Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning Review

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning Review

A bit of overwrought genius.

Read Full Article
 

Chairman Miaow

CBA to change avatar
Nov 18, 2009
2,093
0
0
Honestly I think the art style is really ugly. and combat looks like a cross between God of War and Fable, which does seem promising. I haven't seen that much of it though, I will have to give the demo a try.
 

DustyDrB

Made of ticky tacky
Jan 19, 2010
8,365
0
0
I thought the same thing about the world when I got out of that first dungeon in the demo. It was beautiful. I was also glad the daggers were a blast to use. It's a shame it seems some abilities don't work how they should, but I'll still have fun mixing and matching them.

Edit: Also, the video isn't working for me.
Edit of the previous edit: Ah, there it goes. But I feel compelled to say, "Go Yankees!"
 

castlewise

Lord Fancypants
Jul 18, 2010
620
0
0
I'm really conflicted about this one. I disliked the demo and the intro sequence to the game was completely impenetrable to me. But I usually adore open world RPG's and people have been heaping praise on the game.
 

scw55

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,185
0
0
Ooh, I'll sure check out the Demo when I have the time and it's on a Steam Sale.
I'm glad this Western RPG doesn't appear like the generic ones which crawl out of the primal ooze. It looks distinct in a good way and thus I am interested.
 

GeorgW

ALL GLORY TO ME!
Aug 27, 2010
4,806
0
0
I've been looking forward to this game since E3 last year, and it's because of a feature from the Escapist, so I'm very happy to see your review.
It's such a shame that the demo was based on old code and outsourced to a separate dev, cuz I think it really hurt the game. Still, I've been reading reviews all day and I'm really excited to play it!
I love action and RPGs, I love huge games and I'm tired of the lack of new IPs and colours in modern games. This game may finally give me hope for the future.
Also, love that I was manage to get all the in-jokes about Justin from having listened to the podcast.
 

GeorgW

ALL GLORY TO ME!
Aug 27, 2010
4,806
0
0
castlewise said:
I'm really conflicted about this one. I disliked the demo and the intro sequence to the game was completely impenetrable to me. But I usually adore open world RPG's and people have been heaping praise on the game.
scw55 said:
Ooh, I'll sure check out the Demo when I have the time and it's on a Steam Sale.
I'm glad this Western RPG doesn't appear like the generic ones which crawl out of the primal ooze. It looks distinct in a good way and thus I am interested.
Regarding the demo, it's based on 3 month old code and handled by an entirely different team. There are a lot of bugs that are apparently fixed in the full game, though it will still give you a good idea of how the game will be. castlewise, don't judge it on the demo alone and scw55, don't expect too much from the demo.
 

The Wykydtron

"Emotions are very important!"
Sep 23, 2010
5,458
0
0
The aesthetic is alright, but from what I've seen from the demo the music is terribad. First time ever i've had to turn the music way down. Overdramatic yet generic crap. Odd that my love of melodrama doesn't translate into melodramatic music. And the camera... Ugh I still feel sick just thinking about it.


And I did get the feeling that the Role Playing side of the game was gonna be a bit weak. Maybe i'll give this one a miss. I don't think the combat and lore can carry the game through the lack of RP in a bloody RPG.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
Yeah, that's relatively consistent with what I saw of the demo. Although I was not as admiring of the story.

Incidentally, most of the interface problems described above have been fixed on the PC version and replaced with other less annoying ones.
 

ZeroMachine

New member
Oct 11, 2008
4,397
0
0
This is one of those strange times where I can't even come close to comprehending why the game is liked so much.

The combat is fun, yeah, but the universe, to me at least, felt so dull and "been here, done that" that I wasn't drawn in even a bit.

And I SWEAR I've heard of the Well of Souls before in a separate fantasy universe, AND it looked like that >.>
 

Simonoly

New member
Oct 17, 2011
353
0
0
I played the demo (3 times). I've read all the 'hail a new era of RPG has arrived' reviews plus the vomitous name dropping and 'hey, look what we did better than Skyrim' PR churned out by, I guess, EA. But I'm still totally unconvinced. There's nothing original here. It's looks and plays like Fable and has a levelling system straight out of Torchlight. Which is fine. And I'm sure it will be a fun game to play and I will pick it up sometime in the future when it's nice and cheap. But all this, re-defining of the genre nonsense is just laughable. There are so many fantastic RPGs available now and coming soon which strive to be original and defining in their own sense. KOA just isn't one of them.
 

Elate

New member
Nov 21, 2010
584
0
0
No, the reason I don't want to play it because it looks like JUST another hacky slash generic fantasy RPG, where you and only you can change [fate/destiny/tide] and save the [kingdom/world/people] by defeating the evil [empire/overlord/monster].

The graphics look... eh.. scenery looks ok, but frankly I'm so used to beautiful graphics even in my MMO's now that some pretty backdrops don't really rouse that much attention, especially since it looks like many others I've played.

I want something NEEEWWW, or hell even just a bit different, how about we get to play a necromancer who isn't evil, but constantly gets hounded by the forces of "good"... I might go write this down.
 

D0WNT0WN

New member
Sep 28, 2008
808
0
0
I will probably get this, it is always nice to support a new developer and considering I hated Skyrim it might be a nice alternative.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
So is this good like "Dragon Age 2 Good", or good like "Actually Good"? I can never tell with Mr. Tito's reviews...

Either way, it's a bit out of my price range right now, and the developer's politics irritate me. Glad that it's (probably) good, but I've been bitten too many times buying new on a whim and apparently an old and unreliable demo.
 

funksobeefy

New member
Mar 21, 2009
1,007
0
0
I really want to play this game, but steam doenst like running this on my computer. Makes me a sad panda. I have been looking for a new game to play in this dreary months of winter
 

Omega Deuse

New member
Sep 4, 2009
6
0
0
Well, after playing the demo, I'm a bit torn on this. On one hand, I find the graphics to be overly reminiscent of WOW (which is to say sub-standard), the music has no concept of propriety (seriously, it goes into dramatic orchestrals at the drop of a hat, I was fighting a pair of easily-owned-with-a-rusty-knife? mooks and wondering if it should be hard because of that music)and the story (at least in the beginning)seems pretty forgettable. On the other hand, combat seems fun, especially with chakrams and scepters, and I'm curious to see how the leveling system works out.
All in all, I'll probably get it used or after it's comedown in price and I've had a chance to work my way through all the other new games that are coming out.
 

JesterRaiin

New member
Apr 14, 2009
2,286
0
0
Hmmmmmmmmm...
Well...
Ummmmmmmm...

Three words come to mind :
- cliche
- uncreativity
- clone

Wait, make that four words :
- crap
 

Fr]anc[is

New member
May 13, 2010
1,893
0
0
I won't pass because it's a new IP from a new company. I'll pass because last time I trusted you I threw away $60.
 

Tahaneira

Social Justice Rogue
Feb 1, 2011
377
0
0
I'm of two minds. They claim the bugs in the demo were fixed, which is good, because they were REALLY bad bugs. There's been a lot of good press, but the character animations are awkward, and so much has been lifted from other mythologies I'm familiar with, it's confusing as heck. I'll wait for walkthroughs and more in-depth reviews to pop up before I make my decision. The 'demo' didn't let me get a feel for how the quest system works.
 

Hungry Donner

Henchman
Mar 19, 2009
1,369
0
0
There are several ex-Bethesda devs working on this that I like, and flipping the "hero with a heroic destiny" trope on its head is quite interesting. However I'll admit the involvement of Salvatore, the somewhat cartoony aesthetics, and the combat mechanic have put me on the fence. I really need to get around and play the demo. I downloaded it when it was released but I've had a hard time convincing myself to try it.

Still, it's nice to hear that the philosophy underlying the story is more than a hook. Hopefully my concerns over the mechanics are unnecessary - if I enjoy playing the game I'm not going to care if the story or graphics are a bit silly.
 

Keava

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,010
0
0
If You are really curious just google Day of Reckoning (there was also news post on their webstie),which is initiative by Day[9] (SC2 caster/maker of wonderful teaching videos), TotalBiscuit (WoW, game journalist/critic), djWHEAT (Quake, Guild Wars, SC2) and few other internet peoples doing stream marathon of the game today.

Might show you how the game handles better.
 

antipunt

New member
Jan 3, 2009
3,035
0
0
it's funny how most of the main complaints from people about this game are about its lore/story.

Wasn't this written by like, some famous/prolific writer? Epic FAIL (lol)
 

Keava

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,010
0
0
antipunt said:
it's funny how most of the main complaints from people about this game are about its lore/story.

Wasn't this written by like, some famous/prolific writer? Epic FAIL (lol)
I think it's mostly the case of people only playing demo and being sick of "yet another fantasy game". For me, I like the lore, I like that Faerie stuff is used which is uncommon for fantasy really, it reminds me a bit of Changeling, which is probably the least known part of World of Darkness.
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
7,063
0
0
antipunt said:
it's funny how most of the main complaints from people about this game are about its lore/story.

Wasn't this written by like, some famous/prolific writer? Epic FAIL (lol)
Yea, RA Salvator who was one of the only authors who could write compelling "Forgotten Realms" books. I loved the Dark Elf Trilogy as a kid. I also love Todd McFarlane.
However I hate QTEs and I hate when they try locking gameplay content for new buyers. It's too bad, if this game didn't have those two factors holding it down, I would definitely pick this up; just to see what happens when you mix RA & Todd in on an IP. I'd imagine their styles work well together.
 

Calcium

New member
Dec 30, 2010
529
0
0
Ah, have been waiting for this review since hearing it was coming today on one of the podcasts. Good to see it still stays strong outside of the demo (though even better you recognised the accents as only pseudo-scottish - kinda awkward listening to the accent and actually being it... )

I so almost pre-ordered this, though of course Skyrim has just gone on sale today. Gah, no matter what I do I'll be having to get this game.

Oh, and it seems like you can use 10 abilities at once on the PC version, flicking between them with the number keys.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
I'll buy the game when it does something to impress me. So far, I'm not seeing anything. Lacquered style elf armor, Fable like visuals only worse, and pretty poor looking animations don't sell me on this.

Why does all fantasy have to be Dark Ages or Medieval? Hell, Warhammer is derided for being generic, yet it manages to stand head and shoulders above the vast majority of fantasy settings because it takes after a primarily Renaissance visual style.

Where's our Elizabethan fantasy for that matter?
 

SgtJon117

New member
Dec 13, 2009
8
0
0
Before anyone of you rush to a decision the guys who made the game wrangled up a bunch of dudes to stream the game over at http://www.twitch.tv/team/Reckoning

I've been watching TotalBiscuit for a bit now and I've got to say the game looks like a lot of fun.
 

Shjade

Chaos in Jeans
Feb 2, 2010
838
0
0
castlewise said:
I'm really conflicted about this one. I disliked the demo...
In the same boat. I wouldn't say I'm so much conflicted as wary, though. I like the concept, I like the art style (more or less), but the demo just felt so sloppy that it immediately turned me off. I don't know if it was a console port issue or if (as I've heard) the demo was just put together poorly compared to the actual game, but it makes me leery of making a $60 purchase.

Probably going to pick it up when Steam gives it a sale slash, though.
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,528
0
0
Already ordered my copy.

Contrary to popular opinion it seems, I really like the aesthetic of this game.

Nice and colourful.
 

TheCakeisALie87

New member
Jun 7, 2010
46
0
0
I don't usually complain about this sort of thing, but the one question I really wanted answered in this review was pertaining to the sidequests. In any huge RPG like Amaleur, sidequests are going to take up a lot of time. In early reviews (as well as the aforementioned streaming) the sidequests all seemed to be basic fetch quests, with no depth or originality. I will stress that I only watched 5 hours of gameplay but still it seems to be a major issue for me. Does anyone know if the sidequests get better?
 

Moffman

New member
May 21, 2009
113
0
0
Please video gaming critique do not go the way of theatre and describe everything as "organic"! I have had a four year hate affair with that word please don't extend it :p
 

DustyDrB

Made of ticky tacky
Jan 19, 2010
8,365
0
0
And I've got the game now. About to start. One minor quibble: No manual. So I guess I don't get to learn about the game mechanics while I'm on the john...

