Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer Review

By Kieron Gillen Published 15 October, 2007

Fantasy Adventure: Noun of the Noun.

Version tested: PC

I have to give Mask of the Betrayer this: its qualities were enough to make me decide to restart the original Neverwinter Nights 2, so I could go all the way through the game and into the expansion pack in an enormous fantasy quest. This says something. It's a big fantasy PC videogame quest like Grandma used to make.

Assuming your Grandma worked at Black Isle, obviously.

Starting again also offers us a chance to compare the two directly, and, despite the fact the expansion pack picks up directly from the end of NWN2, they're very different beasts. A lot of things which Neverwinter Nights 2 got wrong, Mask of the Betrayer nails precisely. Oddly, some of the things which NWN2 got right are where MoTB goes a little awry. (Did you like that segue from "Neverwinter Nights 2" and "Mask of the Betrayer" to the clunkily acronymatic "NWN2" and "MoTB", by the way? That's how we're going to roll from here on in.)

As far as expansion packs go, MoTB is a hefty one. The centrepiece is the new campaign, where you can import your surviving character from the previous game, make a new level-18 one, or grab a pre-generated alternative. This means you can just jump straight in with no NWN2 experience, but...well, more on that later. The game's also improved in both interface and graphics speed.

'Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer' Screenshot 1

What do Dark-elves say when you beat them up? DrOW.

Most importantly for the rules lawyers in the audience, there are a load of new classes, prestige classes and Dungeons & Dragons gubbins, which both integrate with the previous game (i.e. you can select one of the new races and classes and go back and play NWN2 with them) and expand it past level 20 into the Epic levels until 30, at the end of which you could punch out Gandalf and piss on his head and he wouldn't say a thing.

Of course, Neverwinter Nights' "thing" is the integrated level-creation system, and an attraction of the content is that you can use all of it in your own adventures. So, for people who just like new content, this add-on pack is attractive even if you never have to play. Also, the manual is much nicer than the one that came with NWN2, which counts for a lot in these lands of lore.

What's it like? Well, the new material's welcome and pretty damn neat. The two new classes are Favoured Soul and Spirit Shaman. The former is basically a Cleric who doesn't do the work - God Just Loves Them - and basically acts like Sorcerer to the Cleric's Mage. Those who don't know what polyhedral dice are will be a little lost by now, but not as lost as they'll be when I say that the Spirit Shamans are a bit like the Favoured Soul to the Druid's Shaman, except with digging spirits instead of trees.

'Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer' Screenshot 2

The Shadow Realm plays with palettes for impressive atmospheric effects. Yes.

The Prestige classes are a similarly welcome bunch, such as the Stormlord, who comes from Divine magic classes who fancy turning the Call Lightning spell into a career option, or the Sacred Fists, who are Divine users who have been looking enviously at the monk's ability to punch right through people. The others - Arcane Scholar of Candlekeep, Invisible Blade and Red Wizard - specialise in really fancy Metamagic effects, daggers, and wearing red robes and getting ink done respectively. The six new races are Wild Elves (who you may know from the Elves Gone Wild series of videos), Half-Drow (who are half-bastards, however you cut it) and four sort of Gensai who are elemental forces of some kind. Frankly, the game doesn't really explain it particularly well.

Oh - and special mention for the new crafting system, which is considerably less fiddly than the original one, and involves lobbing essences into a bag, casting spells at it and BINGO! magic weapon. None of that messing around with ladies in lakes for you to get that Sword +3 Versus Scarabs you've always wanted.

And, yes, I could clearly go on like this until I hit my word-count. Lots of content, which is pretty nifty. Which leads us onto the add-on pack itself, to see how they put all this to bear.

It's immediately clear that Obsidian is a lot more at home with NWN2 than it was the first time out. Going back to the original campaign confirmed it, but it's a lot prettier than before, which deserves some applause. The developers are also doing, on average, much more imaginative stuff. NWN2's opening seemed like a well-executed slog through a lot of standard fantasy tropes. MoTB has a lot more personality, putting you in fantasy situations a little more interesting than "Orcs are angry!" Not wanting to give anything away, much of the game focuses on Spirits, which as well as introducing the Spirit Shaman (and explaining why they're not just Druids with a double-barrelled alliterative name) gives it a unique dreamlike timbre. Hell, there are bits which bring to mind things like Gaiman's Sandman graphic novels, which is high praise indeed.

It's not just plot which drives it in this direction - Obsidian has integrated a mechanism which introduces itself to the game in the second act and increases its sense of character. It's - well - I don't really want to spoil it, as the reveal is pretty neat, but imagine if that bit in Oblivion where you become a vampire wasn't incredibly annoying. It's like that. Clearly, having to worry about something other than where the next dungeon is will annoy certain direct-minded players, but it's one of many things which make MoTB feel like its own creature.

In fact, since it is a leap up from NWN2, you're tempted to suggest people just jump straight in. Problem is, you'll be really hammered by it. You start with level-18 characters. That's a mass of spells. Building a character from scratch will be hard work for those who can't sing the Monster Manual backwards, and even if you go for a pre-generated character you'll be left trying to familiarise yourself with a lot of options very quickly. Manually generate a character and you'll easily make someone who isn't much use. Hell, I chose a pre-generated Favoured Soul with some neat monk-y abilities from the Sacred Fist class. I figured that a Cleric with some fighting abilities would be hard to go wrong. Except that I didn't know the enemies at the start were spirits, most of whom wouldn't even be able to be touched by my character's fists. It's high-level D&D, so you do need to know what you're getting into. Even turning the difficulty down to Easy doesn't exactly make progress, er, easy.

There are also some changes to the engine, which, while they aren't exactly problems, do alter the way you play it. Resting to recover spells is a regular thing in any D&D-originated game. NWN2 chose to break from the rules a little, and have you resting for five seconds. However, MoTB returns to the purist situation where you rest for eight hours in-game-time to recover, with the chance of wandering monsters or whatever. While discouraging you from resting - a good thing - the idea of staying down a dungeon for eight hours remains one of the sillier parts of the system and a real atmosphere-breaker.

'Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer' Screenshot 3

RPG innovation: Mask of the Betrayer features caves.

Also, the game's a little showier with its XP status messages. What was previously lost in the message box is now flashed on the screen, and this can be fun when you get an XP bonus for an unusual act. Being very strongly informed whenever you gain or lose influence with one of your party members pushes you towards actively gaming them - treating them less as characters and more gauges you're trying to fill up. "-6 INFLUENCE WITH WIZARD LADY!" makes you consider reaching for the quick-load in ways that another approach would not.

A minor problem is that while you're enormously powerful you don't exactly feel like it. You're an Epic-level adventurer, and you're still being treated as if you're a kid from the Swamp. People should be impressed by you while you're messing around with Gods and similar, but they're not. It's a perennial problem in high-level adventures on computers, but it being commonplace doesn't make it any less grating.

There are other issues in the plot, too. Take your companions, for example. While I quite like most of them, they're an enormously serious bunch. You suspect Obsidian realised that the Crazy Mob of NWN2 was a little too much, but now we've gone from being a member of Madness to being a member of Joy Division (to go for an inappropriate post-punk metaphor). It's not to say there's not humour in it - there's a scene involving Frost Giants which made me laugh harder than any videogame since SumoTori (and, yes, even Portal). But the timbre is a long way from Dwarf Warriors wanting to become monks because they're good at fighting. Oh, and while the actual campaign itself is polished enough, there's a nasty bug which breaks the original campaign unless you install it in a very specific way. Frankly, Obsidian and Atari need to sort this out.

