RPG.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 12:55:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Knight37 wrote:

> James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> once tried to test me with:
>
>
>>Ok...I was going too far off the deep end. ;-)
>>
>>I think RPGs include:
>>1) Strong story lines with multiple quests and hopefully multiple
>>solutions to quests
>>2) Character building, not just in that stat way, but building your
>>character in the game world. You gain/lose reputation and gain/lose
>>popularity.
>>3) Character and game depth. You are just killing things to get through
>>the level, there are puzzles, mazes, traps, mobs, etc to get through.
>>4) At least a little combat strategy. While you don't have to be the
>>next Patton, you do have to think and fight/run accordingly.
>>
>
>
> I agree. And I also think a game can fit in more than one box. Gothic is
> about as much a third person action game as it is an RPG.

Agreed. It seems like RPGs are maturing and getting outside the
Ultima/Gold box. ;-) I like to see RPGs that are at least TRYING to do
something different. BG, BG2, Fallout were all pretty in the box RPGs
(very good RPGs, but pretty standard)...Gothic, Morrowind, and some mods
for NWN get RPGs out there and make them pretty fresh...
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 11:14:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 02:01:55 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com>
wrote:

>James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> once tried to test me with:
>
>> Ok...I was going too far off the deep end. ;-)
>>
>> I think RPGs include:
>> 1) Strong story lines with multiple quests and hopefully multiple
>> solutions to quests
>> 2) Character building, not just in that stat way, but building your
>> character in the game world. You gain/lose reputation and gain/lose
>> popularity.
>> 3) Character and game depth. You are just killing things to get through
>> the level, there are puzzles, mazes, traps, mobs, etc to get through.
>> 4) At least a little combat strategy. While you don't have to be the
>> next Patton, you do have to think and fight/run accordingly.
>>
>
>I agree. And I also think a game can fit in more than one box. Gothic is
>about as much a third person action game as it is an RPG.

I agree to both of your responses James and Knight37.

Well, anyways, I beat the game a couple nights ago.

The ending was about as I imagined. I was a bit dissappointed that I
didn't get to use my other 18+ Summon Skeleton scrolls, but oh well.
The 4 that I used were most sufficient to keep those Demon Lords off
my back. >:-P But even if they wouldn't have been enough I still had
like 300 heal potions, 200+ mana potions, and about 2500 arrows.

Try and imagine someone carrying a load like that in real life. heh..
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 11:29:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:55:02 -0600, James Garvin
<jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:

>Knight37 wrote:
>
>> James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> once tried to test me with:
>>
>>
>>>Ok...I was going too far off the deep end. ;-)
>>>
>>>I think RPGs include:
>>>1) Strong story lines with multiple quests and hopefully multiple
>>>solutions to quests
>>>2) Character building, not just in that stat way, but building your
>>>character in the game world. You gain/lose reputation and gain/lose
>>>popularity.
>>>3) Character and game depth. You are just killing things to get through
>>>the level, there are puzzles, mazes, traps, mobs, etc to get through.
>>>4) At least a little combat strategy. While you don't have to be the
>>>next Patton, you do have to think and fight/run accordingly.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I agree. And I also think a game can fit in more than one box. Gothic is
>> about as much a third person action game as it is an RPG.
>
>Agreed. It seems like RPGs are maturing and getting outside the
>Ultima/Gold box. ;-) I like to see RPGs that are at least TRYING to do
>something different. BG, BG2, Fallout were all pretty in the box RPGs
>(very good RPGs, but pretty standard)...Gothic, Morrowind, and some mods
>for NWN get RPGs out there and make them pretty fresh...

I don't mind new ideas so long as they don't progress to becoming
something entirely different.

It already seems as if the mult-party aspect of RPGing is dead or on
its last leg. What's next?

I think there's plenty of room for improving the quality and standards
of RPGing without sacrificing what's makes them a genre on their own.

But essentially I agree with you. I can't help but like the expansive
and interactive 3D worlds of today's RPGs exciting and loads of fun.
I just hope they don't progress to becoming something like Heretic 2
or Die By the Sword.
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 2:52:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Blabbus Blabbibicus wrote:

> But essentially I agree with you. I can't help but like the expansive
> and interactive 3D worlds of today's RPGs exciting and loads of fun.
> I just hope they don't progress to becoming something like Heretic 2
> or Die By the Sword.