Moffman said:
Please video gaming critique do not go the way of theatre and describe everything as "organic"! I have had a four year hate affair with that word please don't extend it :p
Organic chemistry is fun!
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
TheCakeisALie87 said:
I don't usually complain about this sort of thing, but the one question I really wanted answered in this review was pertaining to the sidequests. In any huge RPG like Amaleur, sidequests are going to take up a lot of time. In early reviews (as well as the aforementioned streaming) the sidequests all seemed to be basic fetch quests, with no depth or originality. I will stress that I only watched 5 hours of gameplay but still it seems to be a major issue for me. Does anyone know if the sidequests get better?
The sidequests are not all fetch quests. Most of them point you to a new dungeon and have an interesting story to tell. There are the mundane "Find 10 of these books" type of quests, but they are even relegated to a separate part of your quest log called "Tasks" and are more about exploring and finding the items than killing X dudes.

Greg
 

Jumwa

New member
Jun 21, 2010
641
0
0
Simonoly said:
I played the demo (3 times). I've read all the 'hail a new era of RPG has arrived' reviews plus the vomitous name dropping and 'hey, look what we did better than Skyrim' PR churned out by, I guess, EA. But I'm still totally unconvinced. There's nothing original here. It's looks and plays like Fable and has a levelling system straight out of Torchlight. Which is fine. And I'm sure it will be a fun game to play and I will pick it up sometime in the future when it's nice and cheap. But all this, re-defining of the genre nonsense is just laughable. There are so many fantastic RPGs available now and coming soon which strive to be original and defining in their own sense. KOA just isn't one of them.
I agree pretty much entirely based on my time playing the demo.

I mean, the game itself seems fine on its own, but all this raving about it, and comparing it to Skyrim seems totally off the wall. It's a Fable clone, which is fine, Fable is a good series. Though neither Amalur or Fable really has a lot in common with Skyrim, except superficially. Both Amalur and Fable don't even really quality as open-world in my book, which isn't to sling an insult at them, just to point out that the worlds are just very much not open.
 

Beryl77

New member
Mar 26, 2010
1,599
0
0
This is a game, where I'm really not sure whether I should buy it now. When I played the demo, I like the art style and the combat seemed fine to me. However, overall the game was a bit dull. At the end of the demo, I wasn't really interested in continuing to play. Maybe it gets better later on but as long as I'm not sure, I'm not going to buy it. Maybe when it will be on a Steam sale.
 

Canadish

New member
Jul 15, 2010
675
0
0
I really want to support the idea of new Fantasy IP's.

But I just can't get get excited about this one. I don't know whether it's just because it's EA, or if it's the Fable vibe I'm getting off of it.
It just looks really soulless to me. More World of Warcraft overdesign.

By the way: "New Developers". I've heard these are the remnants of Iron Lore.
They're the guys who made DOW: SoulStorm. That's not a positive sign.



Mcoffey said:
So is this good like "Dragon Age 2 Good", or good like "Actually Good"? I can never tell with Mr. Tito's reviews...
Okay, I chuckled.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
Canadish said:
By the way: "New Developers". I've heard these are the remnants of Iron Lore.
They're the guys who made DOW: SoulStorm. That's not a positive sign.
Wait, are you serious? Where's Boreale?
 

masticina

New member
Jan 19, 2011
763
0
0
The Demo was pretty darn good, it looks well.. it looks like a shitload of fun. That in itself cannot be a bad thing indeed!
 

TokenRupee

New member
Oct 2, 2010
126
0
0
Hm, this is a problem for me. On one hand, I want to support the devs and I did like the demo. But on the other hand, it's published by EA. And I currently freaking hate EA.
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,528
0
0
TokenRupee said:
Hm, this is a problem for me. On one hand, I want to support the devs and I did like the demo. But on the other hand, it's published by EA. And I currently freaking hate EA.
When faced with the predicament, ask yourself this.

Is your desire to support a developer who makes a good game outweighed by your desire to not give money to EA?

The former will benefit from your support and, if the game is successful, will go on to possibly make more games you will enjoy.

EA will be in the same position whether you buy this game or not, whether the dev company goes under or not.
 

Delock

New member
Mar 4, 2009
1,085
0
0
Question here: is the finished product more stable than the demo. That bastard crashed so damn hard once I met the fate weaver that I'm hesitant about picking up the game now.
 

Susurrus

New member
Nov 7, 2008
603
0
0
Well, Salvatore proved that the Dark Elf Trilogy was a fluke by.. er.. every single other book he wrote.

Also.. Fae fantasy not really used?

Have you played King Arthur 1/2 any time recently? The whole Seelie/Unseelie thing (right down to those names) was used in that, too.

At any rate, sorry, but the Dragon Age 2 review hangs over this reviewer.
 

Hal10k

New member
May 23, 2011
850
0
0
Canadish said:
By the way: "New Developers". I've heard these are the remnants of Iron Lore.
They're the guys who made DOW: SoulStorm. That's not a positive sign.
I think you're thinking of Crate Entertainment. This was made by Big Huge Games (which is pretty freaking old) and 38 Studios (formed out of whole cloth by Curt Schilling [yes, that Curt Schilling] in 2006, two years before Iron Lore went under).
 

TheCakeisALie87

New member
Jun 7, 2010
46
0
0
Thanks, I was really excited about this game, but I'm more hesitant after reading all the reviews. Combat still looks awesome, but review after review says the RP of the RPG is lacking. Still on the fence, I'll probably hold off until it drops in price. $60 is still a ton of money.
 

Sehnsucht Engel

New member
Apr 18, 2009
1,890
0
0
It seems more interesting than I thought. I'll probably check it out later on, not at release though.
 

BehattedWanderer

Fell off the Alligator.
Jun 24, 2009
5,237
0
0
Damn. It's good. I was kinda hoping to save $60 bucks. Oh well, whatcha gonna do. A little less beer this month, it seems.
 

The Random One

New member
May 29, 2008
3,310
0
0
I doubt people will not play it because it's a new property, as opposed to because anyone who would like it has been playing Skyrim nonstop since November.

I do think I'd like it more than Skyrim, which isn't saying much. The demo glitched out on me so myeh.
 

Sonicron

Do the buttwalk!
Mar 11, 2009
5,134
0
0
What's that? Todd McFarlane designed the world of Amalur?
Well, colour me intrigued. I still have Spawn 1-100 on my shelf, so I guess I owe it to the game to at least try the demo once I'm done with exams. Thanks for the heads up!
 

TokenRupee

New member
Oct 2, 2010
126
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
TokenRupee said:
Hm, this is a problem for me. On one hand, I want to support the devs and I did like the demo. But on the other hand, it's published by EA. And I currently freaking hate EA.
When faced with the predicament, ask yourself this.

Is your desire to support a developer who makes a good game outweighed by your desire to not give money to EA?

The former will benefit from your support and, if the game is successful, will go on to possibly make more games you will enjoy.

EA will be in the same position whether you buy this game or not, whether the dev company goes under or not.
You make a valid point, but the fact still stands that I don't want to give my money over to a publisher that screws over people with horrible business practices. I would buy it on Steam to avoid the problem altogether, but I don't think my computer could handle it. Maybe they'll sell it directly on their site later or something..
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,528
0
0
TokenRupee said:
Daystar Clarion said:
TokenRupee said:
Hm, this is a problem for me. On one hand, I want to support the devs and I did like the demo. But on the other hand, it's published by EA. And I currently freaking hate EA.
When faced with the predicament, ask yourself this.

Is your desire to support a developer who makes a good game outweighed by your desire to not give money to EA?

The former will benefit from your support and, if the game is successful, will go on to possibly make more games you will enjoy.

EA will be in the same position whether you buy this game or not, whether the dev company goes under or not.
You make a valid point, but the fact still stands that I don't want to give my money over to a publisher that screws over people with horrible business practices. I would buy it on Steam to avoid the problem altogether, but I don't think my computer could handle it. Maybe they'll sell it directly on their site later or something..
Like I said, it's your decision, and I respect that you're unwilling to to support EA.

I see EA as an neccessary evil, so I try to support the people who make good games, not everyone sees it that way, and that's fine too.
 

Indignator

New member
Oct 26, 2011
93
0
0
Zhukov said:
Incidentally, most of the interface problems described above have been fixed on the PC version and replaced with other less annoying ones.
Calcium said:
Oh, and it seems like you can use 10 abilities at once on the PC version, flicking between them with the number keys.
This is at least the second review of this game that I have read that complained about the four slot problem, and both times I thought to myself, "I bet that problem isn't present on the PC." So all I can say is, "All hail the you-know-what."

P.S. Don't get too bent out of shape, it's a joke. I played the demo on the PC with a mouse and keyboard and I'm confident that this game plays better with a controller.
 

Subatomic

New member
Sep 1, 2011
72
0
0
As it seems, a lot of the problems with camera control / movement that were present in the demo have also been fixed in the release version.

I quite like that the devloper openly supports and advertises the twich.tv streaming event although they have no control over what publicity they are getting out of it - for example, TotalBiscuit did stream for about 6 hours and had a very mixed opinion of it in the end, pointing out a lot of problems he had with the game. Not a lot of companies would have the balls to do that, as it's a potential PR nightmare waiting to happen.
 

imperialwar

New member
Jun 17, 2008
371
0
0
A lot of people here obviously have never played many RPGs, the story is pretty much always you being the saviour of the world in one way or another, otherwise it wouldnt be much reason to play the game. If you want to play as Dave the baker then maybe try Real Life or what ever it was called.
I think of lot of people have issues as they cant play the evil option.

As for Salvatore I remember picking up Icewind Dale when it first scame out about 15-20 years ago and have been a pretty solid fan since. Admittedly I havent read all of his work as I didnt exactly follow his career salavating for the next novel, I was to busy growing up and becoming a functioning adult.

I have played the demo both on PC and PS3 and apart from some graphical glitches and sound drops I was content with it, remembering it was a Demo and not the full game.

But then what do I know I've only been playing games for 21 years, longer then some of these bitching and moaners have even been alive.. Imma go sit on my rockin chair on my porch now. At least thats how old these entitled little brats make me feel.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,847
0
0
havign decided spawn is the best superhero EVA!! and seeing todd Mcfarlanes name attacthed has gained my interest (that and the promising reception and Im in the mood for a bit of RPG'ing)

I may even get it for PC just for the hell of it
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,847
0
0
imperialwar said:
A lot of people here obviously have never played many RPGs, the story is pretty much always you being the saviour of the world in one way or another, otherwise it wouldnt be much reason to play the game. If you want to play as Dave the baker then maybe try Real Life or what ever it was called.
I think of lot of people have issues as they cant play the evil option.

.
just because somthing is a common convention/theme in a certain genre doesnt mean it cant be explored or outright subverted (for example the elfs in Dragon age are not high and mighy)

again personal conflict that revolvs mainly around the main chrachter I think I prefer (assasins creed..sort of) ...then again "saving thr world" is often substituted with the main charachter getting caught up in world changing events, like the fallout games (kind of)

that said Im fine with common tropes if they are done well and not "eye roll" inducing, for example whenver I see a classic/gritty sci fi story involving off-world activites and hear how earth is covered in pollution...I cant help but roll my eyes
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
I'm so glad there's a new Action RPG on the block.

As a huge fan of Fable, I was really disappointed by the turn it took with Fable 3 (and to a much lesser extent, Fable 2). Ever since that I've been looking for a fun, buttom mashing action arrr pee gee, this will do nicely.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,847
0
0
Hungry Donner said:
There are several ex-Bethesda devs working on this that I like, and flipping the "hero with a heroic destiny" trope on its head is quite interesting. However I'll admit the involvement of Salvatore, the somewhat cartoony aesthetics, and the combat mechanic have put me on the fence. I really need to get around and play the demo. I downloaded it when it was released but I've had a hard time convincing myself to try it.

