[PC] 1UP Withdraws NWN2 Review

Quarter to Three Discussion.

Basically, reviewer Matt Peckham gave Neverwinter Nights 2 a 5 out of 10, not because it has poor storytelling, no roleplaying, bad combat, or any other elements that could be bad about the game (I honestly don't know), but because it's a D&D game, that emulates the P&P ruleset.

Originally Posted by review

*Note* these are excerpts that were posted on the RPG Codex *Note*

As a contemporary CRPG, on the other hand, NWN2 leaves a lot to be de-sired, and that's too bad, because these are the guys who brought us Planescape: Torment and Icewind Dale 2 therefore they are the guys I'm least inclined to take issue with.

But issues exist, and defining them is really no more complex than saying, "Hello D&D superchrome, buh-bye storytelling and character development (you know, those things you're supposed to "immerse" yourself in)." The idea seems to be that we're meant to rah-rah about a superabundance of feats, spells, races, prestige (advanced) classes, and math-equation tickers full of the usual "I attack you with a +4 sword of --" booooooring. Fine, sure, dandy&but when is a "role" not a "role"? Simple: when it's a rule to a fault.

Worse -- and blame this on games like Oblivion -- NWN2's levels feel pint-sized: Peewee zones inhabited by pull-string NPCs with no existence to speak of beyond their little playpens. Wander and you'll wonder why the forests, towns, and dungeons are like movie lots with lay-about monsters wait-ing patiently for you to trip their arbitrary triggers. As if the pencil and paper "module" approach were a virtue that computers -- by now demonstrably capable of simulating entire worlds with considerably more depth -- should emulate.

In all fairness, it's not entirely developer Obsidian's fault. D&D certainly puts the "rule" in role-playing, and a madcap base of D&D aficionados is no doubt ready to string me up for suggesting that faithful is here tantamount to folly (to these people, I say: "Go for it, NWN2's all you've ever wanted and more"). Call me crazy -- I guess I'm just finally weary of being led around on a pencil-and-paper leash and batting numbers around a glorified three-dimensional spreadsheet in a computer translation that should have synthesized, not forklifted.

Nothing says awesome like getting somebody to review a game in a genre they hate.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

How can you possibly give NWN2 a good review.

Don't know, haven't really played it, but you'll note that isn't the point of this thread.

I mean, I hate D&D myself, but you don't go criticising a car because it isn't a motorcycle.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

If games get the same scores they aren't being reviewed objectively, they're being reviewed lazily.

Reviewers have to write keeping in mind that their audience is going to be interested in the game they review in the first place. Bearing that, they have to consider the game based on its own merits and what it set out to do. They also have to keep in mind the people who wouldn't be a fan of the gameplay if it appeals to a niche.

That said, this is an awful review. He criticizes elements of the game for being precisely what it wants to be, a Dungeons & Dragons toolset, claims that P&P emulation is obsolete (despite claiming to love Planescape and IWD2), and balks at the design of the game because it isn't like Oblivion.

The addendum shouldn't have been "for fans of D&D" it should've been "for readers who hate D&D."

I hate D&D. I have very little interest in the game outside of Obsidian's involvement, but if I was asked to review the game, I wouldn't criticize it for trying to faithfully re-create the D&D ruleset. Instead I'd probably say that it's impossible to have a truly faithful recreation without turn-based combat.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

Well, the game can be an accurate translation of D&D and still not perform well as a PC RPG, which is what I think Aardark was going for,

I know full well what Aardark was going for, and I tried to demonstrate why Peckham failed to come across that way. He focuses on the failings of the game because of the D&D ruleset without explaining why it's a poor roleplaying game.

Nevermind either that Icewind Dale 2 wasn't a good roleplaying game. It was real-time w/ pause tactics. Which doesn't make any sense because there's nothing about real time combat that's tactical. So he's already lost credibility with the people that actually played IWD2.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

There's no defense for that kind of sloppy writing. He tries to make himself above criticism by throwing a bone to D&D fans after patting them on the head for their cute little rule system.

That review was anything but informative.

I was speaking idiomatically.

No. It's far from impossible that NWN2 is a terrible game. The review was pulled because it wasn't professional, and according to the editor-in-chief, didn't live up to 1up's editorial standards. Which is hilarious because it means that the review shouldn't have been published in the first place.

It's not as if reviewers haven't pissed off a fandom before. Look at the review for Dark Messiah of Might & Magic and tell me that isn't professional, despite the low score given for a very hyped game. This is just the first time when dissenters have had very relevant points.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?