Gah! I'd like to see them mature ;-) While Heretic and DbtS are
interesting, they aren't RPGs by far...I do like the direction that RPGs
are moving with more interactive envrionments, living NPCs, and that
real life feel (day/night cycles, weather, etc).
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 3:50:03 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <tmvd61503jp4157aeeh7r58hcfb5bsq2hv@4ax.com>,
Blabbus Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> wrote:
>>
>>Agreed. It seems like RPGs are maturing and getting outside the
>>Ultima/Gold box. ;-) I like to see RPGs that are at least TRYING to do
>>something different. BG, BG2, Fallout were all pretty in the box RPGs
>>(very good RPGs, but pretty standard)...Gothic, Morrowind, and some mods
>>for NWN get RPGs out there and make them pretty fresh...
>
>I don't mind new ideas so long as they don't progress to becoming
>something entirely different.
>
>It already seems as if the mult-party aspect of RPGing is dead or on
>its last leg. What's next?

I think perhaps what's happened is the gradual emergence of a new
'kind' of game, which might be called the "immersive world sim". These
games typically feature free motion in a three-dimensional world with
responsive objects, and a single protagonist pursuing some kind of plot.
The late lamented Looking Glass Studios was the original master of this
kind of game.

Immersive world sim games usually take on elements from other genres.
Some pick up elements from RPGs, such as Ultima Underworld, Deus Ex
and the Gothics. Others are action games, like Half-Life 2. Some,
like Thief, are like, well, Thief.

Speaking personally, I've found that some of the immersive world sim
games do a very effective job of scratching my "RPG itch", even ones
like the original System Shock that lack most of the traditional RPG
elements like character statistics. Because of that I tend to think
of them as RPGs even though some of them aren't.

--
Kyle Haight
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 4:46:40 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <s6WdnYTLxus8s_rfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>, James Garvin
<jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:
> Gah! I'd like to see them mature ;-) While Heretic and DbtS are
> interesting, they aren't RPGs by far...I do like the direction that RPGs
> are moving with more interactive envrionments, living NPCs, and that
> real life feel (day/night cycles, weather, etc).

Why, another decade or two and we may once again be able to bake bread
in an RPG!

Ultima VII did well, didn't it? Why the heck hasn't anyone tried to
duplicate it in the past decade? Or did they, and I managed to blink
and miss it?

- Damien
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 2:41:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Damien Neil wrote:

> In article <s6WdnYTLxus8s_rfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>, James Garvin
> <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Gah! I'd like to see them mature ;-) While Heretic and DbtS are
>>interesting, they aren't RPGs by far...I do like the direction that RPGs
>>are moving with more interactive envrionments, living NPCs, and that
>>real life feel (day/night cycles, weather, etc).
>
> Why, another decade or two and we may once again be able to bake bread
> in an RPG!

LOL

> Ultima VII did well, didn't it? Why the heck hasn't anyone tried to
> duplicate it in the past decade? Or did they, and I managed to blink
> and miss it?

I think the problem is that developers see the "small stuff" as just
that. They don't think anyone really cares to create items, mingle with
the locals, or have multiple solutions...they just chug along in their
own way adding features as they go along. I think in about 5 years we
will see another U7 :-(
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 2:16:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>Damien Neil wrote:
>
>> In article <s6WdnYTLxus8s_rfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>, James Garvin
>> <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Gah! I'd like to see them mature ;-) While Heretic and DbtS are
>>>interesting, they aren't RPGs by far...I do like the direction that RPGs
>>>are moving with more interactive envrionments, living NPCs, and that
>>>real life feel (day/night cycles, weather, etc).
>>
>> Why, another decade or two and we may once again be able to bake bread
>> in an RPG!
>
>LOL
>
>> Ultima VII did well, didn't it? Why the heck hasn't anyone tried to
>> duplicate it in the past decade? Or did they, and I managed to blink
>> and miss it?
>
>I think the problem is that developers see the "small stuff" as just
>that. They don't think anyone really cares to create items, mingle with
>the locals, or have multiple solutions...they just chug along in their
>own way adding features as they go along. I think in about 5 years we
>will see another U7 :-(

The thing is, is there really a market for it, since a good portion of
the people who are into that will be playing UO or another MMORPG that
has those interactions/crafting?

