Why wasn't Kingdom of Amalur as praised as Skyrim or Dragon Age?

[ERaptor]

In my experience, combat isnt the defining measure of a RPG. If you just want decent combat-mechanics, you're better off just picking up DMC, Bayonetta or stuff like that. RPG's on the other hand should also deliver on everything AROUND the combat. That usually means a good story and narrative, a nice explorable world or deep character progression.

I'm not understanding why combat is being pushed off to the side as secondary in an RPG. In order to see the world, experience the story, and help your character get stronger, you have to fight. So the fighting part is central to the game whether you enjoy the story elements or not. If the story or the characters are bad on an RPG, I understand why fans of the genre would pan that particular game b/c story is primary for them. I prefer playing a game rather than watching a game unfold with minimal interaction on my part.

If we're talking about Amalur, I understand what you mean about the combat. I think the issue was more about the way that the story unfolded than the actual combat. You should try the Teeth of Naros story. If the Naros story was the way the larger game developed (in terms of plot) people *may* have been more into Amalur.

As I see it, people ignore the fact that in most RPGs, the combat (especially turn based ones) gets old. So they focus on the story elements,and the world you can explore. That's fine, but games like Dogma are what I actually want to see more of because we already have Skyrim (terrible combat), Dragon Age (interesting story but you don't need to play the game to experience the story), and so on. The games that are popular already have what people want. I want a blend of story, character progression and exploration that centers around killer combat. Amalur (again) was a step in that direction. Dragon's Dogma actually did a better job, but Amalur was a positive step.

I've played Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden, etc, and loved those games, but they're not RPGs. It's super strange to me that people don't want combat in their RPGs but they like Dark/Demons souls...but they say Amalur is a mediocre game...and Skyrim is like the mecca or something. I really don't understand. You put down an entire game because the combat felt bland after a while, yet all these other games are amazing. I dunno, it seems strange to me is all.

I didnt say that combat isn a crucial part, not at all. What im saying it shouldnt be the ONLY part you focus on. Secondly, i didnt put Amalur down JUST because the Combat becomes dull. Like i repeatedtly stated, everything else is just as bland. The Quests, the Characters, the Story. Pretty much the only thing i generally liked without becoming dull or being outright bad was the looks. The Graphics were fantastic, and while you hang around in woods too much the dungeons looked pretty decent too.

I absolutely agree that when a game expects you to be killing dudes for a majority of the game, the combat should hold up. And i certainly wouldnt call Skyrim's combat "terrible". It wasnt fantastic either. It was functional and tends to get down to the same 3 principles depending on your game style. (And yet again, it gets a lot better with mods. Come to think of it, Mod Support for Amalur would've been great.) However, that the combat lacked, the world and its contents made up. I made an example earlier, in Skyrim you _actually adventure_. It comes pretty close to a good D&D Session if you venture into an area you dont know yet. It was organic, its something like Fallout where apart from the very core of the quests, you can talk about it to friends and most have a few cool stories to tell.

Amalur didnt make up for its flaws. The moment you reach that magical point where the "Oh fuck the combat is great!" moment has passed, and you realised how dull it becomes over time, you turn around to look for the other things the game has. But there arent any, at least nothing that ties you down and KEEPS you playing. The game isnt organic at all, i can start the game as a Warrior, Thief, or Wizard and the apart from the skillset, the game plays exactly the same. This would be fine, being linear isnt inherently bad (Phoenix pointed that out), but then i expect the railroad im progressing on to be interesting, but that doesnt hold up either.

Like i said, Amalur is an unpolished Gem, brillance that lies beneath a thick layer of dullness. Someone needs to sit down, and polish the damn thing until his hands bleed. Again, Amalur 2 would have the perfect base to be a fantastic game, a predecessor that got the basics right. But sadly, the lack of effort takes its toll, and it just vanishes beneath others of the genre with at least SOME focus.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Spoiler: our convo

In my experience, combat isnt the defining measure of a RPG. If you just want decent combat-mechanics, you're better off just picking up DMC, Bayonetta or stuff like that. RPG's on the other hand should also deliver on everything AROUND the combat. That usually means a good story and narrative, a nice explorable world or deep character progression.

I'm not understanding why combat is being pushed off to the side as secondary in an RPG. In order to see the world, experience the story, and help your character get stronger, you have to fight. So the fighting part is central to the game whether you enjoy the story elements or not. If the story or the characters are bad on an RPG, I understand why fans of the genre would pan that particular game b/c story is primary for them. I prefer playing a game rather than watching a game unfold with minimal interaction on my part.

