Neverwinter Nights completed. Verdict?

[Anonymous]

Just finished Neverwinter Nights! Woo-hoo. Time to shave the grotesque beard I've grown since first diving in...

Who else here has completed the game? Thoughts? I really enjoyed the living shit out of it. Call me nuts, I may have liked Arcanum more (I'm going to have to sleep on it to be sure). Am I smoking crack?!

-Vederman

[Anonymous]

Am I smoking crack?!

Yes, folks, he is. And I should know. He's using me as a crack pipe. Three weeks ago he hollowed me out (don't ask), drilled a small hole in my head and inserted one of the Krazy Fun Straws from his old dual-beer hat. He's been on a crack binge ever since. My loins are on fire, literally - not like when you guys look at photos of Jessica Alba in Maxim. OH, THE SIMIANITY!

And by the way, that wasn't even "Neverwinter Nights" he's been playing, it was Atari's "Adventure", you know, with the dragon that looks like a duck? Please, someone get this man some help...he is in charge of America's Best Selling PC Games Magazine. Think of the innocent children he could coerce into smoking from monkey nuts, with just a few words in his "Gaming Gear" sidebar! HELP ME!

[Anonymous]

WHOA! Dueds is crazy!@!

[Rob O'Boston]

After reading Coconut Monkey's response to Greg, I'm gonna reach back to the 1990's and use one of these: LMFAO.

[Bub, Andrew]

OH, THE SIMIANITY!

Ok, that was pretty good.

[balut]

At least puff, puff, pass, Vederman. Stop bogarting the Coconut Monkey.

- Balut

[Anonymous]

That's fine...do nothing. But remember what has been so famously said about silence: "When George Jones nattered endlessly about puppies and smoking weed, I said nothing...because his column got cancelled anyway. Then Jeff Green rambled on about getting his ass kicked at Dungeon Siege by his infant daughter and shooting smack, and I said nothing...because really, nobody reads his column since he's too dang old to relate to. Then Greg Kasavin waxed poetic about Neverwinter Nights (sic) and smoked crack out of his beloved coconut monkey mascot, and I said nothing...because I thought the coconut monkey was just a puerile in-joke and people only read PC Gamer for the exclusive reviews of games that haven't even gone gold yet. Then I wrote this, and by the time I got to the end I had completely forgotten my point."

What the hell do I know, I'm just a coconut monkey full of crack.

[Kyle Wilson]

What the hell do I know, I'm just a coconut monkey full of crack.

Wow. I think you speak for all of us, man.

[Anonymous]

For the record, I did drill a hole in Coconut Monkey, but it wasn't so I could smoke crack out of him...

Jungle love. Oh-E-Oh-E-Oh.

Dare I ask, did anyone besides me even play Arcanum, let alone finish it? Billy Harms, you don't have to answer that, I know you played it through.

Man, talk about an underrated game. That's what I'm screamin'.

-Vede

[Anonymous]

it was Atari's "Adventure", you know, with the dragon that looks like a duck?

That red dragon was a bitch.

[Anonymous]

For the record, I did drill a hole in Coconut Monkey, but it wasn't so I could smoke crack out of him.

Oh, you reveal our secret love so easily, like it was a MAD fold-in. I bet that videotape you made wasn't "just for our personal use" either. I am truly hurt. I thought you had feelings for me, but I was just another food item with a creamy soft center to you, like key lime pie, or an underdone meatloaf. Perhaps I was a fool to expect more from some community college English major who trepanned my skull with a Dremel. You have compromised more than just my structural integrity, Kasavin.

But I will have my revenge, and it will be pleasantly coconut-scented!

[Anonymous]

You have compromised more than just my structural integrity, Kasavin.

Heaven forfend! In my lovesick rage I have accused the wrong Qt3er. Make that VEDERMAN. Ye gods, I would go slit my wrists now, but I have no hands. Oh how I suffer the torments of hell...it's like playing Trespasser all over again, but without all the crates!

[Aszurom]

Coconut Sparky?

[Anonymous]

I'll have you know that I kept a very respectable 2.63 GPA while at community college, and of the two of us, CM, at least I can remember the name of last man who touched my privates... or, something. Oh god...

-Vede

[Sparky]

Nope. What that man wants to do with his monkey-shaped legume is none of my business. Also, I hate monkeys. Now, I am not sure if coconuts are actually legumes or not (I do not have my copy of "The Game Reviewer's Guide To Fruits, Legumes And Non-Legumes, In Color, Edited By Jeff Green" handy), but "monkey-shaped legume" sure sounds funny.

[Bub, Andrew]

I played Arcanum Greg, I thought it was all right. I think Sones is the fan you really want to talk to though.

[Mark Asher]

Greg,

I'm about halfway through and I've switched to Warcraft III for now. I got really tired of opening/detrapping/lockpicking boxes, crates, barrels, doors, chests, desks, armoires, etc., and the dialog trees were beginning to get to me also.

I'm sure I'll get back to it soon, but the tedium of the above made me reach my boredom threshold.

[Jason McCullough]

I was racking my brain, trying to figure out why they felt it necessary to put at least TWO TREASURE CONTAINERS PER ROOM.

Did they do it so party members would always have a shot at getting at least one container? Do they think this little of parties?

Don't even get me started on how 90% of the containers are worthless, too. Oh, having one chest with 500 gold is too easy! We must spread that gold among one hundred frickin' barrels!

[Bub, Andrew]

I stopped completely with the chests and barrels. There's never anything crucial in them (I hope) and they were getting on my nerves.
I'm playing a Paladin, you see, and thus I am well above such concerns. Really, I'm not annoyed at all. I'm not even concerned about what I might be missing!!!!

I'm role-playing ....

[Mark Asher]

Don't even get me started on how 90% of the containers are worthless, too. Oh, having one chest with 500 gold is too easy! We must spread that gold among one hundred frickin' barrels!

Heh. Yeah, many contain trash, essentially. Some rooms, like the library rooms, will contain 4-5 things that have to be opened. Once I'm there, it's hard for me to not check everything, but it sure does get a bit tedious after awhile.

I also wish quest items would just appear in your inventory along with a screen message telling you that you received a quest item. I had one sidequest where I needed the monster's heart, but by the time I got around to doing it, I had forgotten it was a quest. The heart was this tiny pixel laying on the ground and I was tired of picking up worthless monster parts at that point. I left it and later was going through my quest journal and realized I had killed the monster but didn't have the heart. I had to go back and find it. Kind of irritating.

[Mark Asher]

I stopped completely with the chests and barrels. There's never anything crucial in them (I hope) and they were getting on my nerves.
I'm playing a Paladin, you see, and thus I am well above such concerns. Really, I'm not annoyed at all. I'm not even concerned about what I might be missing!!!!

I'm role-playing ....

Some of the items are also clues, though. The Charwood sidequest is an example of this. You can discern the true story behind the two brothers by finding their journals, etc.

[Bub, Andrew]

Yeah, but those types of items are always on or near the boss or quest creatures. I do search those guys and their vicinity. And either my strategy has been working or I've been lucky thus far and haven't missed a key item.

Not even the Half-Orc bully's heart. :)

The role-playing line was just a joke but it does, in a small way, bother me that I can take my Paladin and rifle through anyone's stuff. But the BG games had that "problem" too.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, but those types of items are always on or near the boss or quest creatures. I do search those guys and their vicinity. And either my strategy has been working or I've been lucky thus far and haven't missed a key item.

Not even the Half-Orc bully's heart. :)

The role-playing line was just a joke but it does, in a small way, bother me that I can take my Paladin and rifle through anyone's stuff. But the BG games had that "problem" too.

My official theory is that Bioware's trying to make autistic children feel good.

A properly designed module should have lots of penalties for stealing people's possessions; it's not that hard to create a generic "ownership" script that'll make people go nuts like they did in BG2 when you're looting their house. You can throw in paladins and the like getting fallen status for enough of this, too.

The game is fun, but it's so damn rough and pointy on the edges.

