Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Samrin Feb 12, 2011 19:33:06	Talking about the video game. The description doesn't really clarify anything. Is it an MMO? Or is it more like a Diablo type of game? Has Cryptic actually clarified this at all? I see it described as a co-op game, which leads me to think it's more of a Diablo type of game.
#2 sfdragon Feb 12, 2011 21:09:59	I'm leaning toward to co-op single playerer like diablo and like the same for the DAggerDale game.
#3 Obvious_Ninja Feb 13, 2011 10:09:40	www.playneverwinter.com/ it does have a small FAQ
#4 Samrin Feb 13, 2011 10:31:05	www.playneverwinter.com/ it does have a small FAQ Which doesn't answer any of my questions. It says it's a persistent world, which leads me to believe it's an MMO. I don't think it is, though, as saying co-op leads me to believe it's more like Diablo.
#5 Obvious_Ninja Feb 13, 2011 10:40:14	From the Press Release: In Neverwinter, players choose to become one of five classic D&D classes and team up with friends or computer-controlled allies to form five-person co-op groups. Never played Diablo but does that sound like a more Diablo-style game? You're ringt, it doesn't sound totaly like an MMO...
#6 Obvious_Ninja Feb 13, 2011 10:40:58	Sorry here is the link for the pres release: www.playneverwinter.com/press
#7 Samrin Feb 13, 2011 10:46:29	It's just the "persistent world" thing which implies the possibility of an mmo. Diablo/2 is simply log into a server, import your character, and play. Kinda like Neverwinter Nights.
#8 Jharii Feb 13, 2011 10:47:41	Neverwinter is not going to be an MMO.  In the vein of Neverwinter Nights, there will be a single player game as well as multiplayer capabilities, including a suite of campaign/DM utilities so people cam make their own modules/worlds/campaigns.  The "persistent world" aspect would imply that you will be able to host a server with a database so data can be maintained between sessions. Be cautiously optimistic, as it is reported to behave more like an MMO for combat purposes.  Reportedly, all attacks hit (no d20 to hit rolls) and the randomization is in damage.  Personally, I think this is a bad decision if they continue on that path.
#9 Kilsek_of_Sheverash Feb 13, 2011 10:57:14	I hope beyond hope they model Neverwinter after Dragon Age.  Aside from being set in its own unique world, Dragon Age is simply the essence of D&D.  Best RPG video game I've ever played by far.
#10 thax Feb 13, 2011 11:15:19	It is a city along the Sword Coast within the setting of Forgotten Realms.... oh, your talking about the new electronic video game by Atari produced by cryptic. It sound more and more like Guild Wars to me.
#11 sfdragon Feb 13, 2011 14:15:52	Its also something I'm cautious about getting
#12 Samrin Feb 13, 2011 14:29:19	I would be excited if BioWare was in charge of it again. Cryptic, on the other hand, has never made a good game.  I did find a wiki on it, and it appears to be more of a Diablo-style game.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwinter_(video_game)
#13 Damon_Tor Feb 14, 2011 1:04:25	I would be excited if BioWare was in charge of it again. Cryptic, on the other hand, has never made a good game.  I did find a wiki on it, and it appears to be more of a Diablo-style game.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwinter_(video_game)  IMO, they have made exactly one good game, or rather they made a game which became good after they stopped having anything to do with it. But yes, I generally agree with the sentiment.  Their other games have been quite bad.
#14 Samrin Feb 14, 2011 16:12:57	I would be excited if BioWare was in charge of it again. Cryptic, on the other hand, has never made a good game.  I did find a wiki on it, and it appears to be more of a Diablo-style game.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwinter_(video_game)  IMO, they have made exactly one good game, or rather they made a game which became good after they stopped having anything to do with it. But yes, I generally agree with the sentiment.  Their other games have been quite bad. I wasn't a big fan of City of Heroes, either. Hated the UI.
#15 Haldrik Feb 14, 2011 17:38:17	It is reported to behave more like an MMO for combat purposes.  Reportedly, all attacks hit (no d20 to hit rolls) and the randomization is in damage. Huh. I probably would have done it the other way, kept the hit random and then flattened the damage, but simplify the combat mechanics sounds interesting. Im curious what the designers say about why they went this direction. I feel strongly the 'destiny' of the D&D tradition is to evolve into a virtual reality. In the meantime whatever gaming mechanics makes it friendly for digital media deserves serious attention.
#16 Damon_Tor Feb 14, 2011 21:31:25	I would be excited if BioWare was in charge of it again. Cryptic, on the other hand, has never made a good game.  I did find a wiki on it, and it appears to be more of a Diablo-style game.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwinter_(video_game)  IMO, they have made exactly one good game, or rather they made a game which became good after they stopped having anything to do with it. But yes, I generally agree with the sentiment.  Their other games have been quite bad. I wasn't a big fan of City of Heroes, either. Hated the UI. The UI is pretty customizable now: the game has improved alot since it got handed over fully to NCSoft.
