A 4500-word hyperlinked article on NWN1 vs. NWN2.

This article was written by the author of 1990s Computer Game History and Computer Role-playing Games History.

Preamble

Please note that I have written about 300,000 words on Neverwinter Nights 1 (2002). So even though I criticize the game in this article, I don't dislike NWN. I have also written about 400k on Baldur's Gate 1, which I also don't dislike even though it gets criticized as well.

At the risk of blowing my own trumpet, no one in the world has posted more commentary on NWN and BG than I have.

If I didn't like those BioWare games I wouldn't be able to write so much about them. Games I dislike get written off in one review and then I move on. Since I have been writing about NWN for years on end in a mostly positive manner, I obviously like the series. It is just that I really dislike some things about it.

BioWare had a vision for Neverwinter Nights. And they successfully realized their vision and deserve credit for that. But their vision diverged from the traditions of classic cRPGs in so far as NWN wanted to be This, That and The Other -- instead of just an excellent cRPG.

When cRPGs diverge from classic tradition, they are called into question by reason of, "If something isn't broken don't fix it".

 

With all their tech/design innovations and non-core feature inclusions, NWN1-2 not only failed to improve upon classic cRPGs, but they also failed to match classic cRPGs.

BioWare and Obsidian didn't overcome technical problems that had commonly plagued classics (such as poor pathfinding routines), they slowed every aspect of gameplay right down, they ignored or were ignorant of some elite design concepts that had been mastered one decade earlier by trailblazers that coded on and for toasters, and they omitted some design that practically defines the cRPG.

BioWare believed each new cRPG of theirs was better than their previous ones, but I believe their design peaked right off the bat with BG1 and generally became worse as time wore on, which could suggest that Baldur's Gate was a fluke.

BioWare said Baldur's Gate sparked A Role-playing Game Renaissance. Then they said Neverwinter Nights was going to be A Multi-player Revolution.

That was well-put by BioWare and they weren't necessarily wrong, but the cRPG Renaissance spark was the loftier achievement; that is, if it can be admitted (cf. Fallout 1).

This article starts off with a versus comparison sprinkled with a few criticisms that hint at the more thorough criticism that follows. At bottom, I don't give a damn about vs. comparisons; for me, they are nothing more than stimuli for cRPG Commentary.

Also, I'm not against 3D graphics but only its uneccessary employment. If I was against 3D graphics in gaming I wouldn't espouse the virtues of Doom, Quake and several flight sims, would I.

Note that NWN came out in 2002, six years after Quake. SIX YEARS AFTER. Yet Quake's 3D remained superior.

NWN1 vs NWN2

All things considered, Neverwinter Nights 1 is a better cRPG than Neverwinter Nights 2. This primarily rests on the original's polish and engine performance as well as the sheer number of NWN mods and NWN modules available for the original.

In general, NWN2 is more powerful, complex and feature-packed than NWN1. For example, NWN2 has a more powerful user interface and toolset, a more versatile ruleset and camera, and more realistic terrain, models, lighting and shadows (NWN2 graphics).

NWN2 also features full party control with marquee selection whereas NWN1 relies on dialogue-based commands and simpler in-combat control for NWN companions as well as companion AI -- which has always been a joke.

Thus, the sequel seems to offer more, doesn't it. Indeed, on paper its cRPG Design reads as markedly superior due to its cam, control, UI and FPC.

But here's the thing: its implementations and optimization leave much to be desired. NWN2 is just slower and less responsive all-round to actually play, and this ultimately results in the player having less fun.

NWN1 graphics vs NWN2 graphics

In graphics, NWN1 has blocky meshes (low polygon count) and low-res textures compared to NWN2, which has much more realistic visuals through Shader Model 2-3. However, the character animations in NWN2 are poor compared to those in NWN1: there is no dance of death, Cleave looks awful, and so on.

NWN2 also features sculptable terrain, which is a massive visual upgrade to environmental design and aesthetics that NWN1 cannot hope to match.

NWN User Interface

cf. cRPG User Interfaces.

