Risen Review

By Dan Whitehead Published 1 November, 2009

Grinders keepers.

Version tested: PC

Not many games get a second chance to make a first impression, but enough readers felt Risen's shonky Xbox 360 port shouldn't count against the apparently superior PC version that we thought we should investigate that one as well. I was duly dispatched to the volcanic island of Faranga for a second go-around and, yes, it's true that the PC version is a marked improvement over its console cousin. It's immediately clear that Piranha Bytes is much more comfortable working on its native platform, and this familiarity certainly smooths some of the rough edges.

Most obviously, there's a definite benefit to the visuals. Even with settings at maximum it's not going to be the prettiest game around, but simply by eliminating the horribly distracting pop-up and enormous diagonal lines tearing through the distant scenery, the gameworld is easier to immerse yourself in. Draw distance is also improved, and it no longer feels like you're wandering through a half-finished virtual reality countryside.

Also benefiting from the comfort zone of the PC is the game's accessibility. Menus are still rather bland and ugly, but something as simple as the ability to drag and drop items from inventory spaces to equipment slots streamlines what had become a cumbersome obstacle on the 360. From this side of the fence it's easier to see how the 360 setup was crudely cut-and-pasted across, trying to match keyboard functions to d-pad directions, but there's no mistaking that Piranha Bytes was clearly out of its depth in the world of joypad-only game design.

'Risen' Screenshot 1

The olden days version of pole dancing was very different indeed.

Combat is also less of a fiddle, and seems considerably easier. Whether that's because the mouse and keyboard are more in tune with the game's design, or because I'd already grown accustomed to the peculiar rhythms of its block and strafe fighting style, I couldn't say. The slippery lock-on still proves problematic when tackling more than one foe at a time, however, and while it's possible to become adept at combat through practice, it's never as engaging as it needs to be to sustain the length of a full RPG.

The good points of the game are understandably closer to the surface here, which makes it easier to appreciate the solid script and voice-over work, as well as the numerous, varied and sometimes quite innovative quests. The skill tree is also pleasantly broad, once the game deems you worthy enough to explore it fully, with a range of crafts that wouldn't look out of place in an MMORPG.

Incidental details build along the way, and by the time the story really kicks in you've built up enough of a relationship with various NPCs that it feels like there's something tangible at stake. It's just a shame the character models are so atrocious, blank automatons speaking with expressive voices, while their unnaturally twitchy animation heightens their cheap appearance. Still, Oblivion had some of the worst faces in gaming history and went on to captivate millions, so it's hardly fair to dwell on such surface hiccups.

More problematic is the lumpen structure and a back-end which struggles to make sense of the reams of info you gather along the way. There's nothing wrong with an RPG taking its time, of course, provided that a sense of progress and immersion is maintained. Risen fumbles in this regard, opening with a long-winded tutorial session during which gameplay info and features are introduced in a frustratingly slow drip feed.

Experienced RPG fans, who this game is undoubtedly aimed at, may relish the chance to spend hours just to reach the starting line, but it too often feels like Risen is taking advantage of the innate patience and forgiving nature of the genre's fanbase to pad itself out, rather than doing anything purposeful with its languid pace. "It starts to get interesting after 20 hours," isn't much of a recommendation, other than to pander to the masochistic hardcore who feel that hours served in-game is a goal in and of itself. It takes the game into an unwelcome trainspottery creative cul-de-sac, where painstaking devotion to genre ritual is more important than the game itself.

Compounding this are issues that remain regardless of platform. Navigation around the sizeable map is hampered by a rudimentary map, which makes finding quest markers more of a chore than it should be, while the game's oddball levelling system opts for the long-term grind over more inspiring goals. Forcing players to accumulate gold in order to buy and improve new skills is, admittedly, an interesting twist on something that is usually advanced ambiently during play, but in practice it simply lengthens the already interminable opening of the game.

'Risen' Screenshot 2

There's never an Argonaut around when you need one.

So, sorry Risen apologists, but even when viewed in its best light, Risen simply isn't anything special. Despite being Gothic 4 in all but name, Piranha Bytes has brought little that is new to its creaking formula and the elements that are worthwhile are all but smothered under a design ethos that confuses length for depth.

Ironically, while the PC version inarguably shows up the flaws in the 360 effort all the more, it also fares far worse when compared to its peers. Consoles have relatively few RPGs in this traditional mould, but on the PC the competition is much fiercer and so well-intentioned failures are harder to tolerate. Adequate rather than inspired, Risen doesn't even match up to the polish and narrative depth of The Witcher, now two years old, so releasing it only weeks before BioWare's Dragon Age is bordering on suicidal. Patient gamers looking to tick off genre standards without being troubled by any surprises will no doubt unearth a few truffles of amusement, but in the grand scheme of things Risen barely manages to rise above the herd.

6 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Dan.

About Dan Whitehead

Dan has been writing for Eurogamer since 2006 and specialises in RPGs, shooters and games for children. His bestest game ever is Julian Gollop's Chaos.

Read more articles from Dan by visiting the Dan Whitehead archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (68) Latest comment 9 months ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Scimarad #1 2 years ago

    Well done, EG!

  • Hantheman #2 2 years ago

    In before the bloody thirsty horde.

  • Nephirion #3 2 years ago

    Hmmm this or Dragon Age hard choice ^^

  • Soul_man #4 2 years ago

    For me, the two first chapters are worth a 9/10, and the two last maybe a 7/10. I don't really get the "slow pace" complaints, there's plenty to do in the beginning of the game. Even when it turns into something of a dungeon crawler towards the end, it is still entertaining because the combat is so good (and challenging).

    Oh, and a game with a 8.3 score on gamerankings.com doesn't really need any "apologists".

    The last boss fight is terrible, though.

  • Metalfish #5 2 years ago

    Nothing like a bit of "drama laugh-out-louds" to bring in the hits, eh EG?

    More seriously, even from the demo, this game struck me as "your mileage may vary" rather heavily. Whilst I agree that there are more RPGs on PC I wouldn't agree that we've had much to get excited about of late -perhaps to the extent that an "only a 6" is worth bothering with for fans of the genre?

