http://pc.ign.com/articles/742/742913p1.html

 

 

Playing Neverwinter Nights 2 is more akin to playing Baldur's Gate II or Planescape: Torment than the original Neverwinter Nights. Fully controllable and equippable party members make a return, which makes a big difference for the single player portion of the game. We'd been told a significant chunk of developmental focus was being given to making NWN2's solo campaign more involved and after playing it for around 20 hours, it's proven to be a more entertaining experience.

 

The game starts off in the town of West Harbor with a brief tutorial sequence centered around winning a town festival. Before long disaster strikes and the main questline is engaged. While the first Neverwinter Nights confined the player to the city of Neverwinter for a significant number of hours at its outset, the sequel gives players the freedom to hop between a number of towns before reaching the city. NWN 2 starts off after the events of the first game with the city rebuilt and refashioned since the plague. Even after reaching the city, you won't be confined within for very long. A few of the missions, depending on which questline you choose to follow, are set outside Neverwinter's walls in outlying areas. It helps keep things from getting stagnant by introducing new characters, questlines, and environments.

Any review that compares NWN2 to dead games is dead to me.

 

 

LONG LIVE NWN SERIES!

Any review that compares NWN2 to dead games is dead to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If Mozart is dead, it doesn't mean his music is.

LONG LIVE NWN SERIES!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Someone tell Volourn that a raving fanboi got into his account

Well, NWN 1 is dead now. HAHAHAHA!

 

The King is dead, long live the King sort of thing.

P.S. More seriously, the review was alright. Liked most of what I read except the bad stuff I already knew about (like forced companions). The game seems to be completely railroaded as far as linearity goes thus far. That's not cool and even worse than the original OC.

 

P.S. NWN1 isn't dead.... yet! It will be on life support officially possibly soon though.. It's still relevant - BG and PST are NOT!

Awesome info.

NWN1 will be dead soon, if not already. Pull the plug, pound the nail, and get the burning raft ready.

First impressions on Gamespy

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/neverwinter-nights-ii/742925p1.html

First impressions on Gamespy

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/neverwinter-nights-ii/742925p1.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Looks like they didn't get the final version either (that or they didn't bother / weren't able to patch)

Why? Because they had bugs? You *do* realize that the game will have bugs, right?

Why? Because they had bugs? You *do* realize that the game will have bugs, right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you actually read the article?

 

Seriously, did you read it?

 

Atari released a "Day One" patch earlier today that will hopefully remedy some of these small annoyances.

So either they didn't bother to patch or they couldn't.

 

Are you going to make me hold your hand like this every time an article is posted?

Edited November 1, 200619 yr by Pop

Forced companions ?

 

yuck.

"Did you actually read the article?

 

Seriously, did you read it?"

 

Patch or no patch, the game will still have bugs. That was my point. Do I need to hold your hand through post reading or what?

But any discussion of bugs is irrelevant until the game is patched. So far we haven't heard exactly what this patch does, so we have to assume it's going to fix some if not most of the bugs present that people are complaining about. We can gripe about bugs when nobody's working on them, and the fixes aren't possibly within reach.

"But any discussion of bugs is irrelevant until the game is patched."

 

Wrong. They should be reviewing the game as on CD. The patch is extra. And, not everyone cna patch the game ie. no internet.

 

Period.

People who play the original hard-copy version of the game when patches are widely available have no right to bitch about that which they could fix if they actually tried.

 

I'm not shedding any tears over anybody who has a rig capable of running the game but incapable of internet access. CD burners are common. Get a disc with the patch from a friend. Go to the goddamn library. Thank God such people aren't able to come here and moan about their plight.

Actually, we have heard what the patch fixes. The patch notes are available on NWVault.

Actually, we have heard what the patch fixes. The patch notes are available on NWVault.

Next three monthly patches...

 

Hey Lucasarts! Are you taking notes?!?

For evaluation purposes, I would hold a game to the state it's in out-of-the-box. Otherwise we're just condoning developers to be lax and release quasi-buggy titles under the future justification that every thing will be patched.

Releasing quasi buggy titles has been the status quo for as long as I can remember. Once in a while you get a polished bug free product, once in a long while.

Edited November 1, 200619 yr by Gorgon

That is true quite often, but whether that's attributed to the devs or the paper pushing publishers varies from case to case.

I mostly agree that it's the content in the box that should be reviewed. However, when a patch is out on release-day I definitely think that should be taken into consideration. I also think that it's any reviewers responsibility to disclose if it's a pre-release build that is being reviewed since a lot can change between those going out and the gold candidate being finished.

For evaluation purposes, I would hold a game to the state it's in out-of-the-box.  Otherwise we're just condoning developers to be lax and release quasi-buggy titles under the future justification that every thing will be patched.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IThat doesn't make a lot of sense. It's not like developers test their games solely for reviewers. Developers' interests in making non-buggy games extends beyond reviews. A developer that says "let's go half-assed on this and fix it later" is a pretty ****ty developer. Wouldn't we also have to recognize the constraints that a developer is put under that might hinder a game's performance? I don't see any problems with reviewing patched titles, just so long as you indicate that the title's been patched. It's the version most people should be playing, anyway. Reviewing an old version is reviewing a game few people will play.

I can agree with that pop. That said, reviews done early (ie. on release day) should be reviewing the released game. Of cours,e it alate coming reviewer shoudl review what's available at that time.