🚀 go-pugleaf

Skyrim rocks.

Am 11/17/11 2:04 AM, schrieb johns:
> Seriously. I mean it. Nehrim was fair, but still not G3.
> Is the engine decent ?  Can you climb up on walls ?
>
> Is the Keybd / mouse decent .. or is it a Euroid
> Keybd with no mouse controlls ?
>
> Are all the accents ... uh .... British?
>
> Does it do that stupid level-up so you never get
> better as you complete missions ? And how many
> rats will I have to kill in the basement ?
>
> Oh .. when does the price come down because the
> PC gamers won't buy it until the modders fix it ?
>
> johns
Ahem Gothic 3 was lousy, easily the worst Gothic ever.

Werner

On 11/16/2011 7:04 PM, johns wrote:
> Is the Keybd / mouse decent .. or is it a Euroid
> Keybd with no mouse controlls ?

You will not like it because of the interface based on your previous 
postings.  Just avoid it to spare us the pain.

"WDS" <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote 
| On 11/16/2011 7:04 PM, johns wrote:
| > Is the Keybd / mouse decent .. or is it a Euroid
| > Keybd with no mouse controlls ?
| 
| You will not like it because of the interface based on your previous 
| postings.  Just avoid it to spare us the pain.

Not an issue, he can re-code it at the chip level.

There is nothing in the sky's .
You can climb walls / Mountain sides to some extent.
But or though the 'invisible walls' are much less noticeable than in 
Oblivion
or Fallout 3 they are still there .
It is often difficult to tell whether is just difficult to climb / jump
something or whether is because  'invisible wall' can't.

I have spend a long time just wandering around the
opening section Town.
It all seems very empty...nothing has attacked Hero...
no sign of Tombs etc.discovered ....very little to pick up.

It looks like an improved Oblivion / Fallout 3 rather than an
totally new design style.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse (Its Johns ! :)

> It looks like an improved Oblivion / Fallout 3 rather than an
> totally new design style.

I've never finished Fallout 3 either. Both are "nice trys"
but never did make it to the level of Gothic 3. And I've
never been able to make up a game within the game to
compensate. Both are too linear, and there is no need
for imagination in either one.

Guess we'll have to wait for PB to "DO SOMETHING!"
Who knows. It could happen in our lifetime.

johns

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:04:30 -0800 (PST), johns wrote:


> 
> Are all the accents ... uh .... British?

Got a problem with Brits? But no, this time they used Americans and Max von
Sydow. I hear one voice that sounds a lot like Arnold Swazenegger but I
don't think it is him.

On 11/20/2011 2:38 AM, X wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:04:30 -0800 (PST), johns wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Are all the accents ... uh .... British?
>
> Got a problem with Brits? But no, this time they used Americans and Max von
> Sydow. I hear one voice that sounds a lot like Arnold Swazenegger but I
> don't think it is him.

They got Michael Hogan (Saul Tigh on battlestar galactica) to voice 
General Tullius.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:06:08 -0800, Adam Russell
<adamrussell52@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

>On 11/20/2011 2:38 AM, X wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:04:30 -0800 (PST), johns wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Are all the accents ... uh .... British?
>>
>> Got a problem with Brits? But no, this time they used Americans and Max von
>> Sydow. I hear one voice that sounds a lot like Arnold Swazenegger but I
>> don't think it is him.
>
>They got Michael Hogan (Saul Tigh on battlestar galactica) to voice 
>General Tullius.

I thought that was him!

Ive never played Gothic but i loved Skyrim and Oblivion and Fallout 3/New Vegas. Im trying to figure out if Gothic 3 is even worth the time? I hear from some that its the best game and from others its total crap.

wb9...@gmail.com wrote in
news:b728ce1e-a4a4-4...@googlegroups.com: 

> 
> Ive never played Gothic but i loved Skyrim and Oblivion and Fallout
> 3/New Vegas. Im trying to figure out if Gothic 3 is even worth the time?
> I hear from some that its the best game and from others its total crap. 
> 

Not played Skyrim, but loved Morrowind, like Oblivion, and love all the 
Fallout games (well, maybe not Tactics).

Loved Gothic 1 and 2. Gothic 3 as originally shipped was, indeed, total 
crap--too bugged to play, but patched with the latest community patch 
(http://www.patches-scrolls.com/gothic3.php) it's a fine game.

It's a big game, and I recommend taking notes (remember pencils?--they're 
wireless!) unless you're going to play with a walkthrough (BOO!).

Mark.

-- 
Clotho, Lachesis, Atropos         --         the only sysadmins that matter

On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:00 -0700 (PDT), wb9...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Ive never played Gothic but i loved Skyrim and Oblivion and Fallout 3/New Vegas. Im trying to figure out if Gothic 3 is even worth the time? I hear from some that its the best game and from others its total crap.

The original two games were great. The third not so and best not to talk about
the fourth and its DLC at all. These games have a lot of personality, I
suppose you could call it. Great quests, great characters, alliances to make
and or break. You could do much worse than play through these legends.

I didn't like the fact that in Gothic 3 if you ran into a tough enemy
in the early stages of the game, you couldn't use luring tactics with
guards or other NPCs to help you out.  It just seemed ridicuous &
unreal for 10 guards or whatever simultaneously beating & hacking &
slashing on a single tiny goblin, and not able to make a nick.  I gave
up after this.  Besides, it always ran like a dog, and G3 ran
sluggishly on my i5, GTX 660 Ti-based system more than Skyrim at full
detail settings - a much more recent game.

