Kingdoms of Amalur's Combat The "Best" Of Any RPG

[Moosejaw]

I played the demo, and all I could say was, "Really? I'm hearing all this stuff about Morrowind, Oblivion, God of War and Skyrim...but this game SCREAMS Fable to me." I feel like I'm looking at Fable 4 with a non-Fable story, so many things are the same. But, hey, I liked Fable.

 

[Mailman]

I didn't enjoy the demo. If it was an early build though, I guess I can forgive some of the shortcomings. Maybe I wasn't building my character properly but the controls were a bit clunky. There were times when I was fighting the camera to point at enemies hitting me offscreen. The story was a bit interesting. I might give this a rental when it comes out.

 

[Telperion]

Shouldn't a ROLEplaying game praise itself for the bestest charackter development and interaction with npcs? Maybe this could be why others fall short in the combat category?

In a perfect world. Until we figure out how to safely integrate Skynet into Skyrim I'll settle for decent pre-scripted dialog and cool looking environments. Then again I'm of the opinion that the words "roleplaying game" should never be uttered in conjunction with a computer game. A computer game can have roleplaying elements, but to my mind they are distinctly different from real roleplaying games.

 

[Wolfram23]

Yeah, clicking on an enemy one single time, selecting a fight style, and then clicking on the enemy again at random intervals was a REAL blast in The Witcher.

Pretty much, yeah. The 3 styles split between 2 weapon types was a pain when leveling up, but as far as the combat goes it was pretty straight forward I thought.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

If you ask me, the combat isn't bad, it's just not as polished as the rest of the game. It's a little... blunt. It lacks flow and requires little skill. Oh, there are ways to get good at it, like learning to how to trap enemies in corners, remembering to stock up on healing potions, learning frost magic and absolutely nothing else, it's just that none of those things are very gratifying.

It lacks punch. Because of the RPG model, HP has to be an issue, so your success in a fight can be largely attributed to how long you and your adversary can stand being hit in the face. So because none of your hits DO much of anything, it doesn't feel very visceral. The other issue is an issue of flow. Ideally(Se Arkham City and Asylum), combat should be like a dance, one move flows into the next in an increasing tempo. It creates intensity, it looks nice, and it gives players something to strive for and feel proud of(You know, like a game). However, I think the combat is more than functional(The finishing moves help). Give the modders a few months and I think it could be greatly improved

A lot of people don't like the fact that enemies don't react much to injury, for starters. Compare hitting a live person with a fireball to hitting their corpse with the same spell. The enemy won't react at all the the spell when it hits him, no matter what his stance. His corpse, however, will go flying dozens of yards in the opposite direction, flailing its limbs like a madman. Many people think that sort of thing compares unfavorably with something like Dark Souls.

Don't get me wrong, I love the combat mechanics in Skyrim, its just that certain aspects of them aren't as good as they could be.

Hmm... So one of you finds it too fake, or if you'll forgive the cliche, "Old-School", and the other finds it not as flashy/gratifying.

Now, keep in mind that this isn't backhanded or sarcastic, could it be that the three points here (you folks not liking it, and me liking it) might be a case for the combat being a relatively successful marriage of the old style combat from RPGs past, and modern, more action based combat?

There's nothing wrong with wanting more realistic/plausible gameplay, just like there's nothing wrong with liking the flashier stuff, but I think it's more of a case of the people claiming Skyrim's combat is bad actually not enjoying it because it's closer to the middle than either of the two extremes.

 

[Hal10k]

Snip

Hey, I said I loved Skyrim's combat. And you're right, it does strike a fairly good balance between the two styles. And I suppose unreactive enemies are a necessary sacrifice if you don't want to walk through every fight stun-locking everything, but I still think that enemies should in some way acknowledge it when they've got half of my quiver lodged through their forehead.

 

[Torrasque]

Ok. I really enjoyed Skyrim and played about 200+ hours in 3 weeks. What I love about Skyrim is the world, the lore, the story, and the combat is pretty neat. But a game that goes "Our combat will blow Skyrim's combat out of the water!" is not really making any big claims. WoW combat is better than Skyrim combat in my mind. This (ironically very WoW-ish looking) game looks decent, but I don't really care how mind-blowing the combat is, I want a world to get lost in. When I pick up an RPG, I want to say "I'll play this for a few hours" and have half the day go by; only then am I convinced that the game is worth it's salt.