So where does that leave us? A mass of excellent content - any add-on pack good enough to make you start the original has more than a certain something - with a few problems. It really isn't for anyone other than the devoted western-RPG head. Which is fine; the devoted western-RPG head has had a particularly weak year, and will lap this up. As they should. But if you're not in their ranks there's little here for you.

7 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Kieron.

About Kieron Gillen

Kieron is one of the founders of the lovely Rock, Paper, Shotgun and nowadays writes comics for Marvel starring characters that even his mum has heard of.

Read more articles from Kieron by visiting the Kieron Gillen archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (67) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • UncleLou #1 4 years ago

    Good review, but a bit harsh, in my opinion. The setting is a lot more interesting than in NWN2, the dialogues (and story in general) are better written, it looks a lot nicer (they sure have learned how to model some nice landscapes with the engine), and I can't quite agree that the NPCs were better in NWN2 - MotB has the most interesting cast for me since Planescape: Torment. Not as good as PS:T, but a whole lot better than the (admittedly well done) walking clichés of the original campaign.

    There's also so much attention to detail that was simply missing in NWN2, like the little comments your party makes, the descriptions of things, the humour (you mentioned the frost giants "gag", admittedly) that relies less on Khelgar making Gimli-like jokes, the more original artstyle, etc.

  • Pike #2 4 years ago

    Good campaign versus my loathing of the Aurora Engine and it's off spring.
    Decisions, decisions.

  • UncleLou #3 4 years ago

    Good campaign versus my loathing of the Aurora Engine and it's off spring

    It's come a long way - not only is it better to use now (which you can benefit from in NWN2 as well with the patches, without having to buy MotB), like the review (and I) says, it also looks a lot nicer. Still not ideal, but siginificant improvements in both regards.

  • Quine #4 4 years ago

    I'm liking it so far. It's a lot darker than the original, and there's some excellent use of creepy sound.

    Combat has tended to turn into a riotous confusion of spells, though. I'd like to try it on multiplayer.

  • UncleLou #5 4 years ago

    I'm liking it so far. It's a lot darker than the original, and there's some excellent use of creepy sound.

    Good point, yes, the ambient sound is often excellent - something Bioware and Black Isle had always excelled at in the old Infinity Engine times, but had been shamefully negelcted by Bioware and Obsidian in NWN 1+2. It's back here, and it does wonders for the atmosphere.
    Edited by 1 at 15/10/07 @ 14:33

  • BremXJones #6 4 years ago

    UncleLou: I didn't mean they were bad - I probably shouldn't have grouped it with a load of more serious criticisms. They're just a bit po-faced. I was trying to say that while it's arguable the followers in the last one were too wacky, these go the other way. There's a happy medium.

    (I did consider slagging off the homulculus, who is actively *bad*, to the level where I didn't realise I could talk to him until Walker told me you could, as I had never clicked on the fella.)

    KG

  • BremXJones #7 4 years ago

    Quine: Agreed on that one, but that's High Level D&D all over.

    KG

  • dolphan #8 4 years ago

    Hmm, reads more like an 8. I'll get it at some point. Need to go back and restart the original though - damn hard drive died on me half way through.

  • Pike #9 4 years ago

    UL, I will get it. I just won't bother with it right now, with all other great games out at the moment.

    Hell, I haven't even finished WiC single player yet.

  • BremXJones #10 4 years ago

    The mix of that bug - FFS, Obsidian! - and the fact i'd only recommend it to a niche audience kept it on the 7. Marks are Buying guides, after all.

    KG

  • TheSnotGoblin #11 4 years ago

    It's worth noting that Dungeon Master client still isn't finished. It was just as responsible as the level editor for making the first game shine in multi-player (NWN1 is #14 in Gamespy's most popular, compared to #36 for NWN2). NWN2 certainly had a better single-player experience than NWN1 (Not as good as XP2: Hordes of the Underdark though) but they really, really dropped the ball on the multi-player side of things (Which was pretty much the whole point of the first game; they nearly didn't include a single-player campaign at all).


    So what's the deal with the companions in this expansion? Can you happily tell them to take a hike? I lost all patience with them in NWN2 game; especially when they sprung the horribly sign-posted betrayal bits on you and with characters that given the option would never be in my party anyway and would be in no position to stab me in the back.


    And whilst I'm on a grumpy-roll how is the influence system handled this time? In both KotOR2 and NWN2 I thought it was a clunky system. Coupled with the fact that the game wouldn't let you leave companions behind it meant you spend the whole time trying to impress party members and get them to like you, which IMO is ass backwards. I'm running the show; if they want in they should have to impress me. The mechanism puts a certain skew on the writing that makes it seem like you're playing second fiddle to the NPCs.
    Edited by 1 at 15/10/07 @ 15:34

  • JG #12 4 years ago

    Are you serious?

    "So where does that leave us? A mass of excellent content - any add-on pack good enough to make you start the original has more than a certain something - with a few problems. It really isn't for anyone other than the devoted western-RPG head. Which is fine; the devoted western-RPG head has had a particularly weak year, and will lap this up. As they should. But if you're not in their ranks there's little here for you."

    So now we're scoring games lower because some people don't like the genre (in this case traditional western RPG)? I don't like sports games, and a lot of people feel the same way. Does that mean that we should deduct 20 points from every sports game? Absolutely fucking not. You have to take the target demographic into consideration. To score a game lower for being in a particular genre is idiotic and wrong, no matter how obscure that genre is.

    What you did is like deducting two stars from Citizen Kane because it's unwatchable to most people -- Absolutely fucking retarded any way you slice it.
    Edited by 1 at 15/10/07 @ 17:49

  • decibel #13 4 years ago

    Oh dear, this doesn't sound that exciting at all. Beh :/
    Edited by 1 at 15/10/07 @ 17:32

  • Obit #14 4 years ago

    Shame that this expansion got such a relatively low score, it should be at least an 8 in my opinion, probably a 9.
    Obsidian finally shows that yes, they still got the talent they had in Black Isle, and they should be recognized as such, and maybe the powers that be might allow them to continue in the same vein, and not spit out easy quick (as in not having to bother good dialogue and story) crappy campaigns (compared to MotB) like the official NWN2 one, which I couldn't even finish despite loving "western RPGs".

    Nevertheless, it's a shame about the bugs. The install thing is a killer, but equally annoying to me (as you can easily fix the install one, though it takes time to reinstall and patch etc)is the freakin' camera. For some reason, the lowest setting for camera turning with the mouse in strategy mode is set to 11 of 30, so the slightest whirl of the mouse will send it flying in a circle around the character once or twice, to fix that you have to go into the nwn2.ini file and change that setting to 1. Also, you can't zoom out as far as I'd like, and there's no easy setting that I found to change that, which bothers me quite a bit.

    Nevertheless, certainly above a 7.

  • Orange #15 4 years ago

    I agree with Obit. It should get more than a 7, it's a very well written expansion and enjoyable for any of the millions of people who loved the Baldur's Gate series.

    The curse is a nice twist, something I would normally find really frustrating in a game for forcing me out of my slow and steady comfort zone, but which I actually ended up appreciating a great deal.

    Shame on you for your 7 Gillen. Shame on you.

  • Azazel #16 4 years ago

    A minor problem is that while you're enormously powerful you don't exactly feel like it. You're an Epic-level adventurer, and you're still being treated as if you're a kid from the Swamp. People should be impressed by you while you're messing around with Gods and similar, but they're not.

