Editorial Yet another CRPG genre editorial at GameSpot

[Saint_Proverbius]

Tags: Neverwinter Nights

Yup, there's another <A href="http://www.gamespot.com/features/freeplay/index.html?story=6129978">editorial</a> about how the CRPG genre is kind of going piffle. Here's a little bit on one of my favorite subjects:
<br>
<blockquote>I'm not going to claim that Neverwinter Nights is unpopular or anything--with the burgeoning modding community that surrounds it and its strong performance at retail, it would be silly to do so. As for me, however, I never found NWN to be the second coming that many claimed it would be, especially since BioWare was attempting to follow up on a string of truly stellar Dungeons & Dragons RPGs that it and Black Isle had created, such as Baldur's Gate II, Planescape: Torment, and Icewind Dale II. It had a pretty stunning legacy of gaming goodness behind it, and in the end, the shadows of that legacy were too long for Neverwinter Nights to escape. It committed some nasty sins in the pursuit of easy modification (replacing the insane detail of the 2D backgrounds of the earlier games with 3D models and somewhat generic tilesets) and online multiplayer (which apparently forced the developers to constrict the single-player game so that you could control only a single character at a time). While Neverwinter Nights is obviously a wonderful platform for third-party mods, if you're into that sort of thing, speaking as someone who primarily looks to RPGs as single-player experiences, NWN was a short, disappointing game that always felt more bland and sterile than its predecessors.</blockquote>
<br>
I wonder if he would have said this shortly after <A href="http://nwn.bioware.com">Neverwinter Nights</a> came out. I even wonder if <A href="http://www.gamespot.com">GameSpot</a> would have published it if he did. It's all good and well to point out the game was pretty lackluster years after it's released, but I'd say one problem with the genre is bigger sites tend to over-hype mediocre games because of who the developers are, slap <i>CRPG OF THE YEAR</i> awards all over them, and then years later confess they weren't really that good in the areas that actually matter to many people.
<br>
<br>
Thanks, <b>pegultagol</b>!

 

[HanoverF]

one of us! one of us! gooba gaba, gooba gaba. one of us!

 

[obediah]

My guess is the NWN2 people are planning a big push sometime in the not-so-distant future. Since all the press people were choking on Bioware's seed and shilling their asses off to get Atari mugs, we only had to play the game for 15 minutes to realize what fucking retards they were. So now with NWN milked dry and NWN2 around the corner, it's time to regain our love with their tough criticism of NWN which shows us that they really do like the kind of games we make, and that we can double for secret true trust the press kits they run on NWN.

If you think this or Peter Mollynuts are bad, wait until DP Bradley starts blabbering about DungeonLords II.

 

[Sol Invictus]

There is not going to be any 'big push' for NWN2. Atari doesn't even have a fucking marketing department at the time of this writing. They didn't even show it at the E3.

 

[Jack_Deth]

Well, I do agree with what he's trying to say, looking back.

I remember I bought NWN the first day it came out, and yes played it for a half hour with a friend and we realized it was sucked. I never was much of a fan of the Infinity engine games when they were out, I was banging the Fallout drum back then. Earlier this year though, I installed Baldur's Gate with bgtutu (so I could play BG1 with the BG2 updated Infinity engine) and enjoyed it. I had never played either of the games to much, I finally beat BG1 after something like 6 or 7 years and now am on to Baldur's Gate 2 with Throne of Bhaal expansion.

Also, at least the author of that article gives some merit to Temple of Elemental Evil, it had the best turn-based combat system I've seen yet. Too bad for Troika.

 

[DemonKing]

Also, at least the author of that article gives some merit to Temple of Elemental Evil, it had the best turn-based combat system I've seen yet. Too bad for Troika.

Not *that* much merit...

Unfortunately, it added the sin of turn-based combat to the out-of-vogue 2D graphics, which, when combined with some massive bugginess when it was first released, made it only moderately successful.