If we're talking about Amalur, I understand what you mean about the combat. I think the issue was more about the way that the story unfolded than the actual combat. You should try the Teeth of Naros story. If the Naros story was the way the larger game developed (in terms of plot) people *may* have been more into Amalur.

As I see it, people ignore the fact that in most RPGs, the combat (especially turn based ones) gets old. So they focus on the story elements,and the world you can explore. That's fine, but games like Dogma are what I actually want to see more of because we already have Skyrim (terrible combat), Dragon Age (interesting story but you don't need to play the game to experience the story), and so on. The games that are popular already have what people want. I want a blend of story, character progression and exploration that centers around killer combat. Amalur (again) was a step in that direction. Dragon's Dogma actually did a better job, but Amalur was a positive step.

I've played Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden, etc, and loved those games, but they're not RPGs. It's super strange to me that people don't want combat in their RPGs but they like Dark/Demons souls...but they say Amalur is a mediocre game...and Skyrim is like the mecca or something. I really don't understand. You put down an entire game because the combat felt bland after a while, yet all these other games are amazing. I dunno, it seems strange to me is all.

I didnt say that combat isn a crucial part, not at all. What im saying it shouldnt be the ONLY part you focus on. Secondly, i didnt put Amalur down JUST because the Combat becomes dull. Like i repeatedtly stated, everything else is just as bland. The Quests, the Characters, the Story. Pretty much the only thing i generally liked without becoming dull or being outright bad was the looks. The Graphics were fantastic, and while you hang around in woods too much the dungeons looked pretty decent too.

I absolutely agree that when a game expects you to be killing dudes for a majority of the game, the combat should hold up. And i certainly wouldnt call Skyrim's combat "terrible". It wasnt fantastic either. It was functional and tends to get down to the same 3 principles depending on your game style. (And yet again, it gets a lot better with mods. Come to think of it, Mod Support for Amalur would've been great.) However, that the combat lacked, the world and its contents made up. I made an example earlier, in Skyrim you _actually adventure_. It comes pretty close to a good D&D Session if you venture into an area you dont know yet. It was organic, its something like Fallout where apart from the very core of the quests, you can talk about it to friends and most have a few cool stories to tell.

Amalur didnt make up for its flaws. The moment you reach that magical point where the "Oh fuck the combat is great!" moment has passed, and you realised how dull it becomes over time, you turn around to look for the other things the game has. But there arent any, at least nothing that ties you down and KEEPS you playing. The game isnt organic at all, i can start the game as a Warrior, Thief, or Wizard and the apart from the skillset, the game plays exactly the same. This would be fine, being linear isnt inherently bad (Phoenix pointed that out), but then i expect the railroad im progressing on to be interesting, but that doesnt hold up either.

Like i said, Amalur is an unpolished Gem, brilliance that lies beneath a thick layer of dullness. Someone needs to sit down, and polish the damn thing until his hands bleed. Again, Amalur 2 would have the perfect base to be a fantastic game, a predecessor that got the basics right. But sadly, the lack of effort takes its toll, and it just vanishes beneath others of the genre with at least SOME focus.

Someone else made that combat about combat not being central to RPGs - that wasn't supposed to be directed towards you. I think you have more of an even opinion of Amalur.

I imagine that Skyrim would be great with mods on a PC. I played the 360 version, but was too pissed off to continue playing after a few hours. The combat - specifically the melee combat- is terrible. It's awkward playing in 1st person and especially in 3rd person. I was actually drawn to Skyrim for 3rd person combat, but it was brutally disappointing. Nothing in Amalur is as bad as the combat in Skyrim. Even though you say that Amalur is bland (which I completely understand), you also say that it got the basics right.

You mention 'adventure'. In all the adventure stories, you're supposed to feel like a badass. Skyrim made me feel awkward and clumsy. I don't want to go anywhere feeling like an oaf who can't swing his club trying to kill something. What kind of adventure is that?

I enjoyed the world of Amalur - the first time I played the demo, I was a bit irked by it. I didn't like the lore stones. The second time I tried it, something clicked. The combat, the leveling, the factions, and discovering the different areas came together in a way that was satisfying "enough" for me to finish the game. The Teeth of Naros was fun to play. There's only one dungeon that I didn't like playing in that story, but it was good overall.