Still, it's nice to hear that the philosophy underlying the story is more than a hook. Hopefully my concerns over the mechanics are unnecessary - if I enjoy playing the game I'm not going to care if the story or graphics are a bit silly.
seriously?

you dont think "styalised" (not cartoony) is a refreshing change to the dull realism of Skyrim/ darksouls? because I think it definetly is

also its got the guy who made spawns name attachted to it
 

Hungry Donner

Henchman
Mar 19, 2009
1,369
0
0
Vault101 said:
seriously?

you dont think "styalised" (not cartoony) is a refreshing change to the dull realism of Skyrim/ darksouls? because I think it definetly is
Stylized graphics are fine, but I find the aesthetics of KoA a bit silly. I have nothing wrong with colorful game worlds, but the extra big weapons and the huge combat effects just aren't my cup of tea.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,847
0
0
Hungry Donner said:
Vault101 said:
seriously?

you dont think "styalised" (not cartoony) is a refreshing change to the dull realism of Skyrim/ darksouls? because I think it definetly is
Stylized graphics are fine, but I find the aesthetics of KoA a bit silly. I have nothing wrong with colorful game worlds, but the extra big weapons and the huge combat effects just aren't my cup of tea.
fair enough....the one thing I LOVED about darksiders was its visual style (also comic book inspiried..aside from that I had to suffer the unrelatable charachters) so I guess I prefer this to skyrims style

hell I bet you could call skyrim the "brown" RPG :p
 

Sonic Doctor

Time Lord / Whack-A-Newbie!
Jan 9, 2010
3,042
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning Review

A bit of overwrought genius.

Read Full Article

Great review. The demo was okay. I liked most things about it, but to me, saying Ken Rolston is a part of the dev-team is a negative. It was really only the parts that he was obviously a part of that I didn't like about the game.

He has too many annoying or just plain broken mechanic ideas. I didn't actually know who he was until I saw the bit of text in the demo description after I played the demo, but during my demo time I knew that somebody that had designed Oblivion must have worked on the team.

The things that tipped me off:

The success/unsuccessful system of picking alchemy ingredients. I know that once the player puts a couple points into alchemy, it goes away, but really, there is no point for it. That point perk could have been replaced by another perk that would actually be useful like more bonuses to potion making. Ingredients should be a 100% pick up, I'm so glad Bethesda ditched his system Skyrim.

Secondly was the item wear, I don't know why so many people online defend it. It is pointless and it detracts from game playtime, unnecessarily takes away game resources that could be used on better things, and adds another item to waste game time looking for or spending currency on. I'm also glad Bethesda had enough sense to ditch that and not bring it back in Skyrim.

The lock picking system is very Oblivion as well, though I had no problem with that. What I had a problem with was the guard in the next room, out of sight, and out of "real life" earshot, some how knew right away that the chest had been opened. I then evaded detection, but then when I walked into the room with the guard a bit later, he automatically knew it had been me that opened the chest. So, Ken brought over the psychic guards from Oblivion. I mean, what is the point of having a mechanic that lets you sneak around and steal things if the chance of getting caught is 100% because all the guards know what you do, which means the player will have to either spend a lot of time in jail, pay a lot of fines, or if you go the resist route, have to kill all life in the village you steal from because the whole town descends upon you even if you killed the guards in a basement out of sight and earshot of all in the town. You walk outside and the citizen arrest mob is after you.

I'll get the game when it is cheaper. My money is tied up in my Mass Effect 3 Collector's edition pre-order.

Susurrus said:
At any rate, sorry, but the Dragon Age 2 review hangs over this reviewer.
DA2 haters need to just accept that there are more than just a few people that really loved DA2. I felt Mr.Tito did a fantastic job of reviewing DA2. He was one of the few reviewers that judged the game on what it was and what it was suppose to be, not like so many of the other reviewers of the game who were single minded on only comparing it to the "Almighty" Dragon Age: Origins.

I played both games and I only finished DA2, and actually started new characters. Could only get 20 or so hours into Origins, most of the mechanics were just outdated, not fun, or broken. DA2 actually gave me total control over my character and the leveling system was actually fun and rewarding.

The review was almost a year ago, just drop it. It was just a game review, an opinion; it's not like he kidnapped your family pet and is holding it for ransom.
 

TokenRupee

New member
Oct 2, 2010
126
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
TokenRupee said:
Daystar Clarion said:
TokenRupee said:
Hm, this is a problem for me. On one hand, I want to support the devs and I did like the demo. But on the other hand, it's published by EA. And I currently freaking hate EA.
When faced with the predicament, ask yourself this.

Is your desire to support a developer who makes a good game outweighed by your desire to not give money to EA?

The former will benefit from your support and, if the game is successful, will go on to possibly make more games you will enjoy.

EA will be in the same position whether you buy this game or not, whether the dev company goes under or not.
You make a valid point, but the fact still stands that I don't want to give my money over to a publisher that screws over people with horrible business practices. I would buy it on Steam to avoid the problem altogether, but I don't think my computer could handle it. Maybe they'll sell it directly on their site later or something..
Like I said, it's your decision, and I respect that you're unwilling to to support EA.

I see EA as an neccessary evil, so I try to support the people who make good games, not everyone sees it that way, and that's fine too.
They're not exactly a necessary evil. I'd say Ubisoft would fall more under that since they have stupid decisions too, but don't go to great lengths like EA. Besides, there are better publishers who try to cater to their audience rather than instill disgust with their decisions.
 

Freechoice

New member
Dec 6, 2010
1,019
0
0
Soviet Heavy said:
Canadish said:
By the way: "New Developers". I've heard these are the remnants of Iron Lore.
They're the guys who made DOW: SoulStorm. That's not a positive sign.
Wait, are you serious? Where's Boreale?
In space. Isn't that obvious?
 

Don Reba

Bishop and Councilor of War
Jun 2, 2009
999
0
0
I was primarily interested in Kingdoms of Amalur, because it has Sean Murray [http://sketchsam.blogspot.com/] on the art team, but this review makes it seem like the game is not only worth looking at, but playing as well.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Sonic Doctor said:
Susurrus said:
At any rate, sorry, but the Dragon Age 2 review hangs over this reviewer.
DA2 haters need to just accept that there are more than just a few people that really loved DA2. I felt Mr.Tito did a fantastic job of reviewing DA2. He was one of the few reviewers that judged the game on what it was and what it was suppose to be, not like so many of the other reviewers of the game who were single minded on only comparing it to the "Almighty" Dragon Age: Origins.

I played both games and I only finished DA2, and actually started new characters. Could only get 20 or so hours into Origins, most of the mechanics were just outdated, not fun, or broken. DA2 actually gave me total control over my character and the leveling system was actually fun and rewarding.

The review was almost a year ago, just drop it. It was just a game review, an opinion; it's not like he kidnapped your family pet and is holding it for ransom.
There is no problem with loving DA2, there is also no problem with hating its guts, opinions are wonderful like that.

But Mr. Tito didnt do that great of a job, I would hardly call a game that cant be assed to have two different maps for caves on opposite sides of the world from one another a "pinnacle of RPGs" But then again, I like diversity, so I guess I can see how some people would love the familiar feeling of every cave and building in the game having the exact same interior.
 

sinboy666

New member
Oct 21, 2008
21
0
0
Well I finally pulled myself away from Amalur. Oh WOW! That's 12 hours of gameplay. MAN I FORGOT TO FEED MY DOG!
But, seriously, I love this game. It's very well designed and totally sucked me in. People keep saying this is a generic RPG, they do not know how wrong they are. It's got it's traditional, somewhat cliche trappings, but that's not always a bad thing.
Cliches can be used to give us a frame of reference to get into the world. And once you get in... WOW!
The combat is SO MUCH fun and totally engaging. Plus I love that the idea of class is BUILT into the narrative, seriously how many games, truly do that?
As to the question of sidequests, I've built two characters so far, one is moving through the main quest the other is for free roaming and exploring. And I haven't gotten bored with either yet.
 

Faerillis

New member
Oct 29, 2009
116
0
0
So, what you said in your review is pretty good, though could have been more informative, but you might want to work on your delivery a tiny bit; lines came off as forced and a little Shatner-y.
 

purifico

New member
Oct 29, 2009
129
0
0
Even though the game looks generic as hell and the story is so cliche that it actually hurts (praising Salvatore for a story? Lolwut? He couldn't write a good story to save his own life) I will sill buy it and play it because I really enjoyed the gameplay. And that's the most important thing in games.
 

Hal10k

New member
May 23, 2011
850
0
0
Faerillis said:
So, what you said in your review is pretty good, though could have been more informative, but you might want to work on your delivery a tiny bit; lines came off as forced and a little Shatner-y.
There is absolutely no such thing as excessively Shatneresque
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Why is no one talking about the wide parts of the game you don't get if you buy it used?
 

Ickorus

New member
Mar 9, 2009
2,887
0
0
What's really annoyed me about this game and has put me off buying it full price is the shield.

Who the fuck thought it was a good design choice to have your shield simply disappear when you're not using it, every time I used it in the demo I was just instantaneously dragged out of any immersion I felt because it was so damned stupid.
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,578
0
0
I played the demo, a fun time was had. It has the things I seem to like such as nice free flowing combat (for a rogue at least), an art style that doesn't have its mouth wrapped around the cock of photo-realism, and seems large and open world within reasonable constraints of 'on disc' content.

I'm looking forward to it, but I understand it won't be everyone's cup of tea. I've also had the benefit of not hearing its developer jerk his game and himself off in the face of the general public.
 

Susurrus

New member
Nov 7, 2008
603
0
0
Sonic Doctor said:
DA2 was undoubtedly exceedingly flawed, and got glowing reviews. And whilst I did like DA:O, that's not why I didn't like DA2. It was the waves of enemies, the hideous redesign (seriously mages would be knackered after being in combat for any length of time), and a mish-mash of other stuff.

Regardless of that, it was rushed, and it showed. Yet it still got an exceedingly high mark. It's in the same genre. I can't drop it, because a reviewer's ability to review games in a way relevant to me is based on all his previous recommendations, and I can't emphasize enough how much I hated DA2.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
TokenRupee said:
They're not exactly a necessary evil. I'd say Ubisoft would fall more under that since they have stupid decisions too, but don't go to great lengths like EA. Besides, there are better publishers who try to cater to their audience rather than instill disgust with their decisions.
Just buy and play the games you want to play. Who cares who publishes it.
I mean you'd rather buy it off steam, via valve?

Valve a company who ships incomplete games to stores
a company that charges ridiculous amounts for meaningless cosmetic items (TF2)
a company that is incapable or unwilling to deliver products on a set time table (see HL2 Episode 3).


The only thing about Steam and Valve is that they've been around for a while, and they give the illusion of control. But I'm sorry there's no illusion when I pay 50 dollars for a game, get home, and discover my game doesn't work because in fact I only have 95% of the game and I need to download the remainder via some DRM program with a storefront. And then I think, "did I just pay 50 dollars for a broken product? Yes, I think I did."
 

jawakiller

New member
Jan 14, 2011
776
0
0
Hasn't seen enough to adequately place judgment, does so anyways.

It looks like it could be okay but I know they're gonna fuck it up.
 

TokenRupee

New member
Oct 2, 2010
126
0
0
Akalabeth said:
TokenRupee said:
They're not exactly a necessary evil. I'd say Ubisoft would fall more under that since they have stupid decisions too, but don't go to great lengths like EA. Besides, there are better publishers who try to cater to their audience rather than instill disgust with their decisions.
Just buy and play the games you want to play. Who cares who publishes it.
I mean you'd rather buy it off steam, via valve?

Valve a company who ships incomplete games to stores
a company that charges ridiculous amounts for meaningless cosmetic items (TF2)
a company that is incapable or unwilling to deliver products on a set time table (see HL2 Episode 3).


The only thing about Steam and Valve is that they've been around for a while, and they give the illusion of control. But I'm sorry there's no illusion when I pay 50 dollars for a game, get home, and discover my game doesn't work because in fact I only have 95% of the game and I need to download the remainder via some DRM program with a storefront. And then I think, "did I just pay 50 dollars for a broken product? Yes, I think I did."
I care about keeping good companies in business and letting bad companies fall to the wayside, yes.

Yes, Valve isn't the best and it may not be fair to force Steam onto people who would rather just buy the disc, but they don't charge you for it. Steam is free.
 

