Review of Heroes of Neverwinter (Facebook App) by Atari

[RedShirtNo5.1]

If the game was not labelled "Dungeons & Dragons", would the reviewer have found it fun?

Say I don't play 4e. Would I have fun playing this game?

Is this game more or less fun than Farmville?

I would like a review that answered these questions.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'd honestly prefer to believe that there aren't that many of us for whom strict adherence to a set of rules from another game in another medium in another format wins out over the game's playability and fun factor. That would say some very unflattering things about the community on this website.

Personally I'd have to say the game would be more playable and fun if it HAD stuck to the 4e mechanics in a number of places. As others have said, rogues are basically in your party for a single reason: stunning blow combined with a high initiative makes that BBEG spellcaster weep. Mistakes with how conditions work (ie - a dazed, prone individual will get to stand and attack) make many other powers useless.
Fighters really have no reason to exist - because heals are a flat amount instead of being surge based, more hitpoints just means you have more healing needing done... but you filled the spot with a fighter, so you don't have it.
Conversely the fact that anything that would be a minor action is a free action instead makes clerics gods. You can burn through your entire healing stash in a single round while still attacking.
And any wizard spell that isn't AOE isn't worth casting.
Items are a bit wierd too - powers often mention [w] in how much damage they do, but the weapons list their damage ranges with all the modifiers mixed in, so a weapon that does 5-15 damage may have a higher or lower [w] value than another, and the only way to find out is to check it out during a dungeon (when you can't swap gear...).
Incidentally I've no problems with the monetization stuff. It's expected.

EDIT: Furthermore, I can't imagine the awful review scores Neuroglyph would have given a game like Dungeons & Dragons: Shadow over Mystara, an old arcade side-scroller ranked in the top 50 arcade games of all time. But it has D&D in the name and doesn't follow the D&D rules, so it must suck.

Are there really so few arcade games? It was a pretty bog standard side-scrolling beat em up with only a vague handwave towards D&D.
The worst thing is that 'it's a facebook game' really doesn't stop them from adding any of the 4e rules in. This stuff is basic logic that flash is more than capable of handling.

 

[Dannager]

Personally I'd have to say the game would be more playable and fun if it HAD stuck to the 4e mechanics in a number of places. As others have said, rogues are basically in your party for a single reason: stunning blow combined with a high initiative makes that BBEG spellcaster weep. Mistakes with how conditions work (ie - a dazed, prone individual will get to stand and attack) make many other powers useless.
Fighters really have no reason to exist - because heals are a flat amount instead of being surge based, more hitpoints just means you have more healing needing done... but you filled the spot with a fighter, so you don't have it.
Conversely the fact that anything that would be a minor action is a free action instead makes clerics gods. You can burn through your entire healing stash in a single round while still attacking.
And any wizard spell that isn't AOE isn't worth casting.
Items are a bit wierd too - powers often mention [w] in how much damage they do, but the weapons list their damage ranges with all the modifiers mixed in, so a weapon that does 5-15 damage may have a higher or lower [w] value than another, and the only way to find out is to check it out during a dungeon (when you can't swap gear...).
Incidentally I've no problems with the monetization stuff. It's expected.

And if all of these things contribute to making the game unenjoyable, then they become valid criticisms of the game. The stuff you outline above is a pretty clear illustration of class imbalance. But what you're doing here is explaining why these things harm the gameplay experience, rather than simply pointing out that they have deviated from 4e and must therefore be bad.

Are there really so few arcade games? It was a pretty bog standard side-scrolling beat em up with only a vague handwave towards D&D.

It's considered by many to be the pinnacle of arcade side-scrollers. But yes, it's obviously a reinterpretation of D&D rather than a faithful implementation of the game in arcade form, which is why I'm inclined to think that we'd find Neuroglyph giving it a 1.5/5.0.

The worst thing is that 'it's a facebook game' really doesn't stop them from adding any of the 4e rules in. This stuff is basic logic that flash is more than capable of handling.

The rules are implemented differently, but not because of any software or infrastructure limitations. They streamlined some of the rules to make the game more accessible, and faster to play.

 

[Saeviomagy]

For some stuff I can buy the "we made it simpler because it's a facebook game" explanation, but so many of the changes are just arbitrary and result in things that make less sense than the pen and paper version that I don't think there was really a plan.

Oh, there's one very, very important point that I believe the original review missed. Despite being "out of beta" the game still has some stability and bug issues which have the capability to eat up astral diamonds if you've chosen to use them. For that reason I would heartily recommend NOT buying astral diamonds with cash for a while.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

If the game was not labelled "Dungeons & Dragons", would the reviewer have found it fun?

Say I don't play 4e. Would I have fun playing this game?

Is this game more or less fun than Farmville?

I would like a review that answered these questions.

Allow me to interpret:

If the car was not labelled "porche" would the reviewer have found it fun?

Say I don't drive cars. Would I have fun driving this vehicle?

Is this vehicle more or less fun than a vespa?

I would like a review that answered these questions.




Irrelevant questions IMO....and a harsh, harsh criticism of the reviewer. Why doesn't your review of cookies compare it to doughnuts, and their enjoyable qualities?!? You clearly have only compared apples to apples. How should the oranges feel?!?!?



EDIT: To tone back my own obnoxiousness....

The comments responding to the review have bugged me (if that wasn't clear)...not because they were negative, but because, IMO they were unfair.



I support the review of a D&D game being D&D. If I slap the name D&D on plants versus zombies (my favorite app OMG I love that app), I'd give it a crappy review. IT IS NOT D&D.

