Volourn said:
Movement (in idnividual areas and overland maps), inventory management, controls, interface control (now how it looks; but how easy it can be manipulated as that effects gameplay), and other less important stuff.
These are extras, assuming that it wasn't fucked up completely, it doesn't affect the gameplay much. Take KOTOR for example, inventory was a mess, controls and interface were so-so, but for me it's not really important. If inventory and controls were absolutely perfect, I'd not give it a higher score. So, back to ToEE, the gameplay revolves around TB combat. That's it. Nothing else. Good: great combat engine, nice selection of feats and skills, good 3E implementation. Bad: Too easy and bugs. The score 10 for Good minus 1 for Bad minus 1 for bugs (they are not game stopping) = solid 8, imo.
For the record, as far as gameplay goes; I'd rate all of the games you did an 8, or 9 as they are all ahve their strnegths and weakness. Though not mentioned; KOTOR game play would be rated much less than those games with ease so it's not like I agree with the reviewer on his actual score; but once again game play is more than just turn abse combat = 10.
TB combat doesn't automatically guarantee 10 as there were games that sucked design-wise like POR2. ToEE on the other hand got it right. As for the games and your rating, I;d say that for gameplay NWN gets 5 (you heard all the reasons before, and we are talking about the OC only), BG2 gets 10 as an adventure game or 7 as an RPG (too linear, being forced to do stuff all the time, the combat alone is too weak, imo), IWD gets 7, and KOTOR gets 8. That sounds about right, if you want me to be more specific just ask
Edit: I thought about it some more, and I'd give KOTOR 7 (minus 1 for bugs), and IWD 8, and I'd like to note that it's very hard to compare apples to oranges, and it's good that the Codex doesn't use ratings.