Review: Risen

[Sebenko]

Do you remember gothic 3's combat system? You could kill a whole town of orcs by just mashing first mouse button.

Then be killed by a lone wolf the minute you went outside the town.

 

[Aperama]

I agreed with this evaluation. The game just feels bad. No matter what the annoying little fanbois scream defensively, the combat is NOT in any way skilled. It's not a case of learning to play. It's a case of learning, as Funk rightly said, to cheat the combat system: continuously circling the opponent whilst blocking and then attacking once each time they rebound off your shield isn't skill, it's just boring and not particularly heroic.

The game also suffers from the exact same problems as Gothic 3: several months after its release, a fan on the Gothic 3 forums fixed the animations so that the player didn't get stunned from attacks. The mods and the community in general sung his praises for basically fixing group combat. But, lo, stun-locking is back. Get into a fight with more than one animal and you'll be hammered with chains of blows, each of which stun for a half a second. That is just terrible, terrible game design, especially considering the fact that packs of animals litter the game world.

It's a real shame because, from what I can tell from the eight or so hours I've played, it's actually got a really great world to explore with a tonne of quests and cool little storylines.

I'd like to just point out - there is a skill involved in making the combat work. I dislike the fact that you can just infinitely block with a shield against anyone who doesn't have a stun attack, admittedly (though several do) - but no, Funk was actually saying 'find the cheapest tactic'. I'm capable of playing this game without being particularly cheap at all - though admittedly, once I was past about 8 in my weapons technique of choice (I'm presently playing the game through as a swordsman sorta guy) - the toughness really is somewhat lost to me, given that virtually every enemy in a singles environment can be fought off with block (dodge for stun attack), stun attack > combo hit, block, rinse lather repeat. That said, you can't instantly pull up a shield the second a wolf et al attacks you - it's silly to think that you can. Everyone's first reaction would be to clench their stomach after being gored by a bloody wolf, wouldn't it? Eh.

The parrying system is also quite abusable once you've levelled it up, but if timed properly, it can be used just as it's supposed to be. I was capable of fighting the higher level guys early, but it was very difficult - as such things should be. Admittedly, they should be more obvious with certain things in my opinion (for instance, a 'hungry sea vulture' is easy and lowlevelled for starting characters, a 'sea vulture' is the regular sort) but there is a definite technique to the game's combat system. An easy technique? No, not at all. But a technique is a technique, regardless. Some people say that Street Fighter is all about characters spamming fireballs - and then people kick ass with someone without a fireball. I'm rather fond of John Funk's reviews - and I can see where he's coming from. But I do think he's given this game a slightly harder service than I'd personally see as warranted.

 

[Trotgar]

If you don't have the patience to play through the game, don't review it. This was just an "early impressions" thing, not a whole review. The later part of the game can be very different. So if you don't want to play it, let someone else review it.

 

[Master Cerberus]

This review annoyed me so much that I went through the trouble of making an account just to post here. What bothered me more than anything else about this game (because I have played through the Gothic series several times and enjoyed it) was that it was a carbon copy of Gothic 2, the level of rippoff that I've seen JUST from this review simply boggles my mind. Having played so much Gothic in the past I can actually recognize areas for which they simply updated the graphics and they even ripped off the class system/names of people from the series.

Regarding what that one guy said about this game feeling like he's coming home...that's just bullshit. What this shows is the company trying to milk its player base for money without even putting the effort of making a new game. I'd have to say that having this game be a blatant repackaging (it goes way beyond being just a clone) of an older game is more insulting than any quirky game mechanics or crappy graphics that computers with superior stats can't run. This alone will most likely keep me from playing this (until I can get it for 9.99 at my local gamestop or bestbuy XD ).

 

[Pimppeter2]

If I can offer some healthy criticism

Your voice is too monotone in your video supplement. Its sounds like you're reading off from a paper. While I guess you are, it doesn't mean it has to sound like it. Too much emphasis on it sounding clear makes it sound lackluster

 

[John Funk]

Firstly, where are you pulling 10 hours from exactly? His exact words were "several hours", which could be any amount.

