Well it was actually written well this time after they pulled the old one that scored the game a 5/10.

Here's the new one
http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3155234

I have to say that I agree with everything the review says...I just feel that a "6" almost dips too close to the "crap games" category. I'd say a "7" would have been a fair reflection of the game in it's current state. Most of his gripes are the usual controls/engine/'runs like shit' issues, which are in many ways fixable so eventually (with some serious patching) I would hope it evolves into a score of "8" or higher.

<font color=skyblue>I think that its necessary for the gamers to let the game producers know where the frustration is at so that they realize that to get good ratings, they'll have to do better next time on those things that concern people. They gave this game great story line and all that, but jipped everyone with so many problems that its hurting reviews of that game which results in people like me "waiting" to see if patches will make the game more playable.

If we all gave it a 10.0, then they'd think that we do not care about the problems, and so will continue to treat their customers like fools. </font>

Heh, I'm all for sending that message, which is why I think it's important that this game gets better reviews than the latest Need for Speed and Tony Hawk and other "pretty much excactly the same game we released last year, and the year before that"-games :|

I just wonder if the PC listed in the add can run at a good frame rate...

Heh, I'm all for sending that message, which is why I think it's important that this game gets better reviews than the latest Need for Speed and Tony Hawk and other "pretty much excactly the same game we released last year, and the year before that"-games :| </font>[/QUOTE]The problem is that if one of those games is more playable, no matter how repetitive, it should get a better review. Playability is everything. Lack of bugs, which goes right into playability, makes a big difference to people that play, as I'm sure we all know. I like Larry's point too, if we don't tell them, "Hey, this bites.", they'll keep releasing crap for us to deal with.

At the end of the day it's about being honest - providing praise where it's warranted, and criticism where it's warranted.

I checked out the article and I thought the review itself was a fair reflection of my own personal experience with the game - excellent SP game, great cutscenes, lots of NPC depth, but a pain in the sphincter to get to run and do things with. Kind of like driving an Alfa Romeo actually - once you get it going, it's brilliant, but the problem is getting it going. :D

I've checked a number of reviews out as well, including the one referenced above. What I found was interesting but not unexpected. Seems that the review ratings generally fall into four main categories. I realize that this is going to be a BIT generalized but it's what I saw in the reviews and I read a LOT of them.

The first are the people who gave NWN2 very low scores in the 1 to 3 range. Read these and what you find are people who generally wanted all of the functionality of NWN 1 but updated for better graphics and rules v3.5, PLUS the support for PW. These folks wouldn't like the game even if there were no frame rate issues or bugs. They can't get over the lack of PW support.

The second group has the game rated at 9.5+. Read most of those reviews and they are mostly written by Bioware/D&D fanboys. PW's have no meaning for them, they don't care about the bugs and frame rate isn't an issue for them (That doesn't mean they aren't having problems, it just means they don't seem to CARE about them).

The last two groups either rate the game at 6 +/- or at an 8 +/-. What's the difference? They BOTH seem to have the same set of complaints about the UI and bugs. Both groups enjoy the game and don't seem that concerned about the toolset or the dmclient but the second group seems to be having a lot FEWER problems with frame rate, script bugs, the camera and the GUI. Who's right? To be honest, I don't know.

Based on my experience,the frame rate has NOT been an issue at all, I've encountered ZERO bugs, I'm ambivalent about the GUI and the camera is easy enough to get used to (in fact, its NO MORE twitchy than NWN1 seemed to me at first). And while I do wish the toolset and dmclient were better, I can enjoy the SP aspect of the game with a lot of gnshing of teeth over what the game IS NOT. So from MY perspective the reviewer that gave it a 6 is too low, and something around an 8 is more appropriate. But that's just my two cents.

Good comments, mate. If I had less technical issues I would probably rate this game an 8+ as well. My latest is stuttering sound when I dropped by resolution to 800x600 to get better fps (though I sort of fixed that with the 1.02 patch).

Curse me for not being able to afford a top line system eh. :D

It's really odd about some of the systems this game WILL and WON'T play on. I've seen people with two virtually identical systems - one is playing the game just fine at reasonable frame rates while the other hits bugs so often his copy of the game should have come with a can of RAID. lol

My system isn't top of the line (Falcon Mach V, Asus P5N32 mobo, P4 3.2 Ghz, 1 Gig Ram <Corsair TWINX 667 4-4-4-12>, a Sony DVD-Rom, a Plextor DVD +-RW and a nVidia 7800 356 PCIE) but it's a REALLY clean build and clean OS install. Runs the game without a sniffle at decent frame rates. Haven't hit a bug yet (KNOCK ON WOOD) and haven't patched yet.