Review 1UP torpedoes NWN2 - 5/10

[Volourn]

1. Where did I say it had a party?

2. And, yes, 2 members does equate as a party. It may not be a nmormal sized party; but it's still a party.

A D&D party is defined by a group of two or more adventurers joined together.

Deal with that sucka!

Have you had NWN2 babies yet!?!


Enjoying the ph@t lewt - the same ph@t lewt you whined about for NWN1 - yet?


R00fles!

 

[baelstren]

NWN's single player had a party? Where?

Presumably the occasional henchman and a familiar (not for all classes) constitute a "party."

 

[spacemoose]

...in a world full of lying liars that tell lies, one man stands for truth and the bottom line

this summer

from the suburbs of Canada

"The Roofler"

starring Volourn Honorblade

PERIOD, and thats a fact

this film has not been rated

 

[Volourn]

R00fles!

 

[Sol Invictus]

...in a world full of lying liars that tell lies, one man stands for truth and the bottom line

this summer

from the suburbs of Canada

"The Roofler"

starring Volourn Honorblade

PERIOD, and thats a fact

this film has not been rated

 

[kris]

I have to mirror Exitium on this one. NWN2 feels and plays much different from NWN1 and borrows many things from BG2 and KOTOR. While I can say several positives, I am a bit dissapointed how linear it have been thus far.

 

[Noceur]

Bwehehe... it got pulled.

Seems they got their balls together and saw what the fuck was going on. I've never seen a better example of "the wrong man for the wrong job" before.

edit: messed up with the code.

 

[OccupatedVoid]

...in a world full of lying liars that tell lies, one man stands for truth and the bottom line

this summer

from the suburbs of Canada

"The Roofler"

starring Volourn Honorblade

PERIOD, and thats a fact

this film has not been rated

Excerpt from the script:
Bob:BG is not dead!
Volourn: LIAR! r00fles!!! *kills bob*
Volourn: BG is dead! r00fles!

 

[suibhne]

That editor's account is worth reading. It doesn't go quite far enough, but I was actually pretty satisfied with it, and that's saying something.

 

[Limorkil]

It wasn't the score...nor was it pressure from Atari. Nor was it even pressure from the fans. It was our own sense that it could be perceived as an unfair review because of the many criticisms he made of D&D itself. I don't even necessarily think his opinion was "wrong"---I just feel it should have gone through another round of editing/rewriting so that it wouldn't be perceived that we had someone review the game who would have been inherently predisposed to NOT like it from the start.

The above comment from Jeff Green more or less sums it up correctly.

I tend to agree with many of the comments made in the review, but they do not present a fair picture of the game. The way I understood the review was this : "Yet another cRPG game that focuses too much on stat numbers, levelling and monty haul uber lewt." That is a fair comment, but you could say the same about most cRPGs and still find other things to like about them.

The odd thing is that with games like NWN/Kotor you can ignore almost all the rules and just play the game, which is an improvement over older games like the BG/IWD series where you really had to understand quite a lot of the stuff just to be able to make any progress without total frustration.

I also don't agree with pulling the review because the reason given was that the review was one sided and focused on a dislike for a single (core) aspect of the game. If that is the criteria then you could probably pull all Oblivion reviews and probably most other mainstream RPG reviews. No one pulled an Oblivion review just because they gave it 10 out of 10 based on pretty graphics. To me, this sends the message that "If you dislike a game, you had better be very clear why, but if you are going to give it a high score you can say any old shit you like."

Don't get me wrong, the review was total crap, but how come that only matters when the review is NEGATIVE.

 

[kris]

I also don't agree with pulling the review because the reason given was that the review was one sided and focused on a dislike for a single (core) aspect of the game. If that is the criteria then you could probably pull all Oblivion reviews and probably most other mainstream RPG reviews. No one pulled an Oblivion review just because they gave it 10 out of 10 based on pretty graphics. To me, this sends the message that "If you dislike a game, you had better be very clear why, but if you are going to give it a high score you can say any old shit you like."

Don't get me wrong, the review was total crap, but how come that only matters when the review is NEGATIVE.

They are full of crap. the real reason they pulled down the review was the fan reaction. almost everyone commenting on that review said it was crappy and they made a "review" of the review and decided it was maybe best to change it. Had none commented badly about it you can be assured they would not have pulled it since then they would see no reason too. Look at a Oblivion review and you will see most people agreeing with the one praising it, fact is that many like that game, regardless of what you and I think.

