Review Just admit it guys, Storm of Zehir sucks

[DarkUnderlord]

Tags: Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir

GameSpot have <a href="http://au.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/neverwinternights2stormofzehir/review.html">chimed in with their review of Storm of Zehir</a>, it's already been mentioned in our forums but here it is again for good measure:
<br>
<blockquote>Storm of Zehir tries to be the square peg in Neverwinter Nights 2's round hole, with predictably lackluster results.
<br>
<br>
* Interface doesn't work well with this style of RPG
<br>
* Flat story loaded with mostly dull quests
<br>
* The overland map needs some serious tweaking
<br>
* Mostly brutal voice acting.
<br>
<br>
Storm of Zehir feels different from the very beginning. The story is extremely stripped down, especially in comparison with the cataclysmic original Neverwinter Nights 2 showdown against the King of Shadows and the epic first expansion, Mask of the Betrayer. Here, you play as a pedestrian low-level hero not looking to save the world but to escort a trade mission on a ship heading from the overexposed Sword Coast to the never-before-seen jungles of Samarach. The game takes this concept so far that you can even sell goods between towns and set up trade routes to make a few bucks as actual merchants. The plot won’t necessarily grab you throughout its 20 hours or so of play, and the first few hours seem to have plenty of RPG clichés--you’ll lose all your gear early on in the game, for instance.</blockquote>
<br>
<a href="http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Review-Neverwinter-Nights-2-Storm-of-Zehir-13718.html">Cinemablend have also chimed in with their two bits</a>, saying it'd have been better off as a proper sequel rather than just an expansion pack:
<br>
<blockquote>"But it's only an expansion pack," you might say in Zehir's defense. True, it's only a $30 expansion pack and for the price tag it adds a decent amount of content. Still, the concept for the game is too big for an expansion pack. The developers expended so much effort to make sure these new features work that the bread and butter of the series - the epic storylines, the long journeys through dark dungeons, the thrilling quests - were neglected. The new and old features aren't antithetical but there just wasn't enough time to fit both into this expansion pack. Zehir presents an interesting new direction for the series but I wish innovation didn't come at the expense of the features that attracted fans to NWN2 in the first place. Hopefully Obsidian will take their time with Neverwinter Nights 3 and will be able to give enough attention to the new and old strengths of the series.</blockquote>
<br>
I'll be sure to bring you the positive reviews just as soon as I find some.
<br>
<br>
Thanks <b>The Vanished One</b> and <b>Kthan75</b>!

 

[dagorkan]

What level should you expect to end up at? I pretty much hate D&D from level 10 upward, so the low level start was one of the positives (and why I haven't played MotB).

 

[Ogg]

the concept for the game is too big for an expansion pack

True.

 

[yes plz]

I can't say I completely disagree with them.

 

[x4nti]

The developers expended so much effort to make sure these new features work that the bread and butter of the series - the epic storylines, the long journeys through dark dungeons, the thrilling quests - were neglected.

I thought everyone knew that these features would be cut to make way for new things...

 

[Silellak]

I'll be sure to bring you the positive reviews just as soon as I find some.

The Gamespot review is irrelevant drivel. I'm not saying that because I disagree, but because it's poorly written, badly researched, and its clear the writer didn't play the game more than a couple of hours.

Of course, you are clearly familiar with badly researching crap before posting. Here, let me do a bit of research for you.

Positive review from IGN (8.2) : http://pc.ign.com/articles/934/934642p1.html

Fans of D&D and single-player role-playing games should definitely check out Storm of Zehir. Yes, there's a shortage of single-player D&D games in this age of MMOs that we live in, but Obsidian has still crafted an involving and engaging adventure. It's also nice to see the company take risks, presenting new forms of gameplay and evolving its series even further. With its emphasis on party, this feels like an homage to the old school D&D games of the past.

It's also a poorly written review, but obviously you aren't looking too hard if you can't find any positive reviews. Sure, you posted this one earlier , but based on your "I'll bring you the positive reviews" crap, you'd sure think it wasn't a positive review.

Another positive review from 1UP (B+1) : http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3171538&p=1

Dungeons & Dragons, at its heart, asks this question. Run properly, it's always been about what you, the player, wants -- not what the game designers want. I've always equated D&D with freedom. And I continued to think about this as I played Storm of Zehir, the most recent expansion for Neverwinter Nights 2 -- how, for the first time in years, a developer's really captured that sense of freedom.

All this just going to Metacritic!