Sonic Doctor

Time Lord / Whack-A-Newbie!
Jan 9, 2010
3,042
0
0
Susurrus said:
Sonic Doctor said:
DA2 was undoubtedly(I and other people that like the game provide doubt, but that's beside the point, "undoubtedly" is a qualifier of somebody who believes they have facts that everybody agrees upon. The problem is you don't provide facts you provide opinions.) exceedingly flawed, and got glowing reviews. And whilst I did like DA:O, that's not why I didn't like DA2. It was the waves of enemies(Is an opinion, I never had problems with the waves I was fine with it, I can't see it as a negative in my opinion), the hideous redesign (Again, an opinion, I loved the redesign because I found Origins to be a greatly messed up game, so DA2 was refreshing. Combat was finally free and fluid, meaning I had full control, leveling was actually fun and rewarding and I actually could see myself actually getting more powerful each level, the graphics looked better, the story was manageable, the characters were actually interesting and different from each other{unlike the carbon copy cliches of each other that the DA:O cast was for the most part})(seriously mages would be knackered(That all comes down to how you play and manage things. I never had a problem with that, my mage outlasted all enemies, because I managed things properly and had plenty of potions to keep my powers going, and the added bonus of the Spirit Healer specialization that was great extra padding for keeping me and my group alive) after being in combat for any length of time), and a mish-mash of other stuff.

Regardless of that, it was rushed, and it showed. Yet it still got an exceedingly high mark. It's in the same genre. I can't drop it, because a reviewer's ability to review games in a way relevant to me is based on all his previous recommendations, and I can't emphasize enough how much I hated DA2.
I added some things that need to be said about your comment. The only legitimate flaw in the game is the lack of a variety of dungeons, but even that actual flaw didn't bother me and I didn't even notice it until people started pointing it out, and I was already through 75% of the game without seeing it.

I guess the rest of the game was just so awesome to me that it overshadowed that actual flaw.

DA2 on the professional end(shown on Metacritic) got 137 positive, 34 mixed, and 1 negative, and that is added up all the reviews 360, PS3, and PC. It got plenty of non-positive reviews for people to make a decision on the game. The reason the user score on Metacritic is so bad, is because the vast majority of people giving negative scores, don't know how scoring systems work when reviewing, and they rabidly and wrongly gave the game 0s when such a score is only reserved for games a that are so bad and glitched up, they literally can't be played, even 1s and 2s are invalid as well. Considering how such scoring is suppose to work, and considering legitimate gripes about the game, the lowest score a person can give the game if they didn't like it, is a 3, but even that is a stretch.

The user review scores on Metacritic really do show why the professional reviewers are called professionals.

But really, this isn't the place to discuss this, if you want to really get into a talk about this, message me, or start a thread about it(though DA2 argument threads have been done too much as it is).

The vast majority of reviewing and how to review is based on opinion, one man's awesome mechanic is another man's misery mechanic. And opinion on good things can outshine the bad, and if the bad things are truly and "actually" bad, they can over shadow the good.

Again, PM, or another thread.
 

Wolfram23

New member
Mar 23, 2004
4,095
0
0
"...is a beautiful game"

Uh... Bullshit. It isn't beautiful. It has shit textures and a shit-ton of object pop-in and an extremely low polygon count even on characters. It looks like it was put together in 2006.

This isn't a review, this is a love letter.

Recently there's been a lot of debate on piracy (as usual...) and one common thread is that people want demos. There's plenty of arguments that all you need are reviews. Well, if all the reviews of Reckoning are like this, then I can see a pretty solid argument why that theory is idiotic. I love when Metacritic review scores are 8+ and the user scores are like 4. Besides one or two vote bombings, that discord is exactly why reviews are not a worthwhile source to determine whether you're going to like the game or not.
 

Havoc Himself

New member
Dec 21, 2010
35
0
0
And now I have the joy in saying, it's better on PC. They give you ten ability slots in the PC version of the game, plus the radial menu for potions. I really enjoyed the demo of this game by the way, can't wait to buy it.
 

Baralak

New member
Dec 9, 2009
1,244
0
0
Wolfram01 said:
"...is a beautiful game"

Uh... Bullshit. It isn't beautiful. It has shit textures and a shit-ton of object pop-in and an extremely low polygon count even on characters. It looks like it was put together in 2006.

This isn't a review, this is a love letter.

Recently there's been a lot of debate on piracy (as usual...) and one common thread is that people want demos. There's plenty of arguments that all you need are reviews. Well, if all the reviews of Reckoning are like this, then I can see a pretty solid argument why that theory is idiotic. I love when Metacritic review scores are 8+ and the user scores are like 4. Besides one or two vote bombings, that discord is exactly why reviews are not a worthwhile source to determine whether you're going to like the game or not.
Then get the demo?
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,528
0
0
Wolfram01 said:
"...is a beautiful game"

Uh... Bullshit. It isn't beautiful. It has shit textures and a shit-ton of object pop-in and an extremely low polygon count even on characters. It looks like it was put together in 2006.

This isn't a review, this is a love letter.

Recently there's been a lot of debate on piracy (as usual...) and one common thread is that people want demos. There's plenty of arguments that all you need are reviews. Well, if all the reviews of Reckoning are like this, then I can see a pretty solid argument why that theory is idiotic. I love when Metacritic review scores are 8+ and the user scores are like 4. Besides one or two vote bombings, that discord is exactly why reviews are not a worthwhile source to determine whether you're going to like the game or not.
I actually think the game looks great and I don't think the review was touting it's appearance in terms of graphical ability, but on aesthetics. The aesthetic has little to do with polygon counts and textures. The game just looks... pretty.

It's bright and colourful.
 

Wolfram23

New member
Mar 23, 2004
4,095
0
0
kyosai7 said:
Then get the demo?
First off, that is where my opinions on this game stem from.

Secondly, a very, very small portion of games have demos.

Daystar Clarion said:
I actually think the game looks great and I don't think the review was touting it's appearance in terms of graphical ability, but on aesthetics. The aesthetic has little to do with polygon counts and textures. The game just looks... pretty.

It's bright and colourful.
Well, fair enough. It is bright and colourful, I'll give it that. I wrote a review of the demo on my blog, which I got put on probation for linking to before so I'm not going to do that here... (if interested, there's a link in my profile) but anyway, this is my thoughts on the game, graphically (plus conclusion):
Aesthetically, the game is alright. So far, it has a pretty consistent design scheme and everything fits pretty well. Graphically, however, the game is a disapointment. It looks rather dated, kind of washed out, like there's too much bloom effect. I had to force 4xMSAA through Catalyst to be able to watch cutscenes, otherwise it was a blank screen with voices. Even so, aliasing is definitely present.

As I mentioned before, the game is a lot like Fable, but I also think that graphically, they took a lot of inspiration from World of Warcraft. Everything is cartoony and overly proportioned. I don't think this is bad on it's own, but my problem is that the game also has an extremely short draw distance, so textures keep popping in as you run, and objects distort to get slightly more detailed which I find very noticeable in outdoor areas. I hope they optimize the graphics for PCs much better at final release, because currently it runs like a direct Xbox port. My GPUs were practically at idle the entire time, holding a solid 60 fps.

I don't expect every game to push the limits of graphics, and especially not multi-platform releases, but I did expect more than this game offered. Screenshots look ok for the most part, but if I can direct your attention to details, just look at how grass is only showing for a few meters around my character. It's not just terrain, either, but NPCs will pop in too. I recall approaching a group of small hostile creatures - little balls with arms and legs - but at a distance they looked like floating wisps or something. Only when I got close did their legs and arms show up, as well as a proper body. Perhaps I'm a spoiled PC gamer, but I really hope that these issues are either fixed for release, or else worst case scenario able to be modded via a config file or the like.

All in all, I can't really say I'm looking forward to release. I'm definitely not putting my money down until after reading some final reviews and watching some gameplay clips. I think there is potential here, but they need to be able to draw the player in much earlier in the game with something exciting. On top of that, I'd like to see some interface and menu adjustments as well as more demanding graphic options, even just increased draw distances and some anti aliasing.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Not to sound like a total graphics whore but im really not digging the visuals here, they look flat and uninteresting. That bad kind of cartoony that reminds me of the less interesting areas of WoW Circa 2006.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
TokenRupee said:
I care about keeping good companies in business and letting bad companies fall to the wayside, yes.

Yes, Valve isn't the best and it may not be fair to force Steam onto people who would rather just buy the disc, but they don't charge you for it. Steam is free.
Good and bad is a matter of perspective.

EA's been criticized for Project 10 Dollar, which requires people who buy used games to pay an extra 10 dollars to access all the content.

But with Steam you cannot even buy or sell used games.


I've heard people criticize EA for a lack of, or poor, customer support.

Valve doesn't even support their customers on the 360, citing some xboxlive practice as the excuse for not providing their left4dead customers with the same content the PC cusomters have received.


And I've also heard people criticize EA as not the best place to work.

But at the same time, EA's hired a lot of people who are right out of school, giving them the experience they need to obtain work from other studios.


So there's two sides to every perspective.
With EA I bought Battlefield 1943 and 3, the first I never played a game of because the thing could never connect but the second one worked fine. I also bought Deadspace and Mirror's Edge, the latter of which was one of my favourite games this console generation.

With Valve I bought incomplete products from the store, some because they required steam, and some because as a company they've failed to finish their own project (Episode3). They released a sequel to a game before releasing promised free content, then made excuses when they didn't support their console customers (which I'm sure had NOTHING to do with the fact that microsoft refused to allow Steam on xbox, harhar). They also seem to be making less and less single player experiences.


I'm all for supporting good companies but if I want to support, what is in my mind, a good company I'll go to GOG.com, a digital distribution service that lets you download and own COMPLETE games with NO DRM.
 

Frizzle

New member
Nov 11, 2008
605
0
0
Akalabeth said:
TokenRupee said:
I care about keeping good companies in business and letting bad companies fall to the wayside, yes.

Yes, Valve isn't the best and it may not be fair to force Steam onto people who would rather just buy the disc, but they don't charge you for it. Steam is free.
Good and bad is a matter of perspective.

EA's been criticized for Project 10 Dollar, which requires people who buy used games to pay an extra 10 dollars to access all the content.

But with Steam you cannot even buy or sell used games.


I've heard people criticize EA for a lack of, or poor, customer support.

Valve doesn't even support their customers on the 360, citing some xboxlive practice as the excuse for not providing their left4dead customers with the same content the PC cusomters have received.


And I've also heard people criticize EA as not the best place to work.

But at the same time, EA's hired a lot of people who are right out of school, giving them the experience they need to obtain work from other studios.


So there's two sides to every perspective.
With EA I bought Battlefield 1943 and 3, the first I never played a game of because the thing could never connect but the second one worked fine. I also bought Deadspace and Mirror's Edge, the latter of which was one of my favourite games this console generation.

With Valve I bought incomplete products from the store, some because they required steam, and some because as a company they've failed to finish their own project (Episode3). They released a sequel to a game before releasing promised free content, then made excuses when they didn't support their console customers (which I'm sure had NOTHING to do with the fact that microsoft refused to allow Steam on xbox, harhar). They also seem to be making less and less single player experiences.


I'm all for supporting good companies but if I want to support, what is in my mind, a good company I'll go to GOG.com, a digital distribution service that lets you download and own COMPLETE games with NO DRM.
I just wanted to point out, that from memory: Valve wasn't giving out extra content on Xbox because Microsoft does not allow free content to go through Live. Valve wasn't charging for all this stuff, so they said that they weren't going to just charge people on xbox because MS was going to make them. That's why they didn't get more content.

MS is very controlling of their products. They probably would not allow steam onto the consoles. It would not suprise me if that was the case.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Frizzle said:
I just wanted to point out, that from memory: Valve wasn't giving out extra content on Xbox because Microsoft does not allow free content to go through Live. Valve wasn't charging for all this stuff, so they said that they weren't going to just charge people on xbox because MS was going to make them. That's why they didn't get more content.
Considering that I've downloaded free DLC for Split/Second I really have to question the validity of those claims. And even if that's not the case, is it a crime to put the content on the 360 for some minimal charge?

I mean they're charging like 40 dollars (or is it pounds?) for a freaking hat for Team Fortress. But they have some morale code which forbids them from putting map packs onto the 360 for those customers who CHOSE to spend the cash? Why is it okay to give players the option to buy meaningless shit but not the option to buy map packs? Who cares if the content is free on one platform but not the other.