Was TOEE 2D? I thought it had more of a 3D look myself, but could be wrong...it's been a while since I played it.

I think the author generally had some good ideas and certainly the TOEE engine - if it had been less buggy and attached to a decently plotted and excecuted game, could have spawned the next IE/gold box series.

 

[Dark Elf]

Was TOEE 2D? I thought it had more of a 3D look myself, but could be wrong...it's been a while since I played it.

Isn't it 2d backgrounds with 3d sprites roaming them?

 

[Crazy Tuvok]

Say wha?:

Gamespooge:"That's a damn shame, too, especially when you consider that the game engine for The Temple of Elemental Evil was, in many ways, even better than the Infinity engine."

Yeah you could say that. In fact ToEE had one of the best combat engines I have ever seen. The fact that you could actually use AoE spells as they were intended - this alone would sell me on it.

Gamespooge:" Unfortunately, it added the sin of turn-based combat to the out-of-vogue 2D graphics, which, when combined with some massive bugginess when it was first released, made it only moderately successful."

Putting aside for a minute the argument about the "sin" of tb, and the fact that ToEE was a pretty good looking game (only a fool would disagree about the bugginess) what the fuck is he talking about? So what did he like about ToEE if not the faithful and downright outstanding tb combat?

 

[callehe]

Holy shit! Gamespot = fucking hypocrites!

GS,2 yrs ago: "OMG, NWN! I think i'm gonna cum in my pants !"

GS now: "NWN is meh. Didn'nt I tell you so?"

 

[corvax]

The underwhelmingly simplified battle system of Jade Empire seems to imply that it's not quite ready to match the 30 years of development that have made the d20 system the most refined role-playing system on the planet.

That's something I never understood about D&D. Granted I've never been a fan in the first place the system itself isn't all that. Simpler action point based systems (Fallout, JA) make much more sense. Hell I'll even take Diablo's combat over BG anyday. D20 seems to be unnecessarily overcomplicating things and then it gets a rep for being teh best and most advanced. What a load of crap.

 

[Crazy Tuvok]

That's something I never understood about D&D. Granted I've never been a fan in the first place the system itself isn't all that. Simpler action point based systems (Fallout, JA) make much more sense. Hell I'll even take Diablo's combat over BG anyday. D20 seems to be unnecessarily overcomplicating things and then it gets a rep for being teh best and most advanced. What a load of crap.

D20 aint bad and the 3.5-3.75 rules are actually pretty good. From a RPG standpoint BG is not a good representative of the DnD ruleset nor is NWN. And D20 is no more or less complicated than say SPECIAL (hell 3.5 I think borrowed a lot from SPECIAL). I like a "complicated" system and the 3.5-3.75 PnP DnD is nice. With a half-smart DM it can make for a durn good experience.

Now, ToEE *is* a good instantiation, at least as far as combat goes.

 

[Spazmo]

d20 is good because it's very scaleable. If you want a more simple game, you just don't use a lot of the more tricky combat rules. If you want a full-on tactical combat game, you implement them. It's a very flexible game and the degree to which you use the rules totally changes the feel of the game.

 

[dipdipdip]

To be fair, this wasn't written by Greg Kasavin, who I believe was responsible for the site's NWN review.

Although, seeing as Greg's favorite game is Fallout (1), I don't see how he can get so gushy over shit like NWN.

 

[Seven]

To be fair, this wasn't written by Greg Kasavin, who I believe was responsible for the site's NWN review.

Although, seeing as Greg's favorite game is Fallout (1), I don't see how he can get so gushy over shit like NWN.

He's the biggest hypocrite at gamespot. Comparatively speaking, he's the guy who'll gush for games attached to big name developers while vehemently criticizing small dev houses for the tinniest of flaws.

 

[corvax]

scalable or not all this d20 number crunching gets in the way of role playing. it diverges my attention from making choices and developing my character to analyzing whether my +2 sword will hit a monster with so and so resitance. but that's just my biased opinion as i'm still in the favor of 'keep it simple stupid'

 

[Sarkile]

Monster resistances are pretty simple at the moment. I mean, a werewolf being weak to silver is pretty much common sense really. Same with fey creatures and cold iron.

