Review Neverwinter Nights 2 review at RPG Watch

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: Neverwinter Nights 2; Obsidian Entertainment

I mentioned to Dhruin last week that we are doing a multiple-opinion NWN2 review and guess what I got in my mail today? That's right. <a href=http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/article?articleid=37&ref=0&id=9>RPG Watch multiple-opinion NWN2 review</a>. While you can be assured that we'll be taking legal actions, you might as well read their review while it's still up.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote><b>Corwin gives the game 3/5</b>:
<br>
While the Official Campaign that ships with the game is easily far better than the original one, (which wouldn’t be difficult), I found playing it one frustrating annoyance after another. Yes, design decisions and sloppy execution can ruin what should have been an excellent game.
<br>
...
<br>
In a well-balanced and organised game, the skills of the companions would complement those of the player character, since no PC can master all the important skills. However, the vast majority of the skill choices you make for the NPC’s at level up, are totally wasted, since only the PC seems to be able to use them. Let me offer a simple example: I built up the Diplomacy skill with one NPC and ignored it with my PC who was (in my mind) a very blunt, in-your-face type of person. However, all conversations were only involving my PC, no matter how hard I tried to have this other character do the talking. What a joke! If something needed to be done, only the PC could do it, except in rare circumstances such as the arena fight.
<br>
...
<br>
The game was clearly rushed and therefore, sections are both inconsistent - as if different people did them, but didn’t have time to ‘blend’ it all together properly - or just plain sloppy. In one section, a key (though dead) character has a name change. One poorly implemented section has two guards outside a house guarding someone you are asked to escort to safety. Inside the house there’s about fifty thieves waiting to attack you - how they got past the guards unseen is a mystery. After you despatch all of these, and find your target, he’s in a room with the head thief honcho, who still hasn’t killed him. She needed all those men for one merchant and you still manage to rescue him. It’s just silly.</blockquote>Excellent points.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote><b>Mike "Mr. Anderson" Anderson disagrees</b>:
<br>
There are some clear issues with the game - it is very linear, the party system conflicts with the focus on the main character and cutscene-driven story telling - and the overall performance is not very good. But the combat system is refined from the original game and the party system offers an excellent level of interaction and development - the overall experience includes working with your party and developing your stronghold in addition to the main story and side quests. Your opinion of this game will be strongly influenced by your opinion of the original Neverwinter Nights and also the relative importance you place on single player versus multiplayer campaigns. I loved the original NWN...</blockquote>That explains a lot, even though I still don't understand why his opinion of NWN should affect in any way his opinion of the indirect sequel.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote><b>Brian "I totally bought the propaganda" Turner kinda agrees & disagrees at the same time</b>:
<br>
It's amazing how ideas that look great on paper don't always work in practice. When I first read that Obsidian's campaign would require the unknown player to work to gain favour and win influence with those that counted, it sounded appealing. The reality is the execution didn't quite match the concept and the first 20 hours of NWN 2 are tedious. Fortunately, the slumbering story suddenly awakes with Chapter Two and quickly gathers pace, plus a deeper crafting system and the player Stronghold scenario add some texture and diversity as the game progresses. Sure, you're (once again) chasing a McGuffin to defeat an Ancient Evil but chunks of the story are rooted in politics and human events that are quite interesting, despite the linearity and annoyances such as forced party member changes.</blockquote>Discuss!
<br>
<br>
<br>

 

[Hamster]

Let me offer a simple example: I built up the Diplomacy skill with one NPC and ignored it with my PC who was (in my mind) a very blunt, in-your-face type of person. However, all conversations were only involving my PC,

Excellent points.

Huh? I thought that for making your charachter dumb there should some kind of consequences(like in, you know, choice and consequences). If NPC will be allowed to do everything instead of PC there will be absolutelty no gamepley difference between different builds of charachters and thats not good for an RPG.

 

[xedoc gpr]

If NPC will be allowed to do everything instead of PC there will be absolutelty no gamepley difference between different builds of charachters and thats not good for an RPG.

all conversations were only involving my PC

I think you missed his point.

 

[Hamster]

all conversations were only involving my PC

I think you missed his point.

