Review SoU lubbed by UGO

[Saint_Proverbius]

Tags: Neverwinter Nights: Shadows of Undrentide

<a href="http://www.ugo.com/">UGO</a> has posted a <A href="http://www.ugo.com/channels/games/features/neverwinternights_shadowsofundrentide/">teeny little review</a> of <A href="http://nwn.bioware.com/shadows">Shadows of Undrentide</a>. In fact, I think the advertisement on that page is nearly as large as the text content itself. Here's a chunk of it anyway:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>In spite of the fact that this expansion or, more appropriately, module, has added some extra content, it really does not change the play of the game appreciably. It is more like buying the latest Star Wars or Star Trek novel in which the setting, characters and plot lines don't change all that much. There are many player-created modules that give the same level of entertainment for a lot less out of the pocketbook. The greatest gift it offers to Neverwinter Nights fans are the new tilesets, creatures and other enhancements that will further expand the Aurora module creation engine. This will give the module community just that much more to work with, and there will most likely be a surge in new and better modules to add to the thousands that already exist. Playing modules made with Shadows will require the expansion, so from this standpoint, players who just can't get enough of the D&D world must include this expansion on their must-buy list. For those just looking for an additional adventure or two beyond the original, try a few of the excellent player-generated modules before investing in Shadows. You won't be disappointed. </blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Keep in mind, the above reviewer thinks it was <a href="http://www.interplay.com/bgate">Baldur's Gate</a> that rejuvenated the CRPG genre.
<br>
<br>
Spotted this at <A href="Http://www.bluesnews.com">Blue's News</a>.

 

[Jed]

The greatest gift it offers to Neverwinter Nights fans are the new tilesets, creatures and other enhancements that will further expand the Aurora module creation engine. This will give the module community just that much more to work with, and there will most likely be a surge in new and better modules to add to the thousands that already exist. Playing modules made with Shadows will require the expansion, so from this standpoint, players who just can't get enough of the D&D world must include this expansion on their must-buy list. For those just looking for an additional adventure or two beyond the original, try a few of the excellent player-generated modules before investing in Shadows. You won't be disappointed.

Laziest.company.EVAR!!!!!11

 

[Volourn]

Yeah. It seems that most comments that arenegative abou SOU actually use the fact that NWN has player made modules to attack the exapnsion. Very few have writetn negatives about anything other than graghics, and that there are free mods downloadable. LOL That has nothing to do with BIO being lazy.

 

[Jed]

Yeah. It seems that most comments that arenegative abou SOU actually use the fact that NWN has player made modules to attack the exapnsion. Very few have writetn negatives about anything other than graghics, and that there are free mods downloadable. LOL That has nothing to do with BIO being lazy.

I disagree: If they're not going to put the energy into making modules worthy of a professional dev team (i.e., some 21-year old kid can out-do them singlehandedly), then they should be upfront about that and release expansion packs comprised entirely of just tilesets, creatures, etc.(and sell them for a more reasonable price), rather than spending that time & resources (allegedly) making mediocre modules (and selling at a jacked-up price).

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Yeah, I remember a thread on the Bio boards where Dave Gaider was whining about the entire SoU campaign taking 8 whole man-months combined from the team, and people expecting more was like asking for his firstborn. I wanted to get him a tissue.

 

[Volourn]

HAHA! over pirced? HAHA! I wonder how many people would acually pay for the mods on the net? Probably not much, I'd wager. As for it being not worth it; but that's for the individual to decdie; and it seems that most of the reviewers - even the ones complaining - seem to think it's worth it.

I think what's funny; if there was no toolset, and no player made modules; people wouldn't be so stuck on that; and the decent reviews would be suer praising yet. Seriously, this expansion is B IO's best expansion to date. And, their second longest length wise 9only TOB beats it there since it was pseudo squel, anyways).

Walks, as far as Gader's 'whining' goes; you could call it that; but if you do rmemeber to point out every single other develop who 'whines" that way including BIS, Troika, Blizzard, and on, and on.

I don't know. Sometimes, I think everyone on this board has actually developed a game. Though; I'd be pretty surprsied if they do.

 

[Sharpei_Diem]

Keep in mind, the above reviewer thinks it was <a href="http://www.interplay.com/bgate">Baldur's Gate</a> that rejuvenated the CRPG genre.

So what rejuvenated the CRPG genre then?

 

[Volourn]

SP will probably say FO. 8)

 

[Psilon]

I think it's a combination of Fallout and Daggerfall myself. Unfortunately, most subsequent titles have lacked the nonlinearity of both. Personally, I think Bethesda could do far worse than a differently-located Daggerfall remake for Elder Scrolls IV.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Keep in mind, the above reviewer thinks it was <a href="http://www.interplay.com/bgate">Baldur's Gate</a> that rejuvenated the CRPG genre.

