Darkness over Daggerford

[HRose]

Excuse me.

NWN:



DS:







Look at the texture on the terrain and then tell me if DS isn't so much more organic and immersive. And then look also at the variable heights that the terrain can have and the smoother lights. NWN is flat and boxy. DS is organic and does the z-axis quite well.

And, I repeat, where DS was much superior was the animations, that in NWN were really horrible and silly.

[Abbaon]

Originally Posted by HRose

Excuse me.

Excuse me, but screenshots from a mod released last year have no bearing on whether NWN looked better than DS at release. And you can't compare the animation fairly either, as Dungeon Siege included and animated a much smaller variety of playable races. It didn't have even one of these:

[Chris Nahr]

Please, DS wins on terrain alone. I've played both games when they were released. We would look at NWN and say "eek, what's that? This blocky ugly crap is what they dropped the Infinity engine for!?". On the other hand, DS was stunningly beautiful at the time it came out. We marveled that a 3D top-down game could rival the looks of the hand-painted backgrounds of the Infinity engine, and that with background animations (swaying trees!) that only a 3D engine could do.

Not that this comparison in any way matches my judgment on the games themselves. NWN was a very solid, complex game system with some excellent modules, whereas DS was a boring fantasy-themed screensaver that was untainted by any understanding of what makes either RPGs or Roguelikes work. But claiming that DS wasn't substantially prettier than NWN is just fanboy lunacy.

[Steel_Wind]

The comparisons between the terrain systems used in both games are utterly ridiculous.

Is DS more complicated and organic in look? Absolutely. Is there a reason for this? Absolutely. It's called tile based vs. modeled terrain. (There is one more tiny gloss on this - most of what is modeled in DS is not actually wallkable. The ghostbuster red "0" appears everywhere.)

NWN was designed to support a large and vibrant mod community. That's why it was tile based. If you are comparing the games out of the box for each...ok. I agree.

But to do so simply ignores why NWN has been on the shelves for four years and DS barely survived the summer of 2002 after NWN was released.

To compare the relatively tiny and relatively insignificant (yes, sorry - insignificant is *spot on*) mod community of DS to the massive community of NWN is, moreover, a joke.

DS had better lighting. It's terrain out of the box looked better. It's textures, however, were low res 256x256 and were inferior to NWN's. The point arose out of a misunderstanding of the default texture resolution of NWN1. That's it; that's all.

[HRose]

Higer res doesn't mean better artistic quality.

See, comparing DS to NWN is like comparing WoW to EQ2.

[roguefrog]

To compare the relatively tiny and relatively insignificant (yes, sorry - insignificant is *spot on*) mod community of DS to the massive community of NWN is, moreover, a joke.

And ironically, Lazarus is easily better than any nwn mod.

[caesarbear]

Originally Posted by Bill Dungsroman

I never quite understood the point of going to 3D in a fixed-perspective RPG

It's not really a fixed perspective. The camera is locked on your character but by using the cutscene mechanics, the camera can be positioned almost anywhere. Also 3D is what enables games like DS to feel like you are hanging in the treetops, or NWN to feel the bustle of a town. It's unfortunate that the level of 3D tech and art was still low back in 2002, but is eye candy the reason devs should not have attempted to create a more intimate world? I've heard arguments that fantasy RPGs should stick to 2D, but not because it just looks more purdy.

Nobody's forcing you to defend an essentially nondefensible position, that of your critique of someone else's rational opinion, either.

Pointing out that someone's opinion is hyperbole and not actually rational is indefensible? I agree with HRose in that DS had much better animations and a more organic feel. Yet when HRose cherry picks screenshots and reduces them so that the texture faults of DS are not evident then I have to wonder where the "messageboard sophistry bullshit" is actually coming from.

NWN deserved plenty of criticism when it was released. Besides an underwhelming and borderline farcical original campaign, a blocky and inorganic graphics set was one of them. Yet right now NWN is an unrivaled wealth of RPG gaming, with something for everyone. You can look past the low number of polygons and see what it has to offer, or you can continue to bitch, moan and exaggerate about the graphics.

[HRose]

Originally Posted by caesarbear

Yet when HRose cherry picks screenshots and reduces them so that the texture faults of DS are not evident then I have to wonder where the "messageboard sophistry bullshit" is actually coming from.

It wasn't that the purpose. I made them small to not hog the thread.

Imho, it looks great fullscreen.