  • john_silence #6 2 years ago

    Ha! You did it to us, the PC crowd; our ivory tower (sounds better than beige box, doesn't it?), well it is breached. We can no longer ruminate on the wrong side of the river, scoffing, complaining that we're ignored again by the powers that be. Gutted yet pleased we stand as forsaken gods in a temple of blue LEDs covered in brooding ivy. Thank you!

  • FirewalkR #7 2 years ago

    Aaah the righting of wrongs.

  • subtlesnake #8 2 years ago

    "Just think about that for a moment and then tell me if it's fair. "

    If Risen had been released in early 2006 maybe things would be different.

  • Skurmedel #9 2 years ago

    Ugh, too many RPGs in such a short time. Can't they like, space them out more evenly throughout the year so we can play them all?

  • unacomn #10 2 years ago

    Funny how no one mentioned the free-running elements

  • peak_performance #11 2 years ago

    Very cool doing a re-review. It still sounds like a game for me but the Gothic series has never been for everyone.

  • Drome #12 2 years ago

    The review pretty much seems to reflect my views of the game. Although I suppose I still haven't reached the spot after which the story gets interesting. And yes, I have played (and enjoyed) all its predecessors. Gothic 3 did prove to be a bit too long for me to last through, but I still enjoyed it.

    For me Risen just seems to recycle all the familiar elements from the previous games without adding anything new or meaningful into the game. The combat has become less fun, the character models are atrocious, and I don't understand why leveling must be made so dull and uninspired again.

    Haven't found myself wanting to fire up the game for several days now, and now I'm just waiting for Amazon shipping my copy of DA:o. I was expecting something better...

  • Eisenstein #13 2 years ago

    6/10 seems a bit harsh. It's a good game, it's just like a good game made in the year 2003. It's very "old-school" to say it nicely. It misses a lot of things that the more modern competitors have in terms of comfort and world building (really, running into the same reused face texture again and again is a bit off-putting) but the elements that are there are pretty good. 7/10 would be my verdict, 8/10 if you're a fan of the Gothic series.

  • Frosty840 #14 2 years ago

    My only real complaint with the game is that the combat was (for me) so difficult that I didn't feel like a hero, just a desperate, savescumming quickloader...

    Yes, the later parts of the game do feel empty to an extent, but I think that's deliberate, simply because the events of the game become bigger than the petty squabbles of the islanders.It would have been nice if this point had been made clearer, though.

  • marius_itd #15 2 years ago

    Glad to see Eurogamer made amends after the first review of Risen and really paid attention to the forum. 6 seems a bit harsh from my point of view, but considering the last half of the game, I think it's understandable.

  • Darren #16 2 years ago

    Well I didn't like the PC demo at all. It felt like a cheaply made, somewhat amateurish and predictable by-the-numbers RPG and I saw nothing at all that screamed "Buy Me!" in the hour that it took me to finish it. Granted, I did have visions of it being another Two Worlds but I don't think it was THAT bad. Uninspired sums it up pretty well I think.

    Knowing that Dragon Age: Origins was on the way, it was an easy choice really not to buy Risen. You know you're going to get a quality product when you buy a BioWare RPG.

  • ududy22 #17 2 years ago

    Some remarks:
    1. Risen doesn't bring a lot of new stuff to the table if you're a Gothic veteran, but it definitely goes in some promising directions with more adventuring spells that have free form uses, like metamorphosis to snail form and levitation. Most RPGs are very disappointing in this context, only having spells specificaly function inside combat or dialogue. Bioware game engines, for example, are notorious in hard-wiring spell use for certain situations, thus stifling player creativity.
    2. The story is a big Meh, they really should think of hiring a writer sometime, but i did find the dungeon exploration to be much more satisfying than most. Its still not Ultima Underworld 2 (how have you betrayed us, Origin), but again, another step in the right directon. Good atmosphere, some good use of the vertical axis (of which Bioware have not yet heard).
    3. What Risen has, like Gothic before it, and what most RPGs don't give you, is a big(ish) open world with true exploration freedom. That, in my opinion, has to be encouraged.

  • PlugMonkey #18 2 years ago

    Not much point doing a PC re-review and then getting Dan "GTA" Whitehead to do it.

    At least now I know that the PC version is only worth 6/10 if you've previously hated the console version. Not that that's much help to anyone.

  • LewisResolution #19 2 years ago

    "A bit of a missed opportunity to have a different reviewer review it, but +1 to EG still."

    I don't see how having a different writer review the PC version would have served any purpose. People were demanding a PC review by way of comparison, claiming there were significant differences between the two. Get another writer in, he or she brings a whole new set ofjudging criteria to the table. It wouldn't have made sense.

  • n0f8r #20 2 years ago

    Well done EG - I have to admit I was somewhat outraged at the initial review, but now that I've finished the game (slowish start with rising potential in the middle - that just dribbled away to the end, plus the light bloom was so OTT with no way to turn it off) I have to concur with Dan's final PC score. I'd like to give it more than 6, but can't stretch to a 7.


  • PlugMonkey #21 2 years ago

    "Get another writer in, he or she brings a whole new set ofjudging criteria to the table."

    But if you get the same writer to do it, their opinion is coloured by what they thought of the console version. Not to mention by what people thought of their review of the console version, and reception that received.

    I don't see how Whitehead could possibly have gone into this with an objective mind, and from the first paragraph to the last the whole thing reads like Whitehead going "Ha! I told you so!".

    Whether that was his intention, I couldn't possibly comment, but I know if I was told to go back and re-review something to see if I'd made a cock-up of it the first time, I would find it very hard to divorce that entirely from the critical piece I was writing.

    Very poor show from EG, IMHO. Not very useful to PC RPG fans who are trying to decide what to spend their hard earned on. Not very fair on the devs who made the game. And most of all, not very fair to Whitehead himself who has been placed in a complete no-win situation and come away from it looking a bit of a plum.

