NWN2 Review at Worthplaying

Zyndro · Post by **Zyndro** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:48 pm

Runs fine for me. I haven't had camera problems yet. The game can zoom out so far that you're in an isometric view like Baldur's Gate, and zoom in close enough to see if your character has something in their left nostril. As for camera controls, I just do what I did in NWN1: Click the middle mouse button (or mouse wheel button) and move it around that way. It's simple.

Fuzz · Post by **Fuzz** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 1:31 am

Not surprising, considering it was made by Obsidian.

NWN had a lot of bad reviews when it first came out, so you can still hope that the community digs it out of an early grave, though a lot of that hinges on Obsidian, since most of the reason NWN lasted this long is that Bioware supported the shit out of the community.

neurotap · Post by **neurotap** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:46 am

From what I have played so far it is actually pretty decent.

Runs like crap on my pc but with the graphics toned down is playable. There's much more detail to things, casting spells is easier, managing large fights is on par with nwn imo.

I don't like how combat itself is done, but you can move during battle, your dude chills there before attacking or what not, but they do that in nwn too. The rules do follow turn-based dnd, so it's to be expected.

Could have used an engine overhaul and true 3d but work with what you get like I am. I love how the areas load, it loads all the areas linked to the main one at the same time, which cuts down on the load times when transitioning to other linked areas, and the worldmap is very baldur's gate-esque.

While the game could have been better, I like it.

Grizpin · Post by **Grizpin** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:43 am

From what I've played so far I think it is an upgrade to NWN. I have to give it more time to give a better opinion. It feels less awkward than the original and that's a good thing. I can run with high textures at 1280x1024 so the graphics look good. Not Oblivion but not NWN either. I think Gamespot shorted the graphic score when they gave it a 6. It is definately at least an 8. Well, here is there full review... i haven't read it yet but I'll link it:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/neverwin ... ck=topslot

Alphonse · Post by **Alphonse** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:53 am

You really need a decent graphics card.

I just dropped £125 on an nVidea 7600GT AGP card, and cant push it past 1024 x 768 at mid detail before it runs like a dog in the beta.. The same card will run Oblivion at 1400 x 1050 (monitors optimum res) at full detail.

Grizpin · Post by **Grizpin** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:17 pm

I noticed the resolution goes up to 2000...something x something something.... it really can go higher if you hardware is up to it. I run fine on a 6800gt @ 1280x1024 and high textures so compared to what the graphics can be cranked up to it would probably be considered medium level graphics.

Games Radar review, 9 out of 10:

http://www.gamesradar.com/us/pc/game/re ... 1515596049

freestyler · Post by **freestyler** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:12 am

I played the beta and was almost crying about certain things ,such as camera , this has been fixed in the 82 meg patch you need and you can zoom way out and way in, its cool.

And just like NWN is still being tweaked 5 years later , well I expect the same with NWN2 , it can only ge better

.

I can run it 1280x764 smoothly with everything set on medium or high, although i have a good rig and card and 2 gig of ram

Essentially we have the same game it just looks better, and the rules are updated , although i have no idea what those changes really involve ?? 3- 3.5 is it a lot of difference ?

Cromagnon · Post by **Cromagnon** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:38 pm

freestyler wrote: Essentially we have the same game it just looks better, and the rules are updated , although i have no idea what those changes really involve ?? 3- 3.5 is it a lot of difference ?

I don't have the game yet, but from reading the reviews, it seems like the same exact game, just with updated rules and new graphics. There are probably other more technical aspects that I can not appreciate, but does this really constitute a sequel (ie a "2")? I haven't read about any features that haven't already been implemented in mods.

@Freestyler: There are some differences in 3.0-3.5, mostly centered around the monk and ranger class progression, as well as spells. Most of it is tweaking, though, I think.

Pathos Street · Post by **Pathos Street** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:22 pm

The only difference between Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2 was graphics and rules. Heck, they even had some of the same voicesets. I don't think anyone will call BG2 a bad game.

I'm settling down a bit now that I've had an opportunity to play some (as an aasimar paladin ! ). It has the potential to be just as good and long-lasting as its predecessor, I think. So I'm going to wait and see.

neurotap · Post by **neurotap** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:35 pm

BG2 was teh sux0r!!1!11!!!2

A Wanderer · Post by **A Wanderer** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:42 pm

Manuel the White wrote:So, he didn't like the cameras, the graphics, the NPC dialouge, the controls or the battle system but it got a 9 out of 10. wtf?

Sorry. It looks sad.

QFT

So I guess he thinks it's just about perfect? I don't really get it.

Sounds like they figure all the fanbois will buy it just because its NWN2. They just want the initial wave of box sales. Getting pretty sick of this kind of sh*t development.