I think the pacing of the main plot was off. The Balor should have been towards the end instead of the 2nd act. The fact that you don't know who you are at first is something that doesn't really work right in Amalur - it could have been done better. I liked Amalur a whole lot, but I can't deny that it needs some polish. I really do hope someone picks it up and spends time developing a worthy sequel.

 

[joest01]

So, I have re-downloaded and picked up where I left off. inserted some stone into my longsword and seem to be ripping through everything in sight. Even these giant troll things that get staggered by the last hit in the combo, you just have to keep the right distance when you start the move. Not used the magic abilities nor blocking so far. Just rolling and running up behind enemies. There was one guy way down in some dungeon who I guess was supposed to be a boss? He talked some BS and then summoned some zombie things. The battle was literally over before it started. He can not have taken more than maybe 10 random hits before everyone disappeared. Was that a boss battle?

Also the lock picking is stupid and I will not bother with it. Then there is the purple chests that I just auto unlock, do I get the same goodies? It says attempt fails but I still get to loot them ..? Who cares.

The "story" is mostly me pressing sq to fast forward. I make "progress" (not sure I am) by setting my marker at a random circle on the map I guess eventually events will unfold...

All that said, it is still fun to run around and destroy stuff with my sword and I actually enjoy the art style. But it just seems like it could have used a little more work to iron out the kinks and bring it all together.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Like i said, Amalur is an unpolished Gem, brillance that lies beneath a thick layer of dullness. Someone needs to sit down, and polish the damn thing until his hands bleed. Again, Amalur 2 would have the perfect base to be a fantastic game, a predecessor that got the basics right. But sadly, the lack of effort takes its toll, and it just vanishes beneath others of the genre with at least SOME focus.

I feel this way about almost every fantasy WRPG. Amalur has combat and art style, Skyrim has exploration, Dragon Age has the Bioware writing. Hell, I think you combine all the good aspects of all 3 games into 1 game and you'd end up with maybe an 8.5/10 game that would still need some polish to be "great". That is why I posed the question that's the thread title because KoA to me is as flawed as the other games that are considered GOTY nominees or winners. I think the Mass Effect series actually does so much right, the only thing it stumbles on is the main story arc in my opinion (and that's even before the ending that everyone hated, I thought it alright though).

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

So, I have re-downloaded and picked up where I left off. inserted some stone into my longsword and seem to be ripping through everything in sight. Even these giant troll things that get staggered by the last hit in the combo, you just have to keep the right distance when you start the move. Not used the magic abilities nor blocking so far. Just rolling and running up behind enemies. There was one guy way down in some dungeon who I guess was supposed to be a boss? He talked some BS and then summoned some zombie things. The battle was literally over before it started. He can not have taken more than maybe 10 random hits before everyone disappeared. Was that a boss battle?

Also the lock picking is stupid and I will not bother with it. Then there is the purple chests that I just auto unlock, do I get the same goodies? It says attempt fails but I still get to loot them ..? Who cares.

The "story" is mostly me pressing sq to fast forward. I make "progress" (not sure I am) by setting my marker at a random circle on the map I guess eventually events will unfold...

All that said, it is still fun to run around and destroy stuff with my sword and I actually enjoy the art style. But it just seems like it could have used a little more work to iron out the kinks and bring it all together.

I think sidequests don't scale to your level, but the main/faction quests do. That could be it or you're not playing on Hard, the bosses' names should be orange when you face them. The game is still somewhat challenging at times and I'm at the end now; I died a couple times today even though my rogue as 17.5 health regen per second.

I think I grow to hate every lockpicking/hacking/etc. mini-game in RPGs now. I so hated hacking in Deus Ex HR and Bioshock, there was just so much to hack. I loved that hacking was gone in Bioshock Infinite. In Amalur, if you fail the dispel, you get hit with its effects (usually curses or diseases) but you get to open the chest. And, I do hate opening a locked door only to find a locked chest.

Playing through KoA is best just doing the main/faction quests (and a few sidequests here and there). I did too many sidequests myself and I'm at the end of the game (last area) and I'm pretty burnt out on the game now and just want to finish it. If I would've got there 20 hours earlier, I wouldn't nearly be as burnt out.

 

[joest01]

Will have to check my save file what difficulty I am playing. But I don't think I started on hard to avoid a grind fest.

How do know which quests are part of the main story. I think I have some faction quests but one involves picking some guys chest to get some daggers or something. ANd like I said, thats not going to happen. Can I just kill him, he is inside a tavern (in ...Sidhe?).