So what rejuvenated the CRPG genre then?

Fallout and Diablo

 

[Sharpei_Diem]

Dicey

I'd agree with you all that FO was a much better CRPG. But I don't think it rejuvenated the genre. The engine was ugly, combat(particularly when faced with lots of opponents) was horrible.

BG on the other hand presented the first update of classic (A)D&D rules since EotB. The engine was nicely presented(even though it did have its share of faults) and was easy to use. It made the game and the genre more accessible and presentable. It's a pity the developers were a lot short on the "Role" aspect...but I can't fault them for their efforts at revitilizing D&D with modern technology...

[edit]

Now Diablo I think is closer to the mark....well short of "Role" too, but heavy on atmosphere (loved the guitar) and nicely presented...

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Dicey

Now Diablo I think is closer to the mark....well short of "Role" too, but heavy on atmosphere (loved the guitar) and nicely presented...

Diablo=Action Game to me, the only way I see it "rejuvinated" anything was by drawing a bunch of spastic 10 year olds to the RPG arcronym.

BG on the other hand presented the first update of classic (A)D&D rules since EotB. The engine was nicely presented(even though it did have its share of faults) and was easy to use. It made the game and the genre more accessible and presentable. It's a pity the developers were a lot short on the "Role" aspect...but I can't fault them for their efforts at revitilizing D&D with modern technology...

Do you know how wrong that is? I find it funny you think it's an 'update', too, considering the ruleset of the game was done in a way that it resembled someone who skimmed over the Player's Handbook in Barnes and Noble once and then tried to make an explination of the game. And I dont see how it made the genre "more accessible and presentable" by including a half-assed class based system when Fallout allowed non-linear charater development while not just giving a non-linear storyline.

I'd agree with you all that FO was a much better CRPG. But I don't think it rejuvenated the genre. The engine was ugly, combat(particularly when faced with lots of opponents) was horrible.


I'm sorry you found the turn based combat 'boring' (I guess ACTUALLY THINKING and PLANNING and WAITING arnt your major points), I guess it's hard for some people to actually play a game that doesnt involve pretty flashing lights and brainless "click-spacebar-click" combat.

 

[Araanor]

Re: Dicey

I'd agree with you all that FO was a much better CRPG. But I don't think it rejuvenated the genre. The engine was ugly, combat(particularly when faced with lots of opponents) was horrible.

Ugly? Certainly not in 1997. Turn up combat speed in options it bothers you.

 

[Psilon]

Please note that 640x480 was the standard resolution for quite a while. The previous year's mega-RPG, Daggerfall, was even in 320x200.

 

[Anonymous]

hwo barbaeric u canot seee teh pppl n tehir kewl glowieng weponz MUS PALY MOROWINED DAGERFAL=SI STUPAD omgomgomgomgomgomg

 

[Sharpei_Diem]

Re: Dicey

Do you know how wrong that is? I find it funny you think it's an 'update', too, considering the ruleset of the game was done in a way that it resembled someone who skimmed over the Player's Handbook in Barnes and Noble once and then tried to make an explination of the game. And I dont see how it made the genre "more accessible and presentable" by including a half-assed class based system when Fallout allowed non-linear charater development while not just giving a non-linear storyline.

I don't know how wrong that is. Please give me examples to support your statement. Perhaps I overlooked something. I thought BG was alot closer to AD&D rules than the SSI gold boxes and EotB.

It made the genre more accessible and presentable by packaging AD&D in an interface and an engine that was easy to use and easy to understand. The inclusion of a full manual that explained many of the concepts certainly helped people new to the genre...

I'm sorry you found the turn based combat 'boring' (I guess ACTUALLY THINKING and PLANNING and WAITING arnt your major points), I guess it's hard for some people to actually play a game that doesnt involve pretty flashing lights and brainless "click-spacebar-click" combat.

You don't know me, so please don't presume that you do. I actually grew up on turn-based wargames and rpgs. Currently my favorite genre is strategy games(trailed slightly by rpgs). Back to the point, though. Planning and thinking? You could transcribe War and Peace waiting for your turn during some of the more complex fights in FO: Rat 1 moves. Rat 2 moves. Rat 3 moves. Rat x^n moves. Player moves: wounds rat 18. Round 2. Rat 1 moves....Rat 2 moves....(etc). I do like turn based combat - though RT has some advantages, in my experience things move too fast to be enjoyable. There are good ways to do turn based combat (Wizard's Crown comes to mind), I just don't think FO did it well (conversely, IMO, Arcanum did RT poorly). So if I don't particularly like RT, why do i like BG? Because it was one of the first to do it, use AD&D rules, and make it successful. FO though was following a decade of turn-based combat engines.The engine WAS ugly and cumbersome. By ugly I don't mean in aesthetics really, so maybe I should have chosen a better word, but really just in the way the player used it.