And i don't think so.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Huh? I thought that for making your charachter dumb there should some kind of consequences(like in, you know, choice and consequences). If NPC will be allowed to do everything instead of PC there will be absolutelty no gamepley difference between different builds of charachters and thats not good for an RPG.

Using this logic, why allow the access to an NPC wizard's spells (directly or indirectly) if your main character isn't a wizard? The main reason to have a party is to have a large pool of different skills and abilities (cleric's healing, thief's lockpicking, wizard's spells, etc). Obviously, that reduces the importance of chosing & developing skills as a party of 3-4 people would plenty of skills and thus be able to specialize (which is why I prefer solo games), but that's the design's strength, not a flaw. Obsidian fucked it up by making many NPCs skills/feats useless.

 

[xedoc gpr]

all conversations were only involving my PC

I think you missed his point.

And i don't think so.

haha ur kewl

He never said anything about NPC's being allowed to do everything. He said that all the conversations were given to the PC, rendering his choice to build up the NPC's diplomacy skill meaningless. Though this may be hard to believe, it is possible for there to be consequences to neglecting the PC's diplomacy skill without actually rendering other choices made useless.

I can't believe I actually had to explain that.

 

[Roqua]

Huh? I thought that for making your charachter dumb there should some kind of consequences(like in, you know, choice and consequences). If NPC will be allowed to do everything instead of PC there will be absolutelty no gamepley difference between different builds of charachters and thats not good for an RPG.

Using this logic, why allow the access to an NPC wizard's spells (directly or indirectly) if your main character isn't a wizard? The main reason to have a party is to have a large pool of different skills and abilities (cleric's healing, thief's lockpicking, wizard's spells, etc). Obviously, that reduces the importance of chosing & developing skills as a party of 3-4 people would plenty of skills and thus be able to specialize (which is why I prefer solo games), but that's the design's strength, not a flaw. Obsidian fucked it up by making many NPCs skills/feats useless.

Using your logic in solo games you wouldn't be able to specialize, which of course you can. Party games will always be superior to solo games in that everything good is multiplied. Chargen x(memebrs of the party), chardev X )memebers of the party), tactical combat x (memebrs of the party) (if the combat is strategic and tactical to begin with), etc. I am right, you are wrong. Party games win.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Using your logic in solo games you wouldn't be able to specialize, which of course you can.

You can do anything. You can put all your points into one combat skill in a solo game, and you can create/develop balanced "jack of all trades" party members. Neither is a particularly good and bright idea though.

Party games will always be superior to solo games in that everything good is multiplied.

Uh, no, they won't be. It's like saying that games with guns are always superior to games with swords because guns pwnage ratio is higher. It's all about design. There are excellent and well designed solo games and there are excellent and well designed party games. Neither mode is superior by default.

 

[Roqua]

LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no party game that would've been better off solo.

There is no solo actual rpg that would've been better off party. You can say FO but that is the only real example you could quote (and maybe AOD, but I haven't played yet). But if FO had party memebers that were controllable, that would have made the game much better (and also would allow for no saving and reloading in combat, which is needed since party memebers like to mow you down). FO 1 would've been much better even if it had the poor party options of 2. Everyone loved dogmeat. Thats a party memeber.

You lie like a dog. A filthy lying dog filled with satan lies.

 

[Ladonna]

I prefer games with a party of characters myself, but its all a matter of design.

A single character game will have to have many more quests depending on how many options you have in designing a character. So instead of having the one quest where a certain party member can use his/her skillset, there will need to be quests that work for different character builds in the single character game.

In any case, I agree that Obsidian screwed up in NWN2 in regards to party based skills being used.

 

[Crichton]

Uh, no, they won't be. It's like saying that games with guns are always superior to games with swords because guns pwnage ratio is higher. It's all about design. There are excellent and well designed solo games and there are excellent and well designed party games. Neither mode is superior by default.

That's true as far as it goes. But only because a single character game allows for a different, more immidiate, level of control (swinging a sword in gothic vs. swinging a sword in arcanum or sneaking in thief vs sneaking in fallout). The problem isn't with single character games, it's with single character games that put you in command of a single character rather than putting you in the role of one. Bossing around 1 unit vs. 6? No contest. Being in command six units always tops being in command of one.