  • FortysixterUK #22 2 years ago

    Can't agree with EG, once again.
    There was a quote along the lines that it takes about 20 hours to get into the game? What on earth are you talking about?
    15-20 minutes in you have met your first group of NPCs and the story line is launched.The game "starts" there and then in my opinion

    I recently completed this on XBox ( which I thoroughly enjoyed by the way ), and I was simply into it the moment I was loaded in.
    The tutorial consists of you and a woman who you are ship wrecked with starting on the islands beach and having to fight inland to find a hut, where she feel's safe and decides to stay, probably a combined walk (with exploration ) of a couple of thousand yards. That's it, having picked up some items and plants and rucked a few baddies, tutorial over.

    The score for the PC version is almost fair however, although I would have probably awarded it 7 on PC, stating that if you like the genre then the score won't mean much to you.
    6/10 on Xbox is a fair score with the same comment. I found it totally playable on Xbox.

    One thing you did get right. This game IS Gothic in all but name.

  • gjgjg #23 2 years ago

    power to the apologists
    but not to risen i see...
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/09 @ 09:54

  • PearOfAnguish #24 2 years ago

    Nice to see a dedicated PC review, thanks.

    "long-winded tutorial session"

    I really fail to see how the tutorial section could be described as long-winded, particularly as it's part of the beginning of the game, not a separate section. The game starts on the beach, you wander further inland, pick up some loot, fight a few beasts and then the game starts properly. You can run through this really quickly or take your time and do a little bit of exploration. That's a really odd criticism.

    "Navigation around the sizeable map is hampered by a rudimentary map, which makes finding quest markers more of a chore than it should be"

    Horses for courses. While the map and quest markers could have done with some explanation (the quest map thing isn't particularly obvious) I never had problems locating quest objectives once they were flagged. Lots of people complained about Oblivion's hand holding when it came to quest markers, so it'll come down to your personal preferences.

    "while the game's oddball levelling system opts for the long-term grind"

    I never once had to grind for gold or XP. Just by opening chests and stealing stuff during quests and when wandering around it's really easy to get more than enough gold. If you're rushing through the game only focusing on the main quests to do a review though maybe you will end up having to hunt for more money.

  • kangarootoo #25 2 years ago

    @ClubHeaven

    Of course it is fair. Oblivion was great at release and still stands up now, Risen is unfortunately a bit rubbish in comparison to its peers.


    @ududy22

    Surely the Elder Scrolls games have always done open world exploration extremely well. I loved just wandering about in the earlt stages of Oblivion, always able to tell roughly where I was on the continent by the type of vegetation and other scenery.


    Believe me, nobody is more disappointed than me. I was enjoying Gothic 1 when most of you were in short trousers, but I refuse to let nostalgia cloud my vision. I tried Risen, and I stuck with it for a while, but eventually I just thought "my life is ticking away here on some RPG-fan principle, but there are simply better games out there I should be playing instead".

  • MrWonderstuff #26 2 years ago

    Eurogamer can be harsh critics and they do have high standards, so a 6/10 is not surprising. Without the criticism PB probably will never learn...seems because of the great reception previous Gothics got years ago they have rested on their laurels and not pushed their baby forward.

  • dbranchevans #27 2 years ago

    Don't really get fortysixers comment, so you liked it, state all the things EG got wrong but then you agree its a 6? Played the demo but didn't get into it and I like RPG's. Someone already wrote on here about them giving Oblivion a 10 (comon its really not, the main plot was shocking, hoping like hell Dragon Age doesn't fall into the same trap) but it is a far superior game, there just feels like there's a lot more to do and horse armour folly aside its held the test of time well.

    In short, if you want a decent RPG buy Oblivion still (or the Witcher which is pretty underrated) or just wait for Dragon Age.

  • kangarootoo #28 2 years ago

    @MrWonderstuff

    I don't think we should be too hard on PB. Any indie making an ambitious game in this day and age is up against it, so we shouldn't assume its all about choice and resting on laurels etc.

    Sometimes it is just about getting done what you can in the time and money available. Its a shame the result wasn't that great, but I'm not going to say that PB are bad. If they had bigger funding and security, they might well be able to turn something out that is pretty amazing.

  • sneetch #29 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey
    I don't see how Whitehead could possibly have gone into this with an objective mind, and from the first paragraph to the last the whole thing reads like Whitehead going "Ha! I told you so!".

    I get a sense of that too, of him being peeved at being called up on his error and sullenly having to correct it. After EG quietly stripping the 360 review out of the PC section of the site without comment it all seems a bit childish to me.

    Still and all, it's his opinion, he's entitled to it and 6/10 isn't a bad score for a "niche" title like this.

  • whizzedout #30 2 years ago

    CONSOLEGAMER FAIL

  • mkreku #31 2 years ago

    Yeah, I also got that "I told you so" vibe from the entire review. But still a good thing to have a PC review of the game! I would personally have scored it an 8/10 or so (yes, I am an old Gothic fan), but I can easily see why someone who enjoys Bioware RPG's a lot wouldn't like this. Again, the things Dan criticises as flaws in the game are things I think are good and done wrong in other games (quest markers, for example).

    Risen is not Piranha Bytes greatest work, but for me it's a fresh beginning with a new technology, a new setting and a lot of promise for Risen 2.

  • jimboton #32 2 years ago

    Experienced RPG fans, who this game is undoubtedly aimed at, may relish the chance to spend hours just to reach the starting line, but it too often feels like Risen is taking advantage of the innate patience and forgiving nature of the genre's fanbase to pad itself out, rather than doing anything purposeful with its languid pace. "It starts to get interesting after 20 hours," isn't much of a recommendation, other than to pander to the masochistic hardcore who feel that hours served in-game is a goal in and of itself

    Everyone I know (or have read online) says exactly the opposite, how the game starts off brilliantly and then loses some interest towards the final stages, my opinion as well. But that's because we're all masochistic hardcore, don't listen to us people, what you really need in an rpg is autolevelling so you can prevail against any oponent from the start and heavy handed hand holding so you know every time where you need to be. That way every hour spent in-game will have real meaning!

  • TheSnotGoblin #33 2 years ago

    I'd probably give the game a high 7 myself (Really slackens off towards the end but the early chapters are excellent) but I can understand how someone might give it a 6.

    That said, between this and Dan's review for the Witcher I can tell we don't see eye to eye when it comes to RPGs. On the off-chance he got lumped with the Dragon Age review I'll be taking his views with a large pinch of salt (How big a pinch must it be before it stops being a pinch?).