And now, with the power of Google and searching for "Storm of Zehir reviews":

Thieves' Guild (No score, but positive impressions): http://www.thieves-guild.net/index.php?pid=277

Obsidian has simply done an outstanding job with the Overland Map, revamped crafting system, improved AI and the new death and resting systems. Everything fits together seamlessly and runs with virtually no problems. If you are looking for a game that features more open ended exploration, with challenging combat then Storm of Zehir is definitely the game for you.

However, if you are looking for some depth to the interactions with your companions, you might want to think twice. In my opinion, the interactions with the cohorts are sadly lacking and the game suffers for that. Admittedly I wasn't able to finish the game so perhaps things get better later on but my initial impression of the cohort interactions was not favorable.

Some of the changes do require a little getting used to. Once you get over that hurdle, this is definitely a lot fun to play.

Wow, finding those positive reviews sure was hard. I'm tired from all this difficult internet research.

Christ, I've been bitching today about the lack of quality in the mainstream gaming media, but apparently the Codex isn't all that better off.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Of course, you are clearly familiar with badly researching crap before posting. Here, let me do a bit of research for you.

Positive review from IGN (8.2) : http://pc.ign.com/articles/934/934642p1.html

Already posted as news. Note the sarcasm with which I posted it ("I just hate tiny font" ->> Link to Fallout 1 screenshot).

It's also a poorly written review, but obviously you aren't looking too hard if you can't find any positive reviews.

Another positive review from 1UP (B+1) : http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3171538&p=1

Already posted as news. Note the sarcasm with which I posted it ("Notepad" anyone?).

And now, with the power of Google and searching for "Storm of Zehir reviews":

Thieves' Guild (No score, but positive impressions): http://www.thieves-guild.net/index.php?pid=277

Yeah, I didn't bother posting the preview. So sue me.

Wow, finding those positive reviews sure was hard. I'm tired from all this difficult internet research.

Maybe you should do some more Codex research first? It's less tiring because we have this neat little "More info on" option that takes you to all news posts we've made about a game.

... but you know, if you find any that haven't been posted on the Codex already, be sure to give me a hoi. Apparently I have to be more specific though and when I say bring positive reviews I mean, stuff we haven't already posted. I thought that might've been a little obvious but apparently you have to spell things out around here now in big black and white letters for the less literate. And next time, make a saving throw vs understand sarcasm. In short: It was a joke, dipshit. "Gosh, two more mainly negative SoZ reviews".

 

[Silellak]

Yeah, I didn't bother posting the preview. So sue me.

It's a review, not a preview. Does it need a score to be a review?

Wow, finding those positive reviews sure was hard. I'm tired from all this difficult internet research.

I corrected myself on the IGN thing, but yeah, you got me on the 1-UP thing. For some reason, after reading your quote:

I'll be sure to bring you the positive reviews just as soon as I find some.

I sort of assumed you'd missed the three obviously-positive reviews I mentioned. After all, it sounds like you're saying you haven't found any. You didn't say "I'll bring MORE positive reviews", you said "I'll bring THE positive reviews."

I should have realized it was just you posting your usual bit of sarcastic flame bait at the end of news in order to attract the idiots into responding and--oh shit.

Well, I'm already here, guess I should keep playing and dig my hole a bit deeper.

In short: It was a joke, dipshit. "Gosh, two more mainly negative SoZ reviews".

"More"? Where were the first ones? These are the only negative reviews I'd seen. I'd hesitate to even call the 3.5/5 review a negative one, much less a "mainly negative" one. Lukewarm, maybe. Not in love with the game, but not"mainly negative", either.

So really, only the terrible written/researched Gamespot review qualifies as a negative. I guess the complete lack of intelligent humor in or logical basis to your joke caused me to miss the obvious. Next time I'll try and remember that the things you say, even sarcastically, don't necessarily correspond with any facet of reality.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

It's a review, not a preview. Does it need a score to be a review?

No, it needs to be the release version with an expectation they can play the game in full. From that preview:

The folks at Atari and Obsidian were kind enough to provide us with an early copy of their new NWN2 expansion: Storm of Zehir.

Admittedly I wasn't able to finish the game so perhaps things get better later on but my initial impression of the cohort interactions was not favorable.

It was also sold as a preview on RPGWatch I think. I didn't bother posting it because... I don't bother posting some things. It's sad, but true.

For some reason, after reading your quote:

I'll be sure to bring you the positive reviews just as soon as I find some.

I sort of assumed you'd missed the three obviously-positive reviews I mentioned.