 

[Hazelnut]

More info on the pulling of the offending article:

http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=7592798&publicUserId=5380367

I'm glad it was pulled, it wasn't a review - maybe the content of that 'review' could be reworked into an option piece about rules 'n numbers based RPG's.. that would be reasonable.

 

[Elwro]

I think this is quite relevant

 

[kris]

More info on the pulling of the offending article:

http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=7592798&publicUserId=5380367

I'm glad it was pulled, it wasn't a review - maybe the content of that 'review' could be reworked into an option piece about rules 'n numbers based RPG's.. that would be reasonable.

The horror here is that the copy they posted for us to read first already had been reviewed and changed TWICE! I would like to see the first version...

EDIT- He said it was a lose-lose situation, but I don't agree. I think they did the right thing and some assholes that say they are sellouts without knowing are hardly important.

 

[Surgey]

If you hate one BIO game you should hate them all. Unless you are stupid. That is all.

What if you hate MDK2, does that mean you hate Baldur's Gate? Also, NWN2 wasn't developed by Bio, was it?

That's because you are an idiot. The KOTORs are overrated.

Agreed. KOTOR1 was okay, and KOTOR2 was recycled KOTOR1 with a worse story. Still, they were fairly enjoyable.

And, yes, 2 members does equate as a party. It may not be a nmormal sized party; but it's still a party.

True. I don't have a problem with 2-member parties in video games, but I absolutely refuse to play a pen-and-paper game with only 3 people (including the GM).

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

What if you hate MDK2, does that mean you hate Baldur's Gate? Also, NWN2 wasn't developed by Bio, was it?

I liked MDK2 but based on the demo for BG2, I don't think I'd like that.

 

[filogreek]

I noticed another penny-arcade comic earlier, dunno if it was this one though.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Irrespective of whether the review was complete and utter crap or not, they shouldn't have pulled it down. Leave it up, bare the criticism and move on. It was an opinion given by a single reviewer. If it troubled them that much, have someone else write another one as a counter-point.

 

[Twinfalls]

Leave it up, bare the criticism and move on. It was an opinion given by a single reviewer.

This type of thinking causes mischief. Reviews are not mere 'opinions'. If they were, they'd be called as such. Reviewers have certain responsibilities they must discharge for their work to qualify as reviews. A 'review' must be objective in evaluating something against fixed criteria, irrespective of the author's personal feelings about the actual genre itself.

The decline in understanding or applying this basic standard has led to the debasing of the word 'review' so that people now feel freely inclined to slap any stupid shit up onto the
net and call themselves reviewers.

They were right to pull this one, as it didn't qualify as a 'review' (it was shockingly badly written as well).

The real travesty is that it's not done more often - with the gazillion 'reviews' which lavish stupid praise on games like Oblivion and Black and White, most of which are so much regurgitated press-release and hype cum-gargling.

 

[suibhne]

A more responsible way to do "game journalism" would be to post multiple reviews from multiple reviewers making their perspectives very plain. With that approach, this review would stand just fine as a complement to one or two others with more...correct viewpoints. :wink:

 

[Bradylama]

That's a lot of overhead, though. Something like that would have to be a pet project of Rupert Murdoch or whoever the publishing moguls are.

 

[Zomg]

I'd rather have a few "star" reviewers that stake out competing terms of criticism, with whom you can build a rapport. The current quality of criticism isn't enough to support that system, though - it's a waste to remember any of these guy's names, and a gross waste to try to figure out the "personality" of any particlar review mill.

 

[Claw]

which was maybe small potatoes given everything going on in the world,

How insightful..

but was definitely a big deal in the tiny microcosm of gaming, and the gaming press.

..maybe not.

 

[EEVIAC]

A more responsible way to do "game journalism" would be to post multiple reviews from multiple reviewers making their perspectives very plain.

ZZAP64 used to have a different viewpoints from different writers in boxouts if I recall correctly. The only place I see it now is on RPGnet, but that just might be because they're not paying the writers. You shouldn't really have to post more than one viewpoint though. A good review should be able to be display critical analysis as well as "hype cum-gargling" as is warranted.

 

[suibhne]

EBGames' rag GameInformer always has a "second opinion" on their big reviews (which is to say, everything except their small capsule reviews). I don't think they make any effort to ensure they're distinct perspectives, but it's still nice to see two totally different reviewers adding different points and even disagreeing with each other.