And I took those screenshots just because I had them available and nothing else.

The very first image from DS is what you see the first time you boot the game.

You can look past the low number of polygons and see what it has to offer, or you can continue to bitch, moan and exaggerate about the graphics.

Not just the graphic. The gameplay and combat was awful.

Fighting in DS is hundred times more smooth and fun. But then it's the D&D ruleset to not translate well to a computer game.

Oh, and I was forgetting the UI. The UI was really good and usable in DS (even more than the sequel) and it had great controls for the party.

[caesarbear]

Well here's a screenshot that I think highlights some of the weaknesses of DS graphics:

Originally Posted by HRose

Not just the graphic. The gameplay and combat was awful.

Fighting in DS is hundred times more smooth and fun. But then it's the D&D ruleset to not translate well to a computer game.

Oh, and I was forgetting the UI. The UI was really good and usable in DS (even more than the sequel) and it had great controls for the party.

Personally, I thought DS played the game for you. The combat was rather boring and repetitive to me.

Is there something specific about NWN gameplay you're going to call awful, or are you just dismissing the whole game?

[HRose]

Originally Posted by caesarbear

Is there something specific about NWN gameplay you're going to call awful, or are you just dismissing the whole game?

Not the game, the ruleset.

The D&D rules just don't translate well to a computer game. In a party there's at least some space for strategy even if the dowtimes from battle to battle are bad, but in NWN the gameplay was really dull and the bad animations didn't help either.

[caesarbear]

Originally Posted by HRose

Not the game, the ruleset.

The D&D rules just don't translate well to a computer game. In a party there's at least some space for strategy even if the dowtimes from battle to battle are bad, but in NWN the gameplay was really dull and the bad animations didn't help either.

I will agree with you wholeheartedly there. NWN (or any fantasy RPG) would be much better if wrentched from the clutches of d20 and WotC. I don't have much against Forgotten Realms, but yeah, D&D should be left to pen and paper. But that's not the whole of NWN's gameplay.

[Sarkus]

Originally Posted by HRose

Not the game, the ruleset.

The D&D rules just don't translate well to a computer game. In a party there's at least some space for strategy even if the dowtimes from battle to battle are bad, but in NWN the gameplay was really dull and the bad animations didn't help either.

How much NWN have you played to come to that conclusion? Do you realize that NWN is NOT just your character plus one companion anymore? When I first got NWN I hated it because the original single player campaign was so bad. I tried a few fan made modules but still couldn't get into it. Two years later I bought a combo pack with both of the expansions and suddenly found out what all the fuss was about. The gameplay has not remained static and has steadily improved both in terms of official modules and unofficial modules.

The whole DS versus NWN debate is pointless. DS was a better looking game than NWN but was a shell of a good game. Gameplay is what matters. DS2 is actually not bad at all, though I know most people passed it by.

Converting any pen and paper ruleset to computer is an inherent "Catch 22" situation. If you are faithful to the rules then it looks like you are not taking advantage of what the computer can do. If you deviate from the rules to take advantage of the computer, then you alienate long time pen and paper fans who just want a computer version of what they've enjoyed.

[roguefrog]

ToEE did D&D combat amazingly well. Play it and see for yourself.

My main problem with NWN is it's a single "character" game IE non-"party" based. The D&D rules are made with a "party" in mind, hence D&D computer games should be "party"-based. Only being able to control a single character (class) is pretty lame, and doesn't feel like actual D&D.

[Robert Sharp]

You still can't control any of those other characters, except to give them orders that they may or may not follow. I just feel like the game took a huge step back from the infinity engine games (which are STILL good). NWN did add parties, but the lame AI and inability to control them made the game essentially single-player plus some pseudo-allies.

I had fun with NWN (diamond) for a couple of weeks, despite its many problems. The mod community made a huge difference. I still think the game would be fun with an actual group and a DM (I never played it that way, sadly). But as a single-player experience, it lacks a lot (IMO, of course).

[caesarbear]

Originally Posted by roguefrog

ToEE did DnD combat amazingly well. Play it and see for yourself.

Turnbased. Plus, in terms of computer games, turnbased combat has been done better by game without a D&D licence.

My main problem with NWN is it's a single "character" game IE non-"party" based. The DnD rules are made with a "party" in mind, hence DnD computer games should be "party"-based. Only being able to control a single character (class) is pretty lame, and doesn't feel like actually DnD.