    You'd think that after Throne of Bhaal so absolutely nailed this, someone would be able to reproduce the effect 8 years later... (ToB remains the best ever RPG expansion btw). It made you feel like one bad-ass mofo. And lets face it, after ploughing hundreds of hours into it's predecesors to get to Level Ridiculous, that seems only just.

    Anyway, I have not played NWN2 - mainly because my PC at the time sucked - but this review makes me want to give it a go. It stirs my nostalgia for Black Isles all conquering days.
    Edited by 1 at 15/10/07 @ 19:35

  • BremXJones #17 4 years ago

    An Add-on pack you can only recommend to fans of the original? That's 7 all the way through.

    KG

  • RexRunti #18 4 years ago

    I think the expansion is good just not as good as the original campaign (though those added classes do make things more interesting). In NWN2 you really get attached to the characters and find yourself choosing parties based on who like personally or from a role play perspective rather than just for balancing purposes. Also I was a little dissapointed that some of the sub-plots weren't really brough forward (there was definetly a lot more to Neeshka than met the eye, and the devils and demons were keen to point out the chances of you meeting again).

    Also in NWN2 you go from swamp dwelling farmer to kick arse knight of the realm slapping around dragons and fighting ancient beasts that not even the greatest civilisation could best. Then you get to MotB and everyone treats you like you couldn't win the harvest cup. You can't really increase you standing with factions and the rest of the world seems like another planet (as opposed to the obvious threat from Lusken despite their war on a seperate front).

    In some ways MotB felt more like a seperate game using the same engine and rules as opposed to an actual expansion.

    That's not to say I didn't enjoy it, I really did. I guess when the quality is so high the niggles just annoy you even more (I went to all the trouble of picking a god that I worship can you please bring it up at some point and FFS Khelgar look at the horns on my head before slagging off Neeshka (OK that last one was NWN2 but I was hoping they'd bring in more racism in the expansion)).

  • BigJonno #19 4 years ago

    "What you did is like deducting two stars from Citizen Kane because it's unwatchable to most people -- Absolutely fucking retarded any way you slice it."

    No, marking Citizen Kane down because most find it unwatchable makes sense, that's like marking down a game for a shoddy UI. Marking down an expansion because the genre itself doesn't have a wide appeal, or because it's not wildly different is nonsensical and not the sort of thing I'd expect from KG.

  • JG #20 4 years ago

    "An Add-on pack you can only recommend to fans of the original? That's 7 all the way through.

    KG"

    For some reason I don't think your average consumer would even consider buying an expansion pack if they didn't like the original game. That much should be common sense.

  • Azazel #21 4 years ago

    Arn't we straying stupidly close to the 'omg anything less than an 8 is shit' sensibility here?

  • JG #22 4 years ago

    "No, marking Citizen Kane down because most find it unwatchable makes sense, that's like marking down a game for a shoddy UI."

    Not really. A shoddy UI is a universally negative thing. Try comparing apples to apples.

    "Marking down an expansion because the genre itself doesn't have a wide appeal, or because it's not wildly different is nonsensical and not the sort of thing I'd expect from KG."

    Can you read?

    "It really isn't for anyone other than the devoted western-RPG head. Which is fine; the devoted western-RPG head has had a particularly weak year, and will lap this up. As they should. But if you're not in their ranks there's little here for you."

    "the fact i'd only recommend it to a niche audience kept it on the 7. Marks are Buying guides, after all.

    KG"



    Edited by 1 at 15/10/07 @ 19:58

  • Verwandlung #23 4 years ago

    Another one?! Good for the people who like the style/series.

  • UncleLou #24 4 years ago

    Got to admit, I also don't quite understand the logic why an addon that is only suitable for fans of the original (and I'd even doubt that, because if you found NWN2 too generic, you still might like MotB) can only get a lower score.

    Arn't we straying stupidly close to the 'omg anything less than an 8 is shit' sensibility here?

    The thing is, NWN2 got an 8 - Mask of the Betrayer is superior, even significantly so, in almost every respect.

    Anyway, bottom line: if you're looking for something that's a bit closer to Planescape: Torment in its mood and writing than to Baldur's Gate, give MotB a chance.

  • TedMoseby #25 4 years ago

    It's a nice set of additions to a game that has always been frustratingly marred by poor quality control.

    This continues with the release of MotB, with an installation bug whose workaround reads like a set of instructions for Twister; reinstalling and patching the game wouldn't be too bad if it didn't take forever and a day....

    Annoyingly, it resets the NWN.ini file, so if you've played the original and tweaked some settings, you'll have to sort it all out again (from disabling the intro movies - why all games don't just default to playing them once and then disabling them all is beyond me), to trying to work out how to play the game again with a totally screwed-around-with camera.

    Spoilers lurk below: -

    Plot-wise, it does seem more interesting than the original, but Obsidian have fallen into the Alien 3 trap of "Ha Ha, you worked your way all the way through NWN2/watching Aliens, and now for the sequel, we've just killed off everyone you cared about in the previous game/film in the first 5 minutes - go us, we rock..."

    Overall, it seems to me that the value is there, but there's a certain amount of teeth-pulling to be had before you can get your enjoyment out of it. And it is stupidly hard in places.

    A cautious recommendation....

  • garren #26 4 years ago

    I agree with the citizen kane thing. Why should a good game get a lower score because some people wouldn't like it? Hey, lets do the same thing in literature and movies too! So great movies and books would get a low score and some mass-appealing bland and generic action movie would get high scores. Great logic.

  • JG #27 4 years ago

    Exactly. If you want to mention consumer value do it in a separate piece. Using a single number to rate both gameplay and user value (two *completely* different things) is unwieldy, confusing, and stupid.

  • dustrat #28 4 years ago

    Coooool. Caves!

  • BigJonno #29 4 years ago

    JG, the first quote that you posted from Kieron is one in which he states that MotB only has niche appeal. The second one states that this kept the score at a seven. I was commenting on the fact that he'd marked it down because it only had niche appeal. I fail to see how this would suggest to you that I can't read.

    As for the unwatchable movie/bad UI in game comment, they're both elements that can prevent people from fully enjoying the respective media. Citizen Kane has made a huge contribution to cinema, but is hard to access for many. Similarly, a poor UI can prevent people access what may be an otherwise great game. People often forget that apples and oranges are both round fruit.

  • captain_cupcake #30 4 years ago

    There's been some excellent expansion packs this year for PC gamers - Beyond The Sword, Opposing Fronts, Kingdoms, Shivering Isles... This is one of them too - and with a nice big manual like the old days :)

    We've been given good value.

    I must admit I can't quite see the logic behind marking an expansion pack down because it only appeals to fans of the original though. You'd think that was the point...

    /edit: sorry UL, I just realised you'd already said this. Guess I agree then ;)
    Edited by 1 at 15/10/07 @ 22:15

  • JG #31 4 years ago

    "JG, the first quote that you posted from Kieron is one in which he states that MotB only has niche appeal. The second one states that this kept the score at a seven."

    He claims that it has niche appeal because it's a traditional western RPG (a genre that isn't as popular as of late) so he is in fact marking the game down based on genre.

    As for your second paragraph, an 'unwatchable movie' *isn't* an element, it's a result of various elements. You're still comparing apples to oranges. And claiming that it doesn't matter because they are both 'round' is idiotic for obvious reasons.


    P.S. Apples aren't round.

  • captain_cupcake #32 4 years ago

    Marking down an expansion because the genre itself doesn't have a wide appeal, or because it's not wildly different is nonsensical and not the sort of thing I'd expect from KG.