  • chukcyQ #34 2 years ago

    Not as good as Gothic 1 or 2, but I still like it!

  • kangarootoo #35 2 years ago

    Aren't shortcomings supposed to be faulted? Isn't that what a review is for?

  • Solaris858 #36 2 years ago

    "That said, between this and Dan's review for the Witcher I can tell we don't see eye to eye when it comes to RPGs. On the off-chance he got lumped with the Dragon Age review I'll be taking his views with a large pinch of salt (How big a pinch must it be before it stops being a pinch?)."

    /cynical.

    TBH, it won't matter with Dragon Age as it's a well known fact EA and BioWare give some of the best blow-jobs in the industry....it'll be a 9 or 101/10 guarrentied no matter who reviews it.

    /cynical. end.

    As for Risen, great game the first 20-30 hrs but falls apart at the end, I'd give it a 7.5 or maybe an 8.

  • YourMessageHere #37 2 years ago

    I do rather like the subtext you can read here when the reviewer plays the same game on a PC and discovers to his astonishment that it is a much more pleasant experience. Pads are great for some games, but certainly not for anything involving inventory management. Speaking as a PC gamer who is continually irked when I roll up to EG to read reviews of multiplatform games, only to find that the review is of a console version, so any comment regarding controls is instantly irrelevant, I hope this acts as a learning experience for EG generally.

  • Ryuken #38 2 years ago

    I don't see how having a different writer review the PC version would have served any purpose. People were demanding a PC review by way of comparison, claiming there were significant differences between the two. Get another writer in, he or she brings a whole new set ofjudging criteria to the table. It wouldn't have made sense.

    Oddly enough that didn't seem to be a problem for the EG-reviews of Operation Flaspoint: Dragon Rising (Simon Parkin did the 'multiplatform' review, Tim Stone finally gave a much-requested PC view on things). With all due respect for Dan Whitehead but I'd rather prefer a PC expert than someone with a multiplatform eye. Not because the PC is so much better than other platforms but because it's so different and in these "perfect porting job" times even the smallest of details can be very aggravating (cfr. the Borderlands PC issues and of course Risen's issues on the Xbox360).

    That being said, it's nice to see Dan admitting EG should have done a better job right from the start of reviewing the game on all platforms, especially on the lead platform which is clearly the PC in this case. Also, I can understand comparing Risen to Oblivion but comparing it to The Witcher and Dragon Age (both a lot more linear and different experiences) is a bit off.

    As a chauvinistic Belgian I'd rather point to the impending release of Divinity II: Ego Draconis for an upcoming rival, pls don't fuck that one up as well in the beginning with a review only based on the Xbox360 version.
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/09 @ 16:37

  • kangarootoo #39 2 years ago

    @ClubHeaven

    Whether Oblivion was worth a 10 or not is a bit moot as far as I'm concerned, but it is worth saying that "It was awarded a perfect 10 despite..." is a mistake. A 10 does not mean a game is perfect, it just means a game is (I quote) "Phenomenal". In fact, the scoring policy specifically states...

    "Does 10/10 represent perfection?

    No. However, a 10/10 score does mean that we recommend a game to everyone."



    I personally put about 120 hours into Oblivion in total (edit: and fully completed Morrowind and Gothic 1 and 2 back in the day, just for those unsure of my RPG lineage), including add-on packs and (incomplete) second playthrough. And on the whole I enjoyed the experience. It wasn't perfect, but it was fun, for a very long time for my money.

    I played Risen for about 5 hours, and I got bored. It felt like I was persisting out of principle rather than actually enjoying the game... so I stopped.


    No scoring system will suit everyone, and you shouldn't take it like some personal insult that EG rated a game lower than you would yourself. But the truth is that FAAAAAARRRR more people enjoyed Oblivion (RPG fans and non-RPG fans alike) than would enjoy Risen, so EG were right to essentially point that out.

    6/10 is above average according to EGs scoring scale, which I think is about right (+1 if you are an oldschool RPG fan, they might have added to the end). As has been said, if it had been made 5 years ago it might have been an 8, but it wasn't and it just doesn't stand up against the competition for the majority of gamers.



    On a related note, I played Morrowind again recently. Loved it back in the day, finished the main quest and all the guilds. But by todays standards... could barely keep my eyes open. Times change, so should new titles.
    Edited by 3 at 02/11/09 @ 13:52

  • darc #40 2 years ago

    "It starts to get interesting after 20 hours"

    I can't think of a better description of the Witcher, which you later cast in a more positive light. Ironic.

    I don't see how a 2nd review by the same reviewer can ever have been even close to objective. Find me any RPG that's as enjoyable the 2nd time through. Not to mention the elephant in the room - that admitting to enjoying this game would have given weight to all of the complaints following the XBox review.

    I still think the reviewer misses the mark completely. The first few hours of this game were a slog, but certainly not the first 20 (again, see the Witcher for a better example of this) and the slow start was perfectly suited to the genre. After that, I found leveling, loot, etc, to be surprisingly generous, if anything.

    About the only complaint I can agree with is with regards to human NPC modeling - they really are awful. And interior textures are very retro-ugly (but many outdoor vistas are stunning!)

    Whatever, the good news is I bought it despite the reviews. It's a solid 9 in my opinion, and my personal favorite game in years.

  • darc #41 2 years ago

    kangarootoo, I dig your post and agree with everything you've written. But based on your RPG "lineage", I'd recommend you give Risen a few more hours. I think you'll be glad you did. YMMV.

    P.S. Just for the record I loved Oblivion, too. And Morrowwind!
    Edited by 2 at 02/11/09 @ 15:51

  • kangarootoo #42 2 years ago

    Ok. Maybe I bailed before the good stuff happened. The pacing was just a bit off for me, and the whole "every wandering animal is way tougher than you" thing felt a bit old school (I don't want auto-levelling - which was admittedly a bit weird in OB -, but neither do I want to get my arse kicked by wildlife found 10 feet down the road from every farmstead).

    I shall try and give it another whirl at some future point, maybe when I have an empty weekend.