 

[Spazmo]

Number crunching? Seriously? d20 is by far one of the simpler systems out there. Roll d20 + appropriate modifiers vs. a DC and if you're above, you succeed. There are MUCH, MUCH worse systems out there in terms of complexity. Given how complicated the situations D&D has to describe get, d20 is remarkably simple.

 

[Crazy Tuvok]

d20 is good because it's very scaleable. If you want a more simple game, you just don't use a lot of the more tricky combat rules. If you want a full-on tactical combat game, you implement them. It's a very flexible game and the degree to which you use the rules totally changes the feel of the game.

Exactly. It is also pretty flexible in terms of what kind of campaign one wants to run. There are plenty of options for interesting non-combat heavy solutions/adventures. The D20 (specifically DnD) is an obvious target for "omigod everything that is wrong with RPGs" but it is a damn good system and altho 2ed was...funky, I really give them credit for 3.5. ('cept the wep specialization which I and I alone prefer in 2 ed).

 

[Spazmo]

What, for the extra 1/2 attack--aaaargh 1/2 attacks were so crap aaargh--? Munchkin!

 

[Crazy Tuvok]

No not that part. I liked that there was a halberd skill, a spear skill, a short sword skill, etc...vs. normal melee, normal ranged, exotic melee etc... Wep focus/specialization helps in this regard, but I still prefer a system wherein just because I can wield a dagger it does *not* mean I can wield a halberd.

 

[Sarvis]

Monster resistances are pretty simple at the moment. I mean, a werewolf being weak to silver is pretty much common sense really. Same with fey creatures and cold iron.

Huh? Silver yeah, but never even heard of cold iron before 3.5E...

Personally I think it's shitty to have to have like 6 different kinds of weapons to fight different creatures. It was fine before, where just magical pluses were needed... a good balance between the two would be to havea certain material OR magical weapons necessary. This way just means when you find a magical broadsword you toss it because you need a magical silver broadsword, a magical cold iron broadsword and half a dozen other weapons.

 

[Sarkile]

Or not. Because anymore the damage resistances of monsters is low enough that you could kill them whether or not you have the appropriate weapon. And it's been a while since I've played D&D, but aren't there plenty of spells that will simulate having a certain attribute on the weapon?

 

[Spazmo]

Or lots of spells that'll just damage things directly anyways. And it's not like you actually have to keep all these different types of weapons around. It's just that if you're going to fight (say) werewolves, you might want to secure a good alchemical silver weapon first. If the DM feels like it, buying and forging the weapon can involve a bit of role playing or even its own adventure.

 

[Sarvis]

Or not. Because anymore the damage resistances of monsters is low enough that you could kill them whether or not you have the appropriate weapon. And it's been a while since I've played D&D, but aren't there plenty of spells that will simulate having a certain attribute on the weapon?

Ok, so if DR is so low that it doesn't matter then there's no point to the system.

Yes there are spells, but it's pretty shitty for mages to have to keep the right spells memorized just so the warriors can do their job. It also makes said mages REQUIRED for a party, unless you are right about DR not mattering.

Not to mention how dex warriors already get screwed against DR, while STR warriors could pretty much always just ignore it.

 

[Sarvis]

Or lots of spells that'll just damage things directly anyways.

Which makes warriors sound SO useful!

And it's not like you actually have to keep all these different types of weapons around. It's just that if you're going to fight (say) werewolves, you might want to secure a good alchemical silver weapon first.

Which is great as long as your DM always makes it perfectly clear what your next set of enemies is going to be.

If the DM feels like it, buying and forging the weapon can involve a bit of role playing or even its own adventure.

Right, because I'm sure the players would never get tired or "Find the Right Weapon So You Can Continue the Story" quests!