I don't buy it whatsoever. It's probably no different than EA pulling their games from Steam because of some sort of DLC-delivery issue. They're both blaming the respective distribution services because they're competitors and because they don't want to play by their rules.

MS is very controlling of their products. They probably would not allow steam onto the consoles. It would not suprise me if that was the case.
Of course they wouldn't. Valve has been advocating cross-platform compatibility for a long time, though frankly I think it's just because they want to get steam onto the consoles. They want a piece of everyone's pie basically.
 

Frizzle

New member
Nov 11, 2008
605
0
0
Akalabeth said:
Snip for length

MS is very controlling of their products. They probably would not allow steam onto the consoles. It would not suprise me if that was the case.
Of course they wouldn't. Valve has been advocating cross-platform compatibility for a long time, though frankly I think it's just because they want to get steam onto the consoles. They want a piece of everyone's pie basically.
I think I agree with you there. I know it sounds like I'm defending Valve, but I think cross-platform is better for the consumer anyway. If it happened would Valve get a larger chunk of money in their pockets? Probably. But how I see it is: It doesn't matter if a company makes more money off of it, as long as it's better for the consumer (strictly speaking of video games here).

I think there are probably a few companies that would stand to lose some money if things were more open. Having a closed system (including Steam) keeps people paying to you, so you don't have to innovate or offer a better product. I think that hurts us in the long run.

In an effort to keep a little on topic (since i started this) - I played the demo of KoA, and I thought it was awesome. Yes there were bugs etc, but had it come out at the same time as Skyrim, I would have totally picked KoA. As it stands, SSX is coming out in like a week and change, and I really want that game. So KoA will have to wait, unfortunately. That and college is eating my soul :)
 

CleverCover

New member
Nov 17, 2010
1,284
0
0
I have one issue. The combat was ok and I enjoyed the scenery, but when I play rpgs like that with a player character instead of a set group of people I've been spoiled. I need a group of companions to collect to sort of get me into the game and from there I get more invested in the story and the world.

If I can have that, then I will give it a chance. Otherwise, I won't enjoy it no matter how awesome it probably is.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,847
0
0
ZeroMachine said:
This is one of those strange times where I can't even come close to comprehending why the game is liked so much.

The combat is fun, yeah, but the universe, to me at least, felt so dull and "been here, done that" that I wasn't drawn in even a bit.
thats exactally how I felt....with skyrim

I may pick this up if I ever get the chance
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,847
0
0
Wolfram01 said:
"...is a beautiful game"

Uh... Bullshit. It isn't beautiful. It has shit textures and a shit-ton of object pop-in and an extremely low polygon count even on characters. It looks like it was put together in 2006.

.
so? a little styalisation can go a long way

like Darksiders, plot and charachters were dismal but GOD did it look gorgeous, not on a technical level but on a purley styalised/artistic level

anyway textures/polygons aside that doesnt mean it cant look great...styalised graphics often look better in their own way long term compared to "realistic"
 

Xerosch

New member
Apr 19, 2008
1,288
0
0
I don't understand why this game is considered 'pretty' in many reviews. From all I've seen it looks pretty generic with nothing sticking out in the visual department. Or maybe I'm just missing a distinctive style, because it all looks like Phantasyworld 101 to me.

That said I'll still give this one a chance to convince me once the price drops. After I've played the 10th sequel to something it's time to get invested in a new IP.
 

Steampunk Viking

New member
Jan 15, 2010
354
0
0
I found the demo to just be a mish-mash of different games, creating a clunky game with graphic styles that do not fit with the type of story being told.

Are we now saying the full game is completely different from the demo?
 

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,581
0
0
It's an okay game, all things considered. It doesn't rock my socks, but it's fairly decent nonetheless. The problem is that while the art design is competent, it's fairly generic. The story does provide occasional gripping or tantalizing tidbits, but it's presented in such a boring and lifeless way that I found myself pressing X to skip entire dialog trees without having the least bit of care in the story.

The only above-average element in Amalur is the combat. That's literally it. Everything else is just plain competently executed. I'd say the biggest disservice Amalur did to itself was sticking to its initial MMO roots. The overall level design screams of instanced areas, and limiting the playing field to smallish valleys and canyons is a frankly outdated strategy in 2012. It makes Amalur feel like a runner or pedestrian's version of RAGE, which isn't exactly glowing praise.

I'd say it's only worthwhile if you found yourself digging Fable III's combat more than its story and if you don't mind blasting through quests without the least bit of understanding of the plot's contrivances. I've read some R.A. Salvatore in the past (mostly the Dark Elf Trilogy as a teenager) and I can recognize a lot of his quirks. Everything's exhaustively detailed and explained, but the overall feel of the world is fairly turgid.

Skyrim manages to make me care about my character and his place in the province's turmoils. It manages to paint a clear picture of its universe through books and level design, with the occasional NPC providing more details. The problem with Amalur is that literally every ounce of lore is delivered through the dialog system, using entries that are frequently redundant.

There's a key difference between creating a living, breathing world and just flat-out dumping lore on the player with what's fundamentally an indifferent attitude towards its own back story. This is something Salvatore and, I suspect, the other lead or secondary writers to the project, never grasped adequately.
 

Primus1985

New member
Dec 24, 2009
300
0
0
Thanks for the review. Im actually kinda surprised, I had been following this game since its announcement and was preparing for disappointment. A refreshing change. :)

However with its initial bugs, and the fact their is sure to be DLC down the line, I'll wait for the inevitable "GOTY/Collectors edition" to come out with all of it on their. Like what I did with L.A. Noire.

I still have dozens of quests to complete in Skyrim, at least two hundred hours or more before I might begin to feel some boredom(thats when I wait for its DLC^^) When I get tired of Sword and Sorcery, I just downloaded all the DLC for New Vegas so Im poised for about another hundred or so hours exloring all that.
 

Primus1985

New member
Dec 24, 2009
300
0
0
Thanks for the review. Im actually kinda surprised, I had been following this game since its announcement and was preparing for disappointment. A refreshing change. :)

However with its initial bugs, and the fact their is sure to be DLC down the line, I'll wait for the inevitable "GOTY/Collectors edition" to come out with all of it on their. Like what I did with L.A. Noire.

I still have dozens of quests to complete in Skyrim, at least two hundred hours or more before I might begin to feel some boredom(thats when I wait for its DLC^^) When I get tired of Sword and Sorcery, I just downloaded all the DLC for New Vegas so Im poised for about another hundred or so hours exloring all that.
 

Broken Orange

God Among Men
Apr 14, 2009
2,367
0
0
If I were to buy this game, it will be because your user created character doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. It's always annoying to spend a good deal of time on creating only to find out it looks like crap compared to the other character models.
 

DeadlyYellow

New member
Jun 18, 2008
5,141
0
0
Havoc Himself said:
And now I have the joy in saying, it's better on PC. They give you ten ability slots in the PC version of the game, plus the radial menu for potions. I really enjoyed the demo of this game by the way, can't wait to buy it.
Dogs bark, fish swim, yadda yadda.

It's console-town for me (when the price drops, natch.) I'm going to try and enjoy this generation as much as possible in the time remaining. God knows the current... prospects... of the next console generation seem geared towards pushing the PC back on top.
 

Lucrativ3

New member
May 12, 2011
1
0
0
The only real problem I have is the odd behavior of the camera. In combat it sometimes zooms out way to much which makes those fights a bit of a pain. Other than that and the lack of a proper lock on I'm enjoying the game so far.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Sounds interesting, too bad I'm unemployed and can't afford to spend much money on games right now otherwise I'd love to try this game.
 

Zer_

Rocket Scientist
Feb 7, 2008
2,682
0
0
People praise the combat, yet I found it to be pretty weak. Block timing can be a real pain in the ass when you're being attacked by several enemies, you can NEVER perform more than one or two attacks in such large crowds. Moving onto your third attack you'll just get knocked back. I also hate having to chug potions constantly, it's the one thing that pisses me off the most. Later in the game, there's a talent that lets you take hits without getting knocked back, at that point, combat goes from tedious to bearable. There have been times where I'd get kocked down, and I'd end up getting destroyed to almost no health from full.

Spells, special abilities and combos are really awesome, yet after a while you just stop paying attention. The best part is using the Reckoning finisher on a gnome... probably the single best part of the game.

The crafting system is broken as well. Stack + damage parts on your items (and % damage reduction) and you turn into an invincible killing machine.
 

duchaked

New member
Dec 25, 2008
4,451
0
0
I'll definitely get to this game eventually. Just have so many other RPGs and the like to play still (I'm a bit late to the crowd/party)
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
I played the PC demo, and I absolutely couldn't stand the camera controls. The controls are clunky, heavy and very annoying to deal with, and the camera is absolutely abysmal.

It's a new IP from a new developer and it certainly shows from the demo. I don't know if the full retail copy is different, but it didn't earn a purchase from me with my time from the game. The world seems cool, but the controls are terrible and I'm not a fan of some of the design choices either...

They're very streamlined, which I guess is a nod to Fable fans, but eh...


It may please some it may deter others, I highly recommend playing the demo first to find out if you want to play the game or not first because I'm glad I did before buying it.
 

GrizzlerBorno

New member
Sep 2, 2010
2,295
0
0
I'm going to skip this for the time being NOT because it's a new IP from a new dev, but because the fantasy world seemed cliched and the gameplay seemed too burdened down by the constant combat. I don't like my RPGs to be God of War thanks.
 

bakan

New member
Jun 17, 2011
472
0
0
GrizzlerBorno said:
I'm going to skip this for the time being NOT because it's a new IP from a new dev, but because the fantasy world seemed cliched and the gameplay seemed too burdened down by the constant combat. I don't like my RPGs to be God of War thanks.

Actually, there are a lot of quests and voiced storytelling, fighting is maybe 40-60% depending on how much you roam the map (at least for me at lvl 21).
 

Subatomic

New member
Sep 1, 2011
72
0
0
SteelStallion said:
I played the PC demo, and I absolutely couldn't stand the camera controls. The controls are clunky, heavy and very annoying to deal with, and the camera is absolutely abysmal.

It's a new IP from a new developer and it certainly shows from the demo. I don't know if the full retail copy is different, but it didn't earn a purchase from me with my time from the game. The world seems cool, but the controls are terrible and I'm not a fan of some of the design choices either...
That was probably the biggest failing of the demo... it did give a lot of people a bad first impression regarding movement and camera control, which have massively improved in the full version (the demo was based on a 4 monts old build of the game apparently).
 

Havoc Himself

New member
Dec 21, 2010
35
0
0
DeadlyYellow said:
Havoc Himself said:
And now I have the joy in saying, it's better on PC. They give you ten ability slots in the PC version of the game, plus the radial menu for potions. I really enjoyed the demo of this game by the way, can't wait to buy it.
Dogs bark, fish swim, yadda yadda.

It's console-town for me (when the price drops, natch.) I'm going to try and enjoy this generation as much as possible in the time remaining. God knows the current... prospects... of the next console generation seem geared towards pushing the PC back on top.
Haha that is true I suppose. I wouldn't mind playing the game on consoles actually, I don't actually own one though, I just have not bought one and I can't thing of a single reason why.
 

Havoc Himself

New member
Dec 21, 2010
35
0
0
DeadlyYellow said:
Havoc Himself said:
And now I have the joy in saying, it's better on PC. They give you ten ability slots in the PC version of the game, plus the radial menu for potions. I really enjoyed the demo of this game by the way, can't wait to buy it.
Dogs bark, fish swim, yadda yadda.

It's console-town for me (when the price drops, natch.) I'm going to try and enjoy this generation as much as possible in the time remaining. God knows the current... prospects... of the next console generation seem geared towards pushing the PC back on top.
Haha that first sentece is true I suppose. I wouldn't mind playing the game on consoles actually, I'm not completely faithful to my gaming rig. I don't own a console anymore though, ever since my 360 got the red ring I have not had the extra cash to upgrade my PC and get a new console.
 