  • darc #43 2 years ago

    P.P.S. Looks like PlugMonkey and several others had already summed up the issue of objectivity rather well. And I agree the review did seem to have a bit of attitude. Short, superficial, hung up on references to the previous review (and aftermath), too casual/ personal eg. "sorry risen apologists". Funny thing is the first review didn't bother me much, I just figured the XBox version sucked, and Gothic isn't the most accessible property in the first place, and moved on. But this "re-review"... I'd give it a 4/10. :)

    Some have come down on Pirahna Bytes for "resting on their laurels" and a few others (kangarootoo) have defended them. I'm grateful they've held to form, personally, and I'd like to add that I've played through this game on a 64-bit Windows 7 release candidate machine w/ some pretty weird hardware, without encountering any bugs or glitches. That's pretty incredible from a developer who's so often been slammed for buggy releases. I've got some serious commercial software that can't hang with this OS yet. So Kudos to PB.

    Lastly, regarding those 1st 20 hours of Witcher, I'll concede that about 10 of them were loading screens. ;)
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/09 @ 15:37

  • SheffieldSteel #44 2 years ago

    First and foremost, I'm glad to see that Eurogamer decided to review the PC version.

    I don't particularly want to get into the whole Oblivion love/hate fest, but I can see why EG thought it would appeal to all. I did like to see this closing remark:-
    "Adequate rather than inspired, Risen doesn't even match up to the polish and narrative depth of The Witcher, now two years old, so releasing it only weeks before BioWare's Dragon Age is bordering on suicidal."

    I think the score of 6 is a fair attempt at describing the game's impact - a relatively small number of gamers are going to like it a lot, but at the end of the day Risen isn't going to appeal to anyone who isn't already an RPG fan.

  • WantOn #45 2 years ago

    Thanks for deciding to do the re-review, EG. This gave me a much better feel for how the game would play on the PC. I would have to agree, with some people posting before me, that some of the language lended the review a 'nyer nyer' feeling that came across as borderline immature. Perhaps having a Gillon/Darkfall approach might have worked better and removed any possibility for subjectivity to creep into proceedings.

  • kangarootoo #46 2 years ago

    I read the review again, just to double check on the whole "bad attitude" thing that people are talking about.

    In my eyes, if you dropped the last two paragraphs (in particular the penultimate paragraph) I'm not sure anyone would be making those accusations. The negative points raised throughout all seem valid to me.

    It is a shame the word "apologists" was used, as it does get peoples' backs up (rightly so - its a diversion used to try and discredit those who disagree, and its not appropriate in a subjective review - sticking to the facts is safer) but I don't think we should let it colour our perception of the whole review. You may or may not think that the reviewer was bias, but the issues he described ARE present and not imagined.
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/09 @ 17:40

  • darc #47 2 years ago

    "I think the score of 6 is a fair attempt at describing the game's impact..."

    That's a fair point, although not all great games are "impactful". Some just do their job well in an established genre.

    "...at the end of the day Risen isn't going to appeal to anyone who isn't already an RPG fan."

    Similarly, I don't think that's the best way to judge a game (or any other media). Yes, a great game (or film, or album) may be evidenced by its winning over an audience that doesn't generally "care for that sort of thing". But that isn't a pre-requisite. I don't expect folks who don't play racing games to rush out to buy Forza 3, despite that game being considered best in class for the moment.

    Not saying that Risen is best in class, necessarily. It grooves for me but that's totally personal/ subjective. And I'm not saying your argument isn't compelling - I think it's an interesting point. But it's just one of several ways to size up a game.

  • uzivatel #48 2 years ago

    @ClubHeaven: along with three other reviews

  • darc #49 2 years ago

    "In my eyes, if you dropped the last two paragraphs (in particular the penultimate paragraph) I'm not sure anyone would be making those accusations. The negative points raised throughout all seem valid to me."

    Some of the negative points are valid. This isn't a game that I'd call polished, I'll offer that much. (But it was a whole lot more polished than I expected, if only by virtue of the translation and acting!)

    On the other hand, there are a few things that I'd disagree with flatly, that can only come down to perception, and I can only conclude that the reviewer was looking at this game through crap-colored glasses after having a bad time with his XBox controller. I can't fault him for that - once I'm frustrated I'm much the same way. I just think EG should have made the call to have someone else review. Can you imagine being asked to play through a full-length RPG that you hated... a second time?!? Ugh.

    Here are a few examples of "negative points" that just don't add up for me:

    "lengthy, boring tutorial" - The game opened immediately with me on a stormy beach, engaging in combat, gathering loot, and conversing with NPCs... not a bad start. (In fact, I restarted the game a couple of times, and consistently enjoyed the beginning.)

    "lumpen structure" - I got into the first town and was bombarded with what felt like dull side quests. Had serious doubts for about 2 hours. But this is par for the course with Western RPGs and is even worse in at least one of the "peers" the reviewer later mentions. After this point, I was busy and engaged, non-stop, for the duration. (Disclaimer: I'm probably about 90% to completion.)

    "Consoles have relatively few RPGs in this traditional mould, but on the PC the competition is much fiercer"

    Give me a break. OK, we all loved a game back in... what? 2006?? (Oblivion.) That's a LONG time ago. Traditional western RPGs worth a damn are few and far between on ANY platform. I too have high hopes for Dragon Age, but I expect it to be a bit of Apples to Oranges. (Fantastic Apples, but nevertheless...)

    "rudimentary map"

    Call me an old-school masochist or whatever, but once I got my bearings, I really enjoyed the fact that the maps were nothing more than that: ordinary maps. It was exciting to have an objective, make deductions with the best map available, and then see things actually work out as expected. Sitting down with Borderlands last night, and seeing an arrow on my compass pointing to my next objective just made me wonder, "why did I even bother reading the quest description?"

    But THIS is the one I most take issue with:

    "The slippery lock-on still proves problematic when tackling more than one foe at a time, however, and while it's possible to become adept at combat through practice, it's never as engaging as it needs to be to sustain the length of a full RPG."

