NWN2 influences: what to take and what to leave

[exodiark]

 

Sorry, my fault, heroism is too broad.

Obsidian deconstructed Disney hero tropes in the OC (which are invoked in lots of classic RPGs or Tolkien-esque works), because those trope should not exist and because heroism and heroic acts have their heavy price.

All idealistic heroes in OC simply met their tragic (or mundane) end, or became cynical and broken.

This is subversion, not deconstruction.

 

Here's an example: Spec Ops The Line. Love it or hate it (personally I adored it) you can't deny that the game was trying to say "Call of Duty sucks, and this is why."

 

The game you're talking about is one that says "Baldur's Gate sucked, and this is why." You could make a damned good game about that, but NWN2 is not that game, nor is it trying to be. Mask of the Betrayer is almost "Forgotten Realms sucks, and this is why" but it never quite goes that far with critiquing the problems behind the setting's design.

 

???

I don't get it, you said it yourself:

"Deconstruction isn't taking tropes and inverting, subverting, or averting them. Deconstructing a trope is when you use the work to make an argument that the trope shouldn't exist"

 

Obsidian believed that Disney heroes shouldn't exist, so they destroyed all idealistic heroes in the game :|

All those heroes ends up being miserable because things they did and they didn't get their happy endings.

Sounds like deconstruction to me, according to your definition.

 

EDIT:

From TvTropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Deconstruction):

"When applied to

tropes, or other aspects of fiction, deconstruction means to take apart a trope so as to better understand its meaning and relevance to us in Real Life.

 

The simplest and most common method of applying Deconstruction to tropes in fiction among general audiences and fan bases, and the method most relevant to TV Tropes, takes the form of questioning "How would this trope play out with Real Life consequences applied to it?"

 

Well, NWN2 tried to brought their Disney heroes to real life standards. Have you seen a hero in real life with happy, perfect life? Not that many I think.

By this standard, NWN2 is legit deconstruction of Disney heroism.

 

Oh and, Spec Ops: The Line is AAAAAWESOME. I haven't finished it yet though, maybe one of these days.

Edited June 24, 2013 by exodiark

[Micamo]

The closer i can think of is P:T "RPGs suck, and this is why"

Eehh. I disagree. Ps:T goes out of its way to avoid RPG stereotypes, but it's very much doing its own thing. You can *get* Torment on its own in a way you can't really *get* Spec Ops without also understanding the workings of the Bro Shooter genre.

 

I thought the Dock and Orc Caves section of the game were far worse than the end-game, trudging through the same enemies with no variety and the impression that the developers were just adding padding to the whole thing.

Okay, as much as I normally don't give NWN2 a break, heresy time: I actually didn't mind these parts all that much. They weren't particularly great, but I can't bring myself to write a giant rant about them. The only parts that really bugged me were Callum's douchebaggery and it made me really uncomfortable how you can't even attempt to reason with the orc tribes, you're forced to genocide them. Though that's really a problem with FR as a whole, Orcs in that setting really fail the Jew Test big time.

 

I guess it just boils down to the type of gamer I am: If those things were side quests and I could go through the gate into blacklake whenever I wanted, I would have done every last one of them before ever even considering going into blacklake. I'm just a completionist at heart: The only way to dangle some content in front of me and make me not want to do it is if you're a really, really big douche about it (ex. everything that comes out of Lord Nasher's mouth). Yeah if you're in a rush to get through the gate and get on with the main quest it's ridiculous how many hoops they make you jump through, but if you wanna just relax and explore the city it's not so bad.

 

 

EDIT: Also, Spec Ops is like, 2 hours long. And the ending is probably one of my favorites out of all the games I've ever played. Get it done.

 

Showing a world where heroes don't exist is not the same thing as critiquing the concept of RPG heroes. No more than a game without waffles in it is a treatise on the superiority of pancakes.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Micamo

[exodiark]

Hmmm, let's just agree to disagree in this matter.
I dunno, reading NWN2 OC dialogues gave me this impression that Avellone is trying to mock the common RPG tropes humorously, so I find it not so bad hahahahahahaha :D

I mean, he hated elf so hard he made Elaine a creepy pedophile stalker, and many more. That's MCA enough :D

Edited June 24, 2013 by exodiark

[PrimeJunta]

Another thing that bugs me about NWN2 OC is how timid it is. It does take some steps towards subverting/deconstructing the hero tropes -- e.g. by giving each of the "heroic" companions a flaw, and perhaps by not having your traditional "happy ending" -- but it fails to go anywhere beyond the first tentative steps in that. They could've taken the "creepy stalker druid hippie control freak" thing so much further, or the "conflicted, horribly remorseful, damaged paladin," never even mind Ammon Jerro who could have been a genuine tragic hero in the Greek sense. 