(That's right VD, give AoD multiple manouvre units to allow for tactical combat! Do it while you still can!)

Re: NWN2 dialog skills, I thought the implementation was spot on. There are all kinds of things that other party members can do (fighting, crafting, bickering, betraying you), but your main character is the boss and NPC interaction is his/her balliwick. Like arcanum, there are a few very specific exceptions, but by and large you experience NPCs through the lens of your main character.

 

[Volourn]

"That explains a lot, even though I still don't understand why his opinion of NWN should affect in any way his opinion of the indirect sequel."

Becuase, despite the changes made, the gameplay of NWN2 is very similar to NWN1. And, since the gameplay is very important it does lend itself to one's liking or disliking NWN1 will effect how they perceive NWN2.

P.S. I find whineies who actually believe NWN2's gameplay is different are stupid.

 

[Texas Red]

I think there should be a compromise. *Some* dialogs should be handeld by your companions if they have the skills. But Corwin's complains are just ludicrous! Does he expect *all* of the possible party members to have possible picks in conversations if you increase their dialogs skills?! The dialogs are extensive as they are now and well made. I have no complaints in that area.

Off topic: VD, wont you offend Dhruins by your opening statement?

 

[Ladonna]

Re: NWN2 dialog skills, I thought the implementation was spot on. There are all kinds of things that other party members can do (fighting, crafting, bickering, betraying you), but your main character is the boss and NPC interaction is his/her balliwick. Like arcanum, there are a few very specific exceptions, but by and large you experience NPCs through the lens of your main character.

There is a difference between the NPC making the plans and saying whatever they want, and the PC allowing the NPC with a superior diplomacy or language ability to get the finer points across in a conversation.

Of course it shouldn't be the case in every conversation, but if somebody else has the ability to possibly change the mind of someone the party is engaging in, only an idiot would say 'I am the boss! Shutup and let me handle everything' when the Bard could smooth talk a way around an impasse, or possibly gain an advantage with a silver tongue.

 

[Volourn]

"well made."

Dceently made. Reoetive dialogue, and skill checks that are successful (or fail) that don't lead anywhere are not signs of 'well made'. R00fles!

 

[Roqua]

Corwin's critique was 100% about non-party jabber. Of course, if the party memebers are talking to the protagonist only the protagonist's social skills should impact it.

Actually, that would be a good idea if party members with high social skills could have checks against you, forcing you to do things you'd rather not.

For instance, if the demon thief girl had high persuasion she could force you into the whole squabble with her ex-partner in the way she wants to proceed.

 

[Volourn]

"For instance, if the demon thief girl had high persuasion she could force you into the whole squabble with her ex-partner in the way she wants to proceed."

No. A PC should never be forced to be dominated by dialogue skills from npcs. It's not magic. A PC should always be able to CHOOSE what their character will do. Please don't be silly.

Dilaogue skills are not repalcement for magic. You can't use them to 'convince' someone to do soemthing they don't want to do. Not even with initimdation as it would depend how the PC reacts to intimidation.

The way an npc can convince (or force) a PC into an action is imply through words and either making a worthwhile threat that the PC will feel he has to follow (either from someone who looks real tough) or by persuasive words thata re logical to the PC. However, magically forcing a PC to do soemthing is beyond the scope of dialogue skills except by anal DMs who are stupid, and don't udnerstand hwo they should work.

Just like there should be certain npcs where dialogue skills hould auto fail - the 7 and a half foot ogre is not going to be intimidated by a halfling period under any circumstances, imo. The master mage is not going to be able to be convinced that surrending his special self created spell should be given to the PC for nothing.

The whole point of dialogue skills ar eto be used when the DM is unsure how a NPC would react to a certain situation, and it convincingly and logically go more than one way.

This is soemthing that seems to be lost on the brainless.

Just plain retarded otherwise.


P.S. I do think there are some times where npc dialogue skills should come in handy. ie. Negotiating with the guard at city gates to avoid payment to enter or having a rogue npc use contacts and smooth talking to dela with the 'dark side of the city'.

 

[Roqua]

"For instance, if the demon thief girl had high persuasion she could force you into the whole squabble with her ex-partner in the way she wants to proceed."

