Jump to content

Talk:Gothic 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I vote the 'Reaction' section is either totally re-written or removed completely; the use of language seems totally wrong for an informational article.

I don't really have enough interest nor knowledge of the game to justify me doing the work itself, but the entire section just really irks me.


- My mistake, 'Reception' section.

The Reception section was included based on the fact that one already existed for Gothic 2. It's intended as a stub (as is the entire Gothic 3 wiki) for reception and reviews of the game when it is released. If you could be more specific about the "use of language" being "totally wrong" perhaps we could understand just what it is about this section that "irks" you. As it is though, without a specific set of reasons, having a section removed because it "irks" you seems to be a trivial reason at best.

- Teshia


Coming from the same angle as the original poster, in that I have no real knowledge of the game, I assume that the complaints centre around the use of non-encyclopaedic language in the 'Reception' section. Phrases such as "a ton of awards" and saying that fans of Oblivion will "probably love" the game don't really belong in an encyclopaedia, something which is supposed to do away with opinion and convey knowledge in a clear and very definite way. -Aenimiac 21:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reception Section: Tone/NPOV

[edit]

Not a terrible article, but as others have noted, the Reception section does not fit well with either the article or the nature of Wikipedia. Please consider a re-write, improving the tone of the Reception section, with an eye towards the following opinionated and unsourced statements:

"yet well worth the reboot" "sporting a lush plotline that easily separates them from other RPGs".

Please cite the following, and remove the opinion statement. The intent behind an article should be to put forth a citable, neutral point of view, which this does not do:

"Gothic games are also well known for being very adult oriented without crossing the line into being offensive. They have strong language and violence but it's never used with the intent to shock. Rather, it creates a gritty, realistic environment that helps the player suspend any disbelief."

"Also feeding pre-release interest is the success of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. While made by a separate studio, people can't seem to stop comparing the two franchises." According to who? What sources note that there is a connection, and which people are comparing the two? Also, please remove the "can't seem to stop" phrase.

"The success of Oblivion has raised questions about the possibility of a console port of Gothic 3. While it is a possibility, there are down sides to porting a title to console." Original research, or citable fact?

"Oblivion fans took issue with the console port, arguing that parts of the game were dumbed down or simplified because of a lack of programming time that was lost to the process of porting." This is probably true. Please cite a source, or at least offer some indication that this is not simply your opinion.

"While RPGs aren't always big sellers compared to other genres, Oblivion did extremely well in sales and won a ton of awards, becoming the top selling game for the XBox 360. It is unlikely that Gothic 3 will be an Oblivion "killer" but it will almost certainly act as an excellent companion to Oblivion, easily bringing comparable value and gameplay. Fans of Oblivion will probably love Gothic 3 and hopefully this will create enough buzz in the English market to garner a future release of Gothic 4." This entire section is opinion, and does not seem to fit here. If you can re-write this to indicate that noted sources in the gaming industry are comparing Oblivion and Gothic 3, then perhaps something could be salvaged?

ellF 18:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this reception section has been deleted, so these are largely moot points now. Although the release date is October 13th, players have received the game from stores as early as the 10th, so it's officially out. As much of the above points concerning the tone largely center around opinion and hype, they have been deleted and replaced with the first review I could find and hopefully that section will be fleshed out in more detail as the more reviews become available. As a result, I've changed much of the tense to reflect a game that is released, rather than one in development. I've also removed the "future game" stub.

Teshia

Great, thank you -- this looks much better. I noticed a few other points that did not quite match the released state, and edited them to reflect the status of the game. I also dropped a few editorializing words, but I think this matches the work that you have already done to tighten the article as a whole up.

In general, the issues I have seen with this article were centered around tone and language. Your content is good, and the depth is excellent, but you probably want to avoid using adjectives to describe factual information when writing a Wikipedia article. These are seen as opinion words, and given the NPOV rules, are generally inappropriate. There are certainly exceptions, but minimizing your editorial will help keep people from excessively editing what you write. It is obvious that you are passionate about the game, which is great for the content, but try to reign in that enthusiasm and present a neutral point of view when discussing features. :)

Also, when signing a comment on a talk page, using four tildes in a row will auto-include a link to your userpage and the date of your edit, rather than just your name.

ellF 14:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input and good advice. Your edits made it look much tighter all around - much improved. That tilde trick is awesome.