The biggest thing that stands out about NWN1-2 UIs is that they don't have dedicated, switchable modes of operation like classic cRPG engines do, but are instead made up of small, floating windowed panels.

UI modes are separate screens that dominate viewport space when called up. In addition, their call-up usually locks out and blocks off the playing field.

What that does is focus player attention on stats, inventory or dialogues. And since modes are full-screen or close to it, they usually contain more information than windowed panels, which is why windowed panels employ tabs and scroll-bars as crutches, thereby slowing down info-access: a precursor to the even more casual Baldur's Gate 3 cascading tool tips.

In addition, UI modes are easier to read, more pleasing to the eye and above all more efficient to interact with than multiple windowed panels that are scattered across screenspace.

Moreover, windowed panels need to be wrangled with whereas modes are unadjustable because they are well-designed by default. Some classic cRPGs almost perfected mode-based UIs whereas windowed UIs always have multiple issues.

Just look at how people have used multi-tasking OS GUIs for the past three decades. In most cases, did they prefer to have various windows littering their screenspace or did they prefer to switch between maximized internet browsing and maximized PDF files (for example)? I rest my case.

But I'll talk more about UIs in the dialogue section of this article.

***

NWN2 replaced the awful radial menu in NWN1 with far superior context sensitive drop-down menus, which halves the number of clicks it takes to perform some actions, such as unlocking a chest.

The assertion that radial menus increase efficiency and number of selectable options is flat-out nonsense. If they were so efficient, NWN2 would have kept them. If they were so efficient, operating systems would use them. And no GUI-based god-tier OS uses radial menus, they use icons and expanding dropdowns bolstered by a command-based shell.

NWN2 employs repositional windows, drag and drop (drag feat, skill or spell to quickbar) as well as a Quickcast menu (F-key) for quickly casting spells. Make no mistake, NWN2's Quickcast Menu blows NWN's static, space-limited Quickbar out of the water.

The XML-powered UI of NWN2 is extremely powerful, versatile and highly moddable. In terms of function and presentation, there isn't much it isn't capable of when tapped into by coders. However, it is sluggish in comparison to NWN1's UI, which is more responsive, tactile and "snappy."

For example, NWN2 windows and context sensitive menus fade in and out (over time) when called up/cancelled. Why can't they just appear and disappear instantly? When we're playing games for 100s of hours, unnecessary delays or lag -- however minor -- can seem like eternities.

Look at this awful garbage aka "the modern game GUI":

NWN2 supports inventory sorting. So click auto-sort and our items are neatly arranged in a fairly logical manner, grouping items of similar type together.

Problem is, all inventory icons are the same, small size which actually makes things harder to find, not easier. NWN1 inventory icons are far superior and beautifully drawn. Thus, instantly recognizable and locatable.

The conclusion then is that neither UI comes close to satisfying user interface connoisseurs. And a pattern will become apparent, if one reads on, that neither games come close to satisfying cRPG connoisseurs either.

NWN1 ruleset vs NWN2 ruleset

NWN1-2 employ D&D 3rd Edition cRPG rules, but NWN1 employs version 3.0 whereas NWN2 employs 3.5.

Due to 3.5, NWN2 features more races, classes, spells and feats than NWN1. On top of that, NWN2 allows for four-class cRPG builds whereas NWN1 is limited to three classes per build.

cf. NWN1 Weapon Master Build and NWN2 Weapon Master Build.

NWN2 doesn't have Double Axes or Two-Bladed Swords. It probably lacks other weapon types, too, but those are the ones that spring to mind.

However, NWN2 allows us to dual-wield two-handed great weapons: Monkey Grip NWN2.

Skill-dumping has been nerfed to hell in NWN2, which is a good thing because skill-dumping is OP. Only 5 skillpoints can be held in reserve in NWN2 compared to NWN1's "infinite". That means we can't just save up all our skillpoints and dump them into powerful utility skills when we take our Rogue level (a common practice in NWN1 power-building).

NWN2 does not have Shifter NWN. It has more races and classes, but most veterans would trade all that for Shifter because Shifter adds a completely new dynamic to gameplay, unlike NWN2 subraces and prestige classes.

