Neverwinter Nights

Victor Galis · June 22, 2003, 01:57

So is this game worth buying for single player gaming? I liked Baldur's Gate 2 and I'm looking for another AD&D based game now.

Dis · June 22, 2003, 03:17

hmm, single player ehh?

I'm not so sure you will like it. A lot of people who hate this game, bought this game expecting something like Baldur's Gate. And it really nothing like Baldur's Gate (except they use the D & D system)

The graphics can get generic after a while, as there are only a set number to choose from. You don't have hand draw tiles you had in Baldur's Gate 2. But the good thing is there are mods and people have added their own tile sets- like snow etc. So the game may be interesting for you if you also download some of the popular modules available for it. The original campaign itself isn't real interesting- but fun enough to play through once. Some people still continue playing that original campaign- those are the die hards players I suppose. Neverwinter Vaults ( I think it is NWvault.ign.com) will help sort through the good modules from the bad. And there are a lot of modules out there.

but where the game shines in my opinion is the ablity to play a fun multiplayer that can be DM'ed (dungeon master) by 1 or even 2 DM's.

moomin · June 22, 2003, 13:17

NWN is the MP game. As for single player, the original campaign isn't much, but there's some sheer briliance out there from the module maker community.

And Neverwinter vault - see address above - is the place to find all the content.

Jon Miller · June 22, 2003, 13:51

it is great in MP

Jon Miller

Freeze · June 22, 2003, 21:46

Another big thumbs down for single player mode. I might get the expansion for online play but even that never really hooked me. It's been on the shelf for months.

darkgrendel · June 23, 2003, 00:16

I like it. I don't even really have anything against its single-player mode- but then this is coming from someone who DMs third edition, and will take pretty much any chance he can get to play an actual character for a change.

Dis · June 23, 2003, 00:50

actually come to think of it.

I have never played this game in single player. Even the original campaign I played with my brother.

Victor Galis · June 23, 2003, 01:13

The reason I ask, is that I'd like a single player game to play while I'm not playing an MMORPG. The trouble with multiplayer games is that you can't really save and quit whenever you want to, and given how little time I have lately, that's been a problem.

I'm really looking forward to The Temple of Elemental Evil, but that doesn't seem to be out yet.

Grumbold · June 23, 2003, 09:25

NWN has a perfectly good single player mode, the challenge is in finding a single player module that is to your taste. The module that came with the box is not universally liked and it certainly is not up to the standard of BG2, for example.

I've played other modules though which are absolutely terrific, and there is an ever expanding library of those. With NWN you're not buying an adventure. you're buying all the manuals and dice to get you started. Then you have to browse and download the adventures. There's enough there to keep you occupied for a looong time

FrustratedPoet · June 23, 2003, 09:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold
With NWN you're not buying an adventure. you're buying all the manuals and dice to get you started. Then you have to browse and download the adventures.

That's probably the best way to look at it.

The out-of-the-box singleplayer game really isn't up to much IMHO, but if anyone were to write the game off because of that they'd be missing the point.

MattH · June 23, 2003, 11:11

I can't say I minded the SP campaign. It's nothing like Morrowind (not that anything can be) Building modules for the game is fun and not too hard once you get the hang of scripting (most are already written). Personally, I think the graphics rock when turned on high, witch is possible even with a sad little raedon 9000 pro.

Victor Galis · June 25, 2003, 22:15

Well it was cheap enough, and from the feedback, I assume even if I don't like the SP campaign, there will still be fun modules out there.

Now the real decision begins:

the invincible halfling paladin

or the mostly rogue massivly multiclassed all purpose halfling

or perhaps a rogue/wizard or rogue/cleric halfling

or other (please explain purpose of non-halfling nature).

Shadowstrike · June 26, 2003, 21:19

Non-halfling halfing hunter. With an insatable urge to slay all halflings.

Victor Galis · June 26, 2003, 22:30

Hmm... the game got studded leather max +dex bonus to AC wrong

Wish I had known that in advance. I see this as a direct attempt to weaken my halfling.

Vlad Antlerkov · June 28, 2003, 17:02

Terrific game, IMHO. Had completed the original campaign several times over, but then my HD melted. Since then, I've been using the user-created modules (mainly Penultima), and can't be arsed to redo the original campaign.

Myself, I'm partial to rogue/wizard combinations, or just a single-class rogue.

Victor Galis · July 7, 2003, 23:53

Yep, with 30 points and a henchman to help me sneak attack people with, single class rogue is good.

Dis · July 8, 2003, 02:16

I still need to do the penultima campaign.

I got the expansion and am doing that campaign right now with my brother.

That so far seems a bit better than the original campaign.

Glen · July 8, 2003, 05:46

Ok everyone says that penultima is good! but is there anything else thats good? for SP i mean

Grumbold · July 8, 2003, 06:22

Its been a while since I went looking but there used to be sites dedicated to listing and scoring modules for their SP and MP quality. You'll get a more reliable list from one of those. To my shame I can't even remember the name of the group that wrote my favourite modules.

Dis · July 9, 2003, 02:13

I have also played keep on the borderlands. That one was decent.

And pool of radiance. That one was good.

I have played amulet of zeron. That's a good Multiplayer dungeon romp. I think there is a single player version as well. There isn't much story, but the action is challenging for the most part. Although once you figure out the correct tactics, it isn't too bad.

Victor Galis · July 9, 2003, 02:17

Is it just me or is the challenge rating thingie you can get for enemies and NPCs a little off? There was this one spider, which the game showed as yellow that routinely killed both me and my henchman easily. On the other hand, an "impossible" to kill wizard who got the jump on me by teleporting into the room while I wasn't paying attention went down with little effort on the first try (Of course it helps when my reflex saves look something like 14+16 = 30 *evasion*).

Vlad Antlerkov · July 9, 2003, 09:54

It's not you. AFAIK, difficulty level is based on level of enemy, not HP. Wizards have less HP per level than other characters, while spiders have more HP per level.

Victor Galis · July 9, 2003, 19:13

Yeah, but spiders don't have a level. They are assigned some sort of challenge rating. (Of course those are pretty screwed up even in the 3rd Ed. monster manual... if you doubt that compare a dragon to anything else with a similar challenge rating) Enemy wizards are funny. They waste time casting spells that lead to reflex saves, then take 5d6+1 + d4 + 4d6 + 1 from my two sneak attacks. I understand why wizards are squishy, but I don't understand why knockdown, which is more overpowered in this game than in 3rd Ed. given to a spider with a poison whose save DC is 26. (26! on something that you face at level 5, when the most powerful poisons in AD&D are around 19 or so) and then this spider is labelled easy to defeat. Why bother with some sort of challenge rating system if it's going to suck.