    For some reason I don't think your average consumer would even consider buying an expansion pack if they didn't like the original game. That much should be common sense.

    JG, BigJonno: I was thinking you were in agreement (apart from the fruit thing)

  • JG #33 4 years ago

    Not really. Although admitting that it is wrong, he doesn't seem to think that genre discrimination is happening in the review -- despite quotes from the author pointing to exactly that.
    Edited by 1 at 15/10/07 @ 23:19

  • zendragon #34 4 years ago

    This gets 7 and halo gets 10!?
    Eurogamer is not what it used to be.

  • Lurks #35 4 years ago

    I reckon I just about defy any actual gamer to play Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer and not pack it in shortly after the whole spirit eater mechanic kicks in. If you persist, you've a lot more patience than I and I'm a massive fan of the whole series.

    I think the core problem is that that mechanics wise, much of the characters options end up out the window because magic owns all. You essentially do go up against proper hard fights, compared to NWN before, which is good. But generally the solution is to load up on casters and smack down loads of level 9 area effect spells. And that's a bit dull, really. Where's your room for an archer or a melee guy?

    This, I think, motivated them to do the spirit eater thing to stop you from resting all the time, recharging your casters and carrying on. With this spirit eater mechanic how many spells you can cast ends up being a real issue for the first time in any NWN game. How useful is your wizard when the only spells they've got left is melf's acid arrow or something?

    Unfortunately I just don't think the spirit eater mechanic works. Oh, have I actually sucked enough by using a suppress or will I die at the end of the day (which I can't rest through) - no way to find out by go ahead. So just drain everything, oh no wait now my bar thing is ticking down massively fast and I end up dying just because I reached a bit of a drought of spirit things. Joy.

    Frustrating, annoying, pointless and straight onto ebay. My only fear is this mediocre effort will end up being the nail in the coffin of the whole NWN franchise.

    Still, maybe Bioware can be enticed back to Baldur's Gate...

  • TheRealBadabing #36 4 years ago

    In fairness, KG seems to mark appropriately every time.

    For example, EDF 2017 deserved a 9 because it gave the gamer braces-breaking-grin fun. Production values were crap but by odin's raven the game was great.

    This is obviously well produced but quite po-faced. Clearly didn't get the reviewer excited but, like me with Halo3, could see the appeal to fans. I'll probably pick this up as a gold edition or similar but I'm not going to rush out to get it as a RPG essential.

    Doesn't even have weaponized bukkake ffs...

  • UncleLou #37 4 years ago

    Entirely disagree. My player character is a weapon master (in other words, a pure melee character), and he's pretty much the most useful character in the party, landing critical hit after critical hit.

    As for the spirit eater mechanics, I have no problem with them. I can see how you can find them annoying, but to call the game a "mediocre effort" smacks of frustration with elements you don't get along with to me, ignoring that the setting and writing are amongst the best we've seen in that genre in years, and far superior to the rest of the whole NWN and Knights of the Old Republic series, or Jade Empire.

    I also (as a general comment) don't think it's more difficult than NWN2 at all - I don't know the first thing about D&D (to a point where I hardly ever know if a piece of equipment is better or worse than something I just found), but plough through this much more effortlessly than I did through the original campaign (at least Act III). I have admittedly not quite finished it yet, but so far it has almost been too easy (on "normal";).


    This is obviously well produced but quite po-faced.

    It's darker, but I am not sure "po-faced" is the right word. Personally, I find it a lot funnier than the original campaign. Less Gimli-humour, but wittier, more subtle writing. And for all its darker mood, it doesn't take itself as seriously as the original campaign did.

    Anyway, sorry, rambled enough about this one. A clear 8 for me, so I am obviously not far from the review anyway, and only just not a 9 because the NWN2 engine is still, despite its improvements, a pain in the backside. Wasn't here to complain anyway, but to spread the word because I am pretty enhusiastic about it. :)

    edit:

    More typos and stuff.
    Edited by 3 at 16/10/07 @ 00:36

  • dryden555 #38 4 years ago

    I didnt like NW2 at all, but so far the add-on gets an 8/10 from me. I like the darker themes and the game engine runs a lot better than before (still a but kludgy though) . If you know DandD, the game is way too easy at default difficulty but that is fixed by raising the difficulty level.

  • RickHard #39 4 years ago

    Is it more stable than NWN2 : I mean it kept crashing all the time, very annoying. Was that sorted out in the expansion pack ?

  • Lurks #40 4 years ago

    "Entirely disagree. My player character is a weapon master (in other words, a pure melee character), and he's pretty much the most useful character in the party, landing critical hit after critical hit."

    Well, NWN2:MotB has more critical immune mob than any NWN game previously... And still, even if it did, if that's your most useful party member then you can't have much of a caster. They can basically pump out more damage to every mob on screen than a melee can normally do with one. Let alone all the other things they do...

  • jonnyreb #41 4 years ago

    Both NWN2 and the expansion are outstanding games in the genre (not saying much nowadays as the genre is almost dead) - I think (for me) the real issue I have with Obsidian is that the games are just soooo full of bugs and badly optimised.

    The expansion makes things much better - but let's face it, NWN2 is not exactly the best looking game in the world, so how come my rather powerful PC struggles with the engine when I can run any other modern game on absolutely highest settings.

    And the bugs are so *weird* too - for example, if I boot up the game I can't zoom the camera, so I have to relaunch the game 2 or 3 times when it suddenly starts working fine.

    I've had about 4 crashes to desktop after 8 hours of playing and the AI of your allies is, frankly, appalling for the majority of the time.

    Where they really screwed up the most is the multi-player....I can't even count the 100's of hours I spent playing NWN1 online.

    Apparently the new toolset is an absolute nightmare to use, hence most of the 'hardcore' online NWN'ers have gone back to NWN1 and the online presence of NWN2 is pathetic (usually between 200 - 450 people online globally).

    It's definitely worth buying for the SP, but anyone expecting a return to the 'golden online experience' of NWN1 will be dissapointed.

    For that reason, I would also personally give it a 7 too - great SP, rubbish MP.

  • UncleLou #42 4 years ago

    Well, NWN2:MotB has more critical immune mob than any NWN game previously... And still, even if it did, if that's your most useful party member then you can't have much of a caster. They can basically pump out more damage to every mob on screen than a melee can normally do with one. Let alone all the other things they do...


    Well, I have the casters that the game provides as NPC party members. I am not sure what your point is - casters always deal more damage. That doesn't mean melee characters aren't useful - my character is a walking tank with the added bonus of critting a lot. If he dies, the rest of the rather squishy party doesn't stand much of a chance.

  • BremXJones #43 4 years ago

    It odd: in retrospect, I wish I gave NWN2 a 7/10. I suspect I was a little overgenerous with it in its original incarnation (i.e. Pre-patches). But that's kind of beyond the current discussion.

    How can I put this? As an add-on pack, it's got a learning curve like a brick wall for anyone other than people who've finished the first game (and recently, at that). It would have to be something utterly exemplary to recommend it strongly when people have to climb over that to get playing. And - really - it isn't a Citizen Kane. There's a difference between "Niche" and "Inaccessible". The former doesn't hurt the mark, the latter often does.

    (Yes, it's screwed itself by being a High Level AD&D expansion so automatically involving this kind of stuff. But - hey - so what? Doesn't make it any more approachable.)