 

[Eggsnham]

Because it didn't get the hype that Skyrim or DA got.

I mean, it's a question that practically answers itself.

 

[MXRom]

Because it didn't get the hype that Skyrim or DA got.

I mean, it's a question that practically answers itself.

I dunno. It had EA behind it, and those guys through a metric ton of money on advertising...
For a week straight the only ads I got were Amalur.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Will have to check my save file what difficulty I am playing. But I don't think I started on hard to avoid a grind fest.

How do know which quests are part of the main story. I think I have some faction quests but one involves picking some guys chest to get some daggers or something. ANd like I said, thats not going to happen. Can I just kill him, he is inside a tavern (in ...Sidhe?).

When you go to the quest menu, the main quests will show up under "main" and the faction quests show up under "faction". The other quests with be under "side" or "tasks". Also, when you talk to anyone that is part of the main or faction quests, you get that symbol to the right of the dialog indicting what quest line they are apart of; the blue fate symbol for main quests and the symbol of the faction for faction quests.

That's part of the Traveler's quest line. If I remember correctly, that guy doesn't actually have the daggers and you have to talk to him and he tells you where they are. You should be able to just steal from NPCs and get the item but you then get a bounty on you (which you can pay to avoid jail) as I presume you have no or very little stealth so you'll most likely be caught stealing or you can kill them and take the item as well.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Like i said, Amalur is an unpolished Gem, brillance that lies beneath a thick layer of dullness. Someone needs to sit down, and polish the damn thing until his hands bleed. Again, Amalur 2 would have the perfect base to be a fantastic game, a predecessor that got the basics right. But sadly, the lack of effort takes its toll, and it just vanishes beneath others of the genre with at least SOME focus.

I feel this way about almost every fantasy WRPG. Amalur has combat and art style, Skyrim has exploration, Dragon Age has the Bioware writing. Hell, I think you combine all the good aspects of all 3 games into 1 game and you'd end up with maybe an 8.5/10 game that would still need some polish to be "great". That is why I posed the question that's the thread title because KoA to me is as flawed as the other games that are considered GOTY nominees or winners. I think the Mass Effect series actually does so much right, the only thing it stumbles on is the main story arc in my opinion (and that's even before the ending that everyone hated, I thought it alright though).

YES Phoenix regarding Amalur - the other games get all the good hype while Amalur gets panned. It seems contradictory based on what you're saying above...or perhaps we can't separate the disaster at 38 studios from the reception of Amalur?

Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 are not bad games, but I lost my interest after I beat them and saw everything else that I wanted to see on YouTube. That is (for me) why games have to contain more than a good story in order for me to support them. I connect through the game-play, unless it's something like ICO or the Uncharted Games where the story and the game-play are meshed together a certain way. I wonder if you could call Arkham City somewhat of an RPG...or perhaps an action game with RPG elements included?

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Because it didn't get the hype that Skyrim or DA got.

I mean, it's a question that practically answers itself.

I dunno. It had EA behind it, and those guys through a metric ton of money on advertising...
For a week straight the only ads I got were Amalur.

Do you think that 38 Studios collapse had anything to do with the reception of the game...seeing as how you're saying EA backed it? Like...perhaps the collapse had an effect on the "polish" that the game needed (they rushed to get Amalur out because they knew ahead of time what was going on with 38 studios?)

 

[DoPo]

It's super strange to me that people don't want combat in their RPGs but they like Dark/Demons souls...

Well, the Souls series are a different beast, as for RPGs, here is something you probably didn't consider.

In order to see the world, experience the story, and help your character get stronger, you have to fight.

Why? It's a simple question - why is it required to fight to get better? Sure a lot of games just award you with XP for it, but think about it from a not-a-game-mechanics perspective and tell me, what is the reason for only fighting to make get experience? I'll give you a hint - there is none. The good way to do it is award XP for solving problems (quest, most probably) not for just straight butchery.

Want a good example - take a look at Bloodlines, the first main mission you get there is actually one of the best RPG quests/missions I've seen ever, to the point where I'd recommend using it (probably modified) every time anybody does a tabletop RPG session with new GM/players/both. The Bloodlines mission is simple - go to some people, get some item, maybe get a secondary optional item, return. You can solve it any way you want to - you can sneak in, you can talk your way in, you can butcher everybody, you can use your weird supernatural powers to do it, you can mix and match. You get XP for completing the mission, not for what your bodycount was. That is what RPGs should be like - that is more like "playing a character" and not just dialogue interrupting a bloodbath.