Havoc Himself

New member
Dec 21, 2010
35
0
0
DeadlyYellow said:
Havoc Himself said:
And now I have the joy in saying, it's better on PC. They give you ten ability slots in the PC version of the game, plus the radial menu for potions. I really enjoyed the demo of this game by the way, can't wait to buy it.
Dogs bark, fish swim, yadda yadda.

It's console-town for me (when the price drops, natch.) I'm going to try and enjoy this generation as much as possible in the time remaining. God knows the current... prospects... of the next console generation seem geared towards pushing the PC back on top.
Haha that first sentence is true I suppose. I wouldn't mind playing the game on consoles actually, I'm not completely faithful to my gaming rig. I don't own a console anymore though, ever since my 360 got the red ring I have not had the extra cash to upgrade my PC and get a new console.
 

TokenRupee

New member
Oct 2, 2010
126
0
0
Akalabeth said:
TokenRupee said:
I care about keeping good companies in business and letting bad companies fall to the wayside, yes.

Yes, Valve isn't the best and it may not be fair to force Steam onto people who would rather just buy the disc, but they don't charge you for it. Steam is free.
Good and bad is a matter of perspective.

EA's been criticized for Project 10 Dollar, which requires people who buy used games to pay an extra 10 dollars to access all the content.

But with Steam you cannot even buy or sell used games.


I've heard people criticize EA for a lack of, or poor, customer support.

Valve doesn't even support their customers on the 360, citing some xboxlive practice as the excuse for not providing their left4dead customers with the same content the PC cusomters have received.


And I've also heard people criticize EA as not the best place to work.

But at the same time, EA's hired a lot of people who are right out of school, giving them the experience they need to obtain work from other studios.


So there's two sides to every perspective.
With EA I bought Battlefield 1943 and 3, the first I never played a game of because the thing could never connect but the second one worked fine. I also bought Deadspace and Mirror's Edge, the latter of which was one of my favourite games this console generation.

With Valve I bought incomplete products from the store, some because they required steam, and some because as a company they've failed to finish their own project (Episode3). They released a sequel to a game before releasing promised free content, then made excuses when they didn't support their console customers (which I'm sure had NOTHING to do with the fact that microsoft refused to allow Steam on xbox, harhar). They also seem to be making less and less single player experiences.


I'm all for supporting good companies but if I want to support, what is in my mind, a good company I'll go to GOG.com, a digital distribution service that lets you download and own COMPLETE games with NO DRM.
Yet Steam sells their games for cheap while EA keeps them at full price, even if it's not very good. And the reason Project 10 is criticized is because they are punishing the consumers for the stores' practices. That isn't very good form.

EA does have pretty poor customer support and maintenance. Yes, Valve isn't very good with their console offerings in terms of support either. However, they only didn't offer the content for Left 4 Dead free to players on Xbox Live because Microsoft requires that people charge for content and pay them a percentage. So people would've complained anyway if they had offered it because they would say, "Why does PC get the content for free, but we have to pay?"

EA hires people right out of school because they can burn through fresh-faced graduates who are willing to work under any conditions because they don't know any better and are excited to have any job. Sure, a lot of companies do that, but just because EA hires new graduates doesn't make them saints.

Yes, Valve does seem to be making less single-player experiences, but can you really say EA isn't? They've put a lot of money into their two biggest titles for the past holiday season- Battlefield 3 and The Old Republic.

At least we can agree GOG is pretty good.

I never said I EA's games. I am frustrated with their business practices and refuse to support them while they continue to engage in such activity is what I mean.
 

GrizzlerBorno

New member
Sep 2, 2010
2,295
0
0
bakan said:
GrizzlerBorno said:
I'm going to skip this for the time being NOT because it's a new IP from a new dev, but because the fantasy world seemed cliched and the gameplay seemed too burdened down by the constant combat. I don't like my RPGs to be God of War thanks.

Actually, there are a lot of quests and voiced storytelling, fighting is maybe 40-60% depending on how much you roam the map (at least for me at lvl 21).
Sure there are quests, but is their non-combat based gameplay much? Like in Fallout or Dragon Age or Elder scrolls?
 

Baralak

New member
Dec 9, 2009
1,244
0
0
GrizzlerBorno said:
bakan said:
GrizzlerBorno said:
I'm going to skip this for the time being NOT because it's a new IP from a new dev, but because the fantasy world seemed cliched and the gameplay seemed too burdened down by the constant combat. I don't like my RPGs to be God of War thanks.

Actually, there are a lot of quests and voiced storytelling, fighting is maybe 40-60% depending on how much you roam the map (at least for me at lvl 21).
Sure there are quests, but is their non-combat based gameplay much? Like in Fallout or Dragon Age or Elder scrolls?
Not really. There's crafting and the like, but it's a bit like, as a friend of mine put it, Diablo 2-lite mixed with Fable-lite. Still an awesome game, though.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
TokenRupee said:
Yes, Valve isn't very good with their console offerings in terms of support either. However, they only didn't offer the content for Left 4 Dead free to players on Xbox Live because Microsoft requires that people charge for content and pay them a percentage. So people would've complained anyway if they had offered it because they would say, "Why does PC get the content for free, but we have to pay?"
Yeah so instead the console players say "Why does PC get new content and we get nothing at all?!?!". I honestly don't buy that thing about no free content either. As I've said before in this thread, some of my other games like Split/Second have free DLC. You can download free cars for example.

So, how is it that Disney Interactive can give me free cars to download, but Valve cannot give free content for their games? Doesn't make sense.

Honestly I think Valve doesn't support their xbox customers because xbox won't let steam on the platform. Just like EA doesn't support steam with their major releases because they've started up Origin. I don't buy that whole conflict of morals bullshit line they throw out. If Valve is okay giving players the option to buy meaningless crap on Team Fortress, they should be okay giving players the option to buy new map packs on Xbox. Charging people for content that others get for free is more desirable than those people not getting the content at all.

Valve is great at sugarcoating things and painting themselves the heroes but frankly I think they're full of shit myself.

Anyway. To each their own.


But as to the rest of your points, yes, that's another side of things. You can paint things in a different light. And often times, each viewpoint can be correct.
 

GrizzlerBorno

New member
Sep 2, 2010
2,295
0
0
kyosai7 said:
GrizzlerBorno said:
bakan said:
GrizzlerBorno said:
I'm going to skip this for the time being NOT because it's a new IP from a new dev, but because the fantasy world seemed cliched and the gameplay seemed too burdened down by the constant combat. I don't like my RPGs to be God of War thanks.

Actually, there are a lot of quests and voiced storytelling, fighting is maybe 40-60% depending on how much you roam the map (at least for me at lvl 21).
Sure there are quests, but is their non-combat based gameplay much? Like in Fallout or Dragon Age or Elder scrolls?
Not really. There's crafting and the like, but it's a bit like, as a friend of mine put it, Diablo 2-lite mixed with Fable-lite. Still an awesome game, though.
There you go. I don't like just actiony games. Not to my tastes. But thanks for the clarification.
 

TokenRupee

New member
Oct 2, 2010
126
0
0
Akalabeth said:
TokenRupee said:
Yes, Valve isn't very good with their console offerings in terms of support either. However, they only didn't offer the content for Left 4 Dead free to players on Xbox Live because Microsoft requires that people charge for content and pay them a percentage. So people would've complained anyway if they had offered it because they would say, "Why does PC get the content for free, but we have to pay?"
Yeah so instead the console players say "Why does PC get new content and we get nothing at all?!?!". I honestly don't buy that thing about no free content either. As I've said before in this thread, some of my other games like Split/Second have free DLC. You can download free cars for example.

So, how is it that Disney Interactive can give me free cars to download, but Valve cannot give free content for their games? Doesn't make sense.

Honestly I think Valve doesn't support their xbox customers because xbox won't let steam on the platform. Just like EA doesn't support steam with their major releases because they've started up Origin. I don't buy that whole conflict of morals bullshit line they throw out. If Valve is okay giving players the option to buy meaningless crap on Team Fortress, they should be okay giving players the option to buy new map packs on Xbox. Charging people for content that others get for free is more desirable than those people not getting the content at all.

Valve is great at sugarcoating things and painting themselves the heroes but frankly I think they're full of shit myself.

Anyway. To each their own.


But as to the rest of your points, yes, that's another side of things. You can paint things in a different light. And often times, each viewpoint can be correct.
But it's hard to completely say that Valve is just spouting off excuses when, for example, games like Unreal Tournament 3 allows and supports mods completely on the PS3. Yet when it comes to the 360, because of the restrictions, they can't do anything with it.

As for Steam on the Xbox, at least Valve wasn't trying to cut Microsoft out of any proceedings they were owed by hosting content.

Anyway, in the end, I just can't support EA when they do this. And I don't think I can support the new studio either when they support EA in their decisions, as Curt Schilling did when people found out about the online pass. So it looks like I'll just buy it used.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
TokenRupee said:
Anyway, in the end, I just can't support EA when they do this. And I don't think I can support the new studio either when they support EA in their decisions, as Curt Schilling did when people found out about the online pass. So it looks like I'll just buy it used.
Um, speaking out against your business partners when you've got a new studio and you've just launched your first game is kind of retarded you realize. No person who is an actual professional would do that.
 

TokenRupee

New member
Oct 2, 2010
126
0
0
Akalabeth said:
TokenRupee said:
Anyway, in the end, I just can't support EA when they do this. And I don't think I can support the new studio either when they support EA in their decisions, as Curt Schilling did when people found out about the online pass. So it looks like I'll just buy it used.
Um, speaking out against your business partners when you've got a new studio and you've just launched your first game is kind of retarded you realize. No person who is an actual professional would do that.
It doesn't mean that you have to try and defend their actions though.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
TokenRupee said:
Akalabeth said:
TokenRupee said:
Anyway, in the end, I just can't support EA when they do this. And I don't think I can support the new studio either when they support EA in their decisions, as Curt Schilling did when people found out about the online pass. So it looks like I'll just buy it used.
Um, speaking out against your business partners when you've got a new studio and you've just launched your first game is kind of retarded you realize. No person who is an actual professional would do that.
It doesn't mean that you have to try and defend their actions though.
So you're mad at EA because first-time buyers get content that second-hand buyers do not unless they pay for it? How exactly is this punishing the consumer? Because it's inconvenient to enter the code? From what I understand it's all free DLC, it's not an integral part of the game.

With Steam, you cannot SELL your game. You cannot buy second hand games. I would argue that you don't even own your games, you simply license them.

But people defend Valve and Steam all the time and meanwhile they're all up in arms about online passes? Gamers are all brainwashed.
 

TokenRupee

New member
Oct 2, 2010
126
0
0
Akalabeth said:
TokenRupee said:
Akalabeth said:
TokenRupee said:
Anyway, in the end, I just can't support EA when they do this. And I don't think I can support the new studio either when they support EA in their decisions, as Curt Schilling did when people found out about the online pass. So it looks like I'll just buy it used.
Um, speaking out against your business partners when you've got a new studio and you've just launched your first game is kind of retarded you realize. No person who is an actual professional would do that.
It doesn't mean that you have to try and defend their actions though.
So you're mad at EA because first-time buyers get content that second-hand buyers do not unless they pay for it? How exactly is this punishing the consumer? Because it's inconvenient to enter the code? From what I understand it's all free DLC, it's not an integral part of the game.

With Steam, you cannot SELL your game. You cannot buy second hand games. I would argue that you don't even own your games, you simply license them.

But people defend Valve and Steam all the time and meanwhile they're all up in arms about online passes? Gamers are all brainwashed.
No, I'm mad at EA because they charge full price and cut out content that they claim as DLC when it's usually a main part of the game. If someone buys a used copy of Battlefield 3, why should they be banned from playing online? EA obviously got their money already and second-hand buyers shouldn't be punished.

The reason people are quick to defend Valve is because they offer games for cheap or give good bonuses. Take Portal 2 for example. Cheaper than some of EA's offerings. If you buy it on PS3, you get a copy of it on the PC for free. Now let's look at EA. What do they do? Charge full price and threaten consumers with cut content if they don't pay the $60 when their game isn't worth anywhere near that much.

That's why people are quick to defend Steam despite not being able to buy used games. Because the games are so cheap, they may as well be buying used at those prices.
 