#17 excalainen Feb 16, 2011 16:38:55	Reportedly, all attacks hit (no d20 to hit rolls) and the randomization is in damage.  Personally, I think this is a bad decision if they continue on that path. Boo. I want a 4e computer game that mimics the actual system as closely as possible. That also means that it would have to be turn-based, which probably isn't the case here.
#18 Samrin Feb 16, 2011 18:14:43	Reportedly, all attacks hit (no d20 to hit rolls) and the randomization is in damage.  Personally, I think this is a bad decision if they continue on that path. Boo. I want a 4e computer game that mimics the actual system as closely as possible. That also means that it would have to be turn-based, which probably isn't the case here. Considering its predecessors, expecting turn based is a long shot. Turn based D&D video games probably wouldn't sell nearly as well. NWN and NWN2 were huge hits, and I'm thinknig they're gonna build on the same model.
#19 excalainen Feb 16, 2011 19:09:28	Reportedly, all attacks hit (no d20 to hit rolls) and the randomization is in damage.  Personally, I think this is a bad decision if they continue on that path. Boo. I want a 4e computer game that mimics the actual system as closely as possible. That also means that it would have to be turn-based, which probably isn't the case here. Considering its predecessors, expecting turn based is a long shot. Turn based D&D video games probably wouldn't sell nearly as well. NWN and NWN2 were huge hits, and I'm thinknig they're gonna build on the same model. Being based on 3.x, NWN and NWN2 could be truer to the ruleset even while being realtime games. That is because 3.x didn't place as much emphasis on movement and position as 4e does. Also, the so-called Gold Box games (Pool of Radiance, Champions of Krynn, Gateway to the Savage Frontier etc.)  based on 2nd edition were pretty popular even though they were turn-based. There were, I think, about dozen of them showing that they were a successful model.
#20 Samrin Feb 16, 2011 19:11:55	Reportedly, all attacks hit (no d20 to hit rolls) and the randomization is in damage.  Personally, I think this is a bad decision if they continue on that path. Boo. I want a 4e computer game that mimics the actual system as closely as possible. That also means that it would have to be turn-based, which probably isn't the case here. Considering its predecessors, expecting turn based is a long shot. Turn based D&D video games probably wouldn't sell nearly as well. NWN and NWN2 were huge hits, and I'm thinknig they're gonna build on the same model. Being based on 3.x, NWN and NWN2 could be truer to the ruleset even while being realtime games. That is because 3.x didn't place as much emphasis on movement and position as 4e does. Also, the so-called Gold Box games (Pool of Radiance, Champions of Krynn, Gateway to the Savage Frontier etc.)  based on 2nd edition were pretty popular even though they were turn-based. There were, I think, about dozen of them showing that they were a successful model. 3.x had just as much of an emphasis on movement and positioning, and for the same reasons. Flanking, AoO's, etc.  I'm just saying that the action hack and slash RPG market sells extremely well, and you can bet they're going to try and continue with that as long as it remains popular. I would like a turn based game, too. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
#21 excalainen Feb 16, 2011 19:32:45	Reportedly, all attacks hit (no d20 to hit rolls) and the randomization is in damage.  Personally, I think this is a bad decision if they continue on that path. Boo. I want a 4e computer game that mimics the actual system as closely as possible. That also means that it would have to be turn-based, which probably isn't the case here. Considering its predecessors, expecting turn based is a long shot. Turn based D&D video games probably wouldn't sell nearly as well. NWN and NWN2 were huge hits, and I'm thinknig they're gonna build on the same model. Being based on 3.x, NWN and NWN2 could be truer to the ruleset even while being realtime games. That is because 3.x didn't place as much emphasis on movement and position as 4e does. Also, the so-called Gold Box games (Pool of Radiance, Champions of Krynn, Gateway to the Savage Frontier etc.)  based on 2nd edition were pretty popular even though they were turn-based. There were, I think, about dozen of them showing that they were a successful model. 3.x had just as much of an emphasis on movement and positioning, and for the same reasons. Flanking, AoO's, etc.  I'm just saying that the action hack and slash RPG market sells extremely well, and you can bet they're going to try and continue with that as long as it remains popular. I would like a turn based game, too. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.  You are wrong. 4e has a myriad of pull, push and slide effects that are the meat and bone of many a power. On contrast, 3.x relied more on raw damage and save-or-die effects. Subtle spells were never so popular in combat context. 3.x could easily be played without grid and miniatures, but it is much harder with 4e. Also, hack and slash does not mean the same as being real-time game. H&S can be realized as turn-based just as well, so it is a different discussion. Personally, I hope that the new game will not be pure H&S since I like complicated plot and deep conversations with NPCs in my CRPGs. I guess Ultimas V and VI are good examples of what I want. They are deep in plot, and turn-based.