 

But no. It sort of flashes the possibilities and doesn't go anywhere with them.

 

I just started MotB -- at the beginning of Chapter II -- and am, once again, struck at how the writing in it is miles and miles and miles better. Not to mention the voice acting -- Kaelyn, Safiya, Okku, and Gann are all just perfect. 

 

The things I still don't like about it? The dopey pyrotechnics of epic-level D&D and mmmaybe the murky way the Spirit Eater mechanic is presented. I vaguely remember how it works, but if I didn't I would have a hard time figuring it out. (Also my aasimar-cleric-doomguide is just way too powerful for her own good; I figured I'd open up that epic battle with Okku's army with a few area-effect spells, and the poor little furry thing surrendered when I was just getting started. I hadn't even gotten around to him yet.)

[exodiark]

I agree with that, the contrast between OC and MotB is so strong it smells like Executive Meddling.

 

All in all, barring the controversial ending, OC is a pretty inoffensive RPG with weird humor. It's like a madman trying to be normal, doesn't really suit Obsidian. Glad they're back to their usual self in Alpha Protocol.

[Lephys]

 

- Casavir did heroic things, like battling the orcs, but in actuality he did this to ran away from his crimes. (In deleted contents, he murdered his rival to win a woman's love. This was referred by Bishop in OC)

 

Haha, typical Obsidian. The parts crucial to understanding characters are cut from the game.

 

I'm not sure it's really fair to blame everything on Obsidian. Unless I'm mistaken, the publisher generally has something to do with many such decisions (whether it's specifically saying "cut that from the game," or requiring that the development team's focus be on other things and only allowing them a minimal amount of time to push all the content out into a released form.)

[Rostere]

I think Obsidian must have felt some pressure to portray D&D stereotypes as the stereotypes they use to be. If they felt they had completely free reins, I'm entirely convinced they would have made the companions more nuanced.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I've just finished the Graveyard quest from substitute commander.

Thoughts so far: I didn't like the inn, I hate the bladelings' and Duergars' combat barks(If I never hear "STONE-CLEAVER!" again I will count myself as lucky). Khelgar's reason for joining the PC felt pretty weak, but he is well built and good for comic relief.

Fort Locke is a huge improvement over the previous areas. It feels like a poorly funded outpost surrounded by wilderness, which as far as I can tell it was intended to be. The substitute commander has a small role, but is written in a way that makes him seem less like a paper cutout and more like a realistic villain. I thought the graveyard was well designed and makes pretty good use of traps.

@PrimeJunta I love Paladins. Their defensive abilities make them excellent against mages, Smite Evil is fantastic to use against powerful foes, Divine Might(or Shield) is probably one of the better buffs in the game, and the low-level spell casting saves me money on magic weapons.

That said, I think the PE Paladin looks a lot cooler and that is the first class I am going to play. I think it is a good mix of the Diablo 2 Paladin(variable persistent auras that enhances allies), the 3.x/PF Paladin(boost to defenses), and the 3.X Marshall(powerful ally buffs). I do admit I was concerned when I heard that the class was similar to the D&D Warlord when I linked to this, but I quickly realized my error.

[Tuckey]

In my opinion not much should be taken from nwn2 as project eternity is trying to take after infinity engine games. Nwn2 plays too differently to be of much use, other than being set in a fantasy setting with dnd rules. The 2nd edition rules had restrictions that made the setting more interesting than 3rd edition nwn's; through that is only my own preference.

 

nwn2 flaws in brief:

===============

forced/boring companions; 'headless chicken' combat system (even with ai off);  blingy status effects;  railroaded plot points; bad camera controls; poor voice actors; trash mobs; grindy by design maps; over-complicated building of potions/weapons etc; interface boring and did not try to evoke setting; buggy on release;

 

*disclaimer: nwn2 was not my favourite game.