NWN2 features much more complex crafting rules than NWN1. And there are three different crafting systems, one for each of the official campaigns.

But guess what?

All three suck.

cf. cRPG Itemization.

NWN1 OC vs NWN2 OC

Campaign-wise, NWN2's Original Campaign (OC), Mask of the Betrayer and Storm of Zehir are better in designwork (overall) than NWN1's Original Campaign, Shadows of Undrentide and Hordes of the Underdark, but it's the same old story: the engine lets everything down.

It runs like my Aunt May after she's had too much sherry to drink.

In addition, NWN2 OC is slowed down by tons of cutscenes. It is insane how many cutscenes there are in NWN2 official campaigns. See: 2005-2010 cRPGs for more ways modern games waste the player's time. Also, I have seen so many useless cutscenes in my day that I wrote The Cinematization of Computer Games.

The mere thought of replaying the NWN1-2 OCs puts me to sleep. The mere thought of expanding this section puts me to sleep.

My advice is: don't go near either of the OCs if you are a Baldur's Gate player. In comparison to Baldur's Gate, they are extremely bland, dumb and slow.

I haven't timed it specifically, but I could conduct several playthroughs of Baldur's Gate in the time it would take me to conduct one playthrough of the NWN1-2 OCs. This is due to time-wasting "features" such as cutscene employment, 3D cams, slower UIs and slow character movement speed.

Everything is just slower in 3D cRPGs. Every single thing. No exceptions.

NWN1 mods vs NWN2 mods

As it pertains to community-made mods and modules, there is no comparison: NWN1 destroys NWN2. To give a prime example, there is nothing on NWN2 that approaches the level of Rogueknight's Swordflight.

If I had to choose, I'd forego every adventure campaign available on NWN2 (including MotB) in favor of Swordflight alone. That's how good it is.

These days, one has no right to make declarative statements about the quality of Aurora and Electron campaigns unless they have played Swordflight multiple times, as that is the yardstick by which campaigns are measured.

***

Ideally, the reader would simply purchase and play both NWN1 and NWN2; there is no need to choose between two things when you can have both. But since this question is often asked, I've given my answer.

Criticism of Neverwinter Nights

From cRPG Definition:

cRPGs are not multi-player games, they are single-player games that are designed to be played alone in peace, offline and away from others. cRPGs are 100% solo gaming experiences.

While some cRPGs have included token multi-player capability in a sad attempt to broaden their mainstream appeal and cash-in on the rabble's love for shallow virtual socializing, the quality of single-player gameplay invariably suffers as a result of multi-player design considerations.

You cannot make cRPG campaigns for solo players as well as two or more players without their cRPG Design being compromised or even ruined. Neverwinter Nights 1 is a prime example:

• First, it isn't turn-based. Epic fail right there because D&D 3rd Edition is a TB game.
• Second, it lacks full party control which is standard in D&D cRPGs. Another epic fail that is complained about even two decades subsequent.
• Third, its dungeon design is wrap-around in nature: "You guys head east, we'll head west! Then, we'll converge at the center and descend to the next level for more copy-pasta!"
• Fourth, itemization is overly randomized, there are far too many items, and there are far too many receptacles to loot.
• Fifth, its combat encounters scale based on party size to accommodate frivolous players dropping in and out.
• Sixth, unlocking chests, disarming traps and resting actions have progress bars. You have to stare blankly at progress bars while your character unlocks, disarms and rests.
• Seventh, its dialogue mode is not screen-centered and does not pause the game, which is absolutely pathetic.

In the case of NWN these seven design decisions have their germ in multi-player. I bet BioWare jumped on the 3D bandwagon because they thought 3D would enhance the social aspect of their game, too.

Practically a contradiction in terms, multi-player cRPGs make for bad cRPGs. In the case of NWN, the multi-player fad relegated a potentially great cRPG to mediocrity, and only its ruleset and toolset saved it from being buried and forgotten.