Actually my point was more that the reviews for SoZ haven't been all that positive and I was, in my own witty way which so often riles up the locals, pointing this out. Most of the reviews have complained about some pretty key elements and all (all 3 of them that is) pretty much had the same "it kinda sucks but it's fun" tone (IE: "lacklustre"). Certainly not the "OMG ITS GAEM OF THE YEER" crappola you usually get.

After all, it sounds like you're saying you haven't found any.

Not any that have really raved about it, no. These two certainly aren't positive and the 1UP and IGN earlier have their own problems (EG: "poorly written" like you mentioned).

You didn't say "I'll bring MORE positive reviews", you said "I'll bring THE positive reviews."

Yeah, see the other thread for arguments on semantics. Focus on tone and the intent of what was said. It'll get you really far in life. Otherwise you really will believe your girlfriend / wife when she says she's "fine".

I should have realized it was just you posting your usual bit of sarcastic flame bait at the end of news in order to attract the idiots into responding and--oh shit.

I'll just ignore the rest because I'm a nice guy like that.

 

[Rhalle]

Both reviews are on-point.

The Blend Games review is quite good, and Obsidian should take the last line of it and turn it into a poster and hang it on the wall of their offices.

NWN3 needs the production value and scope of the first game; the depth of the main story of MotB; the attention to thematic detail and bright spots of old-school cleverness and fun of SoZ.

And a new engine.

 

[Silellak]

Otherwise you really will believe your girlfriend / wife when she says she's "fine".

That's bullshit, man. My wife said she was fine every day we were together, and she meant it, up until the day she lef--

...oh.

I think I'm just mostly upset because this thread will give Volourn another platform to spew his "I played SoZ until level 9 and it sucks" crap from.

NWN3 needs the production value and scope of the first game; the depth of the main story of MotB; the attention to thematic detail and bright spots of old-school cleverness and fun of SoZ.

I'm enjoying SoZ quite a bit so far, but I agree 100%. If Obsidian could pull this off, we'd have an instant classic.

As much as I've enjoyed aspects of the NWN2 trilogy, I certainly hope this all turns out to be Obsidian's "warm-up" for their NWN3 grand-finale.

Both reviews are on-point.

This, however, I take issue with. At the risk of repeating myself, here's what I said in the previous thread:

Christ, this one is horrible:

Obsidian Entertainment attempts to turn back the clock with Storm of Zehir, a Neverwinter Nights 2 expansion that tries hard to emulate the seminal single-player role-playing game Baldur's Gate.

What BG features were they trying to emulate the most - the free-travel overland map, the trading system, the "create-your-own-party" feature, or the narrative-driven aspect?

Rather than playing as a solo hero chosen for some great destiny, you roll up a party of four average joes just like you did way back when in D&D classics like the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale franchises.

Yeah, I remember when I rolled up Imoen and Minsc in BG1. Wait, what?

I have no problem with people disliking SoZ. It's certainly not for everyone. I enjoy it because it reminds me a lot of Pirates! combined with D&D in some weird way that shouldn't really work but, for some reason, does.

However, it does not excuse crappy reviews by lazy writers. Some of their criticisms are correct, but the review is so poorly researched I almost wonder if that's by accident. At least they mentioned the weak storyline and the nifty dialogue system, which IGN couldn't even bother to do. However, they still bitch about being constantly under attack by random encounters:

Unless you have a party leader like a ranger who has serious points dedicated to skills like hide, move silently, and survival, you can't help but stumble into one pack of monsters after another every time that you hit the overland map to head to a new quest.

So maybe you should have a party leader who is good at travelling through the wilderness like, I don't know - A RANGER?

I get the feeling that, in some ways, the random encounters are to SoZ as the soul meter was to MotB: a roleplaying feature used to add choice and consequence to a game that ends up being universally panned by the mainstream media cuz WAAAH, it makes the big bad game harder. If you play smart, it's not really a problem, if you don't, then it quickly becomes tedious and annoying and will probably kill you.

Mainstream sites should be stripped of their right to review RPG's.

Also, for the record, Anthony Davis chimed in:

People like what they like.

The only problem I have with the Gamespot review is it looks like he cobbled it together from forum posts.

There are a lot more than 3 trade goods.

The final battle is anti-climatic? Even people who don't like the game agree that the final battle is pretty epic - certianly on DnD rules. Also, it doesn't end till you retire - there is no drop to the desktop.