 

nwn2 strengths:

=============

fortress/castle building was different; trial was interesting but wimped out in the end result; modding was available; good post-release support

[PrimeJunta]

More MotB impressions.

 

My anti-romance stance: confirmed. I'm still playing as my aasimar lawful good Doomguide/Cleric. Got to the point where Gann declares his love for her. Boom, awkward dialog plus a situation that really, truly does not flow from the narrative. Felt like a real hard landing and I stopped playing, and now I don't even feel like getting back to that game. Simply put, that romance effectively ruined the game for me. (To my recollection the Safiya romance had the same effect on me when I was playing as a male PC, only that was so much later in the game that I made it to the end.)

 

So. Please. No romance. Hate it, hate it, hate it. Kill it and bury it at a crossroads. This is an epic, heroic adventure, not a high-school soap opera.

 

Second: I do not like the influence mechanics. I find myself gaming dialogs to avoid losing influence, or to gain influence, instead of staying in character. This happens for two reasons: (1) the influence mechanics are based on simple, linear reward/punishment, and (2) they're transparent. The perks you get for high influence are significant and interesting, and the game tells you when influence goes up or down, and you can check where you stand with each of the NPC's at any time.

 

This is a classic Skinner box mechanism -- pull that lever, get a candy; pull the other, get an electric shock. When I game, I game – i.e., I try to play the game as efficiently as I can. That means I'm extremely susceptible to these mechanics: I try to find out how they work and then play the system for maximum reward. In a simple, binary Skinner box situation, that means that the game is effectively playing me, not the other way around. The only challenge is to discover the 'right' way to play the game. With a game that allows unlimited saves and reloads, this becomes worse since the easiest way to find that out is just to save/reload repeatedly until you get it 'right.' 

 

Moreover, in MotB, this mechanic is in direct opposition to one of the main themes and attractions of the game, i.e., the way it explores ethical choices and their consequences, and devotes a lot of effort into writing in ethically complex situations and a variety of defensible ways to resolve them. The influence mechanics favor one, specific set of choices over other sets of choices, introducing effectively "right" and "wrong" answers. That's bad, especially with the complex and well-written characters. The game is simultaneously treating the characters as characters – individuals with complex motivations and sometimes surprising reactions – and systems – things you interact with in certain ways to get desired results. 

 

I would have preferred a game where (1) the influence mechanism was completely under the hood, and (2) the consequences of influence would have been richer than just gain influence/gain reward, lose influence/don't gain reward. I think the devs were aware of this because they put in some "macro" choices, e.g. that two of the NPC's are mutually exclusive. They could have played this up a lot more, for example made the NPC's react in opposing ways to more things, and to introduce "conflicted emotions."

 

In the simplistic system they have, an "agreeable" action cancels out a "disagreeable" one. They could have tracked both of these quantities independently for each character, and tied specific reactions to either of the totals or the difference, depending on context. They could also have set things up so that you can't max out your influence with all the characters.

 

The upshot of this system would have been that you'd have to decide what kind of leader you are. You could go with strong personal ethics, and let the followers fall where they will: you would probably gain one devoted follower and lose many or all of the others. You could be a diplomatic peacemaker -- i.e., avoid doing anything  disagreeable to any of your companions, which would mean that you could probably keep all of them relatively happy but none of them would become truly devoted. Or you could be a narcissistic manipulator, saying whatever you think each of them would like to hear, which would rack up both your "agreaable" and "disagreeable" scores for your companions, yielding interesting love/hate relationships. They could've written in specific dialogs where you could argue your case to an NPC, giving you the opportunity to reduce your "disagreeable" score with them.

 

In other words, I think the influence system in MotB represents a bit of a missed opportunity. It would certainly have involved significant effort to get it right, but the characters are so good they would have deserved it. As it is, I think it's an ugly wart on all that beautiful writing. I do hope P:E does this part better.