    And, of course, the fact Obsidian have released a game which comes with a really incredibly chunky game-breaking bug in it which happens when you just *install the game, then the expansion pack*. In other words, if you don't have the game currently on your system in a fully patched state, you're going to break your original NWN2 campaign.

    I like it a lot. 7/10 isn't an insult from me or Eurogamer in any means. But I'm not recommending it without reservations.

    KG

  • Kylun #44 4 years ago

    So - if you like this sort of game, you'll like this sort of game. And if you don't like this sort of game, then you won't like this sort of game.

    Thats sorted then. *phew*

  • Orange #45 4 years ago

    There is no steep learning curve in this. The high level spells and abilities really don't make as big a difference, as when you get level 9 spells thats it. You only get to take a few more of them.

    All you need to do is follow the basics - which is that casters buff part members and summon, not just fill their spellbook with nukes. Then always have a tank and someone who can heal if you are in a tight spot.

    In some ways it was almost too easy, as my sorcerer could fire out a Wail of Banshee and kill 80% of the enemies in one go. Maximised Disentegration and Maximised Chain Lightnings were other favourites. Anything which could avoid them tended to be either vulnerable to knockdown melee or an undead which could be sun bursted.

  • BremXJones #46 4 years ago

    Kylun: God knows I was trying to avoid THAT wording.

    KG

  • JG #47 4 years ago

    IRT KG:

    I don't have a problem with the 7/10 score, as that isn't a bad score or anything, but I do have a problem with you lowering the score because you think that traditional western RPGs are inaccessible, which is nothing less than blatant genre discrimination -- and even if it wasn't, you would still be wrong.

    The fact of the matter is that the game is an expansion pack. No one is going to buy this game unless they have the original. Hence, they already know what they are getting into. Lowering the score to try to warn people about how accessible you think the game is is stupid. People who don't like western RPGs *won't buy the game*, just as people who don't like sports games or any other genre also won't buy those games. So, in short, you're giving a warning where none is needed.

    Lastly, trying to put user value into a rating is just plain wrong under any circumstance. Gamespot used to do what you guys do, recognized their error, and changed the way they rated games. Game reviews aren't fucking buying guides, they are *REVIEWS*. You need to review a game on it's own merits and based on your experience with the game; not on how you think other people will play it.
    Edited by 1 at 16/10/07 @ 18:38

  • JG #48 4 years ago

    I'm also tired of people saying that games have learning curves like "brick walls" when really, they don't. Anyone who says that about an AD&D game like MoTB has obviously never played a game like Star Fleet 2: Krellan Commander which, compared to other supposedly "brick wall" games makes them look like Reader Rabbit.

  • Skywise #49 4 years ago

    *patents the name Fantasty Adventure: Noun of the Noun*

  • BremXJones #50 4 years ago

    JG: "I do have a problem with you lowering the score because you think that traditional western RPGs are inaccessible"

    Understandable, but I didn't do or say this. I said *this particular example* of the genre is.

    An expansion pack which drops you in with level 18 abilities is inaccessible. Like, no shit, unless the designers try really hard to make it welcoming. Obsidian didn't. It's good enough, but it can only be recommended for fans. 7/10.

    (Also - y'know - major bugs. Again.)

    To choose an example I used in the review: I picked a pre-generated character with one of the new classes - something which you'd have thought would be a common thing to consider - and they were unable to actually hit the initial baddies you're confronted with. I know D&D, so could diagnose the problem and work my way around it. But the game certainly didn't teach me.

    KG

  • JG #51 4 years ago

    "Understandable, but I didn't do or say this. I said *this particular example* of the genre is."

    Really, where? I never read that in your review.

    "An expansion pack which drops you in with level 18 abilities is inaccessible. Like, no shit, unless the designers try really hard to make it welcoming. Obsidian didn't. It's good enough, but it can only be recommended for fans."

    It's an *expansion pack*. No one *but* the fans are going to buy it. If it were a standalone game your claims might be valid; but it isn't and they aren't! How can that not have gotten through to you yet?!

  • BigJonno #52 4 years ago

    "Not really. Although admitting that it is wrong, he doesn't seem to think that genre discrimination is happening in the review -- despite quotes from the author pointing to exactly that."

    I was saying that genre discrimination is happening and commenting that it is wrong, nonsensical and that I would have expected better from Kieron. I think you must have misinterpreted my posts.

    "Marking down an expansion because the genre itself doesn't have a wide appeal, or because it's not wildly different is nonsensical and not the sort of thing I'd expect from KG."

    I thought that was pretty clear, though.

  • JG #53 4 years ago

    "I was saying that genre discrimination is happening and commenting that it is wrong, nonsensical and that I would have expected better from Kieron. I think you must have misinterpreted my posts. "

    I guess so.

  • BremXJones #54 4 years ago

    ""Understandable, but I didn't do or say this. I said *this particular example* of the genre is."
    Really, where? I never read that in your review."

    Gahk.

    If you can point to the bit in the review where I said that western RPGs are only for Western RPG fans, what you say is true and is a bit dodge. Otherwise, all criticisms of this game are *only about this game*. That's why it's got the name of the game I'm reviewing at the top.

    If I say "This French Arthouse Flick is ponderous and has limited general appeal to the average film-goer though devotees of French Arthouse Film will be willing to work past its niggles easier than most" it's not the same as "French-arthouse flicks have limited appeal to the average filmgoer". Because everyone loved Amelie, y'know.

    (And note that this metaphor is a stronger criticism than the one I used in the actual review, but the kind of underlying point is that REALLY great games transcend their genre. And if we give games that don't those 8s and 9s, how can we tell people that?)

    Fundamentally - and lets' stress this again - 7/10 is a fine mark from Eurogamer. Especially for an Add-on pack. And from me, for that matter. Sorry to discriminate on the post-count, but I'm not sure how aware of you are how the site works. 7/10 is a recommendation. I liked the game.

    If you want to actually accuse any discrimination, you'd have a much easier time arguing Add-on pack discrimination than anything else. The idea that I discriminate against RPGs is - with my history as a reviewer - utterly hilarious.

    Oh - Your argument that add-on packs are only for the fans is true. For 7/10 add on packs. Those 9/10 packs can drag people in who grew bored with the originals, or didn't even like it at all.

    (I mean, stating the obvious, how many people never finished NWN1 and were seduced to coming back for the superior add-on packs?)

    I also find it interesting that you've leaped on a couple of lines in the review and assumed it lead to the score. There were many words in the review. I wrote them all to tell people stuff, not just as a mounting for the "It really isn't for anyone other than the devoted western-RPG head. Which is fine; the devoted western-RPG head has had a particularly weak year, and will lap this up. As they should. But if you're not in their ranks there's little here for you" bit.

    (Which doesn't even say it got marked down for being a western RPG. It's buying advice.)

    In short: 7/10.

    KG

  • JG #55 4 years ago

    "(And note that this metaphor is a stronger criticism than the one I used in the actual review, but the kind of underlying point is that REALLY great games transcend their genre. And if we give games that don't those 8s and 9s, how can we tell people that?)"


    Just to play devil's advocate a bit, I'd say that you give lots of 8 and 9's to games that absolutely do not transcend their genres. In recent memory you gave halo 3 a 10 and it sure as hell doesn't transcend being your everyday FPS.

    On second thought, I'm not sure if I agree with that statement at all. When we say that a game 'transcends it's genre' what we're really saying is that it mixes and matches elements from various genres and is therefore hard to place in any one genre. However, 'transcending genres' doesn't make a game good, and I can think of quite a few excellent titles that stay firmly routed in one genre or another.

