In the months edition of the British version f PC GAMER IWD2 was given 71%!!! They said that it's improved but it's only as good as the first IWD should have been. They said that there is more roleplay but it's still linear and boring. They close by saying how it's a gravestone for the Infinity Engine and is over shadowed by CRPGs like NWN and Dungeion Siege. :eek: Still.... this isn't going to stop me buying it. :D I know i will like it, hell i liked PoR :shake:

[ August 27, 2002, 19:44: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

Don't worry too much about it. They might be correct, but it might also be that they don't want to be seen as hailing an old engine (Infinity) when there is a new one.

NWN is overrated by reviewers and I still like BG2 a whole lot so UK PC Gamer's opinion of IWD2 will most likely not be anywhere close to my opinion.

Reviews are still worth reading, but buying any PC game magazine is a waste of money IMHO. :)

They also said only D&D nuts will like this game.... i guess that counts us lot in then! :shake:

This review would possibly be true for many people, but not for the Die-Hard RPG freaks. Many people look at graphics and functions, when you think that is very important, IWD-2 isn't interesting. But when you go for roleplaying, like in BG2, you won't be disappointed.

I really did not like the first Icewind Dale and never bothered with the expansion. After BG2 it was a real downer. I must have missed Minsc. I have pre-ordered Icewind Dale 2 anyway, because any improvement to the BG2 infinity engine and 1024 x 768 will be very welcome to my eyes :)

PC Gamer tends to rate things based on a powergamer's perspective, that's why I don't usually trust their reviews much anymore.

The U.S. version gave it 80-something percent. Strange.

Makes me want to get the game more than ever.

It's like when Skiskel and Ebert say a movie totally sucks; you know that movie is awesome and that you need to go watch it.

Or when they tell you a movie is oustanding; you know that you need a bottle of whiskey when you take your girlfriend/wife to see it, 'cause it's that painful.

Seriously, these people have become de-sensitized; they have no sense.

It's all down to the reviewer. The reviewer (Richard Cobbet) seems to always be giving low scores.

It's like when Skiskel and Ebert say a movie totally sucks; you know that movie is awesome and that you need to go watch it.

Or when they tell you a movie is oustanding; you know that you need a bottle of whiskey when you take your girlfriend/wife to see it, 'cause it's that painful. That's such a sweeping generalisation it sounds as though it was written by a critic :p

The point about reading reviews (at least for me) is not the mark they give the film/game/book/whatever but the description. The trick is finding a critic whose descriptions tell you not only whether HE liked the film/game/etc but whether it sounds like the kind of thing YOU would like. And actually Ebert is quite good for this - I don't always agree with him (he gave TITanic 4 stars :aaa: ???) but his description are written with enough skill that I may get an inkling of what the film is really like.

So in this case I will play IWD2 no matters what mark they give it - because I know I like that type of game (and anyway 71% is not exactly a bad mark).