    First of all, I've never played an RPG with better melee combat. Ever. (And I would happily agree that the combat in Gothic 3 was pretty lame.) I think there's a major problem in evidence by the fact that the review mentions a "lock-on" mechanism which, as far as I know, isn't even featured in the PC version. The PC version is all real-time positioning via mouse and keyboard. (If you want to deal with multiple foes, for instance, you do the same thing you'd do in real life: back pedal and circle and make damn sure they're not surrounding you.) All of which tells me the reviewer hacked his way through the game without understanding the new interface, and then was surprised that this wasn't an enjoyable process.
    Edited by 6 at 02/11/09 @ 20:32

  • darc #50 2 years ago

    P.S. I'm not a drooling fanatic, honestly. Just having fun chatting about this game today. :)

  • Henrik_se #51 2 years ago

    One thing that really makes me wonder with this game is how the world can be so beautifully crafted, the buildings, the caves, the trees and plants, and the lighting effects, but all the human characters suck ass.

    Visually, in places, this game is very, very beautiful. Reaching a cave exit, seeing the shafts of daylight, then going out, transitioning out into the harsh sun...

    And then you talk to some NPCs, well, one of the four clones that inhabit the island. Huh. What happened there?

  • Kurts_Rejoinder #52 2 years ago

    "It's immediately clear that Piranha Bytes is much more comfortable working on its native platform, and this familiarity certainly smooths some of the rough edges."

    Well, to me this is not so clear. As far as I know, Risen was ported to console by the guys from WizarBox.

  • AOFanboi #53 2 years ago

    "According to Gamerankings this is the lowest PC Risen score... why am I not surprised ?"

    I think no one is surprised that in a set of different numbers, one of them is the lowest. I think it is because of something called MATH?

  • SheffieldSteel #54 2 years ago

    darc makes good points.

    At the end of the day it might be better for reviews to have two scores: one for people who'd normally want to buy this sort of game, and one for mainstream gamers. In the case of Risen, it would allow RPG fans to get a score that can be taken in context - how well it compares to other RPGS, how much depth and challenge is there, and so on - and players who have no experience of RPGs (beyond perhaps Fable and Oblivion) can also get an idea of whether they'd like it. Of course in a perfect world a game design and implementation will make everybody happy, but quite often we see games that cater to the mainstream and are hated by the hardcore fans.

    I suspect that under such a scheme, Risen's niche/mainstream score might be more like 9/5 whereas Oblivion's scores might be the other way around.
    /shrugs... more info is rarely a bad thing
    Edited by 2 at 02/11/09 @ 21:45

  • kangarootoo #55 2 years ago

    @darc

    Ok, in order :)

    I agree on the tutorial. It was a bit linear, but not really that lengthy. I didn't really notice it, which was a good thing I think.

    Your initial experience of the town does sound poor to me. 2 hours is a long time in my book to feel bogged down. Good that it picked up, but I could name a lot of games where I never suffered anywhere near 2 hours of dull side quests.

    I agree, its not like there is a glut of decent RPGs. Risen is dated by comparison with a few other titles, but its not like we are talking about FPSs, so I agree with you on that one.

    I thought the map was poor. It was barely more than a picture. I agree that arrows and breadcrumb trails can get a bit excessive, but there are ways of helping the player that aren't handholding. Equally, helping a player quickly find places they have already been isn't handholding, it is just efficiency.

    I honestly found the combat a bit rough. Maybe if I had persisted and "levelled up" a bit it would have got better. I actually think the problem was a combination of slightly hard to aim attacks coupled with enemies that were hard as nails from the outset. The only way I could defeat more than 1 wolf was to essentially find a doorway to stand in. Now by D&D P&P rules that might be a valid tactic, but it wasn't a whole lot of fun and it didn't make me feel very heroic.


    "As far as I know, Risen was ported to console by the guys from WizarBox."

    Reeeaaaally. Now that is interesting, 'cos the port was truly knackers. I can understand the graphics engine might be hard to port, but the menu system design was just badly put together.


    @SheffieldSteel

    Or we could just add a point in our heads? :)

    I don't think reviews should start doing multiple scores as a rule, 'cos where would it end? One score for RPG fans, one score for very patient RPG fans, one score for RPG fans with top end PCs, another score for old farts like me that fancy a bit of nostalgia, another score for those that wait until this game turns up on the preowned shelf?...

    Much better I think that EG and others just give the game a score based on their review policy and editorial, and we then adjust that score in our heads knowing our own preferences as we do (and as EG can never do)... AND most importantly, not to get so annoyed when the two scores differ (as they ALWAYS will for one reader or another).

  • KayAU #56 2 years ago

    Well, some credit must be given to EG for actually listening to their readers and re-reviewing this game, and basing the review on the proper version. I still think the score is off by about 3, though, and it is certainly one of the lowest scores the game has gotten. Still, the reviewer is of course entitled to an opinion. This just further confirms that I can not base my buying decisions on review scores.

    I am currently in the final chapter of my second playthrough, and have been enjoying the game greatly. It is not perfect, and I am still going to need some time to determine if this is better, as good, or worse than Gothic II, but it is certainly a great RPG. If I am to criticise the game for something, it would be that is perhaps a bit *too* similar to Gothic II, and that it could have done with an extra chapter or two. But still, this is a 9/10 in my book. :)

    One specific thing I would like to comment on, which I feel hasn't gotten the attention it deserves, is the combat system. As I have now played through once as a mage, and almost all the way through as a fighter, I feel I have a fairly solid foundation to form an opinion. And that opinion is that this is probably the best real time combat system I have seen in any RPG. It is similar to previous Gothic games (1 and 2 in particular), in that skill is at least as important as character level and equipment. A skilled player can overcome opponents which are far stronger. However, the combat system in Risen is quite a bit more advanced and varied than in the Gothic games, as is the combat AI. This is especially evident when fighting multiple opponents, who will often try to circle around you and attack from more than one angle, forcing you to really keep your concentration up, to move around and be aware of your surroundings. I understand that this will be frustrating for some players, but as you get used to it and your skill improves, it will be all the more satisfying. I also think it helps immersion. If I ever were to find myself in sword combat against a group of trained fighters, I actually imagine they might fight a bit like the ones in Risen.