In pnp D&D you only play one character. NWN is the attempt to computerize pnp D&D, and in many respects they succeeded. NWN DMed multiplayer feels more like D&D than any other computer game with the D&D logo slapped on it. There are plenty of DMed games starting up and many welcome newcomers, so if you're interested, sign up at Neverwinter Connections.

As a singleplayer cRPG, the D&D rules do create issues when you have one PC as your resource in a system designed for parties. However this can be worked around by design. If you simply don't like single PC RPGs like Oblivion and Gothic, then you still won't like it in NWN, but there are plenty of adventures that are well tailored and appropriate to playing one PC. Would it be better without D&D rules attached? sure, but if your main problem with NWN is that it isn't Baldur's Gate, then you are missing the point.

[roguefrog]

Originally Posted by Robert Sharp

You still can't control any of those other characters, except to give them orders that they may or may not follow. I just feel like the game took a huge step back from the infinity engine games (which are STILL good). NWN did add parties, but the lame AI and inability to control them made the game essentially single-player plus some pseudo-allies.

You have full control of characters you create in ToEE. NWN's "henchman" sucked.

Turnbased. Plus, in terms of computer games, turnbased combat has been done better by game without a D&D licence.

PnP D&D is turnbased so it only makes more sense. It feels more like D&D.

Pity I never played a multiplayer DMed game of NWN. I enjoy single "character" crpgs a plenty (Fallout, Arcanum, and Bloodlines). However single "character" D&D is different. My problem with NWN is it doesn't really feel like D&D, at least when you play it as a single-player game.

[Chris Woods]

Originally Posted by caesarbear

Turnbased. Plus, in terms of computer games, turnbased combat has been done better by game without a D&D licence.

The only game I can think of that did turnbased combat better is JA2, and that's mainly because guns and posture add a lot fo tactical combat. ToEE had a marvelous combat engine, though.

The shoehorning of Real Time into DnD for the computer is always doomed to failure I think. DnD combat for low level characters is really quite dangerous, and having an engine where one mistake can result in death at the beginning of the game is just bad. Other games, such as Diablo II or Titan Quest, show how Real Time combat can really work. In those games, one mistake = death comes at the end of the game, when the player has hours of experience with the interface and his characters abilities, instead of at the beginning when the player is trying to learn the basics.

Chris Woods

[caesarbear]

Originally Posted by roguefrog

My problem with NWN is it doesn't really feel like D&D, at least when you play it as a single-player game.

Arcanum didn't feel like D&D either, what's your point?

[caesarbear]

Originally Posted by Chris Woods

The shoehorning of Real Time into DnD for the computer is always doomed to failure I think. DnD combat for low level characters is really quite dangerous, and having an engine where one mistake can result in death at the beginning of the game is just bad. Other games, such as Diablo II or Titan Quest, show how Real Time combat can really work. In those games, one mistake = death comes at the end of the game, when the player has hours of experience with the interface and his characters abilities, instead of at the beginning when the player is trying to learn the basics.

You'll get no argument from me on that. Yet I don't play NWN because I'm looking for a combat game. D2 and TQ are fun diversions and good examples of how to make a simple combat system entertaining in a computer game, but they are not what I'm looking for in an RPG.

[stusser]

NWN2 has true BG-style party members and 2006 graphics. Having just replayed BG+BG2+expansions, I'm really pretty stoked about that. I expect the single-player campaign included with the game to be excellent. Only concern is how much support it receives after release, if they generate the same kind of mods, etc.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Originally Posted by caesarbear

It's not really a fixed perspective. The camera is locked on your character but by using the cutscene mechanics, the camera can be positioned almost anywhere. Also 3D is what enables games like DS to feel like you are hanging in the treetops, or NWN to feel the bustle of a town. It's unfortunate that the level of 3D tech and art was still low back in 2002, but is eye candy the reason devs should not have attempted to create a more intimate world? I've heard arguments that fantasy RPGs should stick to 2D, but not because it just looks more purdy.

Yeah, those arguments must be pretty silly. This isn't one of them, however. I didn't say RPGs should be 2D forever. I just expressed my annoyance that some of the early 3D RPGs looked worse than 2D predecessors. You can keep up with your "Psh graphics whore" angle if you want, but when any significant aspect of a game's quality takes a dive in lieu of its supposed technical prowess, I reserve the right to call foul.