Another example is furnished by Troika's Arcanum: the publisher's multi-player requirement was the reason its combat system was utterly ruined. Otherwise Troika would have made Arcanum a purely turn-based cRPG which could have resulted in Arcanum toppling Fallout 1 to become the best cRPG of all-time.

***

While NWN1-2 are indeed good cRPGs in comparison to RPG Games of the 2020s, certain cRPG Design decisions and technical issues held them back from cementing their status among the absolute best cRPGs in cRPG History.

Multi-player and modding focus is NOT enough when it comes to cRPGs: the engine must be rock solid, the gameplay must be A1, and the original campaigns must be borderline masterpieces and eminently replayable.

Diablo 1, Fallout 1 and Baldur's Gate 1 set the cRPG standards; they are tough acts to follow. Indeed, they are legendary cRPGs that may never be beaten (though each is still disappointing in its own way).

BioWare's NWN1 was supposed to follow in the footsteps of Baldur's Gate (that was what Baldur's Gate veterans were expecting), but in becoming its own thing and wanting to be different and better, NWN1 lost much of the magic that made Baldur's Gate a classic -- too much.

Then, when BioWare started churning out franchises for casual consumption, Obsidian took over the D&D mantle in order to bring back some of the old BioWare and Black Isle magic in NWN2, but they didn't manage to match their Black Isle output either, which included Fallout 2, Icewind Dale 1, Icewind Dale 2 and Planescape: Torment.

For example, it is not easy to argue that Mask of the Betrayer is superior to Planescape: Torment or that Storm of Zehir is superior to IWD1 and IWD2. A case could be made by the optimistic among us, but would ultimately get waved off when everyone regained their senses.

Being the last serious entry in a long line of classic commercial cRPGs, Storm of Zehir represents the tragic end to an era that had once suggested greatness. It could be said that with the release of Storm of Zehir the cRPG genre -- as it had been known for years -- gave out its last breath and faded away to oblivion. And barely anyone even noticed because they were too busy playing Oblivion With Guns.

More Criticisms of NWN & Its Sequel

Pathfinding Routine. As on the Infinity Engine, Aurora and Electron pathing routines can be glitchy. The worst part is: our character can get stuck on placeables or tileset geometry. Walkmeshes can be problematic in NWN2. Since pathing was criticized in previous cRPGs, you would think that BioWare and Obsidian could get it right in NWN, but no.

The bounce delay is annoying in NWN1. When our character runs into a placeable, other NPC or monster, they just awkwardly bounce-stop before getting into the dance of death. This was mostly fixed in NWN2, but NWN2 lacks proper spacing between combat units.

Spawn stutter is immersion-breaking in NWN1. What happens is, as we explore areas the framerate drops to spawn a mob that we can't yet see. Aside from simply being annoying, it's a dead giveaway that something is around the corner (immersion-breaking). NWN2 does not suffer as severely from this issue because NWN2 seems to call up data more efficiently.

NWN2 has TWO auto-maps, both of which suck. The small map in NWN2 is too small and the big map is too big. Terrible design decision.

When we highlight interactable objects in NWN1 (Tab key), floaty text appears over NPCs that IDs them by name. But when we highlight interactables in NWN2 (Z key), NO name appears over NPCs. So that means we have to mouse-over all the NPCs just to find the one we need to talk to. Another terrible design decision that sucks the enjoyment out of playing the game, an effect akin to a deflating balloon.

Areas are not labeled when you are in them, and nor are stores when in vendor inventory mode. How hard is it to tell players where they are? The areas are only named during the loading screens, which is laughable.

NWN console is obnoxious. First, you can't copy-paste into it. Second, you can't up-arrow to recall the last command. Yet you could do both of these things in BG1's Lua console.

You could recall the last command with up-arrow in 1980s DOS for crying out loud.

The console is also case sensitive when it needn't have been. And it employs underscores when it needn't have. Like I said, obnoxious.

NWN2 does not natively support secret doors and trapdoors, which were one of the coolest features of NWN area design. There are two ways to get NWN1-style secret doors in NWN2: clumsy workarounds or custom placeables and scripts.