    There is really only one aspect of combat which is slightly disappointing, and that is fighting with bows and crossbows. It is not bad, but I do think it worked a little bit better in Gothic 3. There, the bow was an excellent hunting weapon, and the game really rewarded you if had a good manual aim.

    But overall, I still think Risen has the better combat system. :)

    EDIT:
    I see now that darc actually brought up a few of the same points as me regarding combat. Sorry about that, I didn't read the whole thread before posting.

    @kangarootoo
    Fighting more than one wolf in open terrain is quite possible, even before you are well enough armored not to care about their teeth. It does require some skill/luck, though (and preferably a good weapon). I remember at one point running into a pack of wolves fairly early on, with a two-handed sword and no shield, and managing to kill them all without being hit. So, it IS possible. You should not have to look for dorways to stand in throughout the whole game. :)
    Edited by 1 at 03/11/09 @ 12:09

  • darc #57 2 years ago

    Surely everyone is by now off reading and commenting on the Dragon Age review. :) But anyway...

    @KayAU - it sounds like you and I played the same game at least. Now I know I'm not crazy. In this regard anyway. :) As for the disparity in impressions in combat, the "lock-on" reference is more and more a concern. I don't feel that this game was re-reviewed so much as walked through (if that much), the new review phoned in with a safe "6" tacked on.

    @Sheffieldsteel, I don't think it could ever be economically feasible for one publication/website to provide multiple reviews targeting different player demographics. The best you can do is to find the publication (or website) whose staff and readership best correspond with your tastes and background, and take their opinions for what they're worth. (Perhaps EG falls into a no-win situation because so many different sorts of gamers hold them to such high standards, generally.)

    Back to kangarootoo:

    "Your initial experience of the town does sound poor to me. 2 hours is a long time in my book to feel bogged down. Good that it picked up, but I could name a lot of games where I never suffered anywhere near 2 hours of dull side quests."

    Yah, and at this point I could start making quantitative calls ie. was it quite 2 hours (I tend to exaggerate, and I tend to be a slow, "smell the roses" kind of gamer), and just how bored was I etc... but then I'd risk earning the apologist title! There was a period, however brief or long, where I didn't expect much of the game. Whereas Oblivion, for instance, bowled me over from the start, mainly on account of the cutting edge tech in graphics etc. Risen, by contrast, quickly gets you into a town, where the best of its graphics are not on display, and its worst feature heavily. This is also the period where you have the sense of being broke, and disempowered, though for me this just made getting rich a bit later that much more fun.

    "I agree, its not like there is a glut of decent RPGs. Risen is dated by comparison with a few other titles, but its not like we are talking about FPSs, so I agree with you on that one."

    Risen is dated, in some ways good and in some ways bad.

    "I thought the map was poor. It was barely more than a picture. I agree that arrows and breadcrumb trails can get a bit excessive, but there are ways of helping the player that aren't handholding. Equally, helping a player quickly find places they have already been isn't handholding, it is just efficiency."

    The maps come to more than that later. In addition to the map as bitmap :) there are additional region maps, and various markups of the main map as "quest maps" with key points called out with markers. It would have been nice to be able to annotate the map yourself, but beyond that I thought it was a nice balance. (I did agree with the original review, though, that the non-quest version of the map in the log section is entirely redundant, and therefore confusing.)

    "I honestly found the combat a bit rough. Maybe if I had persisted and 'levelled up' a bit it would have got better. I actually think the problem was a combination of slightly hard to aim attacks coupled with enemies that were hard as nails from the outset. The only way I could defeat more than 1 wolf was to essentially find a doorway to stand in. Now by D&D P&P rules that might be a valid tactic, but it wasn't a whole lot of fun and it didn't make me feel very heroic."

    Funny thing about fauna in video games... we all tend to assume the human enemies are uber-heroic types, and are surprised if say a wolf is bad news in comparison. But in real life, I'd rather face a 300lb black belt than a black wolf, so it's really not so off. :) Just musing - that's really not the point... I think you'll find the combat gets much better as you get more adept, learn more tricks (both with your own mouse, and by way of leveling up etc.) One thing that was a total game changer for me was the acquisition of a shield, to the extent that I suspect the game might be much less enjoyable with two handed weapons.

    I actually really wanted to play a mage, since I found combat in Gothic 3 so dreadful. But one of the disappointments of Risen is that you can railroad yourself into a hunter/fighter role without really understanding what you've done. Luckily the combat has been a big improvement over Gothic.

    One thing to note: Risen doesn't give you much indication, but crossbows are strength based and bows are dext based. If, like me, you're working strength for melee, but specializing in bows for ranged, you've effectively gimped your character. I'm wondering now whether Risen's combat wouldn't have been too *easy* if I'd gotten that right. (I chose bows because, with crossbows, there didn't appear to be any aiming reticule. Which is either a bug, or a lame attempt at game balancing, or a skill enhancement that is only acquired later.)
    Edited by 6 at 03/11/09 @ 15:06

  • SheffieldSteel #58 2 years ago

    On reflection, I think you guys are right. An overall score still makes sense, and the body of the review is the best place to comment on which groups will/won't be likely to enjoy the game.

  • KayAU #59 2 years ago

    @darc

    You can get an aiming reticule for your crossbow, you just have to click the right mouse button to go into "aiming mode" first. :) As for two-handers, I successfully used those without a shield for a period of time...you can still block many attacks, but with some enemies you will just have to dance around a bit more. I found it quite enjoyable, and it did sort of push me towards adopting a more aggressive fighting style.

    However, one really nice thing about training your combat skills, is that you will be able to wield those weapons with just one hand. Okay, scratch "nice", that is a pretty *awesome* thing. Get sword fighting to level 6, and you can wield bastard swords with one hand. Get it to level 9, and you can wield two-handed swords with one hand.

    As I mentioned, I am in the final chapter playing as a fighter now, and I am currently running around with a large shield in one hand, and sword which is about as long as the player character in the other.

  • darc #60 2 years ago

    "As I mentioned, I am in the final chapter playing as a fighter now, and I am currently running around with a large shield in one hand, and sword which is about as long as the player character in the other."

    Me too, on all counts. :) Good stuff. Thanks a lot, now I'm dying to get home LOL.

    But yeah, totally botched that decision re: bows vs. crossbows. Oh well, the added challenge has arguably made the game more fun. I probably would have been finished by now otherwise. I rarely finish games, never play through more than once, but there is a temptation now to replay with a properly optimized fighter, not to mention a mage. Oh well, maybe in a year or so. Unless... dare I wish for a Risen 2/ Gothic 5???
    Edited by 1 at 03/11/09 @ 18:30

  • dryden555 #61 2 years ago

    kangarootoo, you didnt play the game for long did you? Sorry but your comments dont hold up.

    I'm well into the PC version of the game and its easily an 8: Even higher if you liked Gothic 2.

  • UncleLou #62 2 years ago

    I didn't like the beginning (or rather, the town), and I didn't like the end, which was a bit of a slog, but I enjoyed everything between that a lot. Exploring the island, building the character, etc. All in a all, an 8 or a 7 from me, however with a 6-9-6 points distribution curve. :)

    Combat can be a bit fiddly, but was all in all some of the best (melee) combat in that type of game I've seen.

    The biggest criticism I have (compared to G1 and G2) is that the game lacks memorable NPCs. If I've ever had "true friends" and "enemies" I hated in games, it was in G1 and G2, and Risen lacked that emotional aspect.
    Edited by 1 at 04/11/09 @ 06:57

  • darc #63 2 years ago

    "All in a all, an 8 or a 7 from me, however with a 6-9-6 points distribution curve. :)"

    Very realistic call. I lean toward a 9, but then this is *exactly* the game I'd been waiting for, therefore a bias. the 6-9-6 is funny though. This is a game that knows all the tricks, but doesn't mix them up quite right. All of the quest mechanics are loaded in the beginning, all of the best character interaction/ story progression in the middle, a whole lot of combat/ dungeon crawling in the end. If they'd managed to shuffle the content a bit, it would have made the game a lot more accessible.

    Admittedly, I'm kind of crawling through the final chapter, but no matter how it turns out, I'll remember this one as a classic.
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 14:48

  • orborborb #64 2 years ago

    I've been playing RPGs for more than 20 years now and I really can't think of one I've enjoyed more than Risen, which is particularly amazing to me given its nearly 40 hour length. I rarely get more than 15 or 20 hours into large RPGs like Bioware or Bethesda's intriguing but eventually dull epics, and I couldn't imagine ever playing an MMO. My favorite games have always been more along the lines of Quest for Glory, Metroid, Final Fantasy IV, Myst II Riven, Marathon 2 Durandal, Silent Hill, Suikoden II, Zelda Majoras Mask, and Ico.

    So what is it about Risen that hooked me? The intricately structured town with its charming and melancholy population certainly kept me interested early on. Details like having to use real maps to navigate and learning real information about the various skills from their trainers kept me immersed. But most of all I was impressed by the perfect sense of scale, atmosphere, and completeness to the world. And the Melee combat was always engaging, better than any action RPG I can think of since the NES days (Zelda II will always be a favorite of mine).

  • bcrankshaw #65 2 years ago

    I don't agree with the review because most of the reviewers reasons for not liking the game are exactly why I enjoyed it .I like the fact that you have to put effort in to find quests ,I enjoyed the fact not everything was marked for you on a map.Its sad the reviewer wants a game where you are spoon-fed objectives and theres is no challenge ..Im glad he doesn't design games

  • lumpypat #66 1 year ago

    Risen is an incredible game, I would go so far to say it is a work of art. Is it for everyone? Absolutely not, nothing wrong with that either.

    Someone mentioned tutorials for example, I started in Harbor town and I really didn't encounter much in the way of a tutorial. (except for the beach introduction). Instead, you are constantly learning. You put your gold and learning points towards a new combat skill, and guess what.... the move is unlocked, but you still actually have to learn the skill in real time!! The result is a real sense of accomplishment, a real sense of actually learning how to sword fight instead of just letting the game do it for you. If you just play for a few hours and get bored, you will never see the beauty of this system.. it takes time and dedication. I thought the combat (though very slow to learn) was the best in any RPG ever.

    And this pretty much sums up Risen. It doesn't hold your hand in any way, and this can be extremely frustrating at times. It is really only a game for the hard core, old school RPG fanatic except for one thing.... Risen is way more beautiful. The world is quite large (much bigger than my initial impression after leaving the beach) and is beautifully stylistically rendered. There is a real sense of completeness in the world, and the maze of paths is almost a nod to games like Zelda but rendered in a modern sense. The game is deep and takes time to learn, the world is beautiful, and Risen is a great RPG if you give it time. If you don't have time to give, no loss, plenty of other great games out there.

    -lumpypat

  • lumpypat #67 1 year ago

    Risen is an incredible game, I would go so far to say it is a work of art. Is it for everyone? Absolutely not, nothing wrong with that either.

    Someone mentioned tutorials for example, I started in Harbor town and I really didn't encounter much in the way of a tutorial. (except for the beach introduction). Instead, you are constantly learning. You put your gold and learning points towards a new combat skill, and guess what.... the move is unlocked, but you still actually have to learn the skill in real time!! The result is a real sense of accomplishment, a real sense of actually learning how to sword fight instead of just letting the game do it for you. If you just play for a few hours and get bored, you will never see the beauty of this system.. it takes time and dedication. I thought the combat (though very slow to learn) was the best in any RPG ever.

    And this pretty much sums up Risen. It doesn't hold your hand in any way, and this can be extremely frustrating at times. It is really only a game for the hard core, old school RPG fanatic except for one thing.... Risen is way more beautiful. The world is quite large (much bigger than my initial impression after leaving the beach) and is beautifully stylistically rendered. There is a real sense of completeness in the world, and the maze of paths is almost a nod to games like Zelda but rendered in a modern sense. The game is deep and takes time to learn, the world is beautiful, and Risen is a great RPG if you give it time. If you don't have time to give, no loss, plenty of other great games out there.

    -lumpypat

  • apoc_reg #68 9 months ago

    This is still the worst review i have ever read, a fest of i told you so crap.

    Reading the Risen 2 review just reminded me of your crapness Dan Whitehead. PC Risen is a great game, 8/10 or if your into GOthic games like me a 9/10.