Talk:Gothic 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Low | This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
CVG To-do:
|
||
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)
[edit] Reception Section: Tone/NPOV
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)
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)
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)
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)
[edit] Image allignment
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)
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)
[edit] System Requirements...
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)
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)
