Preview PC Gamer reveals first NWN 2 details

[Azarkon]

I wonder what the creators of FOBOS are up to now? I bet it's something awesome too.

I think a distinction should be made here between elitists who like Fallout and who like PS:T/FO2. The former elitists may very well hate BIS for what they did with the original FO, while the latter may very well love BIS for exactly the same reason - and for PS:T, that goes without saying. The two groups also tend to disagree on why Bioware's games aren't up to par. The former supposedly hates Bio because Bio games pretend to be RPGs but are really linear adventure games. The latter hates Bio because Bio's stories and themes are too cliche and aren't up to par with the likes of PS:T. Very different elitism going on here, with very different conclusions.

Bloodlines > KOTOR 2. 'nuff said

True. OTOH, Bloodlines bankrupted Troika, while KOTOR 2 was a success. So while Troika is the more ambitious company with better designed (but more buggy) games, Obsidian is the more realistic provider of future commercial CRPGs.

 

[Sammael]

I wish I could say that I enjoyed Bloodlines more than I enjoyed KotOR2. Unfortunately, that was not the case. Horrible engine and a shitload of bugs made the Bloodlines so unplayable for me that I couldn't wait to get it over with. KotOR2's ending could have been much better; For Bloodlines, this goes to the entire last third of the game (beginning with Chinatown), which devolved into mindless bloodfest.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I think a distinction should be made here between elitists who like Fallout and who like PS:T/FO2. The former elitists may very well hate BIS for what they did with the original FO, while the latter may very well love BIS for exactly the same reason - and for PS:T, that goes without saying.

Agree. My comment was in reply to "All Fallout fans should love Obsidian folks who made FO2".

True. OTOH, Bloodlines bankrupted Troika, while KOTOR 2 was a success.

A Stars Wars game is a win by default, a vampire game isn't. Both games were buggy, rushed, incomplete, but Bloodlines overall was a better game.

So while Troika is the more ambitious company with better designed (but more buggy) games, Obsidian is the more realistic provier of future commercial CRPGs.

Disagree on the buggy comment. Fallout 2 was very buggy (disappearing trunk is a good example), IWD2 was buggy (fucked up rules, no armor drops, etc), KOTOR 2 was very buggy AND extremely unbalanced (useless lightsaber styles, ranged, etc).

 

[Kraszu]

A Stars Wars game is a win by default, a vampire game isn't. Both games were buggy, rushed, incomplete, but Bloodlines overall was a better game.

I liked bloodlines but in the number of bugs you can't compere it to kotor II (liked it to) i didn't have any problems whit that game. Bloodlines have bug that makes in unable to finish whithout some work whit console, and engine was so slow that walking on the street was pain. -hl2 was much faster on my pc.

 

[Avin]

I wish I could say that I enjoyed Bloodlines more than I enjoyed KotOR2. Unfortunately, that was not the case. Horrible engine and a shitload of bugs made the Bloodlines so unplayable for me that I couldn't wait to get it over with. KotOR2's ending could have been much better; For Bloodlines, this goes to the entire last third of the game (beginning with Chinatown), which devolved into mindless bloodfest.

the final fight was insane. i used a meta gaming strategy to beat it

*spoiler*

hide far away and shoot while the creature attacked the guards, it never comes to fight the one who really killed it.

 

[Greatatlantic]

Seriously, expecting any game to outperform a Star Wars lisence is being unrealistic. I definitely fall into the Bloodlines>KotOR2 camp, though I thought KotOR2 was a lot better than the original.

However, Obsidian only has one game to judge them buy. And one with a pretty abbreviated development cycle, as at least MCA has testified to. So the prospects are much better. Will it be another Fallout? Probably not. Will it be a Fallout 2 quality game? Maybe. Will it be a PC exclusive RPG of some enjoyment? Almost certainly.

 

[Azarkon]

A Stars Wars game is a win by default, a vampire game isn't. Both games were buggy, rushed, incomplete, but Bloodlines overall was a better game.

Absolutely. But just by picking SW and NWN, Obsidian demonstrates superior business savvy to Troika. That's why they're a better *business*, though perhaps not as ambitious a game company (but then who knows what they'll do when they start doing their own IPs?)

Disagree on the buggy comment. Fallout 2 was very buggy (disappearing trunk is a good example), IWD2 was buggy (fucked up rules, no armor drops, etc), KOTOR 2 was very buggy AND extremely unbalanced (useless lightsaber styles, ranged, etc).

I did not play Fallout 2. I did play IWD2, and finished the game just fine. I played ToEE, and had a buttload of problems, including the game crashing multiple times, memory leaks, and numerous very noticeable graphical glitches, to the point where I simply gave up on the game. I played KOTOR 2, and while the game was extremely rushed, I did manage to finish it. I played Bloodlines, and between the sheer, horrid loading times and the intense slow downs (ie the intro in-game cutscene was simply a MESS on my system, which ran Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 without a problem), I likewise could not finish the game.

As such, from my experience, Obsidian games > Troika games in terms of how playable the game is. It may indeed be true that Obsidian games still retain a huge number of bugs; but they aren't as game-breaking, I'd argue, as Troika bugs tend to be. I mean, sure, if you sum up all the rule-based bugs and imbalances of Obsidian's games, they might very well match up to Troika's. But those bugs do not prevent me from enjoying the game. Troika's bugs, however, do.

 

[Whipporowill]

But just by picking SW and NWN, Obsidian demonstrates superior business savvy to Troika.

Eh, to be perfectly honest - I'm not sure Obs picked these titles, rather than they where approached by certain publishers and asked if they were interested. Being friendly with Bio probably helped them, as Bio wanted to move on and probably put in a good word for them.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Absolutely. But just by picking SW and NWN, Obsidian demonstrates superior business savvy to Troika. That's why they're a better *business*, though perhaps not as ambitious a game company (but then who knows what they'll do when they start doing their own IPs?)

They didn't pick anything, they got Bio hand-me-downs. You do remember that both NWN and KOTOR were Bio games, don't you? Similarly, Bio is a better business for sticking with Microsoft and focusing on Xbox games. Fuck better business, I want better games.

As such, from my experience, Obsidian games > Troika games in terms of how playable the game is.

Fair enough

 

[Volourn]

"Similarly, Bio is a better business for sticking with Microsoft and focusing on Xbox games."

So focused on the x-box that they're making Dragon Age, a PC RPG exlusive.

As for 'better' games, BIo's x-box games are much better than 99% of slop that is passed off as RPGs in PC Land.

As for BL, I liked the game. However, sadly, there were certain thinsg that stopped from being an eliter member of the RPG club. Shitty combat, horrible bugs, and horrid end game (and not just 5 minutes, a good chunk of it0.

KOTOR2 is slightly better mainly because it's much more stable.

In other words, all this shit talk here is nothing more than the Codex Stalkers being themselves.

R00fles!

 

[Vault Dweller]

"Similarly, Bio is a better business for sticking with Microsoft and focusing on Xbox games."

So focused on the x-box that they're making Dragon Age, a PC RPG exlusive.

I said focused not working exclusively. Anyway, 2/3 are Xbox projects. The last game was for Xbox, game before that was for Xbox and PC. Yeah, I think "focused" describes the situation accurately.

As for 'better' games, BIo's x-box games are much better than 99% of slop that is passed off as RPGs in PC Land.

Wouldn't argue with that.

In other words, all this shit talk here is nothing more than the Codex Stalkers being themselves.

Will you finally enlighten us?

 

[Volourn]

To accurately use the word 'focused' you would need a bigger example than just 2-3 games. The sample size is way too small to make that derertination.

Afterall, BIO has made NWN, SOU, HOTU, KOTOR, and JE. 4 out 5 games are PC, 2 out of 5are console. Seems to me they are very much PC focused. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

And, their two announced games are ME, and DA. One PC, one console. 50-50 split. Seems to me they aren't truly focusing on either.

Serioisly, people, don't make shit up if it's just gonna be the green kind. Brown kind is much tastier.


"Wouldn't argue with that."

Ahh.. Smarter than the average Codex Stalker.


"Will you finally enlighten us?"

No.



Morons.

 

[Azarkon]

They didn't pick anything, they got Bio hand-me-downs. You do remember that both NWN and KOTOR were Bio games, don't you? Similarly, Bio is a better business for sticking with Microsoft and focusing on Xbox games.

Well, they could've said 'no' and did their own IP, which would've probably been suicide though might've been preferred by some people here. Troika was unlikely to have been offered the same choice, though I'm sure that if they *chose* to do a mass consumer product, they could've found some popular choice as well or waited for such a choice before leaving Interplay.

But it is ultimately true that business is often about the right time and the right connections. Obsidian had the right timing and they have the connections. Troika didn't. Hence, one is a "better" business than the other.

Fuck better business, I want better games.

Of course. But company survival depends on business skills even moreso than the quality of the games. Interplay produced some great games in its time, but I think we all remember what Herve did to the company that caused its essential demise (even if it's still technically alive). I'd personally rather see Obsidian make a few good, popular games at first and succeed than make one great, but innovative game and flop. Of course, that only works up to a certain point. If Obs starts producing crappy action RPGs all the time, I won't be supporting them, either.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Let's ignore Dragon Age. It's real time. It can't be an RPG.

 

[Shagnak]

 

[Greatatlantic]

Hmmm... Correct me if I'm wrong (which has happened at least once), but wasn't this a discussion about good we can expect NWN2 to be? And where the heck does a company's "business sense" enter that equation. Obviously making sequels to financially successful games is good for sales. But creating an original IP can have huge pay offs as well. Look at Deus Ex, Diablo, or Half Life. Heck, the original Fallout sold pretty well for its time, and the right to make Fallout 3 just sold for about a million bucks. To say Troika went bankrupt proves they were a bad company is baloney. Sure they made some bad decisions, but bad desicions are made every day at highly successful companies as well. And considering how fast the industry moves, Troika didn't do too badly. 3 games, 7 years, and not having massive debt upon closure-- better than Interplay looks right now.

To get back on point, the fact Obsidian is making sequels really shouldn't stop them from making exceptional games. I saw a lot in the Sith Lords that I saw as attempts to improve the gameplay, stuff that I don't think Bioware would ever have dreamed of implementing. One would hope the trend continues with NWN2, and this time they don't make the such big blunders (like rediculosly easy combat).

To say that Obsidian should be just like Bioware until they get their feet off the grounds is nuts. Amoung other things, Bioware got off their feet with an original title, and then turned to producing RPG-lite mass market titles-- Dragon Age excluded. Don't expect me to say, "Ah, Bioware is making good business sense- therefore I should like their games." No, I'm going to judge their games on their own merits, and not give a hoot about what comes out on consoles.

 

[Drakron]

Hmmm... Correct me if I'm wrong (which has happened at least once), but wasn't this a discussion about good we can expect NWN2 to be? And where the heck does a company's "business sense" enter that equation.

Well you can look at KotOR2, their "business sense" end up making then do nothing more that a graphic update to KotOR, everything else fall flat on their face.

Its easy to shoot to the moon but unless they dont at least get into orbit its a complete failure, Fable shown that.

That why I dont understand why people are setting thenselves up for a disapointment ... fact is with today hype driven market that is all about "we will rrevolutionize the gender" as the final result is yet another clone of whatever was done 2 years ago with nicer looking graphics we cannot help but being sceptical of any statement.

For example.

Everyone likes to complain about "FedEx" and "go kill X" but really what else is there?

Deep down quests end up being hearing, getting, deliver or kill something, there is nothing wrong with such quests besides they are so obvious, the lack of any depth to then is what makes the boring.

Yet NwN2 is already claiming they will get away with that ... oh right and intead we have quests about what?

Its a hype statement, in the end NwN2 quests will all be the ones I stated above ... the only diference is implementation.

 

[Twinfalls]

... fact is with today hype driven market that is all about "we will rrevolutionize the gender"

Couldn't let THAT slip by....

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

True. OTOH, Bloodlines bankrupted Troika, while KOTOR 2 was a success. So while Troika is the more ambitious company with better designed (but more buggy) games, Obsidian is the more realistic provider of future commercial CRPGs.

I'm not sure what you mean by OTOH. I'm guessing you mean, "I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'm pulling the next statement that follows out of my ass."

What bankrupted Troika was the fact that many publishers out there don't want to publish the kind of games Troika made. Troika couldn't get a new contract before Bloodlines came out, nor one afterwards. For the money Troika wanted to make a game, publishers wanted to see millions of units sold. All of Troika's games sold pretty well, all made a profit. However, they didn't sell several million units. Several publishers turned them down because they thought Troika's games were too intellectually difficult for the casual gamer audience needed to sell millions upon millions of units. They were even told things like, "Four character statistics is too complex for most gamers." as a reason why they couldn't pursue a new IP.

 

[Azarkon]

But creating an original IP can have huge pay offs as well.

The keyword there is *can*. KOTOR 2 was a sure hit because of the Star Wars license. So is NWN 2 because of the D&D license. An original IP *can* have a huge pay off or it can also flop.

To say Troika went bankrupt proves they were a bad company is baloney.

So you're saying it's just the natural life cycle of companies? That's true baloney, considering how many companies in the industry today began back in the 90's. Troika's demise is a direct reflection of their business reputation. Here's what Leon (one of the founders of Troika) had to say about Troika's demise:

"Leon: It became apparent in January when the last of our possible deals that we’d been pursuing fell through. When we started looking six or so months ago, there was a lot of initial interest but our projects could never seem to get past the marketing department."

Note the mention of the marketing department. It's of vital importance that a developer's game can be considered highly marketable (ie capable of huge returns) in order to garner funding from publishers, and the way you ensure this is by attaching yourself to a sure-fire brand name. Of course, Troika's problem wasn't only that; their games being relatively costly and bad reputation for the publisher (due to bugs) also had alot to do with it.

Don't expect me to say, "Ah, Bioware is making good business sense- therefore I should like their games." No, I'm going to judge their games on their own merits, and not give a hoot about what comes out on consoles.

That's not what I'm saying. A game should always be judged for what it is. A company's decision of whether to produce sequels or IPs at the beginning, however, should not be taken as solely an indicator of said company's lack of ambition or courage. Oftentimes, it's good business and lays a good foundation for future endeavors. Besides, though KOTOR 2 very much seemed like a Bio-hand-me-down, NWN 2 appears to be coming into its own, and perhaps will come to challenge even Bio's Dragon Age.

 

[Azarkon]

I'm not sure what you mean by OTOH. I'm guessing you mean, "I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'm pulling the next statement that follows out of my ass."

It's an acronym for on the other hand.

What bankrupted Troika was the fact that many publishers out there don't want to publish the kind of games Troika made. Troika couldn't get a new contract before Bloodlines came out, nor one afterwards. For the money Troika wanted to make a game, publishers wanted to see millions of units sold. All of Troika's games sold pretty well, all made a profit. However, they didn't sell several million units. Several publishers turned them down because they thought Troika's games were too intellectually difficult for the casual gamer audience needed to sell millions upon millions of units. They were even told things like, "Four character statistics is too complex for most gamers." as a reason why they couldn't pursue a new IP.

Sure, if you want to get into the specifics of it. But my point was that Bloodlines followed a long chain of Troika games that did not reflect business savvy, and was the one that finally nailed the coffin shut, so to speak. If Bloodlines had sold spectacularly within its first few monthes, Troika might've found a publisher. It didn't and therefore Troika closed its doors. Bloodlines is the reflection of a very specific business practice (high costs + slow sellers) which led to Troika's demise. KOTOR 2 is the reflection of a rather different business practice (low costs + fast sellers) and led to Obsidian's success. That's the distinction I wanted to setup between the two games beyond their strengths/weaknesses as games.

 

[jiujitsu]

PC Gamer get's them taken down.

Hi, this is Norman Chan, over at PC Gamer Magazine. We request that you immediately remove the links to illegally scanned images of our publication, located on your website here (http://www.nwn2news.net/modules/news/ar ... toryid=391), or we will be forced to take legal action. Thank you for your cooperation.
Norman Chan
PC Gamer Magazine
www.pcgamer.com
norman@pcgamer.com

 

[kris]

PC Gamer get's them taken down.

to late, we already seen them. Now he have to sue us if we don't erase our memory.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Let's ignore Dragon Age. It's real time. It can't be an RPG.

Who said anything about ignoring? I'm interested in DA, but the fact is that Bio is paying more attention to the console market than to the PC one. Not that I can blame them.

To accurately use the word 'focused' you would need a bigger example than just 2-3 games. The sample size is way too small to make that derertination.

True, yet "games in development" factor gives us an accurate idea of where the company is going at the moment, while a bigger picture in this case maybe misleading. Take a look at Bethesda, at some point they were making PC only games, then they tried both with MW, and now Oblivion clearly shows that they are trying to please the console crowd more then the PC crowd.

Morons.

We love you too, Volly

But it is ultimately true that business is often about the right time and the right connections. Obsidian had the right timing and they have the connections. Troika didn't. Hence, one is a "better" business than the other.

Better business is the one that produces games that sell, not the one with better connections. KOTOR 2's sales are not an indicator of Obsidian's business qualities (a SW game that's a sequel to a popular game). At this point Obsidian is a subdivision of Bio, not that there is anything wrong with that. Black Isle always did well with Bio engines, but stumbled on its own. Let's see what they can do with the unannounced project.

Of course. But company survival depends on business skills even moreso than the quality of the games. Interplay produced some great games in its time, but I think we all remember what Herve did to the company that caused its essential demise

We all know that Herve was interested only in channeling the money, not actually running the company, so that argument is pointless.

I'd personally rather see Obsidian make a few good, popular games at first and succeed than make one great, but innovative game and flop.

That all depends on the definition of "good and popular".

 

[Volourn]

"They were even told things like, "Four character statistics is too complex for most gamers." as a reason why they couldn't pursue a new IP."

Absolutely bullshit. I'd like to see actual proof, and not just retarded Codex Stalker hearsay on this.

It's funny that people accuse BIO of 'dumbing down' RPGs then come up with crap like where somehow 4 character statistics' is too complex for most games crap.

I think the obvious reason why Troika couldn't find another publisher is that they expected to be given millions of dollars towards making games that wouldn't seell enough to warrant such a budget. Not to forget Troika and their fanboys' habit of blaming the publisher for everything bad about their games while giving Troika all the credit for the good stuff. Stop making asanine exuses for Troika not succeeding. They failed; but they weren't very convincing. This is a company who used FO1 to get their start, and they still didn't do it right.

Morons.