Here are his exact words, from the review you didn't read:

"10 hours"

Here they are in context:

"But they'll have to be able to put a lot of time into the game: I have to confess that I haven't beaten Risen. In fact, I haven't come close - despite sinking about 10 hours into the game, I'm still in the early stages and the introduction thanks to repeated deaths in combat, having to grind to be able to actually learn skills, and the general slow pace of the game."

--/--

For the rest of your argument you are entitled to play and enjoy games anytime you like. You're not a reviewer, so you're not bound (at least in part) to be professional in your approach to your job.

You can enjoy the game all you want, but don't let your fanboyish elitism get in the way of admitting that this game is VERY niche, and as such the review is fairly justified. Your average gamer will not like this title, only the die hard fans.

Don't let your smitten obsession over Funk colour your defenses of his work. I'm not a diehard fan of RPGs, just as you are not an average gamer.

The review was unprofessional. Your defense of it is fanboyish.

Here's the thing. When we review, we aren't writing a manual - we aren't covering every single little aspect of the game from A to Z. Our review philosophy involves trying to communicate how the game feels, and the sort of experience somebody - anybody - will have if they picked the game up.

Diehard RPG fans will likely see the interesting RPG at the core of Risen, and will probably forgive the game of its faults long enough to get to it. Most "average" gamers, though? Will not. They'll play the game, feel awkward and unimmersed, and probably won't even give it 10 hours before going to play something that's actually fun at first. Contrary to what you might think, "I found this game unplayable" (exaggeration, btw) is just as valid a review as "This movie was virtually unwatchable," and even then it's a huge disparity in time spent - two hours for a long movie, vs ten hours for this game?

Ten hours is a long time. It's two or three days' worth of gaming sessions after work, and if I'm not grabbed by then, it's unlikely that I will be, because several aspects of the game just feel broken for me, and those are unlikely to change. Particularly when one of my main complaints about the game (the ham-fisted combat) makes it frustrating to progress.

The game feels awkward, unpolished, with generally low production values. That was obvious an hour in, it was obvious five hours in, ten hours in, and I can't see that being any less obvious fifty hours in. When we have other games that need reviewing (not to mention playing for fun), it's unreasonable to waste more time in the hopes that broken core mechanics might suddenly do a 180 and get better.

 

[domicius]

Here's the thing. When we review, we aren't writing a manual - we aren't covering every single little aspect of the game from A to Z. Our review philosophy involves trying to communicate how the game feels, and the sort of experience somebody - anybody - will have if they picked the game up.

Diehard RPG fans will likely see the interesting RPG at the core of Risen, and will probably forgive the game of its faults long enough to get to it. Most "average" gamers, though? Will not. They'll play the game, feel awkward and unimmersed, and probably won't even give it 10 hours before going to play something that's actually fun at first. Contrary to what you might think, "I found this game unplayable" (exaggeration, btw) is just as valid a review as "This movie was virtually unwatchable," and even then it's a huge disparity in time spent - two hours for a long movie, vs ten hours for this game?

Ten hours is a long time. It's two or three days' worth of gaming sessions after work, and if I'm not grabbed by then, it's unlikely that I will be, because several aspects of the game just feel broken for me, and those are unlikely to change. Particularly when one of my main complaints about the game (the ham-fisted combat) makes it frustrating to progress.

The game feels awkward, unpolished, with generally low production values. That was obvious an hour in, it was obvious five hours in, ten hours in, and I can't see that being any less obvious fifty hours in. When we have other games that need reviewing (not to mention playing for fun), it's unreasonable to waste more time in the hopes that broken core mechanics might suddenly do a 180 and get better.

Fairly spoken. There's no doubt in the least the validity of the review in terms of accurately representing how you found the game, and what your opinion of it is. What I was asserting (tiresomely by now, I fear), is that it should either be disclosed up front that the review is based on an incomplete runthrough of the game, or that it should not be called "a game review" as that term is commonly understood (by me).

I don't really want to belabour the point, but check out the first lines of this recent review on Destructoid about an XBLA game, for example [link]http://www.destructoid.com/review-jump--151626.phtml[/link]

I'll be as forthcoming as I can: I didn't finish, nor will I probably ever finish JUMP!, the first of several XBL Indie Game from Arkedo (the guys behind Big Bang Mini, if you're keeping track) planned over the next few months.

