NWN 2: Storm of Zehir - Review @ Games32

The latest review for Obsidian's expansion to NWN2, Storm of Zehir, shows up at Games32, which gives it an overall score of 76/100:

Maybe the best asset of Storm of Zehir is the freedom provided by the overland map, which allows you to decide if you want to stick to the main quests or venture into the thick forests that are scattered all around, searching for extra challenges. For the more inquisitive players this option can really save a rather tedious story line and make the entire gaming experience a very exciting one, because you'll never know what you'll encounter when you embark in your own quest.
On the downside, travelling from one major city to a remote town or dungeon can prove to be a bit too challenging for those who choose not to waste a lot of time exploring the world map, but rather complete the quest given to them. Even if you go to great lengths to avoid combat, this occurs pretty frequently and since you can't rest anywhere but at the inn it's most likely the ambushers will catch you off guard...

Click to expand...

Conclusion:

The main problem of having a full party is not just the extra difficulty in handling them, but the fact that you constantly get the feeling that the game misses a compelling central character. The dull narration is another weak spot of Storm of Zehir, but otherwise Obisdian can be quite proud for this expansion which seems capable of inheriting the Neverwinter Nights legacy.

Click to expand...

More information.

From the reviews I have read, it seems that the random encounters are both the best and worst thing of the game. It would seem that to allow the game to be tailored more to the individual player, they should have a setting to moderate the frequency of random encounters. A scale of Rare Encounters - Occasional Encounters - Average - Frequent Ecounters - Hell on Faerun

I know you can moderate it to some extent with the wilderness skills, but additional customization would be nice.

It's like every review I've seen for this game was written by someone who doesn't understand the game's mechanics. Have a character that has lots of ranks in Hide, Move Silently, Listen and Spot as the party leader on World Map and you won't be getting attacked by those random encounters since they won't be detecting your party. Also, you CAN rest on the World Map. And with those skills high, you will rarely(I've only seen it once so far) be interrupted during the resting period.

My point is this: this isn't a basic rpg that you can waltz in and succeed in without understanding wtf is going on or how its advancement system works. If you have an understanding of the D&D system and how its used in NWN2 however, you'll be right and home. And all these skills checks will seem brilliant to you. WHen I first saw this, I though: why wasn't this done earlier?

^You're right; unfortunately, my ranger choose to skip over those skills. And that means loads of encounters (even if the monk can Spot and Listen them from a mile away - and no, he didn't invest in hiding either). As much as I love random encounters (and the skill checks, definitely my favorite part of the game!), there's just a tad too many of them. I was pleasantly surprised, though, when I managed to attack some orc warband ("Oh look, I've got allies, this should be easy!"), only to see those same allies completely slaughtered by the time I got there; needless to say, my party soon followed.

It's a good game, definitely, if I had to put a numerical grade on it, it'd certainly be in the high 80's.

"It's like every review I've seen for this game was written by someone who doesn't understand the game's mechanics."

I agree. This game is definitely hard core in my view because if you don't pay attention to stats and know how to micro-manage your party (i.e. don't just let the computer AI take them over) then it can be a very difficult game. It's unfortunate that most reviewers apparently don't have the time to look deeply into a game and instead just pop in the CD and quickly start playing, they miss out on a lot of important stuff for games requiring more than simple thought and planning.

As much as I agree with you guys, the market is casual and the audience is casual. If the reviews didn't reflect these points, people wouldn't be aware of the potential difficulties or hurdles of enjoyment.

I just got this expansion myself and I think it's the best NWN2 related product yet, but then I'm a powergamer and I enjoy these kinds of gameplay mechanics greatly.

But I gotta acknowledge that my kind is a dying breed, and a big chunk of the audience will be oblivious or just plain disinterested in the best parts of this game.

hm. from what I understand (as a regular DnD player) the lowest hide, move silently etc check determines if you are succesful or not for a *group*. So, if they implemented the rules correctly, *everyone* would need those skills maxed out if you're travelling as a group, which would make overland travel on the map painful since most classes have better things (spellcraft, concentration, parry, heal etc) to spend valuable skill points on. So, I assume they have *not* implemented them correctly, since people speak off having a party with one ranger character maxed out? As long as he's party leaderr... What, he has some sort of Romulan cloaking device? "Quick, gather round the ranger!" *bzzzzzz* "Huh? Where hoomans go, Grok?" Personally, I would rather they reduce encounter frequency than impose such a munchkin-oriented solution. If you can effectively ignore encounters on the map, then it's simply not that interesting an addition. On the other hand, throwing endless creatures at you (none of which simply ignore you ?!) seems like a diablo-esque grind. I remain dubious as to what this adds to the game - besides looking 'cool'. I think the simple solution used in BG/Arcanum (random encounters depending on distance travelled or location) was fine. I do applaud the ability to use social skills of any party members tho - that was *way* overdue.

booboo said:

hm. from what I understand (as a regular DnD player) the lowest hide, move silently etc check determines if you are succesful or not for a *group*. So, if they implemented the rules correctly, *everyone* would need those skills maxed out if you're travelling as a group

Click to expand...