[lolaldanee]

my opinion on the threads main question:

take everything, except the PARTY AI AND INTERFACE *screams in pain* the CAMERA CONTROLS *AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH* and please please better overal optimization, the damn thing stutters STILL, despite my computer being a thousand times faster

luckily, much of that should go away simply because Eternity is in 2D

i liked pretty much everything else

OC is very down to earth and default fantasy, but nicely done, so no problems with it

MOTB is like the best thing ever, one of the best stories ever to be featured in a computer game

SOZ, focusing on the gameplay more than story is very nice too, i really liked the fact that every party member can talk in dialogs and the free traveling on the overland map

DnD 3.5 was working really well for a computer game too, i've spent hours only building characters with the AWESOME AWESOME AWESOME flexibility that comes through all the races and prestige classes (especially with mods!)

Edited June 26, 2013 by lolaldanee

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

It's me again!

 

I liked Highcliff and dealing with the lizard folk quite a bit. I hate Elanae's guts, because not only is she an Elf she is also pretty damn creepy to boot. Neverwinter is a bit boring and cliche, and while the City Guard and Thieves Guild choice could have been explored better IMO having more than two factions would have been a better way to go.

 

What PE could take from NWN2 OC:

1. Have a more interesting early game. Nothing kills my desire to replay something more than the thought of having to slog through some pretty uninteresting situations. NWN2 OC(while not as bad as some like to complain) is pretty bland and not very fun to rub through.

 

2. If it is possible to have a PC join a faction, have the choice relatively early and do not make it a mandatory choice.

 

3. NPCs need to be diverse and well-built. Nothing is worse than not having access to a (insert role here) till later in the game. NWN2 would have been greatly improved by having access to a mage earlier. Also try to build the companions a bit better, Khelgar and Neeshka were actually done well, but Elanae's stats made me shake my head. I would suggest starting companions at a low level and letting the player level them as they choose.

 

I agree with PrimeJunta that the influence mechanics need an overhaul. The problem I have with romances in games(and I don't even hate them) is that due to a binary influence system if you do not choose to have the PC romance(or be friends with them for that matter) a character, you lose out on a good bit of content and often useful special abilities. I would cut out the special abilities of the relationship and try to implement a relationship system that allows multiple types of relationships with an NPC, and have each relationship have a similar amount of exclusive content and flavor a similar amount of existing content. YMMV, but I think that having NPCs have different types of relationships with different NPCs should be a prime goal of a RPG that encourages players to create their own characters.

[PrimeJunta]

I agree with (1) and (2). Re (3), D&D mages are pretty much baggage at low levels. From level 5 on they have some limited usefulness. You get your first arcane caster not much after that.

 

Re Elanee, I agree about the stats (not to mention the writing, yech), but she's actually one of the mechanically most useful characters in the game. Druids have IMO the best all-round spell selection of all the classes (almost as good offense as mages, almost as good buffs as clerics, some of the best low-level debuffs, e.g. Entangle, and enough dispels to get the job done, and of course the best summonings), plus they can tank; also being an elf she gets proficiency in longsword. She greatly obviates the need for a mage IMO. If they had optimized her stats, there's a good chance she would've been significantly more awesome than the PC, which would be kind of depressing.

[Micamo]

Re (3), D&D mages are pretty much baggage at low levels. From level 5 on they have some limited usefulness.

Only if you're running around expecting to solo the groups of mobs to death with your two magic missiles/day (you can have 4 spells/day if you specialize and max out INT). If you use your spells more wisely a low-level caster can easily be the most effective member of an adventuring party, especially with NWN2's "kneel for 6 seconds after an encounter and get everything back" deal. Go for buffs and control spells and if you need to be doing damage whip out a summon (they were even nice enough to increase the duration!). Having to go spellcaster-free for quite a long time unless you play a caster yourself it frankly quite ridiculous.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Micamo

[PrimeJunta]

Yeah, OK, granted, rest-spamming gives mages an effectively unlimited supply of those support spells. I consider that such an egregious exploit that I don't do it; it's the only way I intentionally gimp myself in NWN2. (Perhaps that's why I liked the MotB spirit-eater mechanic so much – it meshes well with the way I already play the game, imposing just a little bit more discipline than I impose on my own.) Even so, I'll take a divine caster over an arcane one any day of the week, up to level 10 or thereabouts. From there on out it is a matter of opinion.

 

I agree with the larger point though – the way your first companions are saddled on you is bad. Neeshka only makes sense if you're neither a rogue nor a mage nor cleric with Knock; Khelgar only makes sense if you're a squishy. The game really should have given you a caster from the start if you're not one yourself.

