G1-3 vs. G4

[madrigan]

Do the first three games play the same as the most recent? Or is it like Avernum where 4 and 5 are very different from 1 - 3? Is the movement, combat, etc. the same?

 

I realize I could just download the demos, but I worry that I will get a few hours in and say, "Wait. Where the heck is the..."

[Xaiya]

G1 and G2 are mostly non-linear.

G3 is mostly linear, and G4 is less so.

 

Besides, there is more potential for replay on G4.

 

The engine and stuff in basically the same, which should be obvious. Why? G4 and G3 are closer together in terms of release than A3 and A4. Much closer.

[Dikiyoba]

All four games use the same basic engine, but the engine gets noticeable improvement in every game. G1-G3 require you to have five AP to attack and count everything you are carrying as encumbrance. G1 and G2 have the small inventory screen instead of the pop-up one and no subzones. G1 has no crafting at all and G2 has only a simple version. G1 also has fewer spells and creations.

 

Dikiyoba recommends trying G1 next. The engine is simple, but it fits the setting well. And the atmosphere is amazing.

[AnarhIztok2511]

If you have the money and will, buy them all.

I'd recommend playing them in order though, coz, while not necessary, it is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more fun and fulfiling to do so. Plus, you get to meet some characters you only hear of in G4 (I understood you played it already.) and also see some develop.

 

Edit: Ups, that was sort of off-topic, so ...

HMMMMM

Oh yeah, um, basically controls, how you play, engine, etc. should be apparent from the demos, but as for the structure, story and such, G1 is the basic game of the series and also a must-play in my opinion, although you might get irritated for a

Click to reveal..

very small amount of spells and creations, plus there are hardly any teachers of skills and abilities.

But it has a special feeling of uniqueness to it.

Then, G1 and G2 are very open-ended (multiple possible outcomes) and as such may yield an enormous replay value. G3 is very linear and close-ended (could you write it like that?), even more so than G4.

 

Oh yeah, and if you like to edit scripts, then G3 is the game for you, since editing possibilities of the others are very limited, but here it is a paradise.

[Randomizer]

GF4 combat was changed so you could attack/cast spell with 1 AP left. Before that the 5 AP to do it made melee characters harder since they had to rush up to attack and might not have enough AP left to attack.

 

GF3 changed daze from single target to area effect.

 

There are other differences so you need to play the demos to see what they are like.

[AnarhIztok2511]

In g3 you can for example be joined by two interacting (to some extent) npcs.

 

Edit: I agree with the post below

[Evnissyen]

You don't have to accept those companions (they're not escorts, dammit), if you don't want to. But they're useful, especially Greta. I liked Greta. She was my kind of girl.

 

If you're a girl who likes manly guys, you might prefer Alwan. He's quite the manly type. But his uniform sucks.

 

G1 - too nonlinear, weak plot, no narrative. I got bored and quit near the end after having to clear 8 or 9 or 10 areas that awarded me 0 XP. Plus it's rather primitive if you're used to G3 or G4... but if you've never played Geneforge then I suppose you might want to play G1 first... just make sure you play all the demos so you know what you're getting into.

 

G2 - cannot comment; haven't played it.

 

G3 - finally linear. An actual plot, this time, and a narrative which pushes you along. Takes the moral-play role. You need to choose between two factions and both of them are Wrong. Based on what I hear of G2: in G3 free item-creation (use of the magic forge) is now introduced and I think expanded. I do not know if G2 has charms, but G3 has them. The basement of the Monastery of Tears will drive you crazy and you'll love every minute of it.

 

G4 - Everything G3 has, plus weather! That can't be overstated. It's an excellent atmospheric addition. I can only hope that G5 has more atmospheric animation... moving water would be nice. G4 is also a little more complicated. I think it's pretty strongly agreed that G4's the best of the series. Some will disagree. There's a new third faction in G4, but it has a very lightly written narrative thread: this is I think my biggest problem with the game.

 

Movement and combat are the same in all of them.

 

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Evnissyen

But they're useful, especially Greta. I liked Greta. She was my kind of girl.

If you're a girl who likes manly guys, you might prefer Alwan. He's quite the manly type. But his uniform sucks.

But you just said they weren't escorts.

Dikiyoba.

[AnarhIztok2511]

Well, about the best game in the series.

I think everyone has different preferences. I usually like g2 the most overall due to it's almost total openness and openendedness and an improvement on g1 with the introductions to training and more spells and creations. It also feels as if you are a little more involved in the story than i g1.