[Mark Asher]

"The game is fun, but it's so damn rough and pointy on the edges."

The single player game feels like it needs a couple more months of polishing. It's a bit broken if you want to play a thief, for example, because you can't get XP for doing sneaky things. The game forces you to play a thief as a fighter if you want to level, and of course you can't progress without leveling.

[Bub, Andrew]

Other things, minor details: (Hell, maybe these things are just not in 3E at all, for all I know.)

MIA from NWN
----------------
Morale
Surprise
Troll's Regeneration (BG2 and IWD had it, in fact, I actually armed myself with the torch when my first NWN troll went down)

I still think they should have made several small and tightly scripted modules rather than the big campaign. They could have shown us how a Thief module is done, for example.

[Jason McCullough]

The game forces you to play a thief as a fighter if you want to level, and of course you can't progress without leveling.

Coincidently, this is what I'm doing, and I'm enough of a masochist (sp? Word is confused) to refuse the aid of any henchman.

Thieves are more like everquest rogues in 3rd edition; they deal lots of damage, but can't take it. The reason: their sneak attack damage applies to ranged attacks.

Yes, you heard that right. A 20th level thief gets 10d6 on a surprise attack with a bow. If you want a ludicrously easy game, just take a fighter henchman, have him soak up damage, and get sneak attacks over and over on his target. This is perfectly legal under the 3rd edition rules; a sneak attack occurs anytime you attack someone that's busy engaging someone else.

It's pretty trivial that way, so I'm doing it alone. It makes for some heart-pounding adventures in hide-and-seek, I'll tell you; monsters can transition with you across most areas now. It's hilarious to run around the corner, sneak, and then unleash a ridiculously damaging attack on them the second they follow you around.

[Tom Chick]

Do you not play the games you talk about, Bub? Just as the AI in Civ uses nukes, trolls in NWN regenerate. I don't see how you can miss that if you've ever fought one.

You guys complaining about opening stuff just should just stop opening stuff. It's that easy. With a few exceptions, the game is pretty easy, and you certainly don't need to scrape together every last gold piece and healing potion.

Also, the quality of loot is connected to the chest model. Learn to ignore the minor chests.

The included campaign is pretty combat oriented no matter what class you play. If you want experience for opening chests and disarming traps, you're playing the wrong module.

Finally, Mark mentioned pixel hunting. Hold down the tab key to light up anything you can interact with.

-Tom

[Doug Erickson]

Did Mark like Dungeon SIege? Worst pixel-hunter ever; could you even PLAY as a fuckin' archer in that game?

[Matthew Gallant]

I have a Level 18 Rogue. Sneak attack is good, but undead are immune to sneak attacks. I'm not sure, but golems might be too. I actually fight more with my rapier than a ranged weapon. You can have a rapier made at a blacksmith that has a 50% chance to cause sleep, and you get a couple of sneak attacks or possibly even a coup-de-grace while the opponent sleeps. Melee is really no problem for a high-level rogue; dexterity bonuses along with Boots of Speed have my AC up to 33. The rapier is faster than the nifty Crossbow of Murder I found.

But Bioware definitely did not make this game for someone who wanted to play a sneaky thieving rogue. There's only been two times I found when Pick Pocket was useful in completing a quest. Any other time the most I've gotten was 1 GP. I have no doubt that an interesting thief module can be made though, so I don't have a problem.

Oh, and I gave the blacksmith a +3 rapier to make into the sleep-inducing rapier and it came out +2. Odd, because when I wanted to see what he could do with a katana, I gave him a +3 and it came out +4.

[Jason McCullough]

You guys complaining about opening stuff just should just stop opening stuff. It's that easy. With a few exceptions, the game is pretty easy, and you certainly don't need to scrape together every last gold piece and healing potion.

It'd be fine if I trusted them to not put valuable quest items in the cheap containers. Which, of course, I don't, and for good reason.


There's only been two times I found when Pick Pocket was useful in completing a quest.

Pick pocket is completely worthless in the single player modules; the only time you can get useful items out of it is off monsters, where they actually bothered to do useful OnSpawn() item placement. Pickpocket in D&D games is silly anyway; it's either save/reload or turn into a mass murdered.

[Chris Nahr]

Dare I ask, did anyone besides me even play Arcanum, let alone finish it?

I don't want to get between you and your coconut monkey, and I apologise to all the other people who apparently went on to talk about NWN, but I did indeed play and finish Arcanum.

Great game, tons of well-written dialogue and a highly detailed game world, though quite buggy and unbalanced. I was playing a combat mage (= easiest class) because I'm a wimp. A technologist might have been more fun, though.

[Matthew Gallant]

Both times were the "so-and-so has my ring and I need it back" quests, for the lovelorn farmer boy and the gnomish male prostitute. You could steal the rings. You could not, however, even attempt to steal the plague cure from Damas at Fort Ilkard.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh, I've found quite a nasty bug. I posted it to the technical support forum at Bioware, but it quickly disappeared. God only knows how you're supposed to submit bug reports.

My to hit bonus will occasionally go down for no reason, sometimes by as much as 5 points. Wierdly, one or two quickloads doesn't always fix it; going back to the main menu and reloading it does.

Keep an eye on your to hit, at any rate.

[Anonymous]

Tech Support for NWN is fucking awful.

[Mark Asher]

Did Mark like Dungeon SIege? Worst pixel-hunter ever; could you even PLAY as a fuckin' archer in that game?

I got bored with Dungeon Siege. It was too easy and I didn't have enough to do during the fighting.

I didn't mind the game being on a rail, though.

I played a combat wizard. Don't know about the archer.

[Bub, Andrew]

Do you not play the games you talk about, Bub? Trolls in NWN regenerate. I don't see how you can miss that if you've ever fought one.

I'll take your word that they regenerate during combat, I killed them quickly and didn't scan the tiny "dice rolling result" box in the game. But you're missing the Troll's more dangerous ability in D&D games. One that's missing here (but modeled in Icewind Dale and BG2 faithfully). A Troll will regenerate *back to life* unless you apply fire or acid to the body. In NWN they die and then they fade away leaving a pile of gold in their wake. It makes fighting Trolls much easier in NWN than it was in BG2, that's for damn sure.

What is this, your first D&D game?

[Tyjenks]

My to hit bonus will occasionally go down for no reason, sometimes by as much as 5 points. Wierdly, one or two quickloads doesn't always fix it; going back to the main menu and reloading it does.

Keep an eye on your to hit, at any rate.

I noticed my AC went down in the same fashion. I re-equipped my armor, shield, and magic items and it went right back up.

I looked to see if there was a curse, disease, or any effect at all on me: nothing.

I would have forgotten about it if I had not read your post because I have not noticed it happening again. I think I will check it more closely now.

BTW, Jason, what are your views on death sentences for the mentally impaired again. :wink:

[Jason McCullough]

We could have them wade through the technical support forum at Bioware.

[Tom Ohle]

I would like to point out that our Tech Support forum is Self-Help, and is labelled as such. For proper tech support, use the information provided in the manual.

[Gordon Berg]

Do you not play the games you talk about, Bub? Trolls in NWN regenerate. I don't see how you can miss that if you've ever fought one.

I'll take your word that they regenerate during combat, I killed them quickly and didn't scan the tiny "dice rolling result" box in the game. But you're missing the Troll's more dangerous ability in D&D games. One that's missing here (but modeled in Icewind Dale and BG2 faithfully). A Troll will regenerate *back to life* unless you apply fire or acid to the body. In NWN they die and then they fade away leaving a pile of gold in their wake. It makes fighting Trolls much easier in NWN than it was in BG2, that's for damn sure.

What is this, your first D&D game?



Ooh, good response by Bub. I think you guys need to meet by the bike racks after school.

(Gordon settles in with a beer and some popcorn)

[Tom Chick]

A Troll will regenerate *back to life* unless you apply fire or acid to the body.