And that's why combat is not usually a high priority for a lot of RPG fans - it's just not the thing that should be central.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

In order to see the world, experience the story, and help your character get stronger, you have to fight.

Why? It's a simple question - why is it required to fight to get better? Sure a lot of games just award you with XP for it, but think about it from a not-a-game-mechanics perspective and tell me, what is the reason for only fighting to make get experience? I'll give you a hint - there is none. The good way to do it is award XP for solving problems (quest, most probably) not for just straight butchery.

Want a good example - take a look at Bloodlines, the first main mission you get there is actually one of the best RPG quests/missions I've seen ever, to the point where I'd recommend using it (probably modified) every time anybody does a tabletop RPG session with new GM/players/both. The Bloodlines mission is simple - go to some people, get some item, maybe get a secondary optional item, return. You can solve it any way you want to - you can sneak in, you can talk your way in, you can butcher everybody, you can use your weird supernatural powers to do it, you can mix and match. You get XP for completing the mission, not for what your bodycount was. That is what RPGs should be like - that is more like "playing a character" and not just dialogue interrupting a bloodbath.

And that's why combat is not usually a high priority for a lot of RPG fans - it's just not the thing that should be central.

I agree that RPGs don't need fighting, I'd love to see RPGs without any combat whatsoever in fact. The problem is all these RPGs make fighting the thing you do most in the game; thus, if the combat isn't good, then most of my experience isn't good. That's the problem. If RPG fans don't like combat, then why are they buying and playing all these RPGs where combat is indeed central to the game? The role-playing aspect of most RPGs is just fucking horrible. Hell, JRPGs are usually devoid of any role-playing whatsoever, they are mostly adventure games with bad stories and characters with a shit turn-based combat system thrown in just to waste your time. WRPGs usually at least give it the old college try, but that is far from good enough.

 

[ERaptor]

It's super strange to me that people don't want combat in their RPGs but they like Dark/Demons souls...

Well, the Souls series are a different beast, as for RPGs, here is something you probably didn't consider.

In order to see the world, experience the story, and help your character get stronger, you have to fight.

Why? It's a simple question - why is it required to fight to get better? Sure a lot of games just award you with XP for it, but think about it from a not-a-game-mechanics perspective and tell me, what is the reason for only fighting to make get experience? I'll give you a hint - there is none. The good way to do it is award XP for solving problems (quest, most probably) not for just straight butchery.

Want a good example - take a look at Bloodlines, the first main mission you get there is actually one of the best RPG quests/missions I've seen ever, to the point where I'd recommend using it (probably modified) every time anybody does a tabletop RPG session with new GM/players/both. The Bloodlines mission is simple - go to some people, get some item, maybe get a secondary optional item, return. You can solve it any way you want to - you can sneak in, you can talk your way in, you can butcher everybody, you can use your weird supernatural powers to do it, you can mix and match. You get XP for completing the mission, not for what your bodycount was. That is what RPGs should be like - that is more like "playing a character" and not just dialogue interrupting a bloodbath.

And that's why combat is not usually a high priority for a lot of RPG fans - it's just not the thing that should be central.

Like i said before, i agree that combat should not be the central thing, and i also agree that its sometimes important to offer progress without just placing you between *giant horde o' Orcs* and *target* and then expecting that we slaughter all of them. That was something that annoyed me in the Fable series. It was allways about killing, the only difference was _who_ you kill.

On the other hand, seeing how bad Combat can cripple a game, i think there should still be put considerable thought into it. Bloodlines was built from the get go to offer a ton of options for tackling issues, the game was well aware that the "slaughter" option wasnt the most interesting one, and thus offered a lot of interesting ways around it. The Combat itself wasnt the strong point, but since the game just wanted you to complete objective X, you could pretty much do whatever you want. Games like Skyrim and Amalur on the other hand make it very clear from the get go that there will be a lot of combat. This sounds really lame on paper, compared to Bloodlines freedom of choice. But if the world and quests are designed appropriately AND the combat is designed well (also offering variaton trough classes and skills) it can still be a fantastic game. Look at stuff like Dark Messiah, every Level came down to basically kill everything that moves, and killing got you XP. But the Combat was so organic, flowing and fun in general that I didnt mind at all.

Basically what im trying to say, while Combat shouldnt be the absolute core (That would apply to Hack'n'Slashers), its still a major tool in delivering a nice RPG. Altough it does require some creativity, especially if you want to keep the Player hooked beyond the time frame Amalur managed.