Pointing out that someone's opinion is hyperbole and not actually rational is indefensible? I agree with HRose in that DS had much better animations and a more organic feel. Yet when HRose cherry picks screenshots and reduces them so that the texture faults of DS are not evident then I have to wonder where the "messageboard sophistry bullshit" is actually coming from.

I don't really know wtf you're talking about now. You agree with HRose's sentiment but not his presentation? Okay.

NWN deserved plenty of criticism when it was released. Besides an underwhelming and borderline farcical original campaign, a blocky and inorganic graphics set was one of them. Yet right now NWN is an unrivaled wealth of RPG gaming, with something for everyone. You can look past the low number of polygons and see what it has to offer, or you can continue to bitch, moan and exaggerate about the graphics.

And you can continue to admit NWN has serious shortcomings in the first sentence of each paragraph and then aggressively defend it and insult anyone who says otherwise by the last sentence, and look like an idiot, as well.

[caesarbear]

Ok, let me try and explain some things here. I fail to see where I've insulted anyone. The folks here at Qt3 are not nearly so thin-skinned to be insulted by me saying they are bitching and exaggerating. They have every right to do that, but I think I can be allowed to counter-argue. Plus, I don't want to continue dragging this thread off-topic.

If there were no modules for NWN, if there were no independent content at all, I would be right in line with calling NWN an overhyped piece of crap. The best parts of HoU were still not worth the price of admission at a game and two expansions. Yet NWN being a toolset first, singleplayer campaign second, changes everything. Active DMed sessions, online persistent worlds, and more hours of quality modules than I can ever hope to complete, changes everything.

NWN is a PC gaming phenomenon. It hits multiple strengths of what a PC game can be today. The community is bigger than you think. I'm heavily involved in it and still I'm just a mere drop in the pond. The poster Steel_Wind, is spokesman for DLA, a content group that's produced the tileset used in Daggerford, a cloak system, and ridable horses, and he's still asked "Is that all?" Daggerford has over 10k downloads in under a week, about on par with the Caesar IV demo on fileplanet. NWN still ranks in the top 10 in player activity on Gamespy servers.

Yet unlike other large communities, NWN's is not monolithic. There's a lot of heated debate about what is the best way to play NWN, whether it's DM online multiplayer, LAN multiplayer, singleplayer, roleplaying PW, MMO-esque PW, action localvault PW, or arena PvP. And then what are the best examples of any of these categories? What all this size and variety means is that, whatever your tastes, it's likely that there's something for you.

It's not as if NWN is entirely original, it has heritage with Unlimited Adventures, Adventure Construction Set, and the original NWN on AOL. But it is indisputably the greatest achievement of it's kind. If you replay BG2 and feel it's 'been there, done that', if you can't quite commit to re-reading the novel of Planescape: Torment, if you wished that maybe some of that wordiness found it's way into Morrowind, then you really ought to look at NWN.

NWN has problems aplenty, but what's with the drama of 'I can't play it because my eyes will bleed' and 'I can't stand that it's D&D yet doesn't play like Baldur's Gate'? Let me just say that I find these thoroughly unconvincing displays of rational critical opinion, and I'll leave it there.

[roguefrog]

Originally Posted by caesarbear

Arcanum didn't feel like D&D either, what's your point?

Uh, that is because Arcanum isn't D&D. I guess my point is NWN failed, at least at the single-player level, at being a good D&D game IE transfering the pnp experience to a computer game. Not whether it's a good crpg, let alone a good game.

[HRose]

Originally Posted by caesarbear

Daggerford has over 10k downloads in under a week

It's free.

NWN has problems aplenty, but what's with the drama of 'I can't play it because my eyes will bleed' and 'I can't stand that it's D&D yet doesn't play like Baldur's Gate'? Let me just say that I find these thoroughly unconvincing displays of rational critical opinion, and I'll leave it there.

For example I cannot read lengthy dialogue in that tiny window on the upper left corner.

[Sebmolo]

Originally Posted by Caesarbear

Stuff

Jeez Bill, you just got owned. HSW's memory is crying itself to sleep.

[Angie Gallant]

I'm a little further into Daggerford and the experience is improving. Still find myself stunned by some of the dialog. Also, it really blows until you get out of Daggerford... the chain of plot quests is just stupid until then. Lots of go look at this thing and then report back to the fucking inn you have to change your fucking clothes to get into. And it's called The Chateau Elite Inn. What the fuck kind of name is that?