My inside source at Gamespot said that this guy is a freelancer and he doubts he played the game for more than 2 hours, which apparently is typical of freelance reviews.

Anyway, we knew SoZ would not be for everybody, we just didn't expect it to be so polarizing.

 

[Volourn]

K. DU. You got me, and twisted my arm. SOZ is shit.

 

[youhomofo]

Take all the worst aspects of an RPG, combine them with the mind-numbing repetition of Diablo, and you've got something akin to SoZ.

 

[Rhalle]

This, however, I take issue with. At the risk of repeating myself, here's what I said in the previous thread

Well, the BG1 business you mention is right.

But I can't say I see anything else the GS reviewer says that's incorrect, though. His tone may not be the most pleasant, but one would have a very hard time calling him a fanboy-- an accusation I'm not sure any reviewer who has given the game high marks could escape totally.

About the Ranger: the game itself never says you pretty much have to put one in your party. It seems to me that the GS reviewer is speaking to the experience of a player who doesn't know they'd better have one. And I think what he's getting at is right: it doesn't smack of good game design if you can make any party you want but you'd better have a ranger/rogue in it or your overland experience or it will be a nightmarish slog of endless random encounters.

And when he mentions the three trade goods that Anthony Davis takes issue with, he is clearly just listing the most common ones.

Moreover, the reviewer is correct in criticizing the basic mechanic of: run to city 1 and press a few buttons; run to city 2, press a few buttons and profit. The implementation is nice, but it is rather rudimentary. As for the ad hominem stuff, well...

But, yeah, again: if there is a NWN3, it has the potential to acheive real greatness if it can bring together in harmony the best qualities of each installment.

The mistake would be abandoning the little things SoZ does well in order to return to a NWN OC sort of experience, or, making effectively what was another SoZ-- but one that plays even more to the new features so as to exclude totally what made the first two games good.

Obsidian has all the pieces, now; they just need to use their Listen and Spot skills before they can craft it.

 

[Volourn]

You don't need a Ranger to succeed in the game. That's a myth. It just allows you to avoid boring fights but you get punished by earning less xp (not more) presumably (if what people say is true) making battles harder for you later on. That's piss poor logic.

 

[Rhalle]

No, you don't have to have one. If you enjoy endless aggro on the OM, and think wave after wave of random mob fighting (and loading screens, of course) is fun, then by all means don't include one.

Think about a new player, or someone who didn't get the message that you probably need a party member with high Spot, Listen, Search and who can't get anywhere because they are constantly being gangbanged.

Doesn't sound like much fun. In fact, it sounds like "OMG these things won't leave me alone this game SUCKS" to me. I'm just glad I read the forums before playing.

 

[Volourn]

"Think about a new player, or someone who didn't get the message that you probably need a party member with high Spot, Listen, Search and who can't get anywhere because they are constantly being gangbanged.

Doesn't sound like much fun. In fact, it sounds like "OMG these things won't leave me alone this game SUCKS" to me. I'm just glad I read the forums before playing."

L0L I knew about it, and I didn't go that route and thoguht that. because, i never in my wildest imagination that encounters would actually spam like they do.

There was a screenshot on the Obsidian forums from someone that had their party right in the middle of about a dozen encounters. L0L

That's plainly ridiculous.

http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?ac ... st&id=8507

 

[Silellak]

About the Ranger: the game itself never says you pretty much have to put one in your party. It seems to me that the GS reviewer is speaking to the experience of a player who doesn't know they'd better have one. And I think what he's getting at is right: it doesn't smack of good game design if you can make any party you want but you'd better have a ranger/rogue in it or your overland experience or it will be a nightmarish slog of endless random encounters.

I guess I just fundamentally disagree. The game DOES inform you, when you first get to the Overland Map, how things certain Skills work on the map. Sure, you already have a party at this point, but there's an NPC ranger you can recruit in the first city, or you can just create and add a new NPC.

Granted, it doesn't say "DO THIS OR YOUR LIFE WILL SUCK", but I'd hope people could figure it out. Personally I love it - it lets Rangers and, to a lesser extent, Rogues, play the job as a "guide". Someone who knows how to travel places and survive. Really, few if any other games have done this very well.

Fallout had Outdoorsman, but that was just a rudimentary chance to decrease (or in FO2, potentially avoid) random encounters, but you couldn't see them from a certain distance away, use your stealth skill to avoid them entirely, etc. The large number of hostile encounters directly contributes to making the Ranger class ACT like a Ranger class, rather than just a dual-wielding druid or an archer.