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 16:54:53 -0400, Omegaman <wormwood19...@lycos.com>
wrote:

>I didn't like the fact that in Gothic 3 if you ran into a tough enemy
>in the early stages of the game, you couldn't use luring tactics with
>guards or other NPCs to help you out.  It just seemed ridicuous &
>unreal for 10 guards or whatever simultaneously beating & hacking &
>slashing on a single tiny goblin, and not able to make a nick.  I gave
>up after this.  Besides, it always ran like a dog, and G3 ran
>sluggishly on my i5, GTX 660 Ti-based system more than Skyrim at full
>detail settings - a much more recent game.

Something must have been wrong with you setup then as at the time I think I
was running a 280/285 and it ran fine.

Memnoch <mem...@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> looked up from
reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good,
the signs say:

>On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 16:54:53 -0400, Omegaman <wormwood19...@lycos.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I didn't like the fact that in Gothic 3 if you ran into a tough enemy
>>in the early stages of the game, you couldn't use luring tactics with
>>guards or other NPCs to help you out.  It just seemed ridicuous &
>>unreal for 10 guards or whatever simultaneously beating & hacking &
>>slashing on a single tiny goblin, and not able to make a nick.  I gave
>>up after this.  Besides, it always ran like a dog, and G3 ran
>>sluggishly on my i5, GTX 660 Ti-based system more than Skyrim at full
>>detail settings - a much more recent game.
>
>Something must have been wrong with you setup then as at the time I think I
>was running a 280/285 and it ran fine.

Ahh but what does fine mean to _you_?

For a game like Skyrim, 30fps was more than enough for me and I didn't
use FSAA or AF, so it played just fine on my GTX 550Ti @ 1600x900 with
graphic options set decently high.
For someone like Rin, anything under 60fps would have been unbearably
sluggish and forced much lower graphic settings to compensate (or more
likely a better video card.)

Is Gothic 3 perhaps more CPU limited and you've got more there than him?
Or perhaps he made a mistake and bought a "Green" Harddrive so all his
HD load times are longer and Gothic3 has more of those than Skyrim?

Much like beauty, fine and sluggish are in the eye of the beholder.

Xocyll

Actaully, Gothic 3 ran fairly well on my beefy system.  I'd say an
average FPS of 40-50 FPS on the highest detail settings at 1920 X 1080
with the resource demanding community patch.  But my brain has gotten
used to a minimum of 60 FPS with Skyrim and other recent games, and a
drop of 20 FPS becomes quite noticible to me.  60 FPS is the minuimum
for a perfectly smooth playing experience for me.  I could barely
tolerate Dark Soul's locked framerate of 30.  Most people can't notice
anything higher than 40 FPS (or so I've been told) but I ceretainly
can.  

G3 was quite playable in terms of framerate, but as mentioned in my
previous post, the issue with not being able to use luring tactics was
the deal killer.  This was why I loved the latter Elder Scrolls games
- it just seems much more immersive if NPCs take an effective  hand in
random combat encounters than if they just stand there doing nothing,
or can't do anything because the AI monsters are hardcoded to only
take damage from the player character.

On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 09:25:24 -0400, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:

>Ahh but what does fine mean to _you_?
>
>For a game like Skyrim, 30fps was more than enough for me and I didn't
>use FSAA or AF, so it played just fine on my GTX 550Ti @ 1600x900 with
>graphic options set decently high.
>For someone like Rin, anything under 60fps would have been unbearably
>sluggish and forced much lower graphic settings to compensate (or more
>likely a better video card.)

I believe him when he says it because I can feel the sluggish movement
of a game once it gets below 50 fps and I don't play multiplayer
action games where fps probably matters a lot.

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 12:10:05 -0400, Mike S. <Mik...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 09:25:24 -0400, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Ahh but what does fine mean to _you_?
>>
>>For a game like Skyrim, 30fps was more than enough for me and I didn't
>>use FSAA or AF, so it played just fine on my GTX 550Ti @ 1600x900 with
>>graphic options set decently high.
>>For someone like Rin, anything under 60fps would have been unbearably
>>sluggish and forced much lower graphic settings to compensate (or more
>>likely a better video card.)
>
>I believe him when he says it because I can feel the sluggish movement
>of a game once it gets below 50 fps and I don't play multiplayer
>action games where fps probably matters a lot.

Under 60fps is almost always unbearable for me in a multiplayer game,
but I don't even consider 60fps a good target number in those games
anymore.  Part of the reason is that in multiplayer, you find often
find yourself on custom maps which push your machine beyond the maps
that made it through the QA process of the initial release, and
another reason is that when you have the dynamics presented by online
scenarios and the fact the game has to interact with the network, the
upper ceiling of possible stress on the CPU/GPU is less predictable
than a single player game, so you find yourself needing a lot more
headroom.

Even beyond that, I've seen cases, as befuddling as it may sound,
where a smoothness and immersive quality was noticable going from a
100+ fps scenario to a 250+ fps scenario.  It doesn't mean that the
eyes can necessarily detect a difference between a CONSTANT 100 vs
250fps, but what a lot of folks don't realize is that the framerate
that FRAPS et al reports is basically a sampled average, so displayed
framerates are almost never truly constant.  This means when you're
achieving a 250+ frame rate, the variance (that is, the number of
times you might get a very brief drop below the "smoothness threshold"
that won't show up directly in a calculated average) is generally
better than than at 100-ish.  

In other words, FRAPS could be showing you 100fps, while still losing
an occasional frame or resuling in a condition where you feel what is
basically the same as a dip below 60 that didn't show up in the the
sampled average.

However, since most LCD users are at 60hz on their monitor, as long as
you can vsync to that (and are achieving a true *minimum* 60fps), most
folks (even action gamers with very alert reflexes) are not going to
feel enough impact to complain, particularly in SP games.  There are
plenty of rigs out there that can break the 100fps barrier on most
reasonably recent releases but nobody ever sees it because they've
locked to 60hz to avoid tearing.