(snip: game premise)
This is retro gaming at its most sadistic, gentlemen -- and frankly, I wasn't man enough to complete the thing (I died on level 29). I did, however, spend enough time with it to have a relatively good idea of its overall feel.

For that reason, I'll still be reviewing JUMP! after the page break, but without a numerical score.

I feel it is important that the reviewer has disclosed the fact that his opinion is based on an incomplete run-through of the game up-front. I feel that the rest of the article can now be taken prima facie, and in full knowledge of where the reviewer is coming from.

Of course, I stand corrected if the default assumption for game reviews has changed, and game reviewers regularly don't finish games and readers know this.

Please excuse my any vitriol directed at you earlier, and my thanks for your clarification. I look forwards to enjoying your future reviews, and of course commenting on them!

 

[John Funk]

Here's the thing. When we review, we aren't writing a manual - we aren't covering every single little aspect of the game from A to Z. Our review philosophy involves trying to communicate how the game feels, and the sort of experience somebody - anybody - will have if they picked the game up.

Diehard RPG fans will likely see the interesting RPG at the core of Risen, and will probably forgive the game of its faults long enough to get to it. Most "average" gamers, though? Will not. They'll play the game, feel awkward and unimmersed, and probably won't even give it 10 hours before going to play something that's actually fun at first. Contrary to what you might think, "I found this game unplayable" (exaggeration, btw) is just as valid a review as "This movie was virtually unwatchable," and even then it's a huge disparity in time spent - two hours for a long movie, vs ten hours for this game?

Ten hours is a long time. It's two or three days' worth of gaming sessions after work, and if I'm not grabbed by then, it's unlikely that I will be, because several aspects of the game just feel broken for me, and those are unlikely to change. Particularly when one of my main complaints about the game (the ham-fisted combat) makes it frustrating to progress.

The game feels awkward, unpolished, with generally low production values. That was obvious an hour in, it was obvious five hours in, ten hours in, and I can't see that being any less obvious fifty hours in. When we have other games that need reviewing (not to mention playing for fun), it's unreasonable to waste more time in the hopes that broken core mechanics might suddenly do a 180 and get better.

Fairly spoken. There's no doubt in the least the validity of the review in terms of accurately representing how you found the game, and what your opinion of it is. What I was asserting (tiresomely by now, I fear), is that it should either be disclosed up front that the review is based on an incomplete runthrough of the game, or that it should not be called "a game review" as that term is commonly understood (by me).

I don't really want to belabour the point, but check out the first lines of this recent review on Destructoid about an XBLA game, for example [link]http://www.destructoid.com/review-jump--151626.phtml[/link]

I'll be as forthcoming as I can: I didn't finish, nor will I probably ever finish JUMP!, the first of several XBL Indie Game from Arkedo (the guys behind Big Bang Mini, if you're keeping track) planned over the next few months.

(snip: game premise)
This is retro gaming at its most sadistic, gentlemen -- and frankly, I wasn't man enough to complete the thing (I died on level 29). I did, however, spend enough time with it to have a relatively good idea of its overall feel.

For that reason, I'll still be reviewing JUMP! after the page break, but without a numerical score.

I feel it is important that the reviewer has disclosed the fact that his opinion is based on an incomplete run-through of the game up-front. I feel that the rest of the article can now be taken prima facie, and in full knowledge of where the reviewer is coming from.

Of course, I stand corrected if the default assumption for game reviews has changed, and game reviewers regularly don't finish games and readers know this.

Please excuse my any vitriol directed at you earlier, and my thanks for your clarification. I look forwards to enjoying your future reviews, and of course commenting on them!

I can't comment for other sites' review philosophies, of course. You'll notice that in the Destructoid one, he says that he's simply not going to give it a review score - well, we don't give a final score at all. Our philosophy has always been about trying to communicate what the experience of playing the game is actually like, not to distill it down to a simple number.

I do say outright that I haven't finished the game, right there before the most important part of the review, the conclusion. If I were trying to perhaps pan this off as an experience with 100% of the game forward and backwards, I think you'd have a point. But as it stands, it's out in the open, and "I tried for ten hours to get into this game, I simply could not" is every bit as useful to a reader when deciding whether or not they're going to want to drop $50 on a title that they don't know much about. If you're (generic you, here) the sort of diehard WRPG/Gothic fan that I suspect would be able to see past the faults and enjoy the core beneath, then you'd probably be buying the game whether I loved it or hated it.