The biggest problem with the latter is that, as Evni said, at the end it loses its strength by becoming somewhat tedious. But for the most part, the plot is very involved and interesting. But then again, the endings are multiple and quite detailed and I really felt I accomplished something (at least in one ending, not all).

G3 was for me a great game, but once I finished it ... it just took me a looooooooooong time to play it again, due to linearity, which I found to be its only real weakness, but a huge one for me. I really missed at least one as involved npc friend as Greta was (

Click to reveal..

I wouldn't know about Alwan, since he left very early due to clash of the ideas. I found it pretty sad he did that, but it was good on the plot side.

).

G4 was good, with many nice additions, but again it suffered a decline in even the limited opennes it had at the end.

[nikki.]

Ah Greta. I love that part when she stops you and says "Shaper, I need to speak to you", or whatever it is, and then turns into a Kraken and attacks you. Best NPC development ever.

 

...

 

What?

[Zeviz]

Opinions on favorite game differ. I'd suggest starting with G1, because it is good at what it should do: introducing a new world. However, if you find that there are just not enough features, you can start with G2 instead. It's as open-ended as G1, but has more developed engine and plot. G3 is the weakest game in the series, but you might like it anyway. And G4 is supposed to be the best, but I haven't finished it, so I can't judge.

[Evnissyen]

Diki:

Exactly. If Greta were an escort she would not be my type of girl.

 

And...

 

Madrigan: Don't listen to the G3 detractors. Among G1, G3 and G4: G1 is clearly the weakest. G3's plot and narrative are significantly superior to G1, and the linearity helps pull you into that narrative. It also has many more options, and as somebody else mentioned it has underground areas as well.

 

Plus it has the best opening of any Spiderweb game.

[Ghaldring]

All Geneforge 3 is capable of doing is pacifying the average idiot.

[Men are from Slars]

*facepalm*

[Acky]

Originally Posted By: Ghaldring

All Geneforge 3 is capable of doing is pacifying the average idiot.

????
GF3 was a great game. Not as good as the other 3 but still, its great. And what do you mean "Pacifying the average idiot"? Are you refering to the story or the gameplay.

[nikki.]

Er, Evnissyen, GF3 has only two options - Loyalist, or Rebel, whereas GF1 has four - no faction, Awakened, Obeyer, or Taker, so I'm not quite sure where you're coming from when you say "GF3 has many more options."

[Zeviz]

If you play only 1 game from the initial trilogy, G3 might not look quite as bad. One of its main flaws is that it repeats the same scenario that was exellently played out in the previous two games: a young shaper apprentice encounters intelligent serviles and creations for the first time and has to decide how to react to them. This flaw doesn't apply if it's your first game in the trilogy.

 

The other flaw (which is apparently an advantage in some people's opinion) is that the game is too linear. Instead of the usual freedom to explore found in Spidweb games, you are hearded along by the plot, and instead of the wide array of choises available in previous games you have just two choises: Bad Guys and Bad Guys. This brings up the final problem of the game, it's very dark, with all of your options being bad ones. That kind of literature has its place, but I am not in a mood for Dostoyevskiy.

 

So I'd recommend trying the demos in order, and registering the ones you like. The demos are big enough to give you a good feel for the games, so the impression you get by the time you get to registration barrier is unlikely to change later.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Evnissyen

Exactly. If Greta were an escort she would not be my type of girl.

Oh, Dikiyoba gets it now. You were merely suckered out of a hefty chunk of experience and gold for new spells, then.

[Men are from Slars]

G1 actually has more than four options: there are the three sects, and several options for allying with or defeating Trajkov and Goettsch. Permutations of endings.

[Evnissyen]

Oh, I'm sorry Niki... I didn't realize that factions were the very definition of narrative and game-play depth. Thanks for correcting me.

 

Zev:

Linearity is also known as a narrative thread.

 

Ghaldring:

We all know that you're no average idiot, so... point taken, I suppose.

[Ghaldring]

Originally Posted By: Evnissyen

Oh, I'm sorry Niki... I didn't realize that factions were the very definition of narrative and game-play depth. Thanks for correcting me.

Zev:
Linearity is also known as a narrative thread.

Ghaldring:
We all know that you're no average idiot, so... point taken, I suppose.

I have no problem with a linear game, as long as the path I am forced down is engaging and enjoyable (Knights of the Old Republic, Vampire: Masquerade). Unfortunately, the linear pathway in GF3 is generic.

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Evnissyen

Oh, I'm sorry Niki... I didn't realize that factions were the very definition of narrative and game-play depth. Thanks for correcting me.