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 7:36:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:41:21 -0600, James Garvin
<jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:

>Damien Neil wrote:
>
>> In article <s6WdnYTLxus8s_rfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>, James Garvin
>> <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Gah! I'd like to see them mature ;-) While Heretic and DbtS are
>>>interesting, they aren't RPGs by far...I do like the direction that RPGs
>>>are moving with more interactive envrionments, living NPCs, and that
>>>real life feel (day/night cycles, weather, etc).
>>
>> Why, another decade or two and we may once again be able to bake bread
>> in an RPG!
>
>LOL
>
>> Ultima VII did well, didn't it? Why the heck hasn't anyone tried to
>> duplicate it in the past decade? Or did they, and I managed to blink
>> and miss it?
>
>I think the problem is that developers see the "small stuff" as just
>that. They don't think anyone really cares to create items, mingle with
>the locals, or have multiple solutions...they just chug along in their
>own way adding features as they go along. I think in about 5 years we
>will see another U7 :-(

Personally I wouldn't want to bother with something as tedious as
baking bread in a RPG :-P I'm not against some tediousness i.e. I
think modern day RPGs need more diseases and *BG* and the
option/requirement of having to eat or provide your PC with food
everyday. I know Morrowind had diseases which you could catch, but
they weren't severe enough I think.

If RPG developers are looking for more challenges for their games they
only have to look at real life and the original RPGs instead of
inventing rigid plot lines and convoluted stat/PC restrictions.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 9:18:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:36:46 -0600, Blabbus Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com>
wrote:

>Personally I wouldn't want to bother with something as tedious as
>baking bread in a RPG :-P

I doubt many Ultima fans did either, but baking bread is a symbol of the
intricate realism of those games that few others have even begun to
approach.

>I'm not against some tediousness i.e. I
>think modern day RPGs need more diseases and *BG* and the
>option/requirement of having to eat or provide your PC with food
>everyday. I know Morrowind had diseases which you could catch, but
>they weren't severe enough I think.

"You have gained!: 1 point in constipation"
"Your melee skill decreased by 10%"

--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 11:45:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Michael Cecil <macecil@comcast.net> writes:

> I doubt many Ultima fans did either, but baking bread is a symbol of the
> intricate realism of those games that few others have even begun to
> approach.

It was also a way to reward experimentation. Little practical use in
the game, but something to do for some extra fun. The opposite
of a highly linear style where the game forcibly pushes you from
point A to B.

The realism is also a natural side effect once a game starts allowing
the players to use or combine items together; if the capability to use
a poison vial on a sword exists then it's a tiny step towards allowing
the use of water with flour and so forth.

Arx Fatalis also did this well, as an example of a modern game.
Though it was annoying that potion ingredients were quite common
while empty flasks were a rarity.

--
Darin Johnson
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the
Frobozz Magic Hacking Company, or any other Frobozz affiliates.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 11:45:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 07:45:43 GMT, Darin Johnson <darin_@_usa_._net> wrote:

>Michael Cecil <macecil@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> I doubt many Ultima fans did either, but baking bread is a symbol of the
>> intricate realism of those games that few others have even begun to
>> approach.
>
>It was also a way to reward experimentation. Little practical use in
>the game, but something to do for some extra fun. The opposite
>of a highly linear style where the game forcibly pushes you from
>point A to B.
>
>The realism is also a natural side effect once a game starts allowing
>the players to use or combine items together; if the capability to use
>a poison vial on a sword exists then it's a tiny step towards allowing
>the use of water with flour and so forth.

I really like games where they've designed the world rules like that.
Let's the players accomplish goals in all sorts of unpredictable ways.
Much more fun.

>Arx Fatalis also did this well, as an example of a modern game.
>Though it was annoying that potion ingredients were quite common
>while empty flasks were a rarity.

Whatever happened to AF2? I recall hearing about a sequel in the works
but nothing since. Hmmmm...
--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/