The overworld map with random encounters is nice, even if that random pack of gargoyles in the woods didn't make a huge amount of sense. Also there are a whole lot of side-quests. My main complaint there is that most of these side-quests are short. Like "Here's a thing, ok, kill it in the next room, YOU WIN!" short. It's a bit odd.

Definitely my favorite thing about the module is the collector's store. There are tables filled with junk and if you have a good Search score you can find some really nice stuff cheap. If not, the item descriptions and random curiousities are still pretty damn amusing.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Originally Posted by caesarbear

Ok, let me try and explain some things here. I fail to see where I've insulted anyone. The folks here at Qt3 are not nearly so thin-skinned to be insulted by me saying they are bitching and exaggerating. They have every right to do that, but I think I can be allowed to counter-argue. Plus, I don't want to continue dragging this thread off-topic.

You're counter-arguing by agreeing with everyone and then suddenly not, essentially in direct contradiction with what you said initially. Also, you keep crying "Graphics Whore" and other attempts at conflating my points so they are easier for you to refute. So, no hard feelings, but fuck you.

If there were no modules for NWN, if there were no independent content at all, I would be right in line with calling NWN an overhyped piece of crap. The best parts of HoU were still not worth the price of admission at a game and two expansions. Yet NWN being a toolset first, singleplayer campaign second, changes everything. Active DMed sessions, online persistent worlds, and more hours of quality modules than I can ever hope to complete, changes everything.

It doesn't change much when you want to play the single-player campaign you fucking paid for and it's less aesthetically pleasing out of the box than games made by the same developer 3 years prior. I never said it was a worthless game anyway. It's fun watching you breathlessly defend the game and all, because Wow, let's not lay out anything remotely resembling criticism for a game that apparently you have born children for and have a happy life in the suburbs with, or something.

NWN is a PC gaming phenomenon. It hits multiple strengths of what a PC game can be today. The community is bigger than you think. I'm heavily involved in it and still I'm just a mere drop in the pond. The poster Steel_Wind, is spokesman for DLA, a content group that's produced the tileset used in Daggerford, a cloak system, and ridable horses, and he's still asked "Is that all?" Daggerford has over 10k downloads in under a week, about on par with the Caesar IV demo on fileplanet. NWN still ranks in the top 10 in player activity on Gamespy servers.

Yet unlike other large communities, NWN's is not monolithic. There's a lot of heated debate about what is the best way to play NWN, whether it's DM online multiplayer, LAN multiplayer, singleplayer, roleplaying PW, MMO-esque PW, action localvault PW, or arena PvP. And then what are the best examples of any of these categories? What all this size and variety means is that, whatever your tastes, it's likely that there's something for you.

It's not as if NWN is entirely original, it has heritage with Unlimited Adventures, Adventure Construction Set, and the original NWN on AOL. But it is indisputably the greatest achievement of it's kind. If you replay BG2 and feel it's 'been there, done that', if you can't quite commit to re-reading the novel of Planescape: Torment, if you wished that maybe some of that wordiness found it's way into Morrowind, then you really ought to look at NWN.

Super. What the crusty fuck does any of that have to do with anything I said? Nothing. Also, you're an unbelievable histrionic twatsniff for feeling to not only hemorrhage tears of pure love for NWN, but you had to go and malign BG and PT, implying NWN is just flat-out superior to both of those games. I'm sorry you have a short attention span and can't handle the text in PT. "Indisiputably the greatest achievement of its kind." I look forward to hearing how you subcategorize and gerrymander what "kind" of game NWN is, because I bet I can do the same for the BG series and PT. And, of course, again, I never said the game sucked.

NWN has problems aplenty,

I guess there's lots of room for an indisputably greater achievement of its kind, then?

but what's with the drama of 'I can't play it because my eyes will bleed' and 'I can't stand that it's D&D yet doesn't play like Baldur's Gate'? Let me just say that I find these thoroughly unconvincing displays of rational critical opinion, and I'll leave it there.

I doubt you'll leave it there. I don't even know WTF you're yammering about, your fucking quotes don't match up remotely with anything I've said. Other people? Super, go yell at them.

[caesarbear]

I'm sorry that Caltrops sucks so much Bill.

[Aeek]

Originally Posted by HRose

Higer res doesn't mean better artistic quality.

It can even work against it. The more you can do realism the less you need to do art. Compare Oblivion to Morrowind.

[Derek French]

Anyone still talking about Daggerford? Or are we all done and have moved on? /wink