I disagree - in a D&D group you only really need one scout, who would go ahead, make the rolls and then advise the rest of the party on how to avoid any upcoming ambushes/patrols. It's not munchkin at all.

booboo said:

hm. from what I understand (as a regular DnD player) the lowest hide, move silently etc check determines if you are succesful or not for a *group*. So, if they implemented the rules correctly, *everyone* would need those skills maxed out if you're travelling as a group, which would make overland travel on the map painful since most classes have better things (spellcraft, concentration, parry, heal etc) to spend valuable skill points on. So, I assume they have *not* implemented them correctly, since people speak off having a party with one ranger character maxed out? As long as he's party leaderr... What, he has some sort of Romulan cloaking device? "Quick, gather round the ranger!" *bzzzzzz* "Huh? Where hoomans go, Grok?" Personally, I would rather they reduce encounter frequency than impose such a munchkin-oriented solution. If you can effectively ignore encounters on the map, then it's simply not that interesting an addition. On the other hand, throwing endless creatures at you (none of which simply ignore you ?!) seems like a diablo-esque grind. I remain dubious as to what this adds to the game - besides looking 'cool'. I think the simple solution used in BG/Arcanum (random encounters depending on distance travelled or location) was fine. I do applaud the ability to use social skills of any party members tho - that was *way* overdue.

Click to expand...

You're wrong, as there are no rules that dictate how a dungeon master must enforce skill checks.

Not only are all D&D rules implicitly optional, they make it very clear that a DM's word is the law. Anyone who's ever played D&D should realise that all DMs do what they can to provide a smooth playing experience, and I've never in my 22 years of roleplaying encountered a DM who was silly enough to enforce every single rule. Typically, a spot/listen/whatever check is called for - and if one character makes it, he will notify the rest of the party (if the spirit is amiable) and they act accordingly. The hide check is less apparent, but most DMs I know would allow one expert to guide the party into a safe hiding place. That would seem reasonable and natural.

In this case, the developers are the DM - and their way of handling wilderness traveling implies that there's a scout "leader" who will ensure the road is clear and guide the party around. It makes perfect sense to me, but I concede that it would make sense in terms of realism to have all characters' skills apply. But that would make for lousy game design, because playability comes before realism if you know anything about game design.

They're allowing for diverse skill-sets, but they're also motivating players to have a character with reasonable skills that deal with the overland map, so that those skills aren't useless like they usually are. In effect, they're enhancing the customization aspect to a not insignificant degree - and for the ranger class in particular, they're making it be worth it. Rangers are traditionally underpowered and undervalued in 3.0 and 3.5, so this change is good for them and the overall class balance.

Anyway, I think it's a great system - but that's just my opinion.

If the ranger doesn't have the skills, use the rogue. You really should have one, and they generally tend to be smarter. The only skills my rogue is missing are Spot and Survival, and I guess Listen is enough to find the enemy stacks. Lack of Survival just means you move slower through Jungle and Swamps.

DArtagnan said:

As much as I agree with you guys, the market is casual and the audience is casual. If the reviews didn't reflect these points, people wouldn't be aware of the potential difficulties or hurdles of enjoyment.

Click to expand...

I don't understand this - NWN games are not for the casual mainstream audience, but for niche PC hardcore RPG gamers. So why not address the actual target market.

It is like assuming that since the most popular pet is a dog that all pet food should be compared to dog food. 'My dog didn't like it, therefore it is bad'

I also agree that replacing the word 'casual' with 'stupid' or 'retarded' shows the hardcore bias and opinion of casual gamers and how they tend to segregate them. So writers assume they need to cater reviews to idiots and end up with idiotic reviews ... and if a game is easy, straightforward and has pretty graphics and big explosions and is familiar, it automatically gets a 9+/10 review.

txa1265 said:

I don't understand this - NWN games are not for the casual mainstream audience, but for niche PC hardcore RPG gamers. So why not address the actual target market.

It is like assuming that since the most popular pet is a dog that all pet food should be compared to dog food. 'My dog didn't like it, therefore it is bad'

I also agree that replacing the word 'casual' with 'stupid' or 'retarded' shows the hardcore bias and opinion of casual gamers and how they tend to segregate them. So writers assume they need to cater reviews to idiots and end up with idiotic reviews ... and if a game is easy, straightforward and has pretty graphics and big explosions and is familiar, it automatically gets a 9+/10 review.

Click to expand...

Oh how wrong you are.

NWN games are built on the legacy of "hardcore" games, but the current reality is that even those who play NWN2 are largely casual. But it's a huge misunderstanding to substitute the concept of casual with stupid, and that's not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the investment, meaning the time/energy/effort people are pouring into games. Those hardcore gamers from years past have grown up and have families, and they're not able to invest hours upon hours in a game, simply to learn the basics. I'm talking about the majority, and there are thousands of exceptions - but in the grand scheme of things - hardcore players are a tiny minority these days.

Beyond those players, we have the new generation with players who're used to a very different design approach - and they in particular will not be willing to invest similar amounts of time and energy into understanding nuances. That doesn't mean they're stupid, they're just used to other things and have been conditioned by other games.

