1UP zings Neverwinter Nights 2 (again)

by Alan Rose { Nov 14th 2006 at 4:00PM }

It looks like the final chapter has been written in the ongoing saga of 1UP's Neverwinter Nights 2 review controversy. An updated review is now available at the Ziff Davis-owned gaming portal, and the new score is a 6/10 (upgraded from 5/10). Only this time, the review was written by Games for Windows editor Jeff Green, who just last week explained the decision to pull writer Matt Peckham's original review.

Green echoes Peckham's sentiments about D&D-based roleplaying adventures -- "success is largely determined by the understanding of a rule set that only a genius or a 13-year-old could fully comprehend" -- but he takes great care not to bash the genre with the same reckless abandon that tainted Peckham's analysis. Instead, more emphasis is placed on NWN2's performance issues, problematic camera, and faulty A.I. -- all valid criticisms. Still, you have to wonder if this is the score Green would've given Obsidian's RPG before the events of two weeks ago, or if he was somehow influenced by the score Peckham gave the game. Like the editor said last week, "there was no way to 'win' here."

See also: Metareview - Neverwinter Nights 2

Tags: 1up, Games for Windows, Games for Windows magazine, Jeff Green, Matt Peckham, Neverwinter Nights 2, nwn, nwn2, obsidian, rpg

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Shecky @ Nov 14th 2006 4:12PM

Mostly harmless.

Chessasaur @ Nov 14th 2006 4:14PM

Atari, in financial difficulty for sometime, pushed this out the door before it was ready so as to hit the Xmas shopping season. Publishers have to stop shoveling crappy software (from a performance standpoint, not content here) out the door and expecting to post patches later to make up for it.

Kestrel @ Nov 14th 2006 4:13PM

1up should've kept the original review. IT WAS RIGHT! NWN is lame as all crap. The sequel was marginally better.

darko @ Nov 14th 2006 4:16PM

I still think 6 is a little too low for this game. Based on their criticisms, it was probably more deserving of at least a 7 or a 7.5. Green seems to have gone a little overboard in describing the camera and A.I. problems -- which were acknowledged in other reviews, but not to the degree of overkill. He probably did this so he could give the game a score closer to Peckham's.

rpg_man @ Nov 14th 2006 4:20PM

@Chessasaur, I agree! Atari did this to Obsidian two years ago with KOTOR2, and ruined the ending of an otherwise awesome game. They also did it three years ago to Troika with Temple of Elemental Evil.

D&D and Star Wars RPGs should be put back where they belong -- with BioWare!

Sizer @ Nov 14th 2006 4:30PM

Bah, so they decided it was more important to save face.

There are some issues, but this is a fantastic game if you're looking for tactical D&D-type combat and great conversation trees that actually make a huge difference in the game.

And yes, if you're NOT looking for a D&D type game this is entirely the wrong game for you. But christ, imagine starting a review of Half-Life 2 with 'YOU KNOW I AM SO SICK OF FPSES' and ending with 'fpses are so cliche and done to death, if you hate fpses this game is a solid 6'. You have to review to the audience who would like to play that kind of game. I am completely burned out on RTSes but can admit that Company of Heroes looks like a great game.

lemontea @ Nov 14th 2006 5:22PM

On the latest few episodes of the GFW podcast, they discuss this and the scoring they use. They're trying to not go by the 7.5 is average scale that schools use, but instead try the 5 is average. And 6 is slightly above average.

So in that respect, now knowing about their scoring platform, it seems reasonable considering the game's problems.

Jeff @ Nov 14th 2006 5:54PM

"1up is crap. They are trying to pass off myspace style blogs as journalism."

Jeff Green has been writing game reviews for longer than the word "blog" has existed. Jeff Green has probably been writing game reviews for longer than some of Joystiq's contributors have been alive.

Enough with the kneejerk comments about this review.

darko @ Nov 14th 2006 6:15PM

Hey Jeff, in case you hadn't noticed, it's a free country. Your right to publicly dis a game that many people enjoy are the very same rights that allow us to call your review a jaded piece of shit and a cover-up to protect an even shittier writer on your staff.

Buy PC Gamer, folks. It's a better mag.

Chachi @ Nov 14th 2006 6:15PM

Having played the game myself, I can only agree with all of the points that Green points out. I'm not one for numerical scores, but I think that a 5 or 6 is a reasonable number for the current version of the game. The engine somehow grinds gameplay to a halt, and my system--which can currently run Half-Life 2 on near-max settings--can barely manage 5fps with all of the settings set to minimum(which, by the way, makes the game look like a 1st-gen PS1 game). Combine that with extremely poor A.I. and a daunting learning curve for new players and you have a game that really is only above average at best. And it's only slightly above average because of the great voice acting and amusing characters.

All-in-all a much more legible and even-handed review than the original.

Kent Houseman @ Nov 14th 2006 6:45PM

6 Is a good score. That is above average. So I don't know what any complaining of it being too low is for.

I think the original review just needed read through and touched and it would have been good. He still gave it a 5/10 which is average. That sounds about right when you consider that a lot of people aren't into that sort of game.

I for one like the genre and may give it a chance. I appreciate objective reviews and actually get a lot more information from the more negative ones (which aren't really negative, the game just gets an average score) than I do of the incredibly positive ones where the reviewer is gushing over the game.

6/10 is not bad. Considering all the games out there it is still above average. I wish I knew what average is though. I think 1-up has a little bit better idea but still nothing great.

Most reviews that are a 6/10 are like rating the game a 2/10. There is no consistancy...

Velirno @ Nov 14th 2006 8:30PM

I actually appreciate what 1-up is trying to do in terms of equalizing their ratings scale. EGM and GFW (or CGW as it was) were always fairly dependable in terms of how legitimate their opinions were. What I usually do with reviews though, is see how I agree with that specific reviewer. For example, I never read any of Greg Kasavan's (sp?) reviews because I've almost always disagreed with him. So instead of going nuts and ranting on the forums, I just decided to ignore his reviews. So people whining about a lower-scored review for a game that they actually like (see, whining about a game you haven't played is much less valid) makes little sense.

Justin @ Nov 15th 2006 9:28AM

As previous people have said, TMFKACGW (readers know what this means) uses a scoring system where 5 is average, as it should be. Not the current retarded bell-curve grading used by everyone else where everything below a 7 is crap. With this scale, it is harder to understand what truly is "crap" and what isn't, b/c all crappy games get lumped in the same area. The true 0-10 scoring helps truly define how the reviewer feels about the game and takes more insight by the reviewer.

Also, the score a game receives is irrelevant to your enjoyment of the game. If a game gets low score but you like it, who cares? You don't need to justify to the world the game is good based on what a reviewer says. It's all about personal enjoyment.

Brian @ Nov 15th 2006 11:20AM

They pulled the first article because it was unfairly biased towards the game. The new article doesn't have the tone of the original, but they still didn't respect the game for what it is. I thinks this nails the 1up scoring methodology: http://www.1upchecker.com/