You seem unclear on what the word regeneration means. In D&D, it's the act of recovering hit points every round, which trolls definitely do in NWN. I don't see how you could have missed this.

Then there's the fact that you need to use fire or acid to administer killing blows to a troll, something that isn't modeled in NWN for whatever reason. Are you saying this is how all regeneration is supposed to work? Does someone wearing a Ring of Regeneration have to be killed with fire or acid? I don't know the answer so I'll defer to your D&D mastery.

-Tom

[Jason McCullough]

I would like to point out that our Tech Support forum is Self-Help, and is labelled as such. For proper tech support, use the information provided in the manual.

So I need to go http://www.ina-support.com/support_reqs/supp_req_one.php here, fill out a ton of information, and get nothing but a "update your drivers" boilerplate in response, even though the bug has nothing to do with drivers. Will this actually lead to a bug report somehow filtering its way back to Bioware?

Not that this is a problem specific to Bioware, but I don't have a lot of faith in third-party bug tracking.

[Gordon Cameron]

I stopped playing the SP campaign (or the included mod or whatever you want to call it) after Chapter 1.

I respect the game design from a distance but here are some random reasons why I stopped:

1) Tiny text at 1024X768. I need to squint at the screen to read the dialogue. Yes, I know I need that LASIK surgery or something...

2) Henchman system still annoys me, though at least my henchman doesn't machine-gun me like he did in Fallout. But it just reminds me that the game engine was meant for multiplayer parties and the single player game is an "added bonus" more than anything else. So I feel like a red-headed stepchild for playing it SP (more so every time I enter a new region and it says "This is a PVP zone" or something like that). And I'm really feeling the absence of BG2/TOB's great NPC characterizations (Minsc, Jan, Sarevok, etc.). Yeah, my Half-Orc barbarian henchman is depressed because he lost his family heirloom or something, but compared to "GO FOR THE EYES, BOO!" it feels a little flat.

3) I find the Infinity engine easier to use, maybe because you can move the camera view around at will. One thing that annoyed me about NWN and Dungeon Siege is the way the camera view is "stuck" on your character (or, in DS's case, whichever character you have selected at the moment) which can make it hard to manage battles when your characters are far apart from one another. Also for some reason with isometric 3D games (unlike tile-based 2D isometric games), I really want to look at the sky and am frustrated that I can't. I'd like something approximating Empire Earth's camera view where you can zoom in to a "tableau" style in which you can see the horizon and everything. It'd just be nice for atmospheric purposes. All those gorgeous vistas in Morrowind helped to make up for the lapses in gameplay...

4) For all MW's problems I really liked its continuous world. (Not in terms of lack of load-times, alas, but I mean its lack of zones. Hopefull all RPG's will soon emulate Dungeon Siege's no-load-times technology.) You want to go to Pelagiad, you just look at the map, point yourself in that direction, and go there. NWN's zone-based world feels more like something from Adventure Construction Set circa 1984. Of course, the BG games were basically the same in this respect but I still liked them. Yeah, I'm inconsistent...

5) I may have finally snapped and lost my interest in CRPG quests after 20 years. How many friggin' times am I gonna have to save the world from some horrific Plague/Foozle/swarm of zombies/economic recession? And how many friggin' times am I gonna have to clear out someone's basement of giant rats or deliver a jeweled dagger to an elf who stands in the same goddamn spot in the same tavern from now till doomsday? Perhaps I've finally seen the man behind the RPG curtain and I just don't care anymore. Nah, I'll probably be back playing them again in another month...

Again, I can't say NWN is a bad game. I haven't played it enough and for all I know, the multiplayer is the definition of bliss. And the editor does seem to have a much better learning curve than the MW/DS editors. But for whatever reason, I'm not playing NWN and really can't get motivated to get back into it.

[Bub, Andrew]

You seem unclear on what the word regeneration means. In D&D, it's the act of recovering hit points every round, which trolls definitely do in NWN. I don't see how you could have missed this.

Well, I'm not playing some wimpy Sorceror who summons his friends. I'm playing a Paladin and my henchman is that Half-Orc Tiger guy. I did the Troll missions towards the end of chapter two so I'm 11th level and I basically chop through Trolls like butter. Really, I never saw them regenerate in the tiny window, maybe because they died so fast? (I also wasn't really looking for it. I was just referring to the fact that they didn't pop back up like last time.)

Anyway, had you spent any time with Bioware's previous D&D games you'd remember the fun of killing Trolls and then, suddenly, remembering you don't have any fire or acid. They come back to life and you kill them again... ad infinitum. Until you escape and have your mage memorize Melf's Acid Arrow or Burning Hands... then you go and kill 'em again! Harrowing stuff.

From the 1st edition Monster Manual: "To kill a Troll, the monster must be burned or immersed in acid."


Then there's the fact that you need to use fire or acid to administer killing blows to a troll, something that isn't modeled in NWN for whatever reason. Are you saying this is how all regeneration is supposed to work? Does someone wearing a Ring of Regeneration have to be killed with fire or acid?

Not sure about the Ring, I could look it up but it'd be a 1st edition answer again. As I said, unless they changed this in 3E, it's missing, but not really a big deal.

[Jason McCullough]

I stopped playing the SP campaign (or the included mod or whatever you want to call it) after Chapter 1.

5) I may have finally snapped and lost my interest in CRPG quests after 20 years. How many friggin' times am I gonna have to save the world from some horrific Plague/Foozle/swarm of zombies/economic recession? And how many friggin' times am I gonna have to clear out someone's basement of giant rats or deliver a jeweled dagger to an elf who stands in the same goddamn spot in the same tavern from now till doomsday? Perhaps I've finally seen the man behind the RPG curtain and I just don't care anymore. Nah, I'll probably be back playing them again in another month...

I think saving the world from "economic recession" is the only quest I haven't seen. Playing Maynard Keynes the Elven Sorceror/Economist would be pretty amusing.

"My god, old chap, the M2 isn't tracking lagging business orders! You must save us with more bond issues!"

[Tom Chick]

had you spent any time with Bioware's previous D&D games

Let me break some news to you: I've played Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, Icewind Dale, and Planescape Torment. Are those the ones you mean?

(Although I think the last two are Black Isle...)

-Tom

[routlaw]

Finished the single-player game up about a week ago. Decent enough fun, but nowhere near the level of overall quality that Baldur's Gate 2 and its expansion provided. A few points:

1) There were too many containers in the game, and there were too many traps on the levels. What made it worse was that they usually didn't follow any sort of coherent pattern with the rest of the level-traps were usually scattered over the place and too numerous, and what looked like an alluring container usually had a critical wound potion in it or some other nonsense. Finding traps and chests should be a reward, not something you just reguarly do.

2) Henchmen sucked. Hard. Bad enough that we had to devolve from a 6-character party to one character, but to lose any kind of real control over that character was a real downgrade from the kind of control had in Baldur's Gate 2. Sure, it made the game more palatable by making it more like Diablo, but the price paid in doing so wasn't worth it, in my estimation.

3) Storyboard was weak, and the attempt to make it something better than what it is was even weaker. There's no epic feel to the game, and the coupious amounts of dialogue trying to create that epic feel just made it more painfully obvious that the special something at the heart of good storytelling something just wasn't there.

4) Dungeons, quests, environments were, for the most part, repetitive. There were a few terrific dungeons in the game, to its defense, but the 'explore three levels of crypt, get the head of the blah blah' stuff was uninventive to say the least.

If I had to decribe my complaints into one word, it would be 'vacant'. The SP game just seemed emptied of the kind of devotion to quality that BG2, and, to a lesser extent, BG had in it. I imagine that the net RPG they make with the engine will be significantly better, which makes me wonder if they have some kind of Star Trek movie jinx brewing in the Frozen Lands of Canada Dale.

[Brad Grenz]

Does Bioware have a project planned for after Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic? Are their days of D&D based games over?

[Mark Asher]

Does Bioware have a project planned for after Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic? Are their days of D&D based games over?