    Because this is an interesting little side track I'd like to propose a correction: Truly great titles transcend *time*. For example, I've never had more fun with games than I did with Starflight 1 and 2. And those games were made in '86 and '89 respectively. And I first played through them in the 2000's.


    "Fundamentally - and lets' stress this again - 7/10 is a fine mark from Eurogamer. Especially for an Add-on pack. And from me, for that matter. Sorry to discriminate on the post-count, but I'm not sure how aware of you are how the site works. 7/10 is a recommendation. I liked the game. "


    I never said it wasn't, and I'm not complaining about the score, only the methodology. As a matter of fact I wish review sites were less liberal about handing out marks.


    "Oh - Your argument that add-on packs are only for the fans is true. For 7/10 add on packs. Those 9/10 packs can drag people in who grew bored with the originals, or didn't even like it at all.

    (I mean, stating the obvious, how many people never finished NWN1 and were seduced to coming back for the superior add-on packs?)"


    NWN was an atrocity. The expansion packs were ok. Of course that's going to lead some people to play the expansion packs to get their money worth out of the bloody thing in the first place.

    But anyway, "expansion packs are just for fans" isn't really what I meant to say. What I did mean to say is that people usually don't buy expansion packs unless they've played the original game and understand the mechanics. Saying that the game should be docked marks because it doesn't tell new players how to build a high level character is like docking Brood Wars marks because it doesn't include a training section and assumes that people who have bought it have already played Starcraft.

    If someone doesn't know how to make a high level character they can (and should) play the original campaign first, instead of being rash and jumping ahead. Instead of saying that the game is only for "Western RPG-heads" you could have (and should have) said that only serious western RPG fans should jump into the game before finishing the original. If someone finds MoTB inaccessible it's his or her own fault (unless they are too stupid to understand the original game of course), not the game's.
    Edited by 2 at 18/10/07 @ 23:56

  • JG #56 4 years ago

    And before I forget, you really need to drop the entire "reviews are buying guides" mentality. I've had discussions -- mainly arguments and disagreements, with many game reviewers -- but the one thing we always agree on is that a review should convey the author's own personal experience with a game. He shouldn't try to impose what other people might think of a game into it. The second you start thinking about 'customer value' you run into a huge problems. If a game starts out at $70 dollars and falls to $20 dollars do you need to do another review because the 'customer value' has changed? Only if you use your mentality.

    You're reviewing the game, based on your experiences with it, because that's the *only* thing you can be certain of. Unless you can read minds that is.

  • Lurks #57 4 years ago

    Yes, I absolutely agree with that. Also it's more help to have a bit of the reviewer's background and perspective than it is to have some 'hilarious' introduction. Because an opinion, armed with some sort of idea of the reviewer, ends up giving you something you can work with.

    I don't really get wound up by reviews where people rave about games but clearly don't know anything about the genre or what constitutes a good game within it. (World in Conflict being an excellent example). However I get really wound up by reviews that try pretend they have some overall sense of whether it's a good game for everyone, and whether it represents value.

  • Azazel #58 4 years ago

    Quite frankly, If a review doesn't try to determine what kind of value something represents to 'all of the people' then it's a pretty useless review.

  • BremXJones #59 4 years ago

    JG: "Just to play devil's advocate a bit, I'd say that you give lots of 8 and 9's to games that absolutely do not transcend their genres. In recent memory you gave halo 3 a 10 and it sure as hell doesn't transcend being your everyday FPS."

    To state the obvious, I didn't review them, but that's more dodging the issue. More specifically, it's not that it just doesn't transcend its genre... it's an *add on pack* which doesn't. This is important, as I tried to explain earlier.

    Regarding other stuff: I just disagree Re: Mark/Buyers guide. I mean, it's the reason they stick marks on the box, which is why it has to include absolutely everything (Price, Hardware specs). Its *only purpose* is a buyers guide - as in "Should you spend your money on this or not"? Fundamentally, the mark has to stand by itself, because that's how it's going to be presented to the world.

    (The alternative argument leads to not changing the mark for bugs, because they'll be patched shortly after or whatever. There's a dual need there - both to warn people away and the consumer-watchdog part of the gig.)

    Er... I'm hungover, so sorry if any of that's loose.

    KG

  • JG #60 4 years ago

    "To state the obvious, I didn't review them"


    My mistake. I thought you were talking about your site.


    "More specifically, it's not that it just doesn't transcend its genre... it's an *add on pack* which doesn't. This is important, as I tried to explain earlier."


    I don't quite get your drift. Are you saying that it's more important for an add-on pack to transcend it's genre than for a full game? Also, I've already stated why I think your view that only excellent games 'transcend the genre' is bunk, I'd much rather your reply to that than listen to you keep stating that it's important to transcend genres.


    "(The alternative argument leads to not changing the mark for bugs, because they'll be patched shortly after or whatever. There's a dual need there - both to warn people away and the consumer-watchdog part of the gig.) "


    Most reviewers I've talked to review what they get in the shipping product. There is no guarantee that bugs will be fixed, after all. The amount that you deduct from a score for bugs should be proportional to the how much they bothered *you*. If *you* suffered from poor performance you should include that too. *you* should play a game on a variety of systems to test for performance. All of these things affect *you*; you don't need to speculate how they will affect other people to mark a game down for bugs or poor performance.


    "Regarding other stuff: I just disagree Re: Mark/Buyers guide. I mean, it's the reason they stick marks on the box"


    They include marks on the box to help sell their game. The operative word is *they*, if you sticked the marks on the box to help sell the game than you probably would need to have the mark be a buyers guide -- but you don't.

    Maybe I should set up a meeting between you and some other game reviewer/s I know. They'd probably be able to explain it more convincingly than I can.

    I'm also interested in your response to the other part of the debate (concerning MoTB and my why exactly it should be accessible to people who haven't played the original).
    Edited by 1 at 19/10/07 @ 20:11

  • BremXJones #61 4 years ago

    Apologies: I've got doctor's orders to avoid debates where people break down posts into sentences and critique them individually.

    In short:

    This isn't my site. It's a site I write for. I'm responsible for stuff with my Byline on and nowt else.

    I'm saying that add-on packs are of minor interest to the majority of consumers. 9/10 implies that it's of interest to more than the hardcore of fans who liked the original. 9/10 implies "more than Expected Add-on pack fodder". 7/10 is a confirmation to fans that they won't be disappointed (8 is an active YAY!). Less implies that even THEY should think twice.

    Games which transcend their genre are better than those that don't, because part of what makes great genre work great IS that its better than "Just" its genre. It's the difference - to talk comics - between Watchmen and Kingdom Come. Since games which transcend their genre are beter, they get better marks. Games which don't transcend their genre get worse marks. (On average, all things considering, because these things are complicated. Marking: Art, not science.)

    Top-flight add-on packs are accessible to anyone.

    And since you choose to drop the "I'll get a grown up to explain it to you" patronising line, that's all you're going to get. Frankly, I've been doing this longer than 95% of the people you care to put in a room with me, and I know all the arguments back to front.

    KG

  • JG #62 4 years ago

    "In short:

    This isn't my site. It's a site I write for. I'm responsible for stuff with my Byline on and nowt else. "


    I didn't say you were and I *wasn't* being sarcastic. I did say that I wish more people were less liberal handing out marks. However, since they *are* liberal handing out marks, you have a huge problem. Your marking system and your "reviews are buying guides" idea clash horribly because no one knows your rating system unless they've read all of your articles or have had a conversation like this with you -- the consumer *expects* you to be liberal handing out marks like the rest of the internet and will therefore misinterpret your ratings.