When you mention the narrative, and THEN mention the amount of options in another point, I think it's fair for me to assume that you are separating the two, hence, my point that GF1 has more options than GF3 is a valid one - I said nothing about narrative or game-play depth.

[Evnissyen]

Exactly my point: You said nothing about narrative depth or game-play depth.

[Ghaldring]

Quote:

Exactly my point: You said nothing about narrative depth or game-play depth.

Huh?

You originally claimed that GF3 "...has many more options,"

Nik pointed out that GF2 does offer more options in the form of sects.

You then responded with the irrelevant comment that "I didn't realize that factions were the very definition of narrative and game-play depth."

I'm with Nik on this one. You praise GF3 for it's linearity, and then turn around and claim it 'has more options' than GF2, which is utter hogwash IMHO.

[Orly Ornk]

After being spoiled by how open ended G1 and 2 were, I was rather resistant towards G3. I felt like the game was making choices for me and really disliked being forced down one of two paths. After that I finally got into it and loved it. The story was interesting and it was lots of fun playing, but I was never quite as attached to my character as before. Even if story telling ability is hampered in a very open ended game, in G1's case, I thought that it was enough immersion to make up for it. While in G3 I felt like I was along for the ride in G1 I felt like I was there, despite the flaws.

[Evnissyen]

Ghaldring:

The problem was only that Nikki seemed to be implying that the fact that G1 has precisely one more playable faction than G3 means that it has more options. Since this ignores the fact that G3 has a stronger narrative, has charms and the ability for the player to create or enchant his/her own items... it happens to be incorrect. That's all.

 

It's fair to note that experiences with G1/2 or G3/4 depend on which pair you began with. Those who began with G1/2, as well as A1-3, might prefer the free-roaming style and abhor the narrative force of G3/4. My first SW games were A4 and G3, and the first game I payed for (and played all the way through) was G3... so undoubtedly this accounts for much of my perspective. But coming from the same perspective, I still think it's unfair how so many people coming from the earlier free-roaming games are still so harshly critical of G3, as if it were the worst game ever created. It's simply not.

 

I try my best to look at the earlier games with as little prejudice as possible... but I can't help but be bothered by all the little things. I've mentioned these a bunch of times before. However... one of the not-so-little things is the fact that, in G1, there is no direction. There's very little narrative. Perhaps if the game were designed to better accommodate that, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't remember having a problem with other games of that sort, when I was a kid. Having to plod through 10-12 areas where you get 0 XP because you didn't realize you'd been "meant" to go through there many levels earlier... is not fun... and, to be honest, it's not good game design.

 

To be clear: I'm not at all trying to say that everyone should agree with my prejudices and biases. I'm just saying that people should stop trashing G3 for reasons that are, honestly, not adequately supportable.

 

[nikki.]

Erm...

 

Originally Posted By: Evnissyen

Ghaldring:

The problem was only that Nikki seemed to be implying that the fact that G1 has precisely one more playable faction than G3 means that it has more options. Since this ignores the fact that G3 has a stronger narrative, has charms and the ability for the player to create or enchant his/her own items... it happens to be incorrect. That's all.

 

Not to mention the un-aligned path. Or the choice to help Trakjov or not... But that's beside the point.

 

HAVING A STRONGER NARRATIVE DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS MORE OPTIONS. Let me just attempt to clear this up. You say that since GF1 has ONE MORE OPTION (see that bit in capitals? It's important, and is something you actually admit) in terms of sects to join, but doesn't have as strong a narrative as GF3, it HAS LESS OPTIONS? That's what you're saying. Read your post again. I've highlighted the bits in bold for you.

 

GF3 does have a stronger narrative, yes, I wasn't arguing there. But for sheer choices, GF1 will always win of the two of them, because it has one more sect, as well as different choices within sects. The whole issue of narrative is moot, since we are talking about choices, not plot.

 

I quite like GF3, and, for that matter GF4, I think I prefer GF4 over GF1 and 2, as well, though it's close. I am not trashing the game. I am simply saying that if options and choices, on a game-spanning scale, are what is important, then GF1 has more choices and options.

[Student of Trinity]

I think this argument is doomed because you probably aren't talking about the same things when you both say 'option'. Joining a sect is clearly an option, but there are a lot of other game decisions that could well be considered options (do you make the Crystalline Shroud before the Emerald Chestguard?)