NWN2 lacks tactical formations despite featuring full party control. Epic fail by Obsidian.

Terrible Dialogue Systems

The dialogue systems in NWN1-2 are atrocious. In NWN1, whenever we talk with NPCs the cam zooms in close to them and the dialogue is displayed in a fixed-sized unmoveable window stuck at the top-left of our display.

Sorry, but dialogue windows should be central to viewports if you want your cRPG to be taken seriously. When in dialogue mode the conversation must dominate the viewport, be center-stage. NOT off to the side or tucked away in a corner.

This is game design 101.

In addition, players should not be able to Esc. key out of dialogue. By embedding an ability to skip dialogue you just devalued your dialogue to the point of irrelevancy. And not just your official twaddle but every modder's scribblings as well.

When players talk to an NPC the viewport must be locked into dialogue mode, and the playing field must be locked out. And you should not adjust the player's camera for any reason or make dialogue windows even 1% transparent.

Downright disgusting design, to be frank.

Even when modded, NWN dialogue mode is not satisfactory because it is not centralized, it is not opaque, it does not lock out the action, it does not prevent quitting out and it does not disable the cam-adjustment.

Ideally, cRPG dialogue would not be presented in a mere window but rather call up a separate unadjustable UI mode that consumes all available screenspace. That is how you make dialogue mode important. That is how you get players to read your writing. The only options given to the player in dialogue mode are dialogue options, nothing else. They can't quit out of dialogue until they have dealt with the dialogue. Just like classic cRPGs.

In 800x600 4:3, the NWN GUI is a solid 8/10 because the locked-in, unadjustable panels fit the viewport dimensions perfectly [1]. But instead of allowing two panels to be displayed with each taking up 50% of the viewport, only one panel should be displayed (for each of the two modes) that takes up 100%. So you are either in char-sheet mode or inventory mode, not both. Just like classic cRPGs. And every other aspect of the panels is adjusted in accordance with full-screen panels. Because scroll-bars and tabs suck.

And the transparency is dumped because character sheets and inventories demand full prominence and attention.

Dialogue mode should have been the same (the dialogue panel consumes 100% of viewport space and is 0% transparent).

[1] NWN GUI is clearly designed for 800x600 4:3. Higher resolutions result in suboptimal interaction efficiency (because you're increasing mouse-cursor movement requirements).

 

So what is the reason for the bad dialogue design in NWN1? Multi-player. They can't suddenly lock every player into dialogue when one player talks to an NPC; and they want dialogue to be subordinate to or share screenspace with "the toon".

In NWN2, the zoom-in dialogue was left out and the dialogue window can be dragged to the center of the viewport. And while it is a chore to move flaky windows about, at least you can do so.

But NWN2 often employs 3D cinematic cutscene dialogue, which is glitchy, jarring and slows down interactions.

I mean, even FRW Character Creator has this stupid cinematic dialogue. We are in FRW to level and equip our character, not watch cutscenes.

Awful 3D Graphics

As I said in cRPG Definition, the employment of 3D graphics in cRPGs was, is and always will be a mistake. 3D uglifies everything and slows down gameplay and even the simplest interactions.

Since cRPGs are ALL about interactions, why would anyone want to slow them down by adding a camera?

The ability to rotate and zoom a viewport adds nothing to cRPG experiences; cams are unwieldy and need to be wrangled, which wastes time. You are sitting down to play a game, not wrestle for control of the game.

Even tactics cRPGs do not benefit from cams; the best of them are 2D because they are 2D.

As it pertains to speed and responsiveness, even NWN2's strategy mode cam is an absolute joke in comparison to isometric projection or top-down plan views.

If someone was to argue that 3D tilesets facilitate modding, they are ignoring the fact that 2D tilesets would have been more efficient in terms of both area-rigging and hardware demands. NWN1-2 would have been better as isometric cRPGs.

3D is only useful during dev-cycles. Instead of hand-drawing sprites and their animations, you just model them in 3D and output them as raw prerenders, which are then converted into sprites for in-game employment.