They're hooked up with Infogrames, who holds the D&D license. I'd imagine their plans to add to NWN are ambitious. Why not do Greyhawk as a campaign setting? Sell another add-on with new monsters. Do single-player games. Etc.

I'd be shocked if this is their last D&D title.

[Mark Asher]

I played some more today after taking a break for a few days. Much better. It was fun again. The game had worn me down, but it felt fresh again.

[Desslock]

>Bioware have a project planned for after Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic?

Yes. In fact, BioWare has another project that's well along in the works. It'll probably be announced in September, a day after which, the story will be broken by Andrew Bub.

Hey, congrats on your second kid, Andrew.

Stefan

[Qenan]

What the hell do I know, I'm just a coconut monkey full of crack.

LMAO

[Bub, Andrew]

Hey, congrats on your second kid, Andrew.

Thanks, but unlike Neverwinter Nights I can't take all the credit for that one. Ask BioWare to announce this new game at Gen Con instead. Actually, why don't you come to Gen Con Stefan? It's the last year in Milwaukee and all that. (For the time being.)

[Murph]

I'm pretty far from finished with NWN, but I'm absolutely in love. I can't argue with the criticisms about containers, and I don't know how many times I've asked myself "Why would anyone put a trap on a chest with that in it?", but all in all, it's been a very pleasant experience.

And I played Arcanum to near-completion, and while I really enjoyed it, and think that it did some things really, really well -- some things better than any other RPG I've ever played, though I'm still short a few, like Morrowind -- overall, I would never put it in the same league as Neverwinter Nights.

[Xaroc]

I am in Chapter 3 with my 19th level Dwarven Ranger and it is still holding my attention. The containers are a bit of a pain but compared with say Diablo 2 the amount of clicking isn't so bad. Also, I check literally everything, I looted +3 full plate off of a plague body last night. Someone mentioned a +4 katana? Do you get this from the blacksmith on Chapter 3 or later on? I took extra crits with katana but I use a special bastard sword and special longsword with added damage and effects right now because my best katana is +2.

Overall I like the pacing and the number of quests and the storyline. Combat was pretty easy up through Chapter 2 but in Chapter 3 I find myself having to rest and resummon my pets because I lose one about every fight and actually died last night for the first time in forever. I will have to try the multiplayer at some point with a group of friends to see how well it works.

-- Xaroc

[Anonymous]

[quote="Mark Asher"]
Heh. Yeah, many contain trash, essentially. Some rooms, like the library rooms, will contain 4-5 things that have to be opened. Once I'm there, it's hard for me to not check everything, but it sure does get a bit tedious after awhile.
[quote]

Well that's the fault of your own obsessive-compulsive disorder. They never hide anything crucial in those chests/barrels (if it's an important container, you'll know). Just skip 'em.

I played a part-rogue through the single player game, and he often harvested traps for his own use. But even so, I just skipped a lot of the chests and things.

To answer your question at the start of topic, Greg: I enjoy the shit out of NWN as well. I marathon-played through the single player game, doing almost all the side quests, many of which were more interesting than the main plot. =) Now I'm playing on the online "persistant world" servers, the ones that use Server Vault characters. Local Vault sucks. Some boneheads with their level 20 guys all pumped up with badass stuff...yeah...that's fun for like 20 seconds.

Two of the best are Fort Braveheart (or just "Braveheart" - no relation to the movie) and War in Avalon. Both can be found in the "PW Action" list in the game browser.

BH is running on a good server and net connection, and is a pretty decent module. Most of the players on there have been good team players. If you see a monk named Liam Po on there, that's me.

But War in Avalon is the best PW I've seen so far. It's a module with some quests - repeatable "kill the goblin king" type stuff typical of MMORPGs (it is a persistant world, after all), lots of good areas, a good progression of stuff to fight, etc. The guy who runs it adds lots of cool new stuff every day. Unfortunately, the server isn't up all the time, and has about a 10-person limit. Any more than that, and it gets laggy on his cable modem (limited upstream and all that). If you see a paladin named Elmindrea Signe on WIA, that's me.

[Anonymous]

whoops...that was me.

[Thierry Nguyen]

Other things, minor details: (Hell, maybe these things are just not in 3E at all, for all I know.)

Troll's Regeneration (BG2 and IWD had it, in fact, I actually armed myself with the torch when my first NWN troll went down)

That's because trolls have fast healing instead, which recovers hit points per round, and also removes the necessity for flame or acid.

It's a 3E thing.

[Mark Asher]

"Unfortunately, the server isn't up all the time, and has about a 10-person limit."

I wish BioWare would offer to host versions of some of these things on top-of-the-line servers. Ten players in a game world is an MMOG where the first "M" stands for "minimal".

From what I read the game needs to hold each area that a player is playing in in memory. That means it will probably never support 64 players in a game gracefully.

[Tom Ohle]

We're announcing our next game in September? Cool! I was under the impression that I had no idea when I'd be working on that press release. ;P

[Mark Asher]

"Well that's the fault of your own obsessive-compulsive disorder. They never hide anything crucial in those chests/barrels (if it's an important container, you'll know). Just skip 'em."

What? Stuff BioWare put in the game with locks and traps is my fault? Oh brother.

How about if they're meaningless to just not have them? Wouldn't that be a more elegant game design?

[Bub, Andrew]

That's because trolls have fast healing instead, which recovers hit points per round, and also removes the necessity for flame or acid. It's a 3E thing.

Thanks Thierry!
What about Surprise and Morale? I'm trying to figure out what's missing from NWN rather than simply different in 3E (and yes, I could just buy 3E, but I don't want 3E).

[Mark Asher]

That's because trolls have fast healing instead, which recovers hit points per round, and also removes the necessity for flame or acid. It's a 3E thing.

Thanks Thierry!
What about Surprise and Morale? I'm trying to figure out what's missing from NWN rather than simply different in 3E (and yes, I could just buy 3E, but I don't want 3E).

Why don't you do a google on 3E D&D sites? You can probably get the info there.

[Ben Sones]

He didn't say that they are meaningless; he said that they aren't crucial. You don't have to open them to get through the game, so if they bother you so much, don't open them. The fact that they are there is not your fault. The fact that you complain about spending so much time opening them when the choice to spend so much time opening them is yours, however, is.

I understand the compulsion, though. Traditionally, limited production resources have dictated that anything that's interactive in a game is there for a reason. I think that's conditioned gamers to spend time interacting with anything that they can click on, simply because they assume that they should, even if there is no immediately compelling reason to do so.

[Robert Sharp]

What about Lionheart? Is that Black Isle only? It looks like it could be something great, especially with the SPECIAL system being used. now, if only it weren't realtime....

[Mark Asher]

There are far too many things to be opened. I don't want to play a guessing game and figure out which ones might contain something good -- some indeed do have nice items.

You'd think the presence of a trap would mean that a better item is being guarded. Wrong. It's seemingly meaningless and random.

Wouldn't the game be better if there were half as many containers with twice as much value as the current ones contain? Maybe even one-third as many, since there may be -- extrapolating here -- several thousand in the entire game. Why not reduce that number to 500 containers in the entire game? Just put the same amount of stuff in a smaller number of containers.

Sidequests are optional too, yet they add to the game. Several thousand optional containers only detract. I don't really see this as a defensible game design feature.

[Bub, Andrew]

Why don't you do a google on 3E D&D sites? You can probably get the info there.

I tried that, I couldn't find one that regurgitated the published material or even mentioned it specifically. I was even looking for a side by side comparison between 2nd and 3rd edition, and found no mention of surprise or morale in either list. Anyway, it sounds like Thierry is actually playing 3E, so I'd trust him more than a site I found on Google anyway.

[Bub, Andrew]

Several thousand optional containers only detract. I don't really see this as a defensible game design feature.

NWN does it exactly like Diablo does it. Most chests are basically drops. Save your game, open a chest and you find, say, 1 gold peice. Reload and open the same chest and you'll find a Potion. It's fine in Diablo because Diablo is mostly random anyway, NWN is supposed to feature crafted modules. Frankly, to me that means all the details should be there for a reason.