 

And how many 'options' are involved in following a sect in each game? It is possible to powergame all three sects in G1, but that is clearly not the most natural way to play the game. Normally in G1 you are making one choice to join one sect, doing a few testing quests, then maybe a second choice later about switching to another, before wrapping the game up with the final quest. Whereas in G3 you face a real choice of which side to support on every island. G3's map probably also offers a few more significant choices of route, because G1's difficulty gradients channel you pretty well, leaving only three or four significant forks in the road. You get one or two such decisions on every island in G3.

 

So it seems to me that what you have is not really a disagreement about the games, but about what you count as an 'option'.

[Feo Takahari]

Originally Posted By: Evnissyen

Ghaldring:
Having to plod through 10-12 areas where you get 0 XP because you didn't realize you'd been "meant" to go through there many levels earlier... is not fun... and, to be honest, it's not good game design.

That's weird. I only had one such level (the one where you find the boat that attacked you in the beginning.) Maybe it's because I didn't travel in a straight line?

[Ghaldring]

Evnissyen:

Quote:

Ghaldring:

Having to plod through 10-12 areas where you get 0 XP because you didn't realize you'd been "meant" to go through there many levels earlier... is not fun... and, to be honest, it's not good game design.

 

That rarely (if ever) happened to me. And failing to receive XP is not an indication that you were 'meant' to go through those levels earlier.

 

Personally, I find GF1 and GF2's non-linearity a benefit, not a flaw. Being able to choose your own path while exploring at your leisure is fantastic.

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

I think this argument is doomed because you probably aren't talking about the same things when you both say 'option'. Joining a sect is clearly an option, but there are a lot of other game decisions that could well be considered options (do you make the Crystalline Shroud before the Emerald Chestguard?)

And how many 'options' are involved in following a sect in each game? It is possible to powergame all three sects in G1, but that is clearly not the most natural way to play the game. Normally in G1 you are making one choice to join one sect, doing a few testing quests, then maybe a second choice later about switching to another, before wrapping the game up with the final quest. Whereas in G3 you face a real choice of which side to support on every island. G3's map probably also offers a few more significant choices of route, because G1's difficulty gradients channel you pretty well, leaving only three or four significant forks in the road. You get one or two such decisions on every island in G3.

So it seems to me that what you have is not really a disagreement about the games, but about what you count as an 'option'.

I was going to include things such as artifact-crafting, and choosing whether to head north or south on a particular map, but I didn't feel them big enough things. Deciding whether to play as a Shaper or a Rebel, especially if you aren't powergaming, is going to be a choice you make over several zones, maybe more - maybe even over several islands/chapters in GF3/4, and one that, by-and-large, you're going to be stuck with. It's an important decision. Deciding which cool weapon to craft doesn't carry the same sort of involvement, and so I decided against it.

[Arori4]

I really much say that they are all equal.

 

In Geneforge 3 and 4, the way it has been created is for players never to have areas that don't give any experience because you didn't do them in the beginning. Also, its plotline was so much stronger than Geneforge 1 and 2. And in a sense, much more smoother.

 

But Geneforge 1 and 2 still have their pros. In both games, the sects you can choose are all strong in their beliefs and you could change from one to the other. Some people would also say that the open style of gameplay is rather fine too since it gives a suprise, like real adventurers.

[RetlawMay]

I can't believe that someone actually is saying that G1 doesn't have much of a storyline. It is the one that gives the most interesting history of the Shapers. It also has the best role playing value because you are THE Shaper, come after 200 years of absence, to descend upon the island and cleanse it (one way or another). G3 by contrast can pretty be summed up as: rehash previous storylines with less style and options, usher you through islands, add a couple more spells. G1 on the other hand was original, had the best story , and the best ending (actually using the Geneforge).

[Xelgion]

Originally Posted By: Arori4

I really much say that they are all equal.

In Geneforge 3 and 4, the way it has been created is for players never to have areas that don't give any experience because you didn't do them in the beginning. Also, its plotline was so much stronger than Geneforge 1 and 2. And in a sense, much more smoother.

But Geneforge 1 and 2 still have their pros. In both games, the sects you can choose are all strong in their beliefs and you could change from one to the other. Some people would also say that the open style of gameplay is rather fine too since it gives a suprise, like real adventurers.

With games like Geneforge, there needs to be something that really pulls it and the player forward. Since it lacks sound, I need an almost constant stream of plot, because if there isn't, like in G1 and G2, I feel like there is no point and it feels boring.

[Dikiyoba]

Geneforge does have sound and background noises. It does lack music, but you can always listen to some of your own.

 

Dikiyoba.