Besides, demanding that every reviewer finish every game leads to some interesting problems. It's easy to say with games that have a defined single-player storyline, like a Halo game or Uncharted 2, but what about... say, a fighting game? Do you have to play through Arcade mode with all the characters? Or an RTS - do you have to beat the game with every faction? Or a sports game - do you just need to complete a season?

Reviewing a game is not a cut and dried process. Again, I can't speak for every other site, but there comes a point in playing a game like Madden, or Street Fighter or whatever, that you feel "all right, I have experienced enough of this game to have a firm grasp on it and can now judge it fairly." Things like the controls, the ambiance, the basic level-up systems aren't going to change.

 

[CUnk]

the animations are often poor (especially during the conversations -- but what game does that well?)

Mass Effect?

It's been awhile since I gave up on Mass Effect but yeah, I guess the animations were pretty good. However the dialog was awful and the game in general was incredibly dull so I'll take Risen's limited dialog animations any day.

 

[HK_01]

the animations are often poor (especially during the conversations -- but what game does that well?)

Mass Effect?

It's been awhile since I gave up on Mass Effect but yeah, I guess the animations were pretty good. However the dialog was awful and the game in general was incredibly dull so I'll take Risen's limited dialog animations any day.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion on Mass Effect. I thought the dialog was very good and the game overall was awesome, despite being somewhat of a disappointment(does that make any sense in the least?).

 

[AndyFromMonday]

The thing that turned me away from the game was the combat system. Honestly, you make a game which depends a lot on it's combat system, then you fuck up the combat system.

 

[Ashbax]

Yeah, I played for a few hours and got so frustrated with the controls, camera and graphics that I quit for a while. But I went back and found, as you said, the second half of the game to be far more fun.

 

[Mythrignoc]

Ok, there are so many things wrong with this review it's not even funny.

First off, your two major points about realism and a medieval theme are entirely without merit. Sorry but Risen never claimed to do that in any way shape or form.

Secondly, are you seriously gonna get all uppity about jumping physics in an action RPG? Really? Nevermind the fact that your character can use friggin magic, he jumps too high to be plausible. Well I guess that must just destroy the entire game for you that you jump like an olympic high jumping gold medalist or you walk upstairs funky.

Third, you're pissed about the NPC interaction? Dude, it's an action RPG. That means it focuses ten times more on the action than it does the RPG, wow I wonder why NPC interaction would suck.

I seriously can't believe you would directly state the game has a beautiful and complex storyline but refuse to bother with it because of bad graphics and people jumping too high. To me, that's not even reviewing a game, that's looking for any excuse possible to get the review finished as quickly as possible.

Seriously....when did gamers become so jaded that no game could ever please them? There used to be only 4 games that ever existed for an extremely long period of time; Asteroids, Space Invaders, Pong and Frogger, and people thought these were the best damn things to ever hit the planet. Now we're so selfish as to get pissy over jumping too high and sub-par graphics? Yeah, lets just ignore the idea that despite inferior technology, Germany spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to sell a 50 dollar game AND ported it on two systems for those of us who don't like computer games or console games.

 

[John Funk]

Ok, there are so many things wrong with this review it's not even funny.

First off, your two major points about realism and a medieval theme are entirely without merit. Sorry but Risen never claimed to do that in any way shape or form.

Secondly, are you seriously gonna get all uppity about jumping physics in an action RPG? Really? Nevermind the fact that your character can use friggin magic, he jumps too high to be plausible. Well I guess that must just destroy the entire game for you that you jump like an olympic high jumping gold medalist or you walk upstairs funky.

Third, you're pissed about the NPC interaction? Dude, it's an action RPG. That means it focuses ten times more on the action than it does the RPG, wow I wonder why NPC interaction would suck.

I seriously can't believe you would directly state the game has a beautiful and complex storyline but refuse to bother with it because of bad graphics and people jumping too high. To me, that's not even reviewing a game, that's looking for any excuse possible to get the review finished as quickly as possible.