This combat really doesn't look that fantastical. I guess I can give the demo a look, but I'm not foaming at the mouth from that trailer.

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

The combat was very smooth and adjustable, but the story kinda bored me. I didn't really want to get to the next part of the game, rather I had to force myself to which is never a good sign.

 

[Zetsubou^-^]

idk skyrim combat is pretty blah, so not hard to beat, and i think its ugly, so this game would probably appeal to me more. i kinda agree that it's visually reminiscent of wow, but i don't consider that a bad thing. may have to remember it if i ever get a ps3 or a good computer.

 

[Launcelot111]

Just beat the demo last night. Wasn't too greatly impressed by the combat. It was fine, and clearly a level 2 character will only experience but so many parts of combat, but still, 6/10 for combat from me

I felt the weapons were greatly unbalanced in my experience. The faster weapons were killer- the daggers caught the troll boss in a constant stagger loop without much effort, and the chakrams cut through everything I saw without a second thought. The sword was adequate. The scepter was a decent option because of the fast fire rate, and the used magic came back fast, but it didn't do much damage and the charge attack was useless. The bow would lock onto whatever it pleased, which didn't help with the low stock of arrows. The staff was very flashy but it did trash damage to all but a couple enemies I faced. The spells as a whole were less than effective, especially compared to hitting them with the chakrams three times.

Once I was attacking, I could never connect a combo between any two weapons, as there was a very definite pause for my character before the combo for the second weapon started. Blocking was fine, rolling seemed a little too slow in terms of response time, and most enemies could track the roll easily; the wolves especially were like heat seeking missiles no matter what I did. When I got knocked down, I couldn't find any way to get up faster or to defend myself somehow, and enemies would take advantage of this and do huge chunks of damage by constantly hitting me and keeping me on the ground.

I also think the camera is way too zoomed in, as it was pretty common for enemies to sneak up close and hit me in the back from off-camera

I enjoy the look of combat and the fast paced nature, but I don't think it seems deep at all

 

[Lunar Templar]

lol, better then Skyrim? setting the bar nice and low aren't they? it dosen't take much to beat Bethesda in terms of combat (or story for that matter).

but then, who plays a TSE game for story?(or combat) every one i know plays them to explore every inch of the map and maybe do a story quest if it happens to be in the area

 

[boag]

I don't know why no one has mentioned this but the combat is broken up (as in destroying flow, pacing and enjoyment) by stupid quick time events! Didn't they get the memo? Nobody likes having to watch for little button symbols while cool stuff may be happening on screen. Other than that it was a tweaked version of Fable. Which is still a good thing. If only I could get over those god-awful QTEs...

Thats exactly what it felt like, I tweaked version of Fable, I was wondering why the control scheme seemed so familiar.

I Must say the combat system was nice, but it needs a lot of polish, and the camera is worse than a PS1 Tomb Raider Game, it needs a total overhaul.

 

[ensouls]

Haven't played, but I have to say that is one goddamn boring art style.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Heh. "Even better than Skyrim." You mean that clicking on the mans until they fall down, and chugging potions to keep your health up isn't the pinnacle of RPG combat?

Based on trailers, the combat does in fact look better than Skyrim. It doesn't however, look very good.

 

[Brawndo]

Even better than Skyrim? I'm not sure you want this as your selling point when Skyrim's combat was very repetitive and yawn-inducing: backpedal, hack/throw fireball, pause to drink potion, repeat ad nauseum. People don't buy The Elder Scrolls games for the combat, they buy it for the exploration and the character building.

 

[Funkysandwich]

I played the demo, and it's exactly what I thought Fable should've been. The combat is pretty good. It's no Arkham City, but it's good third person combat.

I'm looking forward to this game, it should be alright.

 

[Symbio Joe]

In a perfect world. Until we figure out how to safely integrate Skynet into Skyrim I'll settle for decent pre-scripted dialog and cool looking environments.[...]

Is that really so far away? Cleverbot does a decent job in the programms bounderies of course.

 

[BrionJames]

I too really enjoyed the demo for Kingdoms, I had no hiccups in gameplay and I thought everything was pretty solid all around. It kind of made me think of what Fable was supposed to be. Maybe it was just the art style. Really did like the backstab animations you got when you played a rogue, nice and violent the way I likes.