Standing the Test of Time

Four of the five Infinity Engine games featured multi-player capability, but that wasn't their focus. The focus was on the single-player experience, and that is one of the main reasons for Baldur's Gate's enduring popularity.

The other main reason for the IEs popularity is that Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Planescape: Torment are actually good cRPG campaigns. NWN1-2 OCs are NOT good campaigns, they are bad campaigns. Very, very bad legacy-gimping campaigns.

As such, NWN will always be in the shadow of Fallout and Baldur's Gate. Always. As it pertains to cRPG legacy, no amount of modding and multi-player features can make up for bad flagship campaigns since it is the flagship campaign that sets the tone and stays in the memory.

The IE games do not even have an official TOOLSET, yet they are still popular in 2024. I'm not talking about mainstream popularity (which counts for nothing in the critical assessment of a thing), I'm talking about how Baldur's Gate is often cited by independent critics yet NWN barely ever gets a mention outside of mod promotion or somesuch, which is by definition not critical commentary.

Games that receive critical commentary live on, they endure. If no one is talking about a game as it is in itself, it is forgotten about and dies off.

If Baldur's Gate came with a toolset that allowed for area creation through discrete 2D tilesets (instead of the largely unworkable pre-rendered TIS backdrops, which are absolute garbage), its modding production would have dwarfed both Aurora and Electron, taken together.

In addition, the quality of output from an Infinity Toolset would have been much higher because their base-game campaigns set higher bars. And imagine not having to wrangle a stupid cam in a toolset? Imagine just being able to slap down 2D tiles and have the engine isometrically project the area?

And then, when NWN came along with its 3D toolset it would have been embraced by some because early-2000s 3D fad. But then people would realize that 2D is better, that 3D ages like milk, and they would have crawled back to the Infinity Toolset and stayed there until this day.

Because at the end of the day 3D environment mapping, dynamic shadows and particle effects don't make cRPGs better, more immersive or more atmospheric; they are useless in cRPGs, absolutely useless.

What would you rather have access to: 500 adventure modules made in the Aurora Toolset by the NWN community or 500 made in an Infinity Toolset by the Baldur's Gate community?

Note that I'm not talking about their current gen communities, I'm talking about the late-90s and early-2000s communities; the heyday of cRPG History -- back when their player-bases actually had good taste.

Of course, all this supposes that Baldur's Gate had a toolset and a proper tiling system for area-rigging in the first place. It doesn't -- but one can dream of what might have been: the history of cRPGs would have been different.

From what I've written above it should be clear that even Baldur's Gate's graphics were a disappointment. See: Baldur's Gate graphics for more info on why this is absolutely so.

Neverwinter Nights 2 Steam

Neverwinter Nights 1 is available on Steam but Neverwinter Nights 2 is not available on Steam. Both games are available on GoG.

Play NWN1 Before NWN2

You don't need to play NWN1 before playing NWN2. However, NWN2 does have some minor references to NWN1, which won't be understood unless you have played NWN1. Besides, they are both worth playing in 2024.

Neverwinter Nights 2 Enhanced Edition

There is no Enhanced Edition of Neverwinter Nights 2. Only Neverwinter Nights 1 has an Enhanced Edition. NWN:EE is being actively developed by Beamdog.

Neverwinter vs Neverwinter Nights

Cryptic Studios' Neverwinter (2013) is an online-only MMO/RPG hybrid whereas BioWare's Neverwinter Nights (2002) is a single-player and multi-player cRPG. While both games share a similar name and are based in the same setting, they are very different in their focus.

Neverwinter Nights 1991 vs NWN 2002

Beyond Software's Neverwinter Nights (1991) was the first NWN game. However, it was online and multi-player only whereas BioWare's NWN (2002) offers both single-player and multi-player modes of play.

BG1 vs BG2

Fallout 1 vs Fallout 2

NWN1 vs NWN2

cRPG Blog	Baldur's Gate 1	Icewind Dale 1
Neverwinter Nights 1	Baldur's Gate 2	Icewind Dale 2
Neverwinter Nights 2	Baldur's Gate 3	Planescape: Torment