Diablo=Action Game to me, the only way I see it "rejuvinated" anything was by drawing a bunch of spastic 10 year olds to the RPG arcronym.

Yes. But games cost money. If a couple of developers can go out there and show publishers that there is money to be made, perhaps they'll invest in the genre and then maybe we'll get the deep CRPG of our dreams. Also, I hope that people play games like diablo and then go to sites like this to learn more of the genre. Hopefully they read something that captivates their interest and then go out and get something a little deeper.

Please note that 640x480 was the standard resolution for quite a while. The previous year's mega-RPG, Daggerfall, was even in 320x200.

Good point...

 

[Sharpei_Diem]

Re: Dicey

Turn up combat speed in options it bothers you.

Y'know, I did do that....but something didn't work quite right (like there was no middle ground - either too fast or too slow). It's been a long time, so I can't quite remember exacly it was...

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Dicey

I don't know how wrong that is. Please give me examples to support your statement. Perhaps I overlooked something. I thought BG was alot closer to AD&D rules than the SSI gold boxes and EotB.

The Gold Boxes used First Edition, AD&D is second.

It made the genre more accessible and presentable by packaging AD&D in an interface and an engine that was easy to use and easy to understand. The inclusion of a full manual that explained many of the concepts certainly helped people new to the genre...

Dumbing down=teh winn

So if I don't particularly like RT, why do i like BG? Because it was one of the first to do it, use AD&D rules, and make it successful.

The funny thing being, AD&D isnt a Real Time game.. one thing BioWare and such dropped to make the game appeal to a bunch of idiots.

Yes. But games cost money. If a couple of developers can go out there and show publishers that there is money to be made, perhaps they'll invest in the genre and then maybe we'll get the deep CRPG of our dreams.

I doubt anyone that jumps in the CRPG genre just because Diablo made alot of money is really going to give us anything really worthwhile..

Edit:I mistype and make the contradictory comments, m'lord.

 

[Sharpei_Diem]

Re: Dicey

I don't know how wrong that is. Please give me examples to support your statement. Perhaps I overlooked something. I thought BG was alot closer to AD&D rules than the SSI gold boxes and EotB.

The Gold Boxes used First Edition, AD&D is second.

and your point is?

Dumbing down=teh winn

Yes, you've established that you can sp33k l33t. Or at least pretend you do. How did BG dumb down AD&D versus the other incarnations of AD&D? Do you think EotB or gold box series was truer to the rules?

I doubt anyone that jumps in the CRPG genre just because Diablo made alot of money is really going to give us anything really worthwhile..

I looked this up quickly, from Bioware's site:

In total Baldur’s Gate I, Baldur’s Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast, Baldur’s Gate II: Shadows of Amn, and Baldur’s Gate II: Throne of Bhaal have sold over 4.5 million units world-wide with sales continuing

I tried looking up diablo/2, but Blizzard is a bit tighter with it's info(it's around somewhere, if someone knows, please mention it)....needless to say it's in the millions as well.

What that means though is that if someone has an idea for a game, there is a precedence for vast success in the genre and they have an angle of approach. Does it mean that a game will get developed? No. But trust me, the strategy wargame genre would give it's left nut for a game or two that could give the genre such exposure: to show that there is a viable market for the product to justify the cost of development.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Please note that 640x480 was the standard resolution for quite a while. The previous year's mega-RPG, Daggerfall, was even in 320x200.

When BG was released, it was 640x480 as well.

 

[Jed]

Please note that 640x480 was the standard resolution for quite a while. The previous year's mega-RPG, Daggerfall, was even in 320x200.

When BG was released, it was 640x480 as well.

And if I recall correctly, all of the IE games were officially 640x480; 800x600 and up was not "officially" supported.

 

[DrattedTin]

Diablo 2 alone sold over 8 million units. Yes, that's right. DOUBLE the entire BG franchise combined.

 

[Psilon]

BG2 was 800x600 by default. Higher resolutions were not officially supported. I suspect IWD2 is the same way.

I recall reading that Diablo II sold over a million units in the first two days, possibly excluding pre-orders.

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

hey

All blizzards games sell like hot cakes.

 

[Volourn]

No one touches Diablo in terms of sales unless it's the Sims. :twisted: