Game News Time Magazine Rates ToEE in Top Ten Games of 2003

[Amerestatistic]

Even though Hitler had a huge effect on the world, he was still a madman and a racist murderer. Saying he was MoTY is like saying "Hey, kill some jews and we'll reward you for it too!"

Have you read the article? I'm pretty sure the tone is actually rather negative, hardly an endorsement of his actions as Saint has already said.

http://www.time.com/time/poy2000/archive/1938.html

Some people were complaining that they didn't make OSAMA the man of the year of 2001 but nobody's even sure that he was the one who masterminded the attacks, so that'd be really dumb to give him credit for everything.

He would only deserve it if he actually brought an end to American influence over the Muslim world, successfully pushed the American military out of Saudi Arabia etc.That would be major accomplishment, but I don't see it happening. By the way this statement is morally neutral so hopefully no one will think I love blowing up New Yorkers and flame me...

 

[Greenskin13]

Saying he was MoTY is like saying "Hey, kill some jews and we'll reward you for it too!"

It's not like he was given a medal and a cash award. If anything, it brought attention to the crisis in Europe and that Hitler was indeed torturing Jews.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

...In another news, ToEE >>>> NWN. Huzzah! :wink:

 

[Volourn]

Sure. I cna think of a couple of ways that TOEE is better than NWN in. 8)

 

[JanC]

NWN is a way better game than TOEE - much higher quality. Strangely, I enjoy TOEE more. Odd.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

NWN didn't strike me as high quality, especially for the time it was given to develop and the money. The lack of the visual garb is something that shows a lack of quality for a five year project. The cookie cutter campaign wasn't good, either.

However, both games, ToEE and NWN, show that Atari QA isn't up to snuff when it comes to checking the D&D rules.

 

[Spazmo]

NWN is a way better game than TOEE - much higher quality. Strangely, I enjoy TOEE more. Odd.

This is a blatant and ridiculous contradiction. If you have more fun with ToEE, how could NWN possibly be better?

 

[Voss]

Eh. With ToEE it wasn't as much the D&D rules as things just not working. Item creation in particular was so buggy that it looked like no one had ever even tried testing it. Other than that though, I had almost no bugs until I got towards the end of the game, which suggests that the testing was, ah, focused. (Or the now standard memory leak problem, which seems to happen in 90% of games these days)

I don't remember having to many problems with bugs in NWN though. (Though I didn't MP it at all, which might be why). The main problem I had with NWN was finding a reason to keep playing it. It just didn't make me care. Though I think a lot of that was the way the chapters were seperate modules. I was too aware that nothing I did in any given chapter would have any effect on the rest of the game, and there wasn't much in the way of consequences for actions.

 

[Voss]

NWN is a way better game than TOEE - much higher quality. Strangely, I enjoy TOEE more. Odd.

This is a blatant and ridiculous contradiction. If you have more fun with ToEE, how could NWN possibly be better?

It isn't necessarily a contradiction. Something could be techincally better, but still bore you to death.
Take the original Star Wars vs. Episode 1. From a techinical special effects viewpoint, Ep 1 is better. But I can definitely see IV being considered the more fun film.

 

[Vault Dweller]

NWN is a way better game than TOEE - much higher quality.

Can you be more specific? Is it a better game overall or did you refer to some specific quality like the CD reflects light in an unusual manner?

 

[Spazmo]

JanC didn't mention technical aspects or anything. He just said that NWN is a higher quality game than ToEE but he likes ToEE better.

 

[Voss]

Yes.
And I pulled out a random example to show that quality and enjoyment aren't inherently contradictory, which seem to be the main focus of your issue with his statement.

 

[Greenskin13]

When I first saw Jan's avatar, I thought it was a frog with a dunce cap. Now it's just ugly.

 

[Spazmo]

Yes.
And I pulled out a random example to show that quality and enjoyment aren't inherently contradictory, which seem to be the main focus of your issue with his statement.

Well I say that in games, quality and enjoyment are inextricably related since a quality game is enjoyed. If you don't actually have fun when you play your most favourite game, what's the point?

 

[Voss]

:shock:

I thought it was a frog with dunce cap too. I'm rather surprised it's not.

As for quality.
Eh. I don't seem them as linked, really. After all, lots of people enjoy the rogue-likes, but they're hardly quality games by todays standards. And there are quite a few things that are obviously quality, but not much fun. I can appreciate the quality of a really good football team, but I still find the sport as exciting as watching paint dry.

 

[Spazmo]

I think we need to define quality and fun, then. I see both as being highly subjective. To me, quality doesn't depend on fancy graphics or what have you. It depends on whether or not the game is good. If the game is good, I'll have fun playing it. That's quality.

As for your football example, well, it depends on what you're qualifying. The team may be really high quality football players, but they're poor quality entertainment for you.

 

[Voss]

I agree fun is subjective. Quality, however, isn't To be pompous about it, I'd say quality is when the people involved expend effort, art and craft on their subject. (Which kinda negates the football analogy, but oh well).
Theres usually a definite difference between something thats quality, and something thats been pulled out of someone's ass, and even if you have no interest in the subject, you can still tell the difference.

And actually, thinking about the football thing, whats being qualified is exactly the point. Quality is rather irrelevant to the fact that I simply don't find the activity of watching football fun. (activity of watching. Heh. I love irony) Which is why I disconnect them.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I think we need to define quality and fun, then. I see both as being highly subjective. To me, quality doesn't depend on fancy graphics or what have you. It depends on whether or not the game is good. If the game is good, I'll have fun playing it. That's quality.

I think what JanC ment by 'quality' was that NWN, aside our personal disdain, came out somewhat more cleaner than ToEE. Both have glaring bugs, but the difference between both is that NWN, on release, was closer to being a finished product; ToEE on the other hand, made you feel you spent money on a beta version of the game. The other aspect of quality here should come from customer support. Patching NWN was, aside the trademarkish SecuROM thingie, easy. We didn't had any problems. Patches came out on a regular basis. As for ToEE, its a game of point and blame, and what appears to be a sacrifice just to get a patch out, its like a gut-wrenching parade of delays and clueless Q&A (and i'm assuming there was one, at all). In terms of quality, NWN was superior to ToEE, on a technical level and on a support level.

 

[Spazmo]

Maybe, but quality goes beyond the technical and support aspects. If he wanted to say that NWN was less buggy and easier to patch, he could have said so. If you ask me, quality encompasses all qualities of a game.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

But thats the problem, if quality encompasses all qualities of a game, then there is no way we can say one game has more quality than the other, because, unfortunately, some elements are subjective I can say what i like better in ToEE, and i can say what is better in comparison with ToEE, and yet, what i like better, and what is actually better, is different.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Quality is an attribute and could be applied to anything, although when used in general it does encompass all the qualities like Spazmo said, but even if we compare each and individual quality step by step, I don't see anything spectacular about NWN OC. As for the bugs, many people were able to finish ToEE many times without any patch, and it's a fact that many bugs were either actual rules or rules implementations. Imo, it was not any buggier than any other game. Take D2 for example, it was also a complex game with skills and calculations, and it is also a fact that many calculations didn't work as intended, i.e. didn't give bonuses and such. The problem with ToEE was all the whiny idiots at the Atari boards who bitched about things they didn't understand, creating all the multi-pages threads that were reflected later by every reviewer. I had a discussion with several people about Maximize who expected it to work automatically and were really surprised that they were supposed to open some window and assign the feat to spells and then wait a couple of levels till they can actually use them.

But thats the problem, if quality encompasses all qualities of a game, then there is no way we can say one game has more quality than the other

Huh? So I guess I can't say that Fallout is better then ... well, Fallout is better then way too many games, so let me pick another one. How about Diablo and Harbinger? Or SS and DtU?

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

And yet more people play Diablo because they think Diablo has more quality than Fallout

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Quality - adj.: Having a high degree of excellence.

As you can see just by the mere definition of the word, it is not something to be taken for granted when slapping it on a game title. I agree that it is an extremely subjective term and one cannot simply slap it on a game overall without making comparisons to other games of the same ilk. NWN may be a quality title in certain aspects as compared to, oh... let's say, Diablo. But when thrusting it up against TOEE and the like, it's a word not to be used lightly.

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever used that word but once or twice when recommending games or reviewing them. Quality titles just aren't as common today as they used to be. Alot of people will claim it's due to the lack of originality. While that may be true to a point, it's also because programmers and devs just don't seem to be pouring as much love into their games like they used to 'back in the day'.

Don't get me wrong, I know it does still happen. It's just not as common as it used to be. But, I'm just rambling to be rambling. Saw this whole debate over quality and thought I would pitch in my two cents. It's a word that implies to me that the game is to be held above all others in it's genre as how something is to be done. The Fallout series were quality titles in that aspect, but even they had their problems.

NWN was not quality, but came close. If it had had a better OC, then I might consider slapping that word on it. ToEE could have used some better voice acting and a bit more variety in the town quests. Therefore, I cannot slap quality on that title either. But, again, it comes close.

Gah... I'll stop rambling.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

And yet more people play Diablo because they think Diablo has more quality than Fallout

Hence the reason quality is a subjective term. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", so to speak.

 

[Vault Dweller]

And yet more people play Diablo because they think Diablo has more quality than Fallout

No, more people play Diablo and Sims because they prefer the gameplay.

Quality - adj.: Having a high degree of excellence

Precisely. So the only question is did this particular game achieve a high degree of excellence overall or in any particular area? In case of NWN the answer is NOT, of course Unless you count sales and brainwashed followers