So make a great non D&D app and I'll play it (just don't call it something it's not as a "trick" to get me to buy it). Maybe make a true to form D&D app that would suck for non rpr's (but be good for ppl who actually play D&D) and I'd play it too.


But don't try to sell me "here's D&D in another modality" when it's just a computer game with the barest of bare hints/nods in the direction of fantasy (nevermind D&D) and not an actual D&D product.

BE D&D...don't pretend to be it or hint at it.

Really, it shouldn't be that hard.

For shame.

 

[Wayside]

Well agree with me or not, that's your prerogative, but its a bit low to call into question my ability to do reviews simply because I chose not to like the HoN app or disagree with your PoV.

I question your ability because I find your reviews to be consistently unhelpful. They do have lots of words, which for some people amounts to them being "thorough," but your habit of criticizing products for not conforming to some metric you just made up of what they should be doesn't cut it. It's lazy criticism. On the other hand, at least you don't come off as a paid shill like the Pathfinder reviewer does.

As far as the Google+ quip, I see that I offended some Facebook users being a smart-aleck. Mea culpa. I've removed the offending remark. But it doesn't change my opinion of the app, and I certainly won't be spending my time playing it.

You didn't offend anyone. The claim was simply wrong, and we all know what happens when someone is wrong on the Internet. Google+ has about 6% of Facebook's active user base, and the vast majority of them still use Facebook as well. There's also the small matter of Google+ not yet being a serious gaming platform, for reasons partially spelled out by Google employee Steve Yegge in a rant from earlier this week.

 

[thomkt]

I'm not sure why people keep saying the game is out of beta.

Their fan page on Facebook says it's still in beta, I launch it and the graphic in the upper left corner says "Beta" and the version number is 0.7171 - release is typically 1.0.

There's a big difference between open beta and release.

 

[Wycen]

I like the game. I like that there is no aggro and it is simplified. The only complaint I have is the lack of interaction between PC and NPC or player to player, but that's why table top RPGing will always be my favorite.

 

[Dannager]

If the car was not labelled "porche" would the reviewer have found it fun?

Are you freaking kidding me?

Come on, Aberzanzorax.

This review is like someone saying "So here's my review for this car: it said Porsche on the tail but it was actually a Ford, so 1.5/5.0," completely ignoring the question of how good of a car is this car?

Say I don't drive cars. Would I have fun driving this vehicle?

No. This is like asking "I'm not a big fan of your typical SUV. What does this SUV bring to the table that makes it different from the rest?"

Is this vehicle more or less fun than a vespa?

Nothing is more fun than a Vespa.

Irrelevant questions IMO....

None of those questions were irrelevant. Not a one. And all of them are more relevant than "How many times did their rules deviate from the standard 4e rules?"

I support the review of a D&D game being D&D. If I slap the name D&D on plants versus zombies (my favorite app OMG I love that app), I'd give it a crappy review. IT IS NOT D&D.

You understand how slapping the label "D&D" on Plants vs. Zombies and slapping the label "D&D" on Heroes of Neverwinter are two very different things, yes?

Tell me you understand this.

Again, Dungeons & Dragons: Shadow over Mystara is one of the best-reviewed D&D games of all time. But here you are telling me you would have given it a terrible review score, because it's not enough like real D&D for you.

And again, this is irrelevant. If you gave Plants vs. Zombies D&D Edition an awful review for no other reason than that it had the label "D&D" tacked on, you'd also be branded as an awful reviewer. The fact that it wouldn't really have anything to do with D&D might warrant a cautionary note in the review (again, something like "If you're looking for a faithful Dungeons & Dragons experience, look elsewhere. This is a Plants vs. Zombies game. But if you're curious as to whether Plants vs. Zombies D&D Edition is an enjoyable game, read on.") To make the thesis of your review "This isn't enough like real D&D, even though it at no point tries to convince you that it's real D&D!" is to completely miss the point of a game review.

So make a great non D&D app and I'll play it (just don't call it something it's not as a "trick" to get me to buy it).

If you think Heroes of Neverwinter had the D&D brand attached to it as a "trick", you're straight up delusional. This is a D&D game. This is not Starfox Adventures.

But don't try to sell me "here's D&D in another modality" when it's just a computer game with the barest of bare hints/nods in the direction of fantasy (nevermind D&D) and not an actual D&D product.

I'm sorry, what?

Heroes of Neverwinter features D&D classes. It features D&D races. It features monsters. It features magic items. It features dungeons. It features dragons. It features adventures. It features the city of Neverwinter and its environs. It features powers. It features ability scores. It features initiative. It features move actions, standard actions, and free actions. It features hit points. It features AC, Reflex, Fortitude, and Will defenses. It features dozens of other things that come to mind when one thinks of D&D.

How in the world is this "not an actual D&D product" to you?

In fact, you know what would be weird? If Heroes of Neverwinter didn't have the D&D name attached to it. That would be really odd, given how it's basically D&D.

For shame.

Right. Back. At you.

 

[Hussar]

This review is like someone saying "So here's my review for this car: it said Porsche on the tail but it was actually a Ford, so 1.5/5.0," completely ignoring the question of how good of a car is this car?

Y'know what? If someone put a Porche tag on a Ford and tried to call it a Porche, giving it a 1.5/5 is, in my mind anyway, PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.

But, y'know what woud be even more useful than sitting around bitching about this review? Writing your own and submitting it to Morrus to put on the main news page. It's not exactly that hard.