Keava

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,010
0
0
TokenRupee said:
No, I'm mad at EA because they charge full price and cut out content that they claim as DLC when it's usually a main part of the game. If someone buys a used copy of Battlefield 3, why should they be banned from playing online? EA obviously got their money already and second-hand buyers shouldn't be punished.

The reason people are quick to defend Valve is because they offer games for cheap or give good bonuses. Take Portal 2 for example. Cheaper than some of EA's offerings. If you buy it on PS3, you get a copy of it on the PC for free. Now let's look at EA. What do they do? Charge full price and threaten consumers with cut content if they don't pay the $60 when their game isn't worth anywhere near that much.

That's why people are quick to defend Steam despite not being able to buy used games. Because the games are so cheap, they may as well be buying used at those prices.
Not for us in EU. No. Steam games are more expensive than retail, Steam is has very sketchy "allowed games" policies (unEpic was not allowed on Steam for unknown reasons), and yes, look at Portal 2 and the outrage on the pricing of the day-0 vanity DLC.

And yes, if someone buys a used copy why should they get everything exactly the same as the person who buys a new copy ? They don't support the developer/publisher in any way, they give Their money to the retail shop. You wan to "save" some cash either wait for discount or accept the consequence.
 

TokenRupee

New member
Oct 2, 2010
126
0
0
Keava said:
TokenRupee said:
No, I'm mad at EA because they charge full price and cut out content that they claim as DLC when it's usually a main part of the game. If someone buys a used copy of Battlefield 3, why should they be banned from playing online? EA obviously got their money already and second-hand buyers shouldn't be punished.

The reason people are quick to defend Valve is because they offer games for cheap or give good bonuses. Take Portal 2 for example. Cheaper than some of EA's offerings. If you buy it on PS3, you get a copy of it on the PC for free. Now let's look at EA. What do they do? Charge full price and threaten consumers with cut content if they don't pay the $60 when their game isn't worth anywhere near that much.

That's why people are quick to defend Steam despite not being able to buy used games. Because the games are so cheap, they may as well be buying used at those prices.
Not for us in EU. No. Steam games are more expensive than retail, Steam is has very sketchy "allowed games" policies (unEpic was not allowed on Steam for unknown reasons), and yes, look at Portal 2 and the outrage on the pricing of the day-0 vanity DLC.

And yes, if someone buys a used copy why should they get everything exactly the same as the person who buys a new copy ? They don't support the developer/publisher in any way, they give Their money to the retail shop. You wan to "save" some cash either wait for discount or accept the consequence.
Ok. I'll give you the Europe policy, if only because I'm not fully aware of all the business activities of their Europe branch. But the outrage of the vanity DLC was ridiculous. It was DLC that added anything to the game, unlike the quests in the DLC for this game.

Well in that case, why should the used car I buy run? Why should the used book I picked up at a second-hand shop still have all the pages? Why should the used CD I bought even play? Used things make the world go round and have actually led to people buying new. I would've never bought games in some franchises new if I hadn't bought the first game used to try it out. And what's to become of people who buy the game years from now when the game is no longer supported. All this trend is doing is earning them a few bucks in the short run, but will hurt everything in the long run.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
TokenRupee said:
No, I'm mad at EA because they charge full price and cut out content that they claim as DLC when it's usually a main part of the game. If someone buys a used copy of Battlefield 3, why should they be banned from playing online? EA obviously got their money already and second-hand buyers shouldn't be punished.

The reason people are quick to defend Valve is because they offer games for cheap or give good bonuses. Take Portal 2 for example. Cheaper than some of EA's offerings. If you buy it on PS3, you get a copy of it on the PC for free. Now let's look at EA. What do they do? Charge full price and threaten consumers with cut content if they don't pay the $60 when their game isn't worth anywhere near that much.

That's why people are quick to defend Steam despite not being able to buy used games. Because the games are so cheap, they may as well be buying used at those prices.
Your argument that "EA got their money already" is inaccurate. They got their money for ONE person playing, they didn't get their money for two. And if Gamestop or EB Games or whoever, charged reasonable prices for used games then this would not even be an issue. I means some of their used games go for what, 5 dollars cheaper? 10 dollars? That's not a deal, I'm sorry. Compare this to ANY OTHER product. When you go to a thrift store, are the clothes 5 dollars off the original price? 150 dollar sweaters going for 140? When you buy a used car, is the price of the used car just barely below retail price for new? No. It's nowhere near. So why would people buy a used copy for 5 less dollars?

If Battlefield 3 costs 30 dollars second-hand, this 10 dollar online pass would mean nothing because you'd still be saving twenty dollars.


As for Steam. You give the distributor too much credit. For valve-made games sure, the sale is because of valve. But other games? You think that publishers don't have a say or don't instigate some of these sales? Of course they do. I'm sure every sale is the result of two companies getting together. It's no surprise for example that a game might go on sale in the time leading up to a new release (like a sequel)

And if Origin doesn't have sales. So what, don't shop there. Go where you'll get your money's worth. The fact that Origin doesn't have sales doesn't make EA a bad company, it makes them a stupid salesman. If I go to Best Buy and find a game that is 10 dollars cheaper than at HMV I'll buy it at best buy but I'm not going to hate HMV for it. I'm not going to boycott them or whatever either. They just won't get my money is all.

And yeah, as the guy above says, Steam prices are inconsistent to say the least. If you ever watch the WTF is . . .series by total biscuit on youtube, you can sometimes hear him bitching about the price discrepencies. Not even on sales btw, but for new-release indie games or what not. EU gets screwed the most, UK is sometimes screwed and US general gets the preferred price.
 

Keava

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,010
0
0
TokenRupee said:
Well in that case, why should the used car I buy run? Why should the used book I picked up at a second-hand shop still have all the pages? Why should the used CD I bought even play? Used things make the world go round and have actually led to people buying new. I would've never bought games in some franchises new if I hadn't bought the first game used to try it out. And what's to become of people who buy the game years from now when the game is no longer supported. All this trend is doing is earning them a few bucks in the short run, but will hurt everything in the long run.
You do realize that when You buy a used car/TV/toaster it's not exactly the same as a new one? Right? If not, then the whole discussion is pointless. Sure, with music/books it's pretty much same as with games when it comes to differences between new and old, but book industry gave up on humanity some time ago already and music is shifting towards digital distribution ever since iTunes gained popularity. I'm pretty sure if They had means of blocking used sales They would do it, but there isin't much with a music track You can do to really avoid the issue.

As far as unavalible games go - this is issue created by retail stores and distributors in many cases. See in my country I can still buy most of old PC games in retail, at prices reduced to ~10$ per game, sometimes They even do bundle deals like buy 2 old games, get the 2nd for free/1$ (or rather 0.33 $ considering the currency exchange rates).

Third and most improtant thing is - used market is not an issues if it's between 2 people. Used market is issue because game stores take money from it and even encourage cusomers to buy used product instead of new one. On mass scale. Could it be handled better? Probably. But does anyone came up with better idea? No. The law doesn't prohibit it directly so the companies need to find other ways to discourage used market or at least have minimal profit from it.
Is 10$ for the content You missed so hurtful? If You talk about games that are "No longer avalible" you still aren't paying anywhere near the original fresh copy price. The 10$ seems like a steep price only if You buy the game used 2-3 weeks after release, when used copy is still only 5-10$ cheaper than fresh copy.
 

TokenRupee

New member
Oct 2, 2010
126
0
0
Akalabeth said:
TokenRupee said:
No, I'm mad at EA because they charge full price and cut out content that they claim as DLC when it's usually a main part of the game. If someone buys a used copy of Battlefield 3, why should they be banned from playing online? EA obviously got their money already and second-hand buyers shouldn't be punished.

The reason people are quick to defend Valve is because they offer games for cheap or give good bonuses. Take Portal 2 for example. Cheaper than some of EA's offerings. If you buy it on PS3, you get a copy of it on the PC for free. Now let's look at EA. What do they do? Charge full price and threaten consumers with cut content if they don't pay the $60 when their game isn't worth anywhere near that much.

That's why people are quick to defend Steam despite not being able to buy used games. Because the games are so cheap, they may as well be buying used at those prices.
Your argument that "EA got their money already" is inaccurate. They got their money for ONE person playing, they didn't get their money for two. And if Gamestop or EB Games or whoever, charged reasonable prices for used games then this would not even be an issue. I means some of their used games go for what, 5 dollars cheaper? 10 dollars? That's not a deal, I'm sorry. Compare this to ANY OTHER product. When you go to a thrift store, are the clothes 5 dollars off the original price? 150 dollar sweaters going for 140? When you buy a used car, is the price of the used car just barely below retail price for new? No. It's nowhere near. So why would people buy a used copy for 5 less dollars?

If Battlefield 3 costs 30 dollars second-hand, this 10 dollar online pass would mean nothing because you'd still be saving twenty dollars.


As for Steam. You give the distributor too much credit. For valve-made games sure, the sale is because of valve. But other games? You think that publishers don't have a say or don't instigate some of these sales? Of course they do. I'm sure every sale is the result of two companies getting together. It's no surprise for example that a game might go on sale in the time leading up to a new release (like a sequel)

And if Origin doesn't have sales. So what, don't shop there. Go where you'll get your money's worth. The fact that Origin doesn't have sales doesn't make EA a bad company, it makes them a stupid salesman. If I go to Best Buy and find a game that is 10 dollars cheaper than at HMV I'll buy it at best buy but I'm not going to hate HMV for it. I'm not going to boycott them or whatever either. They just won't get my money is all.

And yeah, as the guy above says, Steam prices are inconsistent to say the least. If you ever watch the WTF is . . .series by total biscuit on youtube, you can sometimes hear him bitching about the price discrepencies. Not even on sales btw, but for new-release indie games or what not. EU gets screwed the most, UK is sometimes screwed and US general gets the preferred price.
Ok, but who actually buys used games that are $5 cheaper? If anyone does do that, then they're just stupid. I try to buy elsewhere or wait until it's half price off for used copies. But if EA is entitled to money from the second buyer, then my point still stands. Should the author/publishing company be entitled to money from my used book purchase? What about the manufacturer for my used car?

But they're still cutting the biggest part of the game and punishing used buyers instead of the freaking store. This isn't the way to go about things.

Oh, I know it's the result of the companies agreeing to it. That's why I only used Valve's own titles as an example. I could use another company if you want. It's just that Valve was brought up first, so I kept using that example.

Never said that Origin didn't have sales. I never even brought up Origin. At least I don't think I did. I don't shop there because of their EULA, but that's another can of worms for a different discussion.

I have watched some of the WTF... series and I said I give to the fact that Steam may be screwy in Europe. So I have no argument against that.
 

TokenRupee

New member
Oct 2, 2010
126
0
0
Keava said:
TokenRupee said:
Well in that case, why should the used car I buy run? Why should the used book I picked up at a second-hand shop still have all the pages? Why should the used CD I bought even play? Used things make the world go round and have actually led to people buying new. I would've never bought games in some franchises new if I hadn't bought the first game used to try it out. And what's to become of people who buy the game years from now when the game is no longer supported. All this trend is doing is earning them a few bucks in the short run, but will hurt everything in the long run.
You do realize that when You buy a used car/TV/toaster it's not exactly the same as a new one? Right? If not, then the whole discussion is pointless. Sure, with music/books it's pretty much same as with games when it comes to differences between new and old, but book industry gave up on humanity some time ago already and music is shifting towards digital distribution ever since iTunes gained popularity. I'm pretty sure if They had means of blocking used sales They would do it, but there isin't much with a music track You can do to really avoid the issue.

As far as unavalible games go - this is issue created by retail stores and distributors in many cases. See in my country I can still buy most of old PC games in retail, at prices reduced to ~10$ per game, sometimes They even do bundle deals like buy 2 old games, get the 2nd for free/1$ (or rather 0.33 $ considering the currency exchange rates).