[bonarbill]

I agree with (1) and (2). Re (3), D&D mages are pretty much baggage at low levels. From level 5 on they have some limited usefulness. You get your first arcane caster not much after that.

 

Re Elanee, I agree about the stats (not to mention the writing, yech), but she's actually one of the mechanically most useful characters in the game. Druids have IMO the best all-round spell selection of all the classes (almost as good offense as mages, almost as good buffs as clerics, some of the best low-level debuffs, e.g. Entangle, and enough dispels to get the job done, and of course the best summonings), plus they can tank; also being an elf she gets proficiency in longsword. 

 

I agree that Druids are strong (often considered an overpowered beast in table top D&D 3.5), but I think clerics are better in almost every way, especially if you pick the good domains.  Just like druids, Cleric also have a decent combination of buffs and damage spells (with the correct domain).  And I doubt you need me to tell you have much cheese divine favor, divine power, undeath to death, and turn undead are in the OC.  

 

Clerics without the correct domain lack Premonition, but I think stone body + freedom can give it a run for its money.

 

 

 

I agree with the larger point though – the way your first companions are saddled on you is bad. Neeshka only makes sense if you're neither a rogue nor a mage nor cleric with Knock; Khelgar only makes sense if you're a squishy. The game really should have given you a caster from the start if you're not one yourself.

 

I actually don't mind this.  Obsidian was obviously going for a story driven experience over a gameplay one.  It's not like you desperately needed spells during the first hour or two of the game.

[Jarmo]

3. NPCs need to be diverse and well-built. ... Khelgar and Neeshka were actually done well, but Elanae's stats made me shake my head. ..

 

It's not like I'd remember Elanees stats, but I very much disagree with the whole sentiment anyway.

 

Going on a hunch, Elanee would have pretty bad wisdom for a druid, somewhat good dexterity and charisma, other stats mediocre?

Or that's what I'd think looking at her and considering her actions.

 

Nothing bad in giving companions like an intelligent charismatic fighter with completely mediocre combat stats, that'd just be the way he'd be.

It's much more important to me the stats comply with the image and feel I get from the character, instead of being well built for the classes central role.

[Lephys]

Only if you're running around expecting to solo the groups of mobs to death with your two magic missiles/day (you can have 4 spells/day if you specialize and max out INT). If you use your spells more wisely a low-level caster can easily be the most effective member of an adventuring party, especially with NWN2's "kneel for 6 seconds after an encounter and get everything back" deal. Go for buffs and control spells and if you need to be doing damage whip out a summon (they were even nice enough to increase the duration!). Having to go spellcaster-free for quite a long time unless you play a caster yourself it frankly quite ridiculous.

One reason I kinda hate the whole "omg! Magic is ONLY super rare and taxing" approach to casters in RPGs.

 

Wizard: "I'm only level 1, so I can only summon a walnut and launch it at your face for 1 damage. And I can only do that ONCE PER DAYYYYYY, for it is such a MOMENTOUS FEAT!"

 

Ranger: "Really? I'm only level 1, but I can put about twenty 6-8 dmg arrows through things faces throughout an entire encounter, for as long as I have arrows. And Steve over there, the Fighter, he can swing his sword for 7 damage EVERY SINGLE TURN. AND he gets lots of HP and defenses."

 

Wizard: "Yeah... if I wear good armor, I have a 40% chance of failing to summon that amazing walnut and hurl it at your face."

 

 

That's why I really like P:E's approach, of some stuff being basically infini-cast (but still only so powerful per cast), and then refreshing per-encounter one tier above that, then per-rest one tier above that. SOME things should only be able to be done once per day. Others should be able to be done as often as anyone else can perform a simple task.

 

The Warrior isn't limited in how many times he can swing his weapon or wear cool armor in a day. Why should the core ability of my class (arcane magic) be SO limited? How is my being able to fire off 30 wussy attack spells in a row any different from my ability to use a sling and fling 30 bullets per day?

 

"But Magic Missile doesn't miss, so that would be OP," you say? Then why can't I cast a spell that DOES miss? That seems less complicated than one that always "heat-seeks" its target.