Think about a new player, or someone who didn't get the message that you probably need a party member with high Spot, Listen, Search and who can't get anywhere because they are constantly being gangbanged.

You can go back in the journal and go over any tutorial you may've missed. I don't recall getting ambushed between the boat and the first city, but maybe I was just lucky.

I don't see anything wrong with requiring a party to have a Ranger or a Rogue in order to make life significantly easier, especially since most classes should have at least a Rogue-hybrid anyway. It's no different than requiring a Rogue because you have a lot of traps/locked doors, or needing a cleric or druid to heal, a magic-user to create enchanted equipment, etc.

People just aren't used to it because, normally, Rangers are just a special type of warrior, rather than an incredibly helpful class used to quickly navigate unknown territory.

I compared it earlier to the Spirit Eater mechanic of MotB. Don't get me wrong, I think the Spirit Eater mechanic is far better in a number of ways, but I think people - especially in mainstream reviews - have a tendency to panic at anything new and different that might make their lives harder. Especially as games these days go more and more down the path of dumbification.

 

[Volourn]

"It's no different than requiring a Rogue because you have a lot of traps/locked doors,"

Don't need one.

" or needing a cleric or druid to heal"

useful; but with all the heal potions and kits; not needed.

", a magic-user to create enchanted equipment, etc. '

Clerics can do this as well unless you are including them in the 'magic user' grouping which they do fit. But,s till not needed, since you get lots of ph@t lewt, anyways.

 

[AlanC9]

Well you might need a range or rogue to enjoy the game. It seems to be the only way to skip annoying encounters and maintain ame balance

 

[Rhalle]

Personally I love it - it lets Rangers and, to a lesser extent, Rogues, play the job as a "guide". Someone who knows how to travel places and survive. Really, few if any other games have done this very well.

Let me sound self-contradictory: I like it for those reasons, too. The ranger I made is not my main (who is a cleric). I basically ended up liking my elf ranger best and played her as the de facto party leader.

In one way it's really neat; in another it sort of seems to work against the notion of creating a party of whoever you want if you pretty much need to have to have a member specced intentionally to be a party Overland guide.

 

[AlanC9]

I don't see anything wrong with requiring a party to have a Ranger or a Rogue in order to make life significantly easier, especially since most classes should have at least a Rogue-hybrid anyway. It's no different than requiring a Rogue because you have a lot of traps/locked doors, or needing a cleric or druid to heal, a magic-user to create enchanted equipment, etc..

The problem is it's the wrong kind of easy. You don't want to avoid the random encounters because they're dangerous; you want to avoid them because they're dull.

But yeah, requiring D&D parties to cover all roles is very traditional. Whether this is good design or not is debatable. (Anyone remember that idiotic trap in Co8's version of ToEE level 4?)

And honestly, there are a lot of different leaders that can beat the REs. Rangers, rogues, monks, and bards can all stealth.

The thing that bugs me is that there's no XP award for bypassing random encounters through stealth. Shouldn't there be? It's an obstacle that you're overcoming with your character's abilities.

 

[Shannow]

Storm of Zehir feels different from the very beginning. The story is extremely stripped down, especially in comparison with the cataclysmic original Neverwinter Nights 2 showdown against the King of Shadows and the epic first expansion, Mask of the Betrayer. Here, you play as a pedestrian low-level hero not looking to save the world but to escort a trade mission on a ship heading from the overexposed Sword Coast to the never-before-seen jungles of Samarach. The game takes this concept so far that you can even sell goods between towns and set up trade routes to make a few bucks as actual merchants.

He makes that sound as if it were a bad thing. (And as if he didn't play more that 5 hours.)

And sheek, you'll be around level 17-19 in the end if you were intelligent enough to make a human ranger/rogue with high int and able learner you party leader and did all of the side quests. And I agree, D&D is shit, but it gets worse on level 10+ .

 

[Mr. Teatime]

I'd much rather they just abandoned trying to make D&D work on a PC. It hasn't, as far as I'm aware - all it appears to be doing is genuinely obstructing the game (MoTB as a prime example).

 

[Micmu]

Now that I finally finished it, I can judge it objectively.

I agree with volly. It sucks and I was a fool to rate it "Ok" beforehand.
Whoever came up with the idea of incessantly throwing pointless combat into players face needs to be lined up against wall and shot. Twice.
what the hell were they thinking?? Some kind of debug switch accidentally left enabled? Deliberate?? Just what the hell were they thinking??