You're right, it really isn't defensible at all.

[Doug Erickson]

Ugh, Lionheart has a real-time combat engine?


WHAT IS SO FUCKING WRONG WITH TURN-BASED COMBAT.

[Desslock]

>We're announcing our next game in September? Cool! I was under the impression that I had no idea when I'd be working on that press release

Thrill of discovery - that's what life's all about!

[Anonymous]

That's because trolls have fast healing instead, which recovers hit points per round, and also removes the necessity for flame or acid. It's a 3E thing.

Thanks Thierry!
What about Surprise and Morale? I'm trying to figure out what's missing from NWN rather than simply different in 3E (and yes, I could just buy 3E, but I don't want 3E).

Why don't you do a google on 3E D&D sites? You can probably get the info there.

3E uses the d20 system which is described at http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html.

Oh, and trolls still have regeneration - it just doesn't work quite as it used to in AD&D.
Trolls - http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdmonsterst.html
Regeneration - http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdspecialabilities.html.

As for surprise, there is the special surprise round - http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdcombatbasics.html

Morale is mostly covered by fear effects (and will saves).

The closest thing to a list of changes from AD&D to 3E is http://www.wizards.com/dnd/dnd_cyc_intro.asp

[Brad Grenz]

Ugh, Lionheart has a real-time combat engine?


WHAT IS SO FUCKING WRONG WITH TURN-BASED COMBAT.

Yeah, otherwise the game looks pretty damn good. But I'm worried about the realtime combat. Realtime combat in Arcanum sucks, I'm not sure how well it could work in Lionheart. Companies seem to be completely eschewing the Fallout crowd in order to go after the Diablo crowd.[/quote]

[Desslock]

>WHAT IS SO FUCKING WRONG WITH TURN-BASED COMBAT.

Name a single RPG with turn based combat that's sold more than 150,000 units, domestically. There ain't one. Baldur's Gate, which I think a lot of RPG fans would rate as inferior to Fallout, outsold the latter game by a 7:1 margin.

I doubt you'll ever see a turn-based only RPG from a major developer/publisher ever again.

Stefan

[Doug Erickson]

Baldur's Gate is a bad comparison - it has the AD&D license and a load of hype behind it. Pool of Radiance probably sold more than Fallout, as well, and it had turn-based combat. How did, say, Arcanum, sell compared to Fallout?

Turn-based combat didn't keep FF7 and 8 on the PC from selling in droves.

That said, I don't care what sells - real-time combat in a party-focused RPG destroys the pacing for me, unless the system is completely elegant. I liked BG2 and Torment IN SPITE OF their klunky combat systems, not BECAUSE OF.

[Jim F.]

The traps and locks just feel like ways to force me to use a thief type and to slow me down.

Why are they time sinks? Because a sorc henchman or a pixie rogue familiar will be able to disarm and unlock 99% of the things out there. It's automatic. So since it's automatic, the only reason for the traps is to ensure that you walk through the game, pausing now and then to let your detect ability search for traps. Since you have to sit there while you/your pet disarms the trap.

I'm betting that the 60 hour compaign would be 40 hours without all the durn disarming and lockpicking that is just a useless timesink anyway.

[Desslock]

>Pool of Radiance probably sold more than Fallout, as well, and it had turn-based combat

No, it didn't. Pool of Radiance sold less than half as many copies domestically as Fallout. I picked Fallout because it's the turn-based game that's sold the most copies.

Comparing BG to Pool of Radiance just makes adds support to the argument that turn-based games don't sell as well (obviously not the primary reason POR tanked).

I also like turn-based combat games -- Jagged Alliance 2 (strategy/RPG) and Fallout are two of my games.

[Mark Asher]

Pool of Radiance had sold 110,000 copies according to NPD last I checked. Had it been a good game and gotten good buzz out of the gate it probably could have sold 150,000-200,000 in North America alone.

In fact, if it was a good game, I'm sure it would outsell Fallout.

[routlaw]

I don't think the notion of real-time combat in party-based CRPGs is an inherently poor one, to be perfectly honest. Look at the potential benefits: easier battles or battles with lots of weaker critters go an order of mangitude faster, something that's pretty important in a CRPG (which are almost bydefinition combat-intensive). I think the implementation of many of the party-based realtime systems have been questionalbe, mainly due to the lack of assignable party AI behavoirs. BG/BG2 are great examples-if the NPC AI worked well, you wouldn't have to micromanage each and every party member to get a reasonale level of combat effectiveness. Unfortunately, they cast spells at random and generally do things that make no sense whatsoever.

If a game goes purely turn-based, you do have the maximum combat effectiveness driven completely by the player, but at the cost of increasing combat times significantly. The only way to speed up the game when you go purely turn-based is to reduce the number of encouters, something that's not a terrible idea in its own right.

I don't think the inclusion of real-time combat in CRPGs is a direct result of developers and publishers appealing to a new generation of CRPG fans brought up on Diablo. I think it's an honest attempt by the game developers themselves to streamline the game and make it more interesting, and they have do so without following through with the kind of AI polish that is required to make party-based real time combat work effectively. IMO, that's why realtime has gotten such a bad rap, with both newer and older CRPG fans alike-the older fans hate the fact that the realtime AI doesn't perform 1/10th as well as they do in the turn based mode, and the newer fans hate how clunky and awkward the party AI behaves in comparison to the preciseness of a game like Diablo.

Realtime vs. Turn-based isn't the issue. Half-assed vs. getting the job done right is.

[Jason McCullough]

I don't think the notion of real-time combat in party-based CRPGs is an inherently poor one, to be perfectly honest. Look at the potential benefits: easier battles or battles with lots of weaker critters go an order of mangitude faster, something that's pretty important in a CRPG (which are almost bydefinition combat-intensive). I think the implementation of many of the party-based realtime systems have been questionalbe, mainly due to the lack of assignable party AI behavoirs. BG/BG2 are great examples-if the NPC AI worked well, you wouldn't have to micromanage each and every party member to get a reasonale level of combat effectiveness. Unfortunately, they cast spells at random and generally do things that make no sense whatsoever.

If a game goes purely turn-based, you do have the maximum combat effectiveness driven completely by the player, but at the cost of increasing combat times significantly. The only way to speed up the game when you go purely turn-based is to reduce the number of encouters, something that's not a terrible idea in its own right.

I don't think the inclusion of real-time combat in CRPGs is a direct result of developers and publishers appealing to a new generation of CRPG fans brought up on Diablo. I think it's an honest attempt by the game developers themselves to streamline the game and make it more interesting, and they have do so without following through with the kind of AI polish that is required to make party-based real time combat work effectively. IMO, that's why realtime has gotten such a bad rap, with both newer and older CRPG fans alike-the older fans hate the fact that the realtime AI doesn't perform 1/10th as well as they do in the turn based mode, and the newer fans hate how clunky and awkward the party AI behaves in comparison to the preciseness of a game like Diablo.

Realtime vs. Turn-based isn't the issue. Half-assed vs. getting the job done right is.

Having pointless battles against weak enemies is a silly gameplay mechanic anyway. Why are the battles in there?

'I think it's an honest attempt by the game developers themselves to streamline the game and make it more interesting, and they have do so without following through with the kind of AI polish that is required to make party-based real time combat work effectively.'

I don't. Can you seriously declare the realtime combat in FO:T superior to the turnbased combat in FO2? It didn't seem to go all that much faster, either.

[Doug Erickson]

Pool of Radiance also ate hard drives alive and was universally panned. The fact that it sold 100K+ simply indicates the power of the AD&D license and press hype.

If BG2 wasn't based on the AD&D license and hyped by the press, it would probably have sold about the same as Fallout.