 

*shrug*

 

I REALLY like one thing that Betrayal at Krondor did: when casting most spells (some were just a static cost and static "amount" of effect), you could actually choose how potent to make the spell. There was a fireball spell, for example, called "Flamecast." Your Stamina/Health, in that game (Stamina first, and then Health once Stamina was depleted) served as your "mana." So, when you selected Flamecast from your spell-casting list, you THEN selected the potency of it. So, you could cast like 50 1-point fireballs (which were, admittedly, very weak), or like 3 20-point fireballs. ALSO, it cost your friggin' health, so that kinda balanced out the potency of it. But, that's beside the point.

 

That's one flaw with static-spell systems. That's great that Fireball now does 50 damage and has a radius of 10m, now that I'm level 5, instead of the 30 damage and 6m radius it had when I was level 2, but why can't I STILL create a smaller Fireball? It's obviously POSSIBLE, since I created a smaller one when I was unable to create a larger one. Now that I CAN create a larger one, I can ONLY create a larger one? Wizards just put as much effort into each spell as they can, with reckless abandon? That's what dictates the rating of their spells? "Well, I tried casting one that did fifty-one damage, and had a radius of ten-point-one meters, and I blacked out for three days. 50 and 10 it is! ^_^"

 

I've always hated that a Fighter does pretty much whatever they want, all with the same weapon, yet a Wizard/caster typically just has a kit of very specific weapons that you have to keep switching between.

 

"Well, there are only like 3 enemies, but you can either cast that 70-meter-radius Ice Storm, or you can use a single-target Frostbolt. Obviously, you have the power to kill 3 things, but unfortunately you have absolutely no control over your magic."

 

I just imagine running into a house painter or something, and asking him to paint your house. "Nope... sorry sir, but I can only paint a 10-square-foot wall, or a 50-square-foot-wall. Anything in between, and I can't paint it."

[PrimeJunta]

@bonarbill, the cleric is my favorite D&D3 class. They're wonderfully fine-tunable with the domains, and spontaneous conversion gives a lot of tactical flexibility too. If it was up to me, I'd have dropped the druid as a separate class altogether, mixed in the best druid spells as domain spells, nerfed the domains a bit but given three instead of two. A druid would be just a cleric with plant + animal + one elemental sphere. As an additional benefit, you'd get differentiated earth, air, fire, and water druids.

[Semper]

Ranger: "Really? I'm only level 1, but I can put about twenty 6-8 dmg arrows through things faces throughout an entire encounter, for as long as I have arrows. And Steve over there, the Fighter, he can swing his sword for 7 damage EVERY SINGLE TURN. AND he gets lots of HP and defenses."

 

well, you know... equipping your wizard with a crossbow should solve the problem.

 

 

I agree with that, the contrast between OC and MotB is so strong it smells like Executive Meddling.

 

that's because nwn2's lead designer ferret baudouin left obsidian in a hasty act to work on da:o. what he left was a mess, to put it kindly. josh did his best to get nwn2 back on track in time, but there was only so much he could do. imo what the team achieved, even at the cost of lots of cut content, speaks for itself. despite its flaws the oc's an entertaining campaign.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Semper

[Micamo]

I've always hated that a Fighter does pretty much whatever they want, all with the same weapon, yet a Wizard/caster typically just has a kit of very specific weapons that you have to keep switching between.

Fighter: "Well, I can stand here and full attack, or I can move and just get one attack. If the planetary alignments are right, I've dedicated my entire build to it, and the enemy isn't bigger than me, I can trip them, knock them over, grab and hold them in place, or charge at them for more damage."

 

Wizard: "Well, I can make illusions of anything I want, summon things to do anything I want, dominate things and make them do anything I want, shapeshift into anything I want, give them a curse that does anything I want, turn the bad guy into a squirrel, send them straight to hell, teleport myself and my friends across the continent instantly, use telekinesis to fling things around, fly around all day, create extradimensional spaces to hide in, turn invisible, spy on bad guys from as far away as I like, send illusory doubles into combat for me, play 20 questions with alien gods, instantly conjure any tool that I need, communicate telepathically with whoever I want, meld the landscape into anything I want, etc. etc. etc., all of this with just my spells that I get for free and being able to invest other aspects into my build into whatever I desire, instead of having to dedicate myself entirely to one trick to be able to attempt it on weak enemies at all."