 

[DoPo]

If RPG fans don't like combat, then why are they buying and playing all these RPGs where combat is indeed central to the game?

It's not like there is a ton of choice, really. You have a lot of games with a lot of fighting and...more of those games.

Look at stuff like Dark Messiah, every Level came down to basically kill everything that moves, and killing got you XP. But the Combat was so organic, flowing and fun in general that I didnt mind at all.

OK, to be fair, you don't need to kill everything in Dark Messiah - only finishing objectives awards you with XP, although the objectives are mostly killing bosses. On the other hand, there isn't much else to do than murder all goblins, orcs and undead you meet, though.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

If RPG fans don't like combat, then why are they buying and playing all these RPGs where combat is indeed central to the game?

It's not like there is a ton of choice, really. You have a lot of games with a lot of fighting and...more of those games.

You can, you know, not buy them and not play them. The only WRPGs I've actually bought and played this gen are Mass Effect 2 and 3 because they are actually RPGs, I got Amalur for free. I'm not going to slog through an Elder Scrolls game or even Dragon Age. If you make combat the aspect of the game that I was be doing more than anything, you better make it fucking good. Why should I play these RPGs when I actually get better stories and characters from the likes of Bayonetta, which also has probably the best combat system ever? Even what RPGs are supposed to be good at, they aren't good at, it's really sad how bad the genre is. Bioware and Obsidian seem to be the only devs even trying to make RPGs at this point.

 

[actelon]

I really, really enjoy Knights of Amalur and I need to get back into it. I've put a lot of hours in but I'm no where near the end. There are so many side quests to get through it's hard not to try and tick as many off before advancing, especially in order to level up.

It's sort of a catch-22, but the fact that there's so much loot in KoA means you get a lot of groovy stuff or stuff to sell but also have to constantly drop stuff or store it. Maybe in terms of RPG it's standard in quantity and frequency, but that's just my opinion.

The style, art and sheer lovely brightness of this game is so refreshing. I do wish there was a bit more effort put into your characters interaction or relationship building (and no I don't mean SEX SCENES in case Jim Sterling harps in )

The game trailer being narrated by Claudia Black should have increased sales alone.

 

[ERaptor]

Look at stuff like Dark Messiah, every Level came down to basically kill everything that moves, and killing got you XP. But the Combat was so organic, flowing and fun in general that I didnt mind at all.

OK, to be fair, you don't need to kill everything in Dark Messiah - only finishing objectives awards you with XP, although the objectives are mostly killing bosses. On the other hand, there isn't much else to do than murder all goblins, orcs and undead you meet, though.

Ah, i was mistaken, it's really progress that gets you the XP. Sorry bout' that. And yes you dont NEED to kill everything, but be honest, it was entertaining enough that most people did it anyway, right? I mean, you could make an Orc slip, fall of a roof and crush a Goblin below. Or stab a Guard from behind, throw the corpse at his mate and then light the Dude up with a Fireball. Pretty much the only game i remember where i reloaded sections because it was too damn fun killing the Guys.

 

[DoPo]

Look at stuff like Dark Messiah, every Level came down to basically kill everything that moves, and killing got you XP. But the Combat was so organic, flowing and fun in general that I didnt mind at all.

OK, to be fair, you don't need to kill everything in Dark Messiah - only finishing objectives awards you with XP, although the objectives are mostly killing bosses. On the other hand, there isn't much else to do than murder all goblins, orcs and undead you meet, though.

Ah, i was mistaken, it's really progress that gets you the XP. Sorry bout' that. And yes you dont NEED to kill everything, but be honest, it was entertaining enough that most people did it anyway, right? I mean, you could make an Orc slip, fall of a roof and crush a Goblin below. Or stab a Guard from behind, throw the corpse at his mate and then light the Dude up with a Fireball. Pretty much the only game i remember where i reloaded sections because it was too damn fun killing the Guys.

As I said, it's not like there is tons else to do besides killing everything.

 

[MXRom]

Do you think that 38 Studios collapse had anything to do with the reception of the game...seeing as how you're saying EA backed it? Like...perhaps the collapse had an effect on the "polish" that the game needed (they rushed to get Amalur out because they knew ahead of time what was going on with 38 studios?)

Knowing how EA works, sort of. They were probably rushed to the deadline, had to cut corners, and when the ip didn't make the intended profits, EA cut corners and started laying people off to compensate for losses. Damn shame.