Third and most improtant thing is - used market is not an issues if it's between 2 people. Used market is issue because game stores take money from it and even encourage cusomers to buy used product instead of new one. On mass scale. Could it be handled better? Probably. But does anyone came up with better idea? No. The law doesn't prohibit it directly so the companies need to find other ways to discourage used market or at least have minimal profit from it.
Is 10$ for the content You missed so hurtful? If You talk about games that are "No longer avalible" you still aren't paying anywhere near the original fresh copy price. The 10$ seems like a steep price only if You buy the game used 2-3 weeks after release, when used copy is still only 5-10$ cheaper than fresh copy.
The car/tv/toaster may not be in the best shape, just like the game discs, but it still has all its functions. I can still drive the car, I can still watch the tv, and I can still burn my bread. If a game has the multiplayer cut, then it doesn't have all its functions. Nobody bursts into my home when I get a used tv and says I can only watch it for a certain number of hours or says I can only use my toaster with certain foods.

Right. But that's not how it is here because rather than put money into getting more sales by keeping copies of games coming out, they would rather sink time and money into this garbage.

Of course people have come up with better ideas for it. Some companies have even enacted those better ideas. They could just sell them directly from the company's website, skipping stores altogether or go digital distribution if they don't want to make discs. It may not be illegal, but it is highly questionable and, in many cases, unethical as it may as well be a big, fat "Screw you!" to the consumers.

$10 isn't expensive, I'll agree. But it's the principle of the thing. Why should I be punished because I choose to buy a game used from a friend or thrift store when I can't buy every new game from the company, even if I have supported them by buying many other games? They need to man up and start fighting against stores rather than a natural part of the economy while fearing that they can't go against their main outlet if they want to make money. Yes, things will have to change drastically and they may be hurt at first, but things will soon right themselves. And it'll be better than just having consumers flat out refuse to support you.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
TokenRupee said:
Ok, but who actually buys used games that are $5 cheaper? If anyone does do that, then they're just stupid. I try to buy elsewhere or wait until it's half price off for used copies. But if EA is entitled to money from the second buyer, then my point still stands. Should the author/publishing company be entitled to money from my used book purchase? What about the manufacturer for my used car?

But they're still cutting the biggest part of the game and punishing used buyers instead of the freaking store. This isn't the way to go about things.

Oh, I know it's the result of the companies agreeing to it. That's why I only used Valve's own titles as an example. I could use another company if you want. It's just that Valve was brought up first, so I kept using that example.

Never said that Origin didn't have sales. I never even brought up Origin. At least I don't think I did. I don't shop there because of their EULA, but that's another can of worms for a different discussion.

I have watched some of the WTF... series and I said I give to the fact that Steam may be screwy in Europe. So I have no argument against that.
Lots of people buy used games for 5 dollars cheaper. It sure as hell isn't me, I don't even buy used games unless I'm specifically trading in DVDs/games to a local independent guy. Even then I just use my trade-in credit to get whatever. But regardless, some people do get the used versions just to save a couple of bucks. God knows why.

As for comparisons to other industries. Do the original cars manufacturers get money from second hand owners? Of course they do. What about parts for repairs, what about servicing? Books, less so of course.

Also bear in mind that, as I understand it EA runs their multiplayer servers. So if nothing else, the online pass is just that, a pass to get online onto the servers that they're paying the cost and upkeep for.

Anyway, it's not worth arguing about really. Not to this extent. I think we've covered all the bases by this point.
 

TokenRupee

New member
Oct 2, 2010
126
0
0
Akalabeth said:
TokenRupee said:
Ok, but who actually buys used games that are $5 cheaper? If anyone does do that, then they're just stupid. I try to buy elsewhere or wait until it's half price off for used copies. But if EA is entitled to money from the second buyer, then my point still stands. Should the author/publishing company be entitled to money from my used book purchase? What about the manufacturer for my used car?

But they're still cutting the biggest part of the game and punishing used buyers instead of the freaking store. This isn't the way to go about things.

Oh, I know it's the result of the companies agreeing to it. That's why I only used Valve's own titles as an example. I could use another company if you want. It's just that Valve was brought up first, so I kept using that example.

Never said that Origin didn't have sales. I never even brought up Origin. At least I don't think I did. I don't shop there because of their EULA, but that's another can of worms for a different discussion.

I have watched some of the WTF... series and I said I give to the fact that Steam may be screwy in Europe. So I have no argument against that.
Lots of people buy used games for 5 dollars cheaper. It sure as hell isn't me, I don't even buy used games unless I'm specifically trading in DVDs/games to a local independent guy. Even then I just use my trade-in credit to get whatever. But regardless, some people do get the used versions just to save a couple of bucks. God knows why.

As for comparisons to other industries. Do the original cars manufacturers get money from second hand owners? Of course they do. What about parts for repairs, what about servicing? Books, less so of course.

Also bear in mind that, as I understand it EA runs their multiplayer servers. So if nothing else, the online pass is just that, a pass to get online onto the servers that they're paying the cost and upkeep for.

Anyway, it's not worth arguing about really. Not to this extent. I think we've covered all the bases by this point.
If game companies want money in the same way that car manufacturers get money for parts and servicing, then they can do it with DLC in the right way. I.E. Something like Rockstar did with Undead Nightmare or additional levels/maps added to multiplayer-focused games instead of day one DLC/cut content.

Yet it's never been a problem before. And besides, there are normal players who run their own servers and they can afford to pay for it. Those are average people making much less than EA is. Besides, this point doesn't really apply to this game after all.

I have to agree on that last point.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Jumwa said:
Simonoly said:
I played the demo (3 times). I've read all the 'hail a new era of RPG has arrived' reviews plus the vomitous name dropping and 'hey, look what we did better than Skyrim' PR churned out by, I guess, EA. But I'm still totally unconvinced. There's nothing original here. It's looks and plays like Fable and has a levelling system straight out of Torchlight. Which is fine. And I'm sure it will be a fun game to play and I will pick it up sometime in the future when it's nice and cheap. But all this, re-defining of the genre nonsense is just laughable. There are so many fantastic RPGs available now and coming soon which strive to be original and defining in their own sense. KOA just isn't one of them.
I agree pretty much entirely based on my time playing the demo.

I mean, the game itself seems fine on its own, but all this raving about it, and comparing it to Skyrim seems totally off the wall. It's a Fable clone, which is fine, Fable is a good series. Though neither Amalur or Fable really has a lot in common with Skyrim, except superficially. Both Amalur and Fable don't even really quality as open-world in my book, which isn't to sling an insult at them, just to point out that the worlds are just very much not open.
Apparently we didn't play the same Fables. DS3 was a Fable clone. KoA is not by any means that. The best way to describe it would be lifting the good parts of the DA2 battle system(as in no wave after wave of enemies) and vastly improving the control scheme and tossing it into an old school FF map system with a well written background but individual characterizations that could have been done much better if they had taken cues from Bioware and Obsidian. As it is NPC interactions are pretty rough, although the underlying potential is there.

Akalabeth said:
TokenRupee said:
Yes, Valve isn't very good with their console offerings in terms of support either. However, they only didn't offer the content for Left 4 Dead free to players on Xbox Live because Microsoft requires that people charge for content and pay them a percentage. So people would've complained anyway if they had offered it because they would say, "Why does PC get the content for free, but we have to pay?"
Yeah so instead the console players say "Why does PC get new content and we get nothing at all?!?!". I honestly don't buy that thing about no free content either. As I've said before in this thread, some of my other games like Split/Second have free DLC. You can download free cars for example.
There's a MB cap on free DLC. Map packs are quite a bit bigger than a single car.
 

ThoughtlessConcept

New member
Jan 10, 2009
62
0
0
The levels aren't really conducive to sneaking and some creatures aren't very backstabable, so it really takes some getting used to. I'm using a straight up warrior, but with rolling and detect hidden I backstab a surprising amount of people and creatures.
 

Jumwa

New member
Jun 21, 2010
641
0
0
ravenshrike said:
]Apparently we didn't play the same Fables. DS3 was a Fable clone. KoA is not by any means that. The best way to describe it would be lifting the good parts of the DA2 battle system(as in no wave after wave of enemies) and vastly improving the control scheme and tossing it into an old school FF map system with a well written background but individual characterizations that could have been done much better if they had taken cues from Bioware and Obsidian. As it is NPC interactions are pretty rough, although the underlying potential is there.
Everything from the graphical style, to the world layout, to the one-button combat, was lifted almost identically from the Fable games. I never really noticed any similarities to Dragon Age 2 as you say.

As for story and that, it was definitely the weakest part of Amalur. The drone of character dialogue and uninteresting backstory they toss at you was the low point of my experience with it. Everything else about the game was good, at the very least, all the story elements were weak at best in my opinion.

It wasn't even that they threw too dense of a wall of information at you, the stories background just wasn't interesting. It was the kind of generic slop that they shovel to you for brawlers or other titles where story is totally inconsequential and you wonder why they even bother.

Anyhow, I'd hate to leave off on a bad note. As I've said, I enjoyed the game thus far, I just don't see any of the hype or comparisons as being on target with the kind of game it is.
 

ms_sunlight

New member
Jun 6, 2011
606
0
0
TokenRupee said:
Yes, Valve isn't the best and it may not be fair to force Steam onto people who would rather just buy the disc, but they don't charge you for it. Steam is free.
You ever hear the saying, if they're not charging you for it, you're not the customer, you're the product?

Steam isn't free. Everything you buy on Steam, they take a cut. It also provides DRM, and a massive amount of data about your purchasing and playing habits, which is commercially valuable data.

I use Steam, I find it convenient, but don't kid yourself you're not paying for it.
 

Frozengale

New member
Sep 9, 2009
761
0
0
I tried out the Demo on a whim, and the opening sequence made me burst out laughing due to the silliness of the overacting villian and the meaningless fantasy terms being thrown around. I wouldn't say that's that is a bad thing but I don't know how serious I would be able to take this game, if nothing else everything about it did look interesting. The combat seemed fairly generic hack and slash, but with the ability to switch between spells and weapons so easily you can have some real fun with what I saw in the demo. I can't tell you how much fun it was to juggle an enemy or switch between bashing an enemy with my staff then my daggers all while shooting lightning bolts at another enemy across the room. The only probably I had was there was many many bugs in the demo. Sound effects suddenly not working, cutscenes jumping around for no apparent reason, and my character model deciding to randomly shift over to the right about 10 feet. All of these things happened multiple times.

If the full game is as buggy as the demo then I will probably not be picking it up, if the full game is relatively bug free then I would be picking it up as soon as I get the money.
 

Ernil Menegil

New member
Aug 2, 2010
58
0
0
Point the first: It was written by Salvatore, the most overrated writer in the fantasy genre, comparable only by Paolini.

Point the second: It does a very poor job of telling a story, instead battering players with inane details that, instead of drawing the player in, will push the player out of immersion.

Point the third: The philosophical questions regarding fate and free will are covered with much greater quality and depth in the Legacy of Kain series, with this game failing utterly in this regard save their most superficial aspects.

Despite being an avid fan of the fantasy genre and roleplaying games, I refuse to lower my standards. I demand better quality of my RPGs. This screams of potential tossed to the bin. Which is why I shall not be supporting the developers by paying or playing this game any further than the demo.
 

Matvejs

New member
Apr 6, 2010
15
0
0
Like said in the review, "if you can get past the overwhelming elf-ishness, you will like it" - I couldn't (although I haven't had problems with this in the past). Combat was great and, for me, made up for the lack of immersion in the story. (Any suggestions of a similar game, but with a more darker/"mature" feel to it? thanks in advance :) )
 

Diegolomac

New member
Jan 28, 2009
120
0
0
I didn't mind the praising of the combat in the reviews, but when I finally played it, and after trying out all the different weapons and upgrading a couple of them to unlock new moves, I suddenly realised I was grinning like an idiot. Seriously, the combat in this game is AWESOME.

This game is basically the good version of Fable. It's Fable with good combat, a really big world, a crapload of sidequests, and oh so much variety.
 

svenjl

New member
Mar 16, 2011
129
0
0
Diegolomac said:
I didn't mind the praising of the combat in the reviews, but when I finally played it, and after trying out all the different weapons and upgrading a couple of them to unlock new moves, I suddenly realised I was grinning like an idiot. Seriously, the combat in this game is AWESOME.

This game is basically the good version of Fable. It's Fable with good combat, a really big world, a crapload of sidequests, and oh so much variety.
Spot on. This is a FUN game that puts a smile on my face. Skyrim was super, but a bit grim. This is vibrant - a true fantasy game!