 

Fighter: "*sobs*"

Edited June 28, 2013 by Micamo

[exodiark]

 

Ranger: "Really? I'm only level 1, but I can put about twenty 6-8 dmg arrows through things faces throughout an entire encounter, for as long as I have arrows. And Steve over there, the Fighter, he can swing his sword for 7 damage EVERY SINGLE TURN. AND he gets lots of HP and defenses."

 

well, you know... equipping your wizard with a crossbow should solve the problem.

 

 

I agree with that, the contrast between OC and MotB is so strong it smells like Executive Meddling.

 

that's because nwn2's lead designer ferret baudouin left obsidian in a hasty act to work on da:o. what he left was a mess, to put it kindly. josh did his best to get nwn2 back on track in time, but there was only so much he could do. imo what the team achieved, even at the cost of lots of cut content, speaks for itself. despite its flaws the oc's an entertaining campaign.

 

I never heard of this, is there a source?

I'm just asking since the accusation is quite heavy without source.

 

If it's true, well, yeah Josh's team did a great job salvaging what's left , NWN OC is still an enjoyable game, overall.

But MOTB, man that is something else.

[Fearabbit]

Wizard: "Well, I can make illusions of anything I want, summon things to do anything I want, dominate things and make them do anything I want, shapeshift into anything I want, give them a curse that does anything I want, turn the bad guy into a squirrel, send them straight to hell, teleport myself and my friends across the continent instantly, use telekinesis to fling things around, fly around all day, create extradimensional spaces to hide in, turn invisible, spy on bad guys from as far away as I like, send illusory doubles into combat for me, play 20 questions with alien gods, instantly conjure any tool that I need, communicate telepathically with whoever I want, meld the landscape into anything I want, etc. etc. etc., all of this with just my spells that I get for free and being able to invest other aspects into my build into whatever I desire, instead of having to dedicate myself entirely to one trick to be able to attempt it on weak enemies at all."

 

Except, you know, they can only learn 50% of all spells (and you have no idea how useful those will be) and they can only memorize another 50% of those. And for each additional Magic Missile you need, you have to give up one of your other cool effects. And all the managing of spells in the spellbook was annoying as hell, so that I usually left the combat spells in there and never used the other spells.

 

D&D isn't popular in Germany and I only know it from the cRPGs. So when I first played Neverwinter Nights, I was completely out of my depth. I had played Morrowind before and loved playing a wizard there, so I decided to create a wizard. It was hell. I read the manual a thousand times to try and understand how this is supposed to work.

Eventually I had some luck playing as a Sorcerer, which is much more intuitive. But in general, I just gave up on magic classes in D&D games. (Which also means that I have very little experience with them. Maybe they become awesome when they are at a higher level, that's what everyone says - but to me they're just no fun at all.)

[PrimeJunta]

Yeah, sorcerers are much lower-maintenance than wizards and arguably more fun if you just want to get on with the game. Wizards for hardcore D&D geeks really. I like playing them too; with some thought you can just make them ridiculously powerful.

 

I like the P:E grimoire thing, by the way – it will let us combine the fluidity of playing as a Sorc with the situational optimization you get as a Wiz. When playing as a wiz (or cleric, for that matter) I pretty much play as if I had two or three 'grimoires' I'm switching between – except that I have to hand-manage it spell by spell, which is a drag.

[Semper]

I never heard of this, is there a source?

I'm just asking since the accusation is quite heavy without source.

and trust me when I say that what he did to save NWN2 and get it out the door was nothing short of amazing (I have mad respect for Josh, and I think he's underappreciated as a designer. In my time working with the man every chat with him has been a reminder that the dude is badass and knows his ****).

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/gamepro-feature-the-26-best-rpgs.27585/page-5#post-630494

 

NWN2 OC had several problems, many of which were solved when Josh Sawyer Chris Avellone took over the project - which is the nicest and most professional way I can phrase it. We all worked very hard on NWN2: OC, especially once we found our direction. Unfortunately sometimes you can't go back and you have to live with certain choices that have already been made and implemented.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/aliens-rpg-now-officially-canceled.33947/page-3#post-817166

 

you can blame alot of nwn2's issues on ferret's decisions and the status of the game when he left.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Semper