Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning Review

[GrizzlerBorno]

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]

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.

 

[TokenRupee]

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.

 

[TokenRupee]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Keava]

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]

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]

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.

 

[TokenRupee]

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.

 

[ThoughtlessConcept]

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]

]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]

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]

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]

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.