No. A PC should never be forced to be dominated by dialogue skills from npcs. It's not magic. A PC should always be able to CHOOSE what their character will do. Please don't be silly.

Dilaogue skills are not repalcement for magic. You can't use them to 'convince' someone to do soemthing they don't want to do. Not even with initimdation as it would depend how the PC reacts to intimidation.

The way an npc can convince (or force) a PC into an action is imply through words and either making a worthwhile threat that the PC will feel he has to follow (either from someone who looks real tough) or by persuasive words thata re logical to the PC. However, magically forcing a PC to do soemthing is beyond the scope of dialogue skills except by anal DMs who are stupid, and don't udnerstand hwo they should work.

Just like there should be certain npcs where dialogue skills hould auto fail - the 7 and a half foot ogre is not going to be intimidated by a halfling period under any circumstances, imo. The master mage is not going to be able to be convinced that surrending his special self created spell should be given to the PC for nothing.

The whole point of dialogue skills ar eto be used when the DM is unsure how a NPC would react to a certain situation, and it convincingly and logically go more than one way.

This is soemthing that seems to be lost on the brainless.

Just plain retarded otherwise.


P.S. I do think there are some times where npc dialogue skills should come in handy. ie. Negotiating with the guard at city gates to avoid payment to enter or having a rogue npc use contacts and smooth talking to dela with the 'dark side of the city'.

No. You also lie. This site is filled with filthy liars. So, when you don't have high enough skill and you have to fight how does that equal choice? Can't get that quest, how does that equal choice? Radscorp beats you in an intellgence test=choice? Npcs forced to go with you=choice? Npcs cutting in during other npc dialgue=choice? Are you saying only protagonists should have free will? Then why have you suppoeted bio and obsid's use of party memebers doing what you don't want as part of the story? If you are grouped with one hell of a persuasive bastard, they are going to persuade you. Thats what they do. I do all numbers of things I don't want because my wife passes her persuasion check. If we want living, breathing worlds, and realistic npcs, having someone talk you into something that you don't want to do is part of it.

 

[Ladonna]

the 7 and a half foot ogre is not going to be intimidated by a halfling period under any circumstances, imo

I could see this happening. If the dummy Ogre suddenly saw a display of power (Say the Halfling threw a lightening bolt and blew a tree to bits) I cannot see a reason why the Ogre couldn't be intimidated. Even being able to persuade the Ogre that you are able to do such a thing should be a possibility.

 

[Volourn]

"Are you saying only protagonists should have free will?"

You obviously didn't read my post. Please rea dit agaian, and come back.

P.S. Dialogue skills as they are in D&D do not exist in RL. Don't be lame.

You simply don't udnerstand how dialogue skills are suypposed to work. They're not menat as replacement for magic or free will - for both PC and nPC.

Did I not give twoe xamples of situations where skill checks should be completely non effective against npcs?

The whole point of persuasion is convincing the person that it's in their best interest.

Trying to convince someone to jump off a cliff is ALWAYS going to fail no matter how high your dialogue skill is.

Period.

 

[Roqua]

I guess you never saw Conan, liarpants. Everything out of your mouth is a lie. Lie lie lie. Lets hear more of your lies.

 

[Volourn]

"I could see this happening. If the dummy Ogre suddenly saw a display of power (Say the Halfling threw a lightening bolt and blew a tree to bits) I cannot see a reason why the Ogre couldn't be intimidated."

But, it wouldn't be a skill check. It would be the ogre reacting to what he saw; not a dialogue skill check.

" Even being able to persuade the Ogre that you are able to do such a thing should be a possibility."

That wouldn't be intimidation though; but persuasion or trickery.


The problem si when people start looking at dialogue skills as a magical mena to get others to do what they want. That's not what they are.

Read the DMG. Dialogue skills are not supposed to be used for every situation. They'r emenat to be used for situations that ther DM feels could go either way.


Again, anothe rexmaple: You can't persuade someone to starve themselves (unless they're already crazy) no matter how high your persuasion skill is. It's ludicrous to think so.

Just like you cna have the lowest persuasion ever, and still be able to convince most shopkeepers to accept your money for payment.

