I would expect Xessive, MyD, and Pug to think that the review was bad. But you know why? You're the only 3 people posting in the NWN2 thread. Seriously, I don't think anybody else here cares even a little bit. Maybe idol, but I don't think he has the machine to run it. So yeah, it's probably a bit of bias on both sides. *Shrug*
Myself, I think this is where I REALLY begin to throw his review out of the window:
That five-of-10 is actually a hedge, by the way. For D&D fans who want to play an amazingly thorough PC translation of the system they're carting around in book form, it's proba-bly closer an eight or nine.
He sounds as if he's confused on what to actually score this game; especially since this is coming from someone who loved IWD, which BIS made -- many of BIS are now at Obsidian, BTW.
It's as if he is torn by gaming's past and gaming's present time periods.
I dunno', but from what I read, to me, it sounds like NWN2 might marry many of the great things of old-style RPG's w/ modern day RPG's. I'll have to play it, to find out myself.
But if, like me, you want less "rules for rule's sake" and more depth and beauty to your simulated game worlds, you can certainly find more exciting prospects. Part of the reason we call them "the good old days" and think fondly of games past is that it's always easier to love what we don't have to play anymore.
This also proves what I said about: he seems torn b/t gaming's past and present time periods.
Now, I could possibly see the "5.0 (out of 10)" score if he actually decided to throw in the technical issues, which many other reviews have sited before-hand, into the review. Then he would have something that probably reflects his score.
But, he doesn't really even site those in his review, for some reason..
The plot sucks, the NPCs are lifeless, it's not immersing at all, the levels are tiny, the dungeons suck, etc, it's linear to the point of fault. All of these are valid points within the genre rather then criticisms on the genre itself.
He states some of these things, but doesn't really give examples to go w/ his stance.
Many magazines, like PCG, IGN, and G-Spot, have said the complete opposite on NPC's and the actual role-playing. So, I dunno', but something seems weird here....
That's where I call bullshit. From what I read from PCGAMER, Gamespot, IGN etc., the game's strengths are the actual role playing. In terms of characters, plot and storyline, this game is apparently the best thing since Baldur's Gate II.
[/quote]
I haven't played NWN2 yet, but I've read a lot of the other reviewers are saying how good the role-playing and story itself is. It would've helped if he sited examples.
The reviewer on 1Up basically states the NPC's are not immersive, the world is small, and so on and so on, w/out giving any examples of this. He states things w/out really proving them by example.
Where everyone was discounting it was its technical issues, most of which have apparently been resolved.
I think it matters what version the reviewer reviewed, if we are taking that into consideration. I don't know what version he reviewed, but most sites review version 1.00 (Retail Box) of a game.
The review came off as someone who just hated the sub genre, and let it cloud his judgment on everything else, including the strengths.
I dunno, but it seems like he already seemed set w/ his score before he threw it out and played the game -- especially by what he said about "D&D fans will probably give this a 8-9." If he's scoring the game a 5.0, why is he even saying this??? Is it b/c he knows somewhere underneath NWN2, there's a high quality game??? I think so....He sounds confused.
Yet, he loved IWD -- known fact. So, I dunno....but I think maybe he wanted NWN2 to evolve into more so like an Oblivion...or something....
The problem is he doesn't site things in NWN2 to really explain his stance. He states his stance, shows off his writing skills w/ his prose, yet that's about it....not much proof to go along w/ his style of writing. His style in that review reminds me of a Lisa Schwarzbaum at EW -- namely, a big flair and style of writing, but at least Lisa explains her stance w/ proof. Even if you don't agree w/ her movie review, she proves things that make her score reflect her statements.
Also RPGs are very different in their sub genres. Take for example the original Dungeon Siege and Morrowind. They are both RPGs but it is like comparing apples and oranges.
Well, DS is more of an action/RPG, whereas Morrowind's a RPG/Action game. Point taken.
I agree w/ you.
Dungeon Siege 2 is a huge disappointment because it is basically more of the same without any improvement. That would be acceptable for an expansion, but the sequel has come 5 years later -- which is a lifetime in development time.
I found that DS2 broke some things that DS1 did well -- for example, I don't care much for the new save system in DS2. It's not horrible b/c it does solve your character progress, but I prefer DS2's save system. A better save system would've been more like say Fable's, in which Fable allows you to save your location (when you're not in a mission/quest).
Though, I do like the whole idea of portals in DS2 for traveling to certain locations quickly.
For its time the original DS was an excellent Hack n' Slash RPG. Meanwhile Morrowind was just something totally different, yet it was an RPG and it had its own set of fans.
Morrowind was amazing, for its time. But, it had its share of weaknesses -- which pretty much were fixed in Oblivion.
I know for a fact that Cobra loved Dungeon Siege yet wasn't very fond of Morrowind, while for Que it was in reverse.
I like DS, but it's not a Morrowind for me. I like DS2, but it's no Oblivion for me.
I do really like DS2: Broken World, though -- which I feel is the best Chapter in the DS series. It's the most interesting and the darkest, too. Though, Broken World's no Oblivion to me.
Oblivion, to me, is about as good as PC RPG's can probably get. Period.
Saying NWN2 isn't more like Oblivion is like faulting Oblivion for not having party based strategic combat like in NWN2. Just different types of RPGs.
Agreed -- they are different, much different: one's party based, while the other's solo-based. I like both styles, myself.
What is really odd is how he claims to be a fan of IWD and yet complains about the game using D&D rules. IWD was the ultimate D&D game. It had pretty much zero role playing, and was all about finding the +4 swords.
That's why I find the review to be pure bullshit.
It's as if he is saying "IWD was great, but I don't ever want to go through that experience again b/c it's too old-school for me in this modern day era."
There's NOTHING wrong w/ "old school." Though, often many games that do "old school" in the modern era amd forget to incorporate some of the "new school" stuff. Divine Divinity proved a lot, being an old school 2D graphic-style RPG, but w/ the modern open-ended style world of a Morrowind and the action on the scale of say a modern-day Diablo and Dungeon Siege 2. Divine Divinity was the marriage of what made old school games great along w/ many of the strengths of modern day RPG's.
Also, why the reviewer didn't also just simply say "Neverwinter Nights 2 is not much of an improvement over the original Neverwinter Nights" somewhere in there and prove that, is way beyond me -- b/c basically, it's also probably what he's trying to say.