#22 Samrin Feb 16, 2011 19:38:59	Reportedly, all attacks hit (no d20 to hit rolls) and the randomization is in damage.  Personally, I think this is a bad decision if they continue on that path. Boo. I want a 4e computer game that mimics the actual system as closely as possible. That also means that it would have to be turn-based, which probably isn't the case here. Considering its predecessors, expecting turn based is a long shot. Turn based D&D video games probably wouldn't sell nearly as well. NWN and NWN2 were huge hits, and I'm thinknig they're gonna build on the same model. Being based on 3.x, NWN and NWN2 could be truer to the ruleset even while being realtime games. That is because 3.x didn't place as much emphasis on movement and position as 4e does. Also, the so-called Gold Box games (Pool of Radiance, Champions of Krynn, Gateway to the Savage Frontier etc.)  based on 2nd edition were pretty popular even though they were turn-based. There were, I think, about dozen of them showing that they were a successful model. 3.x had just as much of an emphasis on movement and positioning, and for the same reasons. Flanking, AoO's, etc.  I'm just saying that the action hack and slash RPG market sells extremely well, and you can bet they're going to try and continue with that as long as it remains popular. I would like a turn based game, too. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.  You are wrong. 4e has a myriad of pull, push and slide effects that are the meat and bone of many a power. On contrast, 3.x relied more on raw damage and save-or-die effects. Subtle spells were never so popular in combat context. 3.x could easily be played without grid and miniatures, but it is much harder with 4e. Also, hack and slash does not mean the same as being real-time game. H&S can be realized as turn-based just as well, so it is a different discussion. Personally, I hope that the new game will not be pure H&S since I like complicated plot and deep conversations with NPCs in my CRPGs. I guess Ultimas V and VI are good examples of what I want. They are deep in plot, and turn-based. Having more forced movement doesn't mean it's any less important. 3.x is still heavily reliant on all of that stuff.  NWN and NWN2 were barely 3.x at all, though. I expect this game to barely resemble 4e combat, as any real time D&D game poorly represents the ruleset at hand.
#23 Jharii Feb 16, 2011 20:37:27	NWN1 and 2 were pseudo-real time games.  There were turn "bubbles" that happened in real time, but this could all be configured to pause after each action (both PC and NPC alike).  This replicated the turn-based combat of 3.x.  And actually, NWN1 (particularly) and 2 were both very true to 3.x, especially with the Hard Core community mod that was a staple when designing mods.  And custom mods drove the popularity of the game.  Single player/Bio's campaign was barely a fart in the wind.
#24 excalainen Feb 16, 2011 21:25:23	NWN1 and 2 were pseudo-real time games.  There were turn "bubbles" that happened in real time, but this could all be configured to pause after each action (both PC and NPC alike).  This replicated the turn-based combat of 3.x.  And actually, NWN1 (particularly) and 2 were both very true to 3.x, especially with the Hard Core community mod that was a staple when designing mods.  And custom mods drove the popularity of the game.  Single player/Bio's campaign was barely a fart in the wind. I think the NWN2 single player campaign was particularly good. I wonder if it counts as canon with the King of Shadows and all? And curse you Sand, you turncoat!
#25 Awesomologist Feb 17, 2011 9:37:57	If you want a 4e type turn based game go get Final Fantasy Tactics or FF Tactics Advanced. Its basically 4e combat done about 10 years ago. I would love to see a good turn based 4e game. Sadly turn based games are almost long gone. Developers no longer believe that players have the patience or attention span to play games like that. We only like explosions, sex scenes, and blur/bullet time. It's like Michael Bay took over video games...
#26 lokiare Feb 17, 2011 9:52:37	Reportedly, all attacks hit (no d20 to hit rolls) and the randomization is in damage.  Personally, I think this is a bad decision if they continue on that path. Boo. I want a 4e computer game that mimics the actual system as closely as possible. That also means that it would have to be turn-based, which probably isn't the case here. I agree. Something like D&D:Tactics, but done right and without game breaking bugs...
#27 ADHadh Feb 17, 2011 14:27:59	(...)Also, the so-called Gold Box games (Pool of Radiance, Champions of Krynn, Gateway to the Savage Frontier etc.)  based on 2nd edition were pretty popular even though they were turn-based. There were, I think, about dozen of them showing that they were a successful model. Those games were published in '89-'91! There wasn't much of an alternative to turns back then; programmers were still figuring out real-time.