It gets a 'No duh!".

 

[Hamster]

Huh? I thought that for making your charachter dumb there should some kind of consequences(like in, you know, choice and consequences). If NPC will be allowed to do everything instead of PC there will be absolutelty no gamepley difference between different builds of charachters and thats not good for an RPG.

Using this logic, why allow the access to an NPC wizard's spells (directly or indirectly) if your main character isn't a wizard? The main reason to have a party is to have a large pool of different skills and abilities (cleric's healing, thief's lockpicking, wizard's spells, etc). Obviously, that reduces the importance of chosing & developing skills as a party of 3-4 people would plenty of skills and thus be able to specialize (which is why I prefer solo games), but that's the design's strength, not a flaw. Obsidian fucked it up by making many NPCs skills/feats useless.

You have a point there. When having a party with a lots of skills and abilities that certainly adds to the gameplay by allowing devs to put party throught more challenging quests. But i feel that allowing npc's to speak instead of pc is too much. Yes, if you don't have a thief in a party getting constantly killed by traps in a dungeon defenitely don't make gameplay more interesting. As is not having traps at all to allow charachters who are not thieves to pass, not fun also. But if you made a dumb barbarian who is unable to communicate normaly but fights well then i think leaving player with only forcefull solutions is fairly logical, he is a main charachter after all. When all party is generated and there is no main charachter it is another question thoughts...

 

[Texas Red]

"well made."

Dceently made. Reoetive dialogue, and skill checks that are successful (or fail) that don't lead anywhere are not signs of 'well made'. R00fles!

When comparing to the other RPGs it is far better than most. People love to compare NWN 2 OC to BG 2(or at least on the official forums). BG's dialogs just kneel in supplication before NWN 2.

 

[Vault Dweller]

LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no party game that would've been better off solo.

I didn't say that. However, there are plenty of games with fucked up party mechanics. Like NWN2.

Re: NWN2 dialog skills, I thought the implementation was spot on. There are all kinds of things that other party members can do (fighting, crafting, bickering, betraying you), but your main character is the boss and NPC interaction is his/her balliwick.

Why? I'm often asked by friends to negotiate on their behalf because I'm much better at it than they are. It doesn't mean that I'm suddenly in charge of anything. I do my part and then step back. What's wrong with this approach?

Arcanum handled it perfectly in the crash site encounter. You start talking with a guy, then Virgil interrupts and tells you that he can handle it better. Then you can either let him do the talking or do it yourself. Everything was done through you and *your* dialogue window, so you didn't have to select Virgil to let him do the talking.

"That explains a lot, even though I still don't understand why his opinion of NWN should affect in any way his opinion of the indirect sequel."

Becuase, despite the changes made, the gameplay of NWN2 is very similar to NWN1. And, since the gameplay is very important it does lend itself to one's liking or disliking NWN1 will effect how they perceive NWN2.

So what? All IE games have very similar gameplay, yet saying something like "I like IWD because I liked BG2!" would be kinda silly, no?

I think there should be a compromise. *Some* dialogs should be handeld by your companions if they have the skills. But Corwin's complains are just ludicrous! Does he expect *all* of the possible party members to have possible picks in conversations if you increase their dialogs skills?!

Why not? It would have been a better way to spend the voice over/writing resources than on many cutscenses with "*all* of the possible party members".

Off topic: VD, wont you offend Dhruins by your opening statement?

One can only hope. But no, not really.

But i feel that allowing npc's to speak instead of pc is too much. ... But if you made a dumb barbarian who is unable to communicate normaly but fights well then i think leaving player with only forcefull solutions is fairly logical, he is a main charachter after all.

Strong and dumb types are often well aware of their intellectual/conversational shortcomings, and will gladly use/ask/let someone else do the talking, creating a basic symbiotic relationship (your brains, my muscles).

Look at it this way, let's assume that you are a weak, but smart, talkative type. Your kinda dumb, but strong friend asks you to accompany him for whatever reasons. Some guys block your way. Your dumb friend is about to start a fight, because he sees no other way out of this situation, but you do. So, will you interfere and do your best to convince the other people to let your pass, or will you let your dumb friend to start a fight because he's the leader of this "expedition"?