Teshia 18:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are things like cheats and codes really allowable on wikipedia? I thought those sections were more meant for game wikis because they deal with instructions on how to play the game, get through levels, controls, etc. - I erased a section on cheating once but another one popped up in its place. Am I wrong to have removed it in the first place?

Teshia 03:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image allignment

[edit]

This site is a mess because of odd picture placement (on 1280x1024). There should also be only pictures with graphical settings maxed out and not some user's screenshots who don't come close to high-end PC specifications. --217.72.64.8 06:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to clarify what you mean when you say "odd picture placement". I've viewed this wiki on 1280 and 1024 and it looks fine. This is a very similiar screenshot placement to other wikis, such as Half-Life 2 and many others. Also, there is no requirement that screenshots from users need to be captured at the highest possible resolution. In fact, in order to fall under a fair use license, lower resolution captures from fans are required, as the content of the image is under an original copyright.

Teshia 00:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

System Requirements...

[edit]

Judging from reviews on Amazon.com and elsewhere, it seems that the single major factor for performance (for those who already have new and powerful systems) is a fast, top-of-the-line (RAID-controlled or otherwise) hard disk. Since much of the game runs off the hard drive after loading, this is understandable, however is not mentioned under any system requirements, and is still largely an unknown factor. Those with the hardware (not myself!) should look into it. Fionndruinne 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My experience has certainly been that there are bugs, but not so many that the game is unplayable. The amount of bugs that interfere with gameplay dramatically decreases as you get better hardware - that's something I've seen for sure. A good video card (256 Mb), a good processor (P4 2600+) and a lot of RAM (1.5-2 Gb) should easily make this game more than playable. Certainly I had as many bugs playing this game as I did playing Oblivion, yet there are some people who strongly feel these two games are light years apart in quality/content. Strange, seeing as they both use some of the same technology to create very similar gameplay. A fast hard drive probably would help, but I found upgrading to a good video card and going from 512 Mb RAM to 1.5 Gb RAM (especially the RAM upgrade) really improved the performance dramatically. Teshia 05:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RAM requirements should be changed to 2GB, I've got this game recently and have all of the system specs for the game but my computer only had 1GB RAM and it struggled a lot. The next few days the pc started to have system failures and the services started to fail, all because of the RAM the game required, i recommend the actual RAM specs should be changed to 2GB RAM which I'm going to order soon online, and yes their was some bugs with the game, the screen even went blue and the graphics card failed completely. SKYNET X5000 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My (German version) game manual says that recommended System RAM is 1.5GB. I changed that in the article. --Offliner (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can change the memory requirement if it is not supported by a reputable source. It would violate the no original research and verifiability guidelines. Aroni125 (talk)

Criticism

[edit]

Both criticisms are by the same person. If you googled "gothic 3" review, you should be able to find quotes from a different person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hypersugarchild (talk • contribs) 18:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

The criticism section needs references and refinement. While the facts are not necessarily untrue, they simply refer to personal opinions and forum posts on JoWood's forum. I don't want to just delete it, but the last line added to 'criticism' really needs a source. --Steppenfox 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the nationality of the primary publisher JoWooD. It's not a German but an Austrian company. Istabraq 01:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Story

[edit]

Prologue section is the story of Gothic 1 and 2, it has nothing to do with Gothic 3. Since Gothic 1 and 2 articles cover it, this section must be removed.Sohail Mansorry (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, are we going to remove it? If we leave it, we need to fix some things. There are some inconsistencies in the use of the present and the past form which don't sound very well when reading it. Shorkan (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

community patch

[edit]

As there's talk about the game's bugs, the Community Patch could be mentioned. It's supposed to fix several bugs as well as make combat harder (latter it surely does). It's located at : http://www.g3cpt.eu/ Should I mention it? Hoemaco (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gothic 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gothic_3&oldid=1201141773"