Turn-based versus real-time is a non-issue when it comes to sales. A turn-based game can sell just as well if it is marketed properly. Do you honestly think Baldur's Gate would have only made Fallout-level numbers if it had an elegant turn-based combat system, in spite of the ten trillion previews and the license?

And you still haven't explained why the turn-based combat in a Final Fantasy game hasn't turned people away in droves nine iterations after the first, with all these new-fangled RT combat systems in place. Maybe it's because - gasp - people DON'T CARE, as long as it plays well, and that sales are influenced FAR more by the license or the series' reputation than any implementation of combat?

Why hasn't Arcanum sold more copies than Fallout, anyway? What will your excuse be when Lionheart sells fewer (or at best roughly the same)copies than Fallout?

By your argument, companies shouldn't even bother making a game if it doesn't have a D&D license. Hell, why stop there? Why not make all RPGs straight clones of Diablo 2 - the kids obviously prefer that approach, if sales are the sole reasons a game's format is chosen.


Also, just out of curiosity, does ANYONE here actually play the BG series combat WITHOUT pausing regularly (and thus interrupting the visual dynamic that's supposedly the strong selling point of RT combat)?

[routlaw]

Having pointless battles against weak enemies is a silly gameplay mechanic anyway. Why are the battles in there?

Funny that you should mention that, beause to be honest I could never figure it out, either. I know fighting bears and ettercaps in BG2 seemed kinda silly considering my party could take down giants and liches without much problem. You could look at it as a result of non-linearity-when you don't know where the player might go, you have to populate encouters to the lowest possible denominator. You could always scale the encouters to the level of the party, but that has its own problems as well, as anyone who has played through the latter chapters of the NWN campaign could attest to.


I don't. Can you seriously declare the realtime combat in FO:T superior to the turnbased combat in FO2? It didn't seem to go all that much faster, either.

The focus of Falllout 2 and the focus of FO:Tactics were very different-one is a straight-up BIS flavored RPG, and the other is more like a Jagged Alliance squad based action game. I'm not saying that there's not spillover, but the demands of FO:T (elevation, increased LOS, squad tactics, etc.) increaed the base complexity of the combat over that found in FO2. If Fallout Tactics had been a turn-based only game, combat would have taken much longer, to the point where battles would have been just too long to play in one sitting. I don't think that's acceptable, and neither did the developers, either.

[Kevin Perry]

If Fallout Tactics had been a turn-based only game, combat would have taken much longer, to the point where battles would have been just too long to play in one sitting. I don't think that's acceptable, and neither did the developers, either.

Except that FO:T offered a turn-based mode, which I played it in. So the developers felt it acceptable enough to do a hell of a lot of work to put it in there alongside a RT mode as well.

[Dave Long]

I love the hybrid system in Grandia II. That system needs to be exploited by developers in a PC strategy game. It's easily one of the most entertaining combat systems I've seen in any game.

--Dave

[Jason McCullough]

Having pointless battles against weak enemies is a silly gameplay mechanic anyway. Why are the battles in there?

Funny that you should mention that, beause to be honest I could never figure it out, either. I know fighting bears and ettercaps in BG2 seemed kinda silly considering my party could take down giants and liches without much problem. You could look at it as a result of non-linearity-when you don't know where the player might go, you have to populate encouters to the lowest possible denominator. You could always scale the encouters to the level of the party, but that has its own problems as well, as anyone who has played through the latter chapters of the NWN campaign could attest to.


I don't. Can you seriously declare the realtime combat in FO:T superior to the turnbased combat in FO2? It didn't seem to go all that much faster, either.

The focus of Falllout 2 and the focus of FO:Tactics were very different-one is a straight-up BIS flavored RPG, and the other is more like a Jagged Alliance squad based action game. I'm not saying that there's not spillover, but the demands of FO:T (elevation, increased LOS, squad tactics, etc.) increaed the base complexity of the combat over that found in FO2. If Fallout Tactics had been a turn-based only game, combat would have taken much longer, to the point where battles would have been just too long to play in one sitting. I don't think that's acceptable, and neither did the developers, either.

As near as I can tell, developers are completely insane. They should either script the removal of grunt-work encounters if you're too high a level, or beef them up.

Oh, and what Kevin Perry said.

[Matthew Gallant]

I love the hybrid system in Grandia II. That system needs to be exploited by developers in a PC strategy game. It's easily one of the most entertaining combat systems I've seen in any game.

--Dave

I agree. It puts a little bit of tactics into a battle, and makes the tough battles a lot more interesting. Head and shoulders above any other console RPG combat system.

[Desslock]

>What will your excuse be when Lionheart sells fewer (or at best roughly the same)copies than Fallout? By your argument, companies shouldn't even bother making a game

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but I was by no means stating that real-time combat games will always be better/outsell turn-based combat games. As I indicated, I like - probably prefer - turn-based games.

But risk-adverse publishers, including Interplay, have looked at recent sales trends and perceive that turn-based RPGs appeal to a niche market. I think that conclusion is just wrong -- aside from the Final Fantasy games which you mentioned (which did not sell well on the PC, btw), turn-based games in other genres (Civ) clearly show that such games are capable of selling big numbers. But according to Feargus Urquhart - producer of Lionheart and head of the RPG division - they've shied away from turn-based only games because of the perception that they lack broad appeal. Correct or otherwise, I don't think that's an uncommon opinion, or one that is easily dismissed.

Mark's PC Data numbers are likely more up to date. The last figure I had for Pool of Radiance was from end of 2001, at which point only 72,000 copies had been sold domestically in the markets NRP tracks. A lot of the more recent sales were probably bargain bin purchases.

[Mark Asher]

"Mark's PC Data numbers are likely more up to date. The last figure I had for Pool of Radiance was from end of 2001, at which point only 72,000 copies had been sold domestically in the markets NRP tracks. A lot of the more recent sales were probably bargain bin purchases."

Yeah, but Fallout's numbers were probably inflated in a similar manner. You can still buy a JC version that bundles FO1 and FO2 for $10.

If Pool had gotten good buzz, I think it would have done quite well. I think there's a good-sized audience for a turn-based D&D game. People have fond memories of the Gold Box series.

[Jason McCullough]

>What will your excuse be when Lionheart sells fewer (or at best roughly the same)copies than Fallout? By your argument, companies shouldn't even bother making a game

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but I was by no means stating that real-time combat games will always be better/outsell turn-based combat games. As I indicated, I like - probably prefer - turn-based games.

But risk-adverse publishers, including Interplay, have looked at recent sales trends and perceive that turn-based RPGs appeal to a niche market. I think that conclusion is just wrong -- aside from the Final Fantasy games which you mentioned (which did not sell well on the PC, btw), turn-based games in other genres (Civ) clearly show that such games are capable of selling big numbers. But according to Feargus Urquhart - producer of Lionheart and head of the RPG division - they've shied away from turn-based only games because of the perception that they lack broad appeal. Correct or otherwise, I don't think that's an uncommon opinion, or one that is easily dismissed.

If everyone in the industry thinks it, but is completely unable to come up with a statistical justification for it, then its easily dismissed. Remember how everyone wanted "interactive movies?" No evidence, conventional wisdom, completely wrong.

[Doug Erickson]

But according to Feargus Urquhart - producer of Lionheart and head of the RPG division - they've shied away from turn-based only games because of the perception that they lack broad appeal. Correct or otherwise, I don't think that's an uncommon opinion, or one that is easily dismissed.


If by "not easily dismissed", you mean finding the sales monkey responsible for the notion that turn-based combat restricts sales and punching them repeatedly in throat until they either die in a pool of their watery blood or learn a few things about the RPG genre, then, yes it's a problem not easily dismissed.

However, basic analysis of RPG sales doesn't bear that theory out in any way, shape, or form. RPGs, pretty much by their very nature - geeky stories populated with expository dialogue trees, weapons ranked by numbers, and elves - "lack broad appeal", in both definitions of the term "broad". The "turn-based" versus "real-time" distinction, I suspect, is completely academic to the fanbase - they're more likely to buy the game because it's from Black Isle than they are because it has an RT combat scheme.