    "I'm saying that add-on packs are of minor interest to the majority of consumers. 9/10 implies that it's of interest to more than the hardcore of fans who liked the original. 9/10 implies "more than Expected Add-on pack fodder". 7/10 is a confirmation to fans that they won't be disappointed (8 is an active YAY!). Less implies that even THEY should think twice."


    I see a lot of problems with what you're doing. First of all, you're dodging my original question about accessibility *again*. Secondly, you haven't got it through your head that I don't have a problem with a 7. Thirdly, over and over again you say that an expansion pack should be rated based on how it compares to the original game ("is it better than the game? does it draw new people in?";) instead of on it's own merits. This is hardly a consistent way to grade a game as your reference point changes with every review -- it will be a lot easier for a good expansion pack of a crappy game to get good marks than for a good expansion pack of a good game using your methodology. Lastly,


    "Games which transcend their genre are better than those that don't, because part of what makes great genre work great IS that its better than "Just" its genre. It's the difference - to talk comics - between Watchmen and Kingdom Come. Since games which transcend their genre are beter, they get better marks. Games which don't transcend their genre get worse marks."


    That made absolutely no sense. It almost seems like you're using circular reasoning, but I'll give you a chance to reword that atrocity (particularly the first sentence) before I pass judgment.


    "Top-flight add-on packs are accessible to anyone. "


    Why? I've already explained in detail why this *isn't* true, but you've failed to explain your stance (besides saying "this is the way it is";) or to respond to my criticism of your stance.


    "And since you choose to drop the "I'll get a grown up to explain it to you" patronising line, that's all you're going to get."


    Fine, do whatever you want. Use the "I've been doing this for a long time so don't tell me what to do -- I know better than you do" patronizing line. Really, I don't mind if you quit. You're losing the debate anyway.
    Edited by 1 at 23/10/07 @ 19:53

  • BremXJones #63 4 years ago

    I return after I suspect my partner has long gone - though since I only now realise he's almost certainly the bloke who linked from RPGCodex do I now realise it was a bit of a waste of time for both of us. C'est la vie.

    Anyway, notes for the record...

    Firstly, if you weren't trying to be patronising, I apologise for patronising you in turn. I thought I was responding to someone upping the snootiness.

    Christ, I don't think I can't write this in a way which doesn't come across as overly sarcastic. I'll give it a shot. Okay: That you think "Being accessible" is something which you think I have to justify in terms of affecting a mark is only slightly less bizarre to me than you saying that you don't think the game's quality should effect the score. Being an expansion pack isn't a get-out-of-jail free card.

    Regarding your analysis of the expansion pack methodology - I can see why you may take that, but you're forgetting the Buying Guide part of the thing. An Excellent expansion pack of an excellent game gets the mark just on the "Seriously, this is great stuff, you should get it" way. As I said in my previous post, there are many considerations.

    Regarding the liberality of marking: Eurogamer's well known for its harder than average marking. While anyone can drag out exceptions, it's normally in the bottom 50%. I think my 7/10 as recommendation for fans fits well into the site's general process, especially married to what I wrote in the review.

    Regarding Transcending Genre: I'm not sure I can say it much better than I wrote previously. The genuine pillars of human achievement are things which you would urge everyone to experience, or at least those with an open mind. And the ultra-high marks are for them.

    And if you are the RPGCodex gent, can you objectively see why the review serves both your readers and more generalised people who may fancy dabbling? You walk away knowing the game's for you, because I explicitly say why. Meanwhile, dabblers know it's really not the place to start?

    KG

  • JG #64 4 years ago

    "I return after I suspect my partner has long gone - though since I only now realise he's almost certainly the bloke who linked from RPGCodex do I now realise it was a bit of a waste of time for both of us. C'est la vie."


    Nah, I'm not vault dweller, and you're damn lucky I'm not. You do *not* want to get into a long winded argument with that particular gent (you would not fare well). I did follow the link from the codex though.

    "Firstly, if you weren't trying to be patronising, I apologise for patronising you in turn. I thought I was responding to someone upping the snootiness."


    No problem. It's hard to interpret internet talk sometimes, and I am oftentimes patronizing.


    "Being accessible" is something which you think I have to justify in terms of affecting a mark is only slightly less bizarre to me than you saying that you don't think the game's quality should effect the score. Being an expansion pack isn't a get-out-of-jail free card."


    If the expansion pack introduced new features not in the original game and didn't document or explain them to the user you would be right. As it is, no one is going to play the expansion without buying the original game, and playing the original game teaches how to play the expansion pack so the point is moot. Hell, even if the player *hasn't* played the original and decides to skip to the expansion the game still has a manual. If the player is too stupid to read the manuals, or play the original campaign, and can't understand the game it's *his* fault, not the game's. Also, If he can't create a level 18 character he can set the difficulty down to compensate compensate, or just keep pressing the 'recommended' button over and over again. Lastly, even if a player was stupid enough to go into the game unprepared I can't see a halfway intelligent person not eventually learning the game mechanics. They're less complicated than 80% of the DOS games I used to play back in the day, and I played a lot of those games without consulting the documentation. You're blaming the game for something that is obviously user fault, and also assuming that the user is a blistering idiot. The worst thing is that I've already mentioned most of this stuff before and the best you can do to counter me is to offer some sort of half baked analogy. Get real and give me some real replies or stop replying to my posts.


    "Regarding the liberality of marking: Eurogamer's well known for its harder than average marking. While anyone can drag out exceptions, it's normally in the bottom 50%. I think my 7/10 as recommendation for fans fits well into the site's general process, especially married to what I wrote in the review."


    First thought: I've made it clear over and over again that the 7/10 doesen't bug me.

    Second thought: Site's general "process"!? I'm sorry but from what I've seen, Eurogamer seems to be a collection of gents all doing their own thing with very little "process" involved. I mean, you think that only games that transcend genre should get perfect marks, but the guy who wrote the Halo 3 review obviously doesn't -- but you seem pretty unconcerned with that because it *wasn't your* review. To top it all off the guy who wrote The Witcher review doesn't know what an RPG is. Oh, and then there's the entire "marks are buying guides" thing; I'm sure you guys don't all agree on *that* particular process!


    "Regarding Transcending Genre: I'm not sure I can say it much better than I wrote previously. The genuine pillars of human achievement are things which you would urge everyone to experience, or at least those with an open mind. And the ultra-high marks are for them."


    Again, you make no sense. Something can be a pillar of human achievement with or without transcending genre. Buddy Rich was the greatest Jazz drummer to ever live but he never transcended Jazz. On the other hand Space Rangers 2 does transcend genre, and even though it's a very excellent game, it is hardly a pillar of human achievement. Try again.


    "Regarding your analysis of the expansion pack methodology - I can see why you may take that, but you're forgetting the Buying Guide part of the thing. An Excellent expansion pack of an excellent game gets the mark just on the "Seriously, this is great stuff, you should get it" way. As I said in my previous post, there are many considerations."

    Congratulations, you've just cemented your position from attack. "Well, my position is correct but of course there are exceptions, like the one you just pointed out!"


    As for marks being buying guides:

    [sarcasm]
    Well, if that's the case Sneak King should get a perfect score, right? It's like, only 3 dollars! Have you ever seen better value in a game? ...What's that? Oh, some games are freeware? Better give them all 100% in that case -- as long as the game isn't actually UNFUN; marks are buying guides after all and how can you not give the *highest* possible recommendation possible to an enjoyable *free* game!
    [/sarcasm]

    Starting to see the huge problem with your methodology yet?