Seriously....when did gamers become so jaded that no game could ever please them? There used to be only 4 games that ever existed for an extremely long period of time; Asteroids, Space Invaders, Pong and Frogger, and people thought these were the best damn things to ever hit the planet. Now we're so selfish as to get pissy over jumping too high and sub-par graphics? Yeah, lets just ignore the idea that despite inferior technology, Germany spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to sell a 50 dollar game AND ported it on two systems for those of us who don't like computer games or console games.

The bad jumping and NPC wonkiness were not the REASON why it was so hard to get into Risen. They were symptoms of a larger problem - extremely low production values and a general lack of polish. This was evident in the entire game.

"That means it focuses ten times more on the action than it does the RPG"

Man, it's a shame that the action was pretty crappy too, then.

If you're willing to slog through a bunch of bullshit to get to the core game underneath, you might enjoy Risen. Most gamers won't be.

 

[Mythrignoc]

The action was bad because you've designed a very specific set of tastes for action for yourself, and you've even given a couple of examples as to why the action is bad, namely the jumping and instant side stepping.

However...no ARPG or even Action/fighting games have identical actions and interfaces. Some will have just plain old sword swings with the occasional weirder sword swing (say...ES 4 Oblivion), some will have in depth skill trees but only a few sets of animations (Diablo 2 and titan quest, two VERY highly reviewed ARPG's), and some will, at the very least try to be quasi-innovative with how they immerse you into their action, either by emphasizing the realism or doing it at the cost of realism. It doesn't matter.

The point is, you're defining the action in a game as bad due to a few inconsistencies and oddities with the interface, telling this to a world wide website, putting a games sales in jeapordy, and all the while, likely getting paid for it. It's the main problem I see with reviewers, their priorities can so VERY easily be warped based on say...how much they are paid to do a review of a game over another game or if they were commissioned to review a game by a company they already had bias's towards.

I realize it may not be how things work with you, but to me, if a game were to be reviewed, it should not -ever- be compared to any other game, any other interface or any other genre of games. They should be taken face value as a stand alone game that has no bearing, comparison, contrast or competition among other existing games mainly because it's not fair to the developer who tried to do something different with the interface, and while it came out wonky that doesn't mean that say...a WSAD interface should be treated not only as defacto but the only interface that should ever exist.


To sum up, I honestly think the only reason you don't like this game is because they did things that you aren't used to messing with or aren't part of the defacto for video games, -not- because the action was genuinely bad or anything.

 

[cieply]

I have just finished the game and I have to say that it was really fun. It feels "raw" but I prefer such a raw and tasty game than another mediocre but well polished EA title. I found combat pretty good. You have to learn monster attack patterns and try to counter them. The player is given a lot of choice how to fight.

What is funny is that you didn?t mention three MOST annoying things in this game.
1. There are 3-4 models of faces and around 3 hair styles/facial hair. It gets so bad that there were moments when I was not sure who am I talking to.
2. Jumping, as bad as it is, turns out to be the fastest way of travel. You move around 30-40% faster by only jumping; a hilarious bug.
3. If you choose to become order there are 2 game breaking bugs that require you to reload to an early save. If you don't have this save, you have to start over. One is finishing murder quest before completing basic combat training and the other is talking to master Ignitus about master Pallas not having a test for you before talking about it to master Pallas. I for one had to start over...

Still, I think all of you know that some games are just "fun". Not really polished, littered with bugs but you still find exploring them to be simply great.
The world is "dense". That means that every few steps you will find something interesting, be it a quest or a treasure chest. Remember Morrowind and its endless deserts? Here every square meter is interesting and simply makes you just want to wander around finding stuff. Monster design is nice. Dungeons are fun. Faction system is immersive. Crafting is great. If I would have a problem with combat it is that at the end it gets too easy. But I'm pretty good at gaming so maybe it's just me finding dodging, blocking, parrying and counter parrying fun (you get a lot more moves when you advance in fighting). What puzzles me is that some of you mentioned that a player being able to defeat a much stronger monster thanks to his skill is something wrong. I find it great. I had to reload around 30 times to defeat an ogre but what was my joy when I managed to beat him by being quick and skilled alone!