You wanna break out and score "broad appeal"? Get a good license, like AD&D. It won't make the game better, but it'll at least link in an extra niche demographic - the union of AD&D fans and hardcore RPG purchasers should always result in stronger numbers.

Conversely, I don't think many Red Alert fans snatched up BG because "it might be an RPG, but hey, it's in real-time!" I think the two sets are significantly more disparate than that.

[Desslock]

>you mean finding the sales monkey responsible for the notion that turn-based combat restricts sales and punching them repeatedly in throat until they either die in a pool of their watery blood or learn a few things

You've convinced me - you clearly don't express niche views, heh.

>The "turn-based" versus "real-time" distinction, I suspect, is completely academic to the fanbase - they're more likely to buy the game because it's from Black Isle than they are because it has an RT combat scheme

But publishers, rightly or wrongly, aren't aiming for the traditional RPG fanbase -- they're seeking games with broader appeal, and not just targeting gamers who would be happy with Jeff Vogel's (excellent) turn-based/limited graphics kinda games.

It's also difficult to get PC games that don't have multiplayer features financed -- until recently, publishers looked at the best selling games from recent years (Quake, Half-life, Command & Conquer, Diablo, StarCraft) and erroneously concluded that multiplayer features were a prerequisite to big sales. Then along came single player only games like the Sims, Railroad Tycoon and Max Payne, which all did extremely well. Hopefully that'll give ammunition to developers trying to produce single player games, but I doubt it -- they'll find other reasons to rationalize the results.

When Neverwinter Nights outsells Morrowind, which it will do decisively, publishers will probably be further convinced of the importance of multiplayer features, without really properly weighing other factors behind those results.

>If everyone in the industry thinks it, but is completely unable to come up with a statistical justification for it, then its easily dismissed

But there -is- a statistical correlation between having real-time combat in RPGs and RPG hybrids and sales success -- even though companies are erroneously concluding cause/effect because of that correlation, or at least overvaluing that feature.

The best selling RPGs/RPG hybrid games over the past several years have been been games that featured real-time combat: the Diablo games and the BG games. Those games all sold over a million units, other than BG2, which was pretty close. When games with a certain feature are selling ten times as many copies as the best selling games lacking that feature, that feature loses popularity with publishers. Even though some real-time combat RPGs haven't sold well either, I think it's a popular conception among major publishers that even the best turn-based RPGs are incapable of selling a million units.

Stefan

[Jason McCullough]

>you mean finding the sales monkey responsible for the notion that turn-based combat restricts sales and punching them repeatedly in throat until they either die in a pool of their watery blood or learn a few things

You've convinced me - you clearly don't express niche views, heh.

>The "turn-based" versus "real-time" distinction, I suspect, is completely academic to the fanbase - they're more likely to buy the game because it's from Black Isle than they are because it has an RT combat scheme

But publishers, rightly or wrongly, aren't aiming for the traditional RPG fanbase -- they're seeking games with broader appeal, and not just targeting gamers who would be happy with Jeff Vogel's (excellent) turn-based/limited graphics kinda games.

It's also difficult to get PC games that don't have multiplayer features financed -- until recently, publishers looked at the best selling games from recent years (Quake, Half-life, Command & Conquer, Diablo, StarCraft) and erroneously concluded that multiplayer features were a prerequisite to big sales. Then along came single player only games like the Sims, Railroad Tycoon and Max Payne, which all did extremely well. Hopefully that'll give ammunition to developers trying to produce single player games, but I doubt it -- they'll find other reasons to rationalize the results.

When Neverwinter Nights outsells Morrowind, which it will do decisively, publishers will probably be further convinced of the importance of multiplayer features, without really properly weighing other factors behind those results.

>If everyone in the industry thinks it, but is completely unable to come up with a statistical justification for it, then its easily dismissed

But there -is- a statistical correlation between having real-time combat in RPGs and RPG hybrids and sales success -- even though companies are erroneously concluding cause/effect because of that correlation, or at least overvaluing that feature.

The best selling RPGs/RPG hybrid games over the past several years have been been games that featured real-time combat: the Diablo games and the BG games. Those games all sold over a million units, other than BG2, which was pretty close. When games with a certain feature are selling ten times as many copies as the best selling games lacking that feature, that feature loses popularity with publishers. Even though some real-time combat RPGs haven't sold well either, I think it's a popular conception among major publishers that even the best turn-based RPGs are incapable of selling a million units.

Stefan

'But publishers, rightly or wrongly, aren't aiming for the traditional RPG fanbase -- they're seeking games with broader appeal, and not just targeting gamers who would be happy with Jeff Vogel's (excellent) turn-based/limited graphics kinda games.'

So they're not aiming at the traditional RPG fanbase by.....making traditional RPGs? Basically, the assumption is that they can trick people into enjoying AD&D by removing the turn-based part. Who are these people who'd play AD&D "if only it wasn't turnbased?" Do the entire 12 of them outweigh the pissed-off hardcore fanbase? Do they exist at all?

'But there -is- a statistical correlation between having real-time combat in RPGs and RPG hybrids and sales success -- even though companies are erroneously concluding cause/effect because of that correlation, or at least overvaluing that feature.'

Oh, I agree. I just don't see the cause/effect.

[Brian Koontz]

Desslock: Name a single RPG with turn based combat that's sold more than 150,000 units, domestically. There ain't one.

Hmm... Betrayal at Krondor? That sold well... I don't know where to access sales numbers so I can't check on whether it made 150k.

Might and Magic VI?

Desslock: Baldur's Gate, which I think a lot of RPG fans would rate as inferior to Fallout, outsold the latter game by a 7:1 margin.

That's more an issue of Fallout being Sci-Fi versus Baldur's Gate's traditional setting. D&D rules the RPG world, still.

[Brad Grenz]

Also, I'm not sure you can hold up the BG games as a success for real-time combat because I have trouble beleiving anyone played those games without hitting the space bar a whole lot.

[Desslock]

>Might and Magic VI?

Both VI and VII sold about 100,000 units. VIII and IX were way below that.

I don't have any figures on older games like Betrayal at Krondor (Adam?), but I wouldn't be surprised if you're right about that one. It was a completely different world back when it came out though -- although there were a few early adopters, like Ultima 7, "real-time" games hadn't really kicked in yet -- WarCraft and Dune2/Command & Conquer hadn't even been released yest, after all.

[mtkafka]

I do think turn based crpg's can be succesful... but they'll have to be in the vein of a Heroes type game. The fantasy strategy genre SEEMS to be selling, so why not a crpg? who knows.... Diablo and Balders Gate changed the crpg landscape... maybe a turn based crpg will come back? I mean, if console crpgs still do the parry parry attack attack Bards Tale meets Wizardry turn based combat... I'm sure theres some life left in tb crpgs, at least commercially viable ones. Is Bioware's SW:KOTR going turnbased ala console rpgs?

etc

[Jason McCullough]

I took a break for a while, and I'm started up again yesterday; I'm nearly at the end of chapter 2. The game gets much better, and the neato Charwood castle thing was better than the quests in BG2. Why, oh why, is the first chapter so bad though.....

[Desslock]

Anyway, had you spent any time with Bioware's previous D&D games you'd remember the fun of killing Trolls and then, suddenly, remembering you don't have any fire or acid. They come back to life and you kill them again... ad infinitum. Until you escape and have your mage memorize Melf's Acid Arrow or Burning Hands... then you go and kill 'em again!
From the 1st edition Monster Manual: "To kill a Troll, the monster must be burned or immersed in acid... As I said, unless they changed this in 3E, it's missing, but not really a big deal.

...o.k., I'm a little behind in my gaming (Morrowind-lag). Just really getting into NWN and IWD 2 -- it's interesting to see how the two teams adapted the 3rd Edition D&D rules (both did a good job, especially compared to Stormfront's job on Pool of Radiance 2), but I thought they made some interesting, different choices. Uh, maybe I'll write something about it one of these days. So I was just going through this thread to see what you guys thought of the game when it first came out.