Why do you think NWN/NWN2 had such ridiculously lenient death penalties? It's because the developers understand the market they're targeting, and you can't expect a modern audience to put up with anything harsh. That's why SoZ is facing such criticism from the majority of review sites.

Gamers are mostly casual, and NWN2 is most definitely not a niche product. Eschalon and Avernum are niche products. NWN2 is a big deal, but obviously there are always bigger fish.

The tips that come up in the (far too many) loading screens tell you again and again and again and again and again that having particular skills will allow you to avoid overland map encounters. The default parties have people with those skills. The starting town has a ranger and a druid with those skills. The recommend bit on auto-levelling populates those skills for the relevant classes.

I don't see how they could have spoon fed it to the non-D&D people any more short of having a tool tip that pops up the minute you start trying to create a character or change your party that flashes brightly and warns you if you don't have someone with some of the critical skills in your party.

And the random encounters were pretty frequent, but when I was after that pack of will-o'wisps or spiders or boars or dinosaurs or whatever i needed to find I was bloody glad they were around in large quantities.

In the end I suppose it's always a matter of choice as to how DM's manage wilderness travel - we never made a meal of travelling from A to B - it's seldom the point of an adventure. It simply seems like a waste of time in a *real* adventure, which suggests (to my cynical mind) that the story/plot may be a little on the thin side and they're trying to distract you with shiny baubles/graphics so you don't notice. I would much prefer a deeper plot, more interesting characters etc than the map. I have no problem with them doing more skill checks - as I stated - I think that's good. But I don't think the way they've done this wilderness type skills is sensible from a verisimiltude point of view.

I simply don't think that one skilled ranger/rogue/whatever can always avoid the noise/incompetence of his companions just because he has N ranks in some skill set. Sure, he can scout ahead - but that only gives you some protection. He may be off scouting ahead when someone comes on the party from another direction - quite likely in fact. Those possibilities are simply removed here: basically follow the formula (1 X maxed our ranger/rogue/whatver) and you render the encounter system pointless. What about animals scenting your party from afar? Nope, we're immune to that too. I agree with everyone using their skills, but the way they have implemented this component seems like a cop-out. Surely these encouters are not the point of SoZ? Having a stealthy/wild-savvy character can still be hugely useful - have them blend into teh bushes and snipe the beast from afar etc. If everyone wants to be stealthy, hidden etc - they must pay the price in skill points - that's fair. Or get a spell which cloaks them all - easy enough to do.

My thief had Move Silently at 27-30. Maybe it's too low, but I was failing the checks against Megaraptors much more often than I cared to .
What was really annoying is that the game would often auto-switch to the group leader when exiting to the overland map. Hope it's already been fixed.

booboo said:

In the end I suppose it's always a matter of choice as to how DM's manage wilderness travel - we never made a meal of travelling from A to B - it's seldom the point of an adventure. It simply seems like a waste of time in a *real* adventure, which suggests (to my cynical mind) that the story/plot may be a little on the thin side and they're trying to distract you with shiny baubles/graphics so you don't notice. I would much prefer a deeper plot, more interesting characters etc than the map. I have no problem with them doing more skill checks - as I stated - I think that's good. But I don't think the way they've done this wilderness type skills is sensible from a verisimiltude point of view.

I simply don't think that one skilled ranger/rogue/whatever can always avoid the noise/incompetence of his companions just because he has N ranks in some skill set. Sure, he can scout ahead - but that only gives you some protection. He may be off scouting ahead when someone comes on the party from another direction - quite likely in fact. Those possibilities are simply removed here: basically follow the formula (1 X maxed our ranger/rogue/whatver) and you render the encounter system pointless. What about animals scenting your party from afar? Nope, we're immune to that too. I agree with everyone using their skills, but the way they have implemented this component seems like a cop-out. Surely these encouters are not the point of SoZ? Having a stealthy/wild-savvy character can still be hugely useful - have them blend into teh bushes and snipe the beast from afar etc. If everyone wants to be stealthy, hidden etc - they must pay the price in skill points - that's fair. Or get a spell which cloaks them all - easy enough to do.

Click to expand...

Well, to each his own. I don't really care about that level of realism, as long as I think it makes reasonable sense and grants me the illusion of real wilderness traveling - which it does. That's just me, however.

I don't think it's a cop-out solution, nor do I think it's their way of hiding a shallow game. It strikes me as a conscious design choice - made to satisfy those of us who long for a style resembling the original Baldur's Gate, where there was a lot more freedom in terms of how to travel and explore. That said, it's apparent that less effort was made in terms of story and NPCs - but there are only so many resources available.

It may strike you as a cover up for a weaker game - but trust me, there are those of us who prefer this kind of non-linearity and freedom over a stronger and deeper story. Both would be great - but as long as the plot is servicable, I'm reasonably easy to please in that regard. VERY few games have stories that appeal to me, anyway, and even those hailed as classics tend to bore me or strike me as overly pretentious or attempts to appear deeper than they are. I much prefer plausible and down-to-earth stuff, but so few games do that well.