Bottom line is: If you liked gothic 1 and 2, buy it. If you didn?t, then don't, as this game is just an improved version of those titles. Oh, and it's a damn fun RPG that brought me to the old days before everything had to be perfect and just needed to be fun. End even game breaking bugs weren?t able to take a smile off my face.

 

[BGH122]

I'd like to just point out - there is a skill involved in making the combat work. I dislike the fact that you can just infinitely block with a shield against anyone who doesn't have a stun attack, admittedly (though several do) - but no, Funk was actually saying 'find the cheapest tactic'. I'm capable of playing this game without being particularly cheap at all - though admittedly, once I was past about 8 in my weapons technique of choice (I'm presently playing the game through as a swordsman sorta guy) - the toughness really is somewhat lost to me, given that virtually every enemy in a singles environment can be fought off with block (dodge for stun attack), stun attack > combo hit, block, rinse lather repeat. That said, you can't instantly pull up a shield the second a wolf et al attacks you - it's silly to think that you can. Everyone's first reaction would be to clench their stomach after being gored by a bloody wolf, wouldn't it? Eh.

The parrying system is also quite abusable once you've levelled it up, but if timed properly, it can be used just as it's supposed to be. I was capable of fighting the higher level guys early, but it was very difficult - as such things should be. Admittedly, they should be more obvious with certain things in my opinion (for instance, a 'hungry sea vulture' is easy and lowlevelled for starting characters, a 'sea vulture' is the regular sort) but there is a definite technique to the game's combat system. An easy technique? No, not at all. But a technique is a technique, regardless. Some people say that Street Fighter is all about characters spamming fireballs - and then people kick ass with someone without a fireball. I'm rather fond of John Funk's reviews - and I can see where he's coming from. But I do think he's given this game a slightly harder service than I'd personally see as warranted.

Actually, I've since completed the game on both story arcs and there is some mild skill to melee combat. The main problem is that the 'skill' aspect doesn't appear until about level 6 in whichever chosen melee skill set you're going for so for a very large portion of the game there's just no skill to the combat, it's just an infuriating grind of getting massacred by rats and boars.

It also doesn't help that some animals, like boars, have (even at max level skill) unblockable attacks. No attack in any game should be unblockable. Hypothetically one could dodge the attack, were the player quick enough, but the combat system is so borked that the boar's attack often realigns to your new position thus rendering the dodge obsolete.

All in all the combat in this game is exceedingly poor, which is quite a shame because the world is actually nice and the voice acting is pretty good.

 

[PratzStrike]

A friend of mine linked me to the video review of Risen, and after finishing it I read the review. Here is my direct stream of consciousness replies to my friend while I was watching the video, which I feel expresses my thoughts about this review quite thoroughly.

Pratz Strike: This guy sucks at combat. Not just a little, he's not even trying. The arm motions in chat are kinda crappy, but it's not something I notice a lot. .... Yes, he REALLY sucks at combat. The jumping thing does actually move you faster than walking. If you're going downhill.
Pratz Strike: .... Christ this guy is a miserable fighter. He doesn't even TOUCH the block button.
Pratz Strike: The standing still hop is basically that, a hop. The sidestep is designed for dodging lunging attacks, nothing else.
Pratz Strike: Sea vultures will rise into the air and swoop down on you, knocking your shield away - the only way to counter it is either hit them mid swoop or sidestep.
Pratz Strike: And that's just one enemy where it's valuable.
Pratz Strike: I didn't see anything in that review past the first hour or two. He probably put 3 or 4 into it, to get to both the monastery and the swamp camp, but no, he's full of shit.
Pratz Strike: Also, remember, this game was made by Deep Silver, the makers of the Gothic series and Stalker: Clear Sky. They like their games hard.

 

[Levethian]

Sound review - and I adore Gothic 1 & 2.

But after those games it became apparent that Piranha Bytes stopped thinking and just kept re-making the same game... You'd hope that Piranha Bytes would improve on their game mechanics, but at it's core Risen is exactly the same as the first Gothic of 2001.

Their games feel infected with 3DO's Might & Magic syndrome, cursed with a chronic inability to develop. The series will simply stagnate and die.

Bethesda have taken risks to continually develop their releases, and the result is a far superior sandbox system... even if they perhaps lack the gift of compelling story-telling.

Play The Witcher instead