...and I can answer this question. Trolls do regenerate in NWN, but in 3rd Edition D&D, monsters that regenerate can instantly be killed if they're knocked unconscious (as a result of the "coup de grace" rules in 3rd Edition). That's expressly stated in the 3rd Edition monster manual, so you don't have to finish them off with acid/fire as in BG2, etc.

Apologies for the geek-out indulgence.

Stefan

[Brooski]

I'm nearly at the end of chapter 2. The game gets much better, and the neato Charwood castle thing was better than the quests in BG2.
Better in what way? The dialogue boxes all go away? The combat system completely changes? Or do you just mean that the story gets "better?" What is neato about this castle? Jason, can you be more specific?


Apologies for the geek-out indulgence.
Don't you have some work to do?

[Bub, Andrew]

...and I can answer this question. Trolls do regenerate in NWN, but in 3rd Edition D&D, monsters that regenerate can instantly be killed if they're knocked unconscious (as a result of the "coup de grace" rules in 3rd Edition). That's expressly stated in the 3rd Edition monster manual, so you don't have to finish them off with acid/fire as in BG2, etc.


And yet in IWD2, also 3rd Edition, the Trolls come back to life if you don't use fire. (I know, I know, it's because it's an Infinity Engine game and they didn't change/update everything.)
My point still stands that in NWN the Trolls are rendered far less dangerous because you don't need fire (scarecrow).

[Murph]

Did it really make that much difference? I remember trolls being a bit of a pain, but I wouldn't have called them "dangerous," even before. How hard is it to find a spell or an arrow with acid or fire? Maybe it's just because I had three mages in my party, but I never had any problem with some fire spell or Melf's Acid Arrow.

Not that big of a deal to me.

[Bub, Andrew]

And combat depleted those fire spells. In BG or IWD1 this was really painful because you had maybe 2-5 of them total (when you were low-to-mid level). Eventually you (ok, I) had to fight them sans fire. In BG2, since you're 7th level to start, it's not so much of a problem.

In NWN with my tank Paladin and his tank Half-Orc Ranger I was smacking trolls to death with nary a concern for their regeneration abilities.

Anyway, it really isn't a big deal. Scroll back, I only brought it up because I was wondering if it was a new 3E rule that Trolls didn't regen back to life.

[Jason McCullough]

[quote=Jason McCullough]I'm nearly at the end of chapter 2. The game gets much better, and the neato Charwood castle thing was better than the quests in BG2.
Better in what way? The dialogue boxes all go away? The combat system completely changes? Or do you just mean that the story gets "better?" What is neato about this castle? Jason, can you be more specific?

I was wrong, the game still completely sucks. It's only tolerable for a short period in Charwood where a quest or two becomes vaguely interesting; otherwise, it's the same assy.

[Desslock]

>In BG or IWD1 this was really painful because you had maybe 2-5 of them total

IWD1. There were no trolls in BG.

>I only brought it up because I was wondering if it was a new 3E rule that Trolls didn't regen back to life.

And that is the case, so BioWare's interpretation is more accurate, for what it's worth.

[Bub, Andrew]

"And that is the case, so BioWare's interpretation is more accurate, for what it's worth."

Yeah, I allowed that when I called it an Infinity Engine cause in IWD2. And really? There weren't Trolls in BG? I'll defer to you because you wrote a strategy guide but I remember a Troll or two... No matter.

[Chris Nahr]

Trolls are not a big problem in IWD2 because there's tons of burning potions around, from simple lamp oil to all kinds of exploding potions. Besides, most trolls in IWD2 are some kind of specialty trolls that don't seem to require fire or acid to be killed. No idea if this conforms to the 3rd ed. rules or not.

Great game by the way, and much easier than IWD1! I'm playing on Normal and have just completed the first map on Chapter 2 without major problems so far, the balance is just right. Ironically I've seen complaints by people who thought IWD2 is harder than IWD1... those might be AD&D cracks who have trouble adjusting to D&D3, though. Personally I'm finding the new rules much more intuitive.

[Bub, Andrew]

What's your party Chris?

[Desslock]

>There weren't Trolls in BG? I'll defer to you because you wrote a strategy guide but I remember a Troll or two... No matter

No, they were introduced in IWD and BG2, which were in development concurrently.

>Great game by the way, and much easier than IWD1! I'm playing on Normal and have just completed the first map on Chapter 2 without major problems so far, the balance is just right. Ironically I've seen complaints by people who thought IWD2 is harder than IWD1

I've gotten some mail from people saying they find IWD2 harder than IWD1 - I believe Bill Abner mentioned he felt the same thing. I think it is just a matter of getting used to the rules. I don't think either was anywhere near as hard as BG2 could be.

Stefan

[Raife]

I just finished the main NWN campaign last night, and while it was enjoyable overall, some aspects of the game did bug me.

Primarily - and this is a common complaint - it was the henchman AI. Good lord, how about a 'come over here' or 'disengage' command from the wheel menu thing?

I played a Ranger/Fighter, and used Tomi about 60% of the time for his trap detection/removal. If I wanted him to get closer, and couldn't maneuver him by walking, I had to wade through about six dialogue menus. Then do it again to get him to hang back (he was mainly ranged support, as he tended to get beat up in melee).

They could have even used a modified 'fear' script for 'disengage.' The 'come here' script would have been easy enough to do.

The other henchman complaint was a lack of a 'follow, but do not attack/disarm' script. Way too many times would a trap/enemy be detected and my henchmen would run off to engage/disarm, often headlong into another trap or enemy group. Tomi would even open doors (sometimes trapped ones) to get to a trap detected on a chest or on the floor just beyond it.

Something like a 'disarm all nearby detected traps' would have been nice while exploring, maintaining a 'do not disarm' the rest of the time.

I did like the story after things got going, and henchman problems aside, I enjoyed the game. The henchman stuff is just maddening, though.

I'm sort of hesitant to join one of the group games (neverwinterconnections.com), but I'm thinking multiplayer would avoid most of the problems I have with NWN. Has anyone done any of this? I'm curious as to how you even set up a character.

[Alan Au]

Yeah, this is supposed to be an NWN thread, but IWD2 has come up a few times and I figure I'd add my thoughts.

I think IWD2 is a better game because it enforces a lot of the role-playing. For example, certain dialogue options are only available to you based upon your alignment, sex, race, class, skill levels, etc. You get to make some choices during the game, but mostly it's about playing out the consequences of the choices you made way back at the beginning during character creation. I also find the IWD2 combat more difficult than IWD1, probably because I have allocated more points towards non-combat skills (in the interest of improving my dialogue options). Well, that and I'm playing with a three-person party.

- Alan

[Chris Nahr]

What's your party Chris?

Wow, someone replied to me! Sorry, I didn't (consciously?) read this thread for a few days... anyway, my party is the prerolled neutral dwarven party, the one led by Halgren Death's Head if I recall the name correctly. Certainly strong but not min/maxed. I do think it's important to have a few tanks and not too many spellcasters -- and as usual with Infinity Engine games, everyone should get a good ranged weapon ASAP (even Sorcerers can use heavy crossbows now!).

I'm at the start of Chapter 3 now, and the game continues to be perfectly balanced in my experience. I'm also very delighted at the multitude of slot-saving bags available to the player, and at the fact that monsters now drop gold, potions or ammo instead of useless junk. Being deep in a dungeon with mobs dropping nothing but rusty shortswords, and then not being able to afford decent arrows back in town, really sent my blood pressure through the roof in IWD1.


I think IWD2 is a better game because it enforces a lot of the role-playing.

Fortunately it doesn't, really. :) Sure, the Black Isle dialogue is much more varied than your typical Bioware dross, but overall the game is still relentlessly linear and you can take pretty much any decision you like at any point in the game without affecting anything else. Choose or avoid combat, gain some extra XP or not, that's about it as far as I've seen.