You stated the false. There were no gamebreaking bugs. Or nothing that a 12 yrs old could fix alone without internet.
sometimes save got corrupted. you learned to use at least two save slots pretty quick though
2 years ago
Anonymous
>learned to use at least two save slots pretty quick though
Litterally done that on every game that gave me the opportunity to do it. In the past you just did stuff like this automatically, even before gothic.
Controls filtered a ton of people.
And the game is still kind of a bugfest, even after 20 years and tons of patches. When I replayed it last, I had some gamebreaking bug very late in the game that I could only fix by loading a save from a few hours prior
He's right though, Gothic was very rough at launch, it only got better with patches (both official and unofficial). Most classic CRPGs (Fallout, PST, BG, Arcanum) were rough (to put it nicely) at launch.
I know zoomers don't go to review sites anymore, but I dunno how anyone can get a 1.9 from >yeah the controls are slightly busted but it will be a good game a year from now!
On a 10 point scale that doesn't warrant a 1.9. Otherwise they would have been a LOT harsher on cyberpunk. ignoring 20 years of difference. Standards are standards.
It doesn’t even work
>IGN
probably got filtered hard
He tells you right there, game breaking bugs.
only gamebreaking bug was having to create the save folder yourself otherwise you could not save your game
Yet every Bethesda Game gets praised to high heaven.
Simply because Hodd Toward pays IGN to praise his games.
last I checked you could still pick up items in Bethesda games
>inability to pick up items
Because they are made for morons by businessmen
Payed reviews
Because they are far more accessible
>he immediately brings up Bethesda
OBSESSED
>Played at release
>Finished without problems
Yeah sure, they probably weren't capable to open the first chest you found.
It's a joke related to gothic unintuitive and janky control scheme.
Well it's not exaclty a joke since they shoud review a game as their fricking job.
>This reviewer should include my own playthrough in his subjective review.
You stated the false. There were no gamebreaking bugs. Or nothing that a 12 yrs old could fix alone without internet.
Yeah I remember there being frequent crashes, but nothing gamebreaking
oh yes, the good old "Where is guru?"
sometimes save got corrupted. you learned to use at least two save slots pretty quick though
>learned to use at least two save slots pretty quick though
Litterally done that on every game that gave me the opportunity to do it. In the past you just did stuff like this automatically, even before gothic.
god I hate ign
Played before patches probably.
Controls filtered a ton of people.
And the game is still kind of a bugfest, even after 20 years and tons of patches. When I replayed it last, I had some gamebreaking bug very late in the game that I could only fix by loading a save from a few hours prior
He's right though, Gothic was very rough at launch, it only got better with patches (both official and unofficial). Most classic CRPGs (Fallout, PST, BG, Arcanum) were rough (to put it nicely) at launch.
The game was barely playable on launch, nothing weird with that score.
inability to pick up items?
was that a thing? I didn't play it at release
1.9 in 2 is really good though.
They are not wrong
Gothic is unplayable jank, that people only care about because of “soul”
it's fake morons
I know zoomers don't go to review sites anymore, but I dunno how anyone can get a 1.9 from
>yeah the controls are slightly busted but it will be a good game a year from now!
Gamebreaking bugs and inability to pick up items
>Yeah it's a real good game, we think, can't really play it right now tho
On a 10 point scale that doesn't warrant a 1.9. Otherwise they would have been a LOT harsher on cyberpunk. ignoring 20 years of difference. Standards are standards.
You can't spell Ignorant without IGN.