    P.S. A Role Playing game is a game where you play a role. Hence, most games are *technically* role playing games. However, since that definition is far too broad we have to paint an arbitrary line somewhere and say "You need to be able to play a role, and you must have 'X' amount of freedom in acting out that role". Therefore, the greater your ability to play a role, the better the role playing elements in a game are. As such, choices, consequences, dialog, and believability (read: not necessarily realism, but the ability sympathize with the avatar) are the most important properties of an RPG. Character creation and character advancement (some form of 'leveling up') aren't important (to the definition at least) unless they impact the former factors.
    Edited by 2 at 30/10/07 @ 10:21

  • BremXJones #65 4 years ago

    Phew. Glad you're not him. That said, if people do get too shouty, I just stop talking.

    This is spinning off wildly into far too many areas to debate properly. This is why I habitually avoid the Quote paragraph/Reply to paragraph method of internet debating, because it always leads to the point being lost. Apologies for not picking up the point, but if I start - say - debating Halo's merits, this is going to turn into some kind of enormous novel.

    (I'll go as far as this: Halo, mechanistically speaking, is right at the top of its genre. I wouldn't have 10/10ed it, but it is... shit, I'm doing it. Stop, Gillen)

    Regarding accessibility, it really depends. "Knowing how the UI works" isn't really the same thing as "Knowing how the game plays". To get into hard figures, I'd say if you played the first (say) 9 character levels of NWN2 when it came out, and haven't looked at it since, you're going to be out of your depth when you start NWN2:MotB. I repeat something from the review (and I've repreated in the thread, though I'll go in even more detail). I'm familiar with D&D, and still by starting the game and getting one of the pre-generated characters, I was unable to strike any of the opposition with either my hands or any of the weapons. This lead to a pretty miserable first hour and a bit, especially as I was (understandably) avoiding resting.

    (Of course, turns out I could rest fine. So there goes atmosphere.)

    Having one of the pre-generated characters - and one of the new classes, so attractive to people just jumping in and reading the back of the box - come with a build which is inadequate with the first part of the game doesn't imply Obsidian were thinking about making it welcoming to people. Things like this mean if you played NWN2 a bit before getting bored and wondered if the new quest was worth jumping into, the answer is (unless you're willing to put in extra effort (i.e. Work before you get anything out of it)) no.

    (i.e. Effort is a resource. Effort is fine in games, as long as the payoff is worth it. I like Dwarf Fortress, which is far more inaccessible than MoTB. But for your efforts it offers you something unlike anything else in gaming. In MoTB's case, the work doesn't lead to a big enough pay-off for my liking.)

    This is the sort of accessibility I'm talking about and I think it should impact on the review. You don't. Great. But while you've critiqued me for making it axiomatic, you haven't offered me anything other than more axiomatic stuff back at me.

    That said...

    I was trying to avoid mentioning this, as this kind of reductive approach to the mark is always kind of misleading*. But I was considering a 8 for it. I like it, probably more than the original campaign, if I had to call. However, the thing which actually made me go for the 7 was Obsidian releasing the game in a state which breaks the original campaign. They do this sort of thing a lot, and - as consumer buyers guides - I felt we needed to start rolling our eyes at persistent offenders. Obsidian have burnt all their goodwill, and I can't condone this abuse of the buyers by the Publishers and developers.

    People who just read the mark will know what to think - and, while they're very lazy readers, they're readers of EG too - and the people who are actually reading the review will /also/ know what to think. Marks in games both matter and don't matter, depending who you are. Marks, funnily enough, are primarily for people who /don't/ read the reviews.

    And you can see why I didn't want to get into this area, as this opens the entire world of what marks and reviews are for etc, etc. And you're not really caring about the review anyway.

    (In reply to the points thing, all I meant was "a 7/10 isn't a bad mark from Eurogamer, and all the EG writers know this". They may disagree about what makes a great or good or shit game, but they know that 7/10 isn't the slagging that it would be from other sites. Kristan regularly quotes me saying that "8/10 games are some of my favourites of the years". Both of us have given 8/10 to games we voted into the Top 10 of the year. For me, this makes me think that the buyers-guide approach is kind of fairly widespread, but - yet again - spins off into a different argument.)

    Of course, I'm going to have to disagree over Space Rangers 2, as clearly it's up with the Sistine Chapel.

    (Okay: I'll briefly comment properly. I was being a trifle hyperbolic with the human experience stuff. I also link marking as much to art than science. Transcending Genre is one of the things which claim hyper-high marks. I don't think it's the only one - even though I think most of the things I'd have given 10/10 to do. I suppose the point is less than that they transcend their genre, but their *appeal* transcends their genre, which is what I meant by talking about open-minded people trying them.)

    Okay, I don't normally do it:
    "Congratulations, you've just cemented your position from attack. "Well, my position is correct but of course there are exceptions, like the one you just pointed out!""

    I also said marking is more of an art than a science. And the golden Buyers Guide element helps with trying to work out what mark means.

    (Which you're taking terribly literally. Money isn't the only thing you spend on games - you spend time. Is This Worth My Time And Money is what a buyers-guide approach to the score means.)

    That said, Sneak King sounds great. Sign me up.

    (Also, I take it you're reading RPS, yeah? Go post your final comments there. It'll probably get more people talking than here.)

    KG

    *And I know your problem isn't with the mark, as you've said. But I also think a comment on "This is for RPG fans only" would have caused less furore if it was married to an 8.
    Edited by 2 at 30/10/07 @ 15:42

  • JG #66 4 years ago

    You know what, KG? I have to disagree with you about the difficulty of MoTB. I don't think anyone who has played up to level 8 in the OC would have a problem with the game. That's the problem with reviewing the game by guessing how other people would like it, you are *not* other people and you cannot speak for them with any kind of authority. You're taking a wild guess and it's severely weakening your review.

    I get the feeling that you have a really low opinion of people. You say "The 7 tells casual gamers to stay away, but fans of traditional RPGs can read the review and they'll buy the game". You could just as easily say "The (whatever the mark would be) tells fans of RPGs to buy the game. People who don't like traditional RPGs can read the review and know to stay away." Or better yet, completely take out the warning and have faith in people's ability to distinguish what they like and dislike. If you're review tells people enough about the game they should be able to make the decision themselves without you pushing them in some direction or another.


    "I also said marking is more of an art than a science. And the golden Buyers Guide element helps with trying to work out what mark means."


    I disagree. You're assigning a single grade to a whole slew of stuff. That's really confusing for anyone who doesn't fully assimilate the written review, anyone who sees the score at metacritics, etc.


    "Marks, funnily enough, are primarily for people who /don't/ read the reviews."

    In that case you should have different subsections (graphics, sound, overall, etc) or your one composite number of a dozen things (including 'value' which *really* throws things off for reasons mentioned in my first paragraph) doesn't really say anything useful.


    EDIT:

    P.S. I thought I'd let you know that a new version of Dwarf Fortress went up yesterday.
    Edited by 1 at 30/10/07 @ 21:08

  • Lin #67 4 years ago

    "It really isn't for anyone other than the devoted western-RPG head."

    So that's reason to mark it down? We don't write "it's only for adrenaline junkies who like killing things" at the end of fps games. It's a game, not some sort of strange animal from a forgotten era. The question is whether it's a good game for its genre. And it is.