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

[sumanoskae]

I'm curios, how would you define depth?

There has to be complexity to the gameplay and game mechanics. There are many enemies in Dark Souls but pretty much all of them require the same strategy to defeat, all you do is block and then attack afterward (for any character build). Or you can slowly strafe around and backstab them because the enemy AI is so bad (you can't even do that in KoA). Or you can cheese them all with a bow and arrow because the AI doesn't know how to fight back against ranged combat. A game that has depth will throw enemies at you that force you into using different moves and different strategies, Dark Souls does not, even a game like Heavenly Sword does that (so... yeah, Ninja Theory makes better combat systems than From Software). The combat system is very simplistic, there's only one special move you have and most of them are rather useless. There's no combos of any type; hell, the game at least should force you to properly time your attacks with the weapon animations to maximize damage. Even character builds are very simplistic. There's only 4 stats that you want to invest in as you want Vitality, Endurance, Str or Dex (for weapon scaling), and Faith or Int (for the kind of magic you want). Even then you can eliminate Str/Dex by putting an element on your weapon and Faith/Int if you use fire magic instead so you are just down to leveling 2 stats to increase health and stamina, where's the depth? KoA and Borderlands have more complex builds than Dark Souls. Dark Souls even has a completely useless stat: Resistance. That's how poorly the game's systems were thought out

That was an example, not a definition. I don't want to know why you think Dark Souls lacks depth or what a game with depth will make you do, I want to know what you think depth is.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I'm curios, how would you define depth?

There has to be complexity to the gameplay and game mechanics. There are many enemies in Dark Souls but pretty much all of them require the same strategy to defeat, all you do is block and then attack afterward (for any character build). Or you can slowly strafe around and backstab them because the enemy AI is so bad (you can't even do that in KoA). Or you can cheese them all with a bow and arrow because the AI doesn't know how to fight back against ranged combat. A game that has depth will throw enemies at you that force you into using different moves and different strategies, Dark Souls does not, even a game like Heavenly Sword does that (so... yeah, Ninja Theory makes better combat systems than From Software). The combat system is very simplistic, there's only one special move you have and most of them are rather useless. There's no combos of any type; hell, the game at least should force you to properly time your attacks with the weapon animations to maximize damage. Even character builds are very simplistic. There's only 4 stats that you want to invest in as you want Vitality, Endurance, Str or Dex (for weapon scaling), and Faith or Int (for the kind of magic you want). Even then you can eliminate Str/Dex by putting an element on your weapon and Faith/Int if you use fire magic instead so you are just down to leveling 2 stats to increase health and stamina, where's the depth? KoA and Borderlands have more complex builds than Dark Souls. Dark Souls even has a completely useless stat: Resistance. That's how poorly the game's systems were thought out

That was an example, not a definition. I don't want to know why you think Dark Souls lacks depth or what a game with depth will make you do, I want to know what you think depth is.

The first sentence of my reply has my definition of depth (in terms for a video game), which is having complexity within the gameplay and/or gameplay mechanics. Of course, a game can also have depth the same way a book or movie has depth through its story and ideas brought up as I'm not going to say adventure games (which are just basically walking around and talking) can't have depth, they just have a different kind of depth.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

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.

Even if it's not central, it should be engaging at the very least. It's 2013. I'm all for options like you've explained through your Bloodlines example, but RPGs are notorious for presenting super bad-ass characters while skimping on the combat, or making the player watch combat. What is that about?? If you're going to make combat an option, make it something that is equally as fun as using weird supernatural powers, or talking my way in.

I confess that I can't think of it from a "not-a-game-mechanics" perspective because we're talking about a game.

You refer to combat as "butchery". Real time combat can include strategy and puzzle solving during the fighting. It's just that it's happening quickly in real time.

I hear you about "playing a character" but that approach has turned me away from some games. I'm not just watching, I'm actively involved through the gameplay. It's impossible to really play a character in a video game, because you can potentially do things that the character would never do - thus altering the character. Also, RPG fans (especially Skyrim junkies) love open exploration and the ability to do whatever they want. If you play a character, you are restricted to that character's storyline...I'm sure there's already plenty of threads on this issue, so I'll leave it there. Good reply btw.

 

[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?).

Digging up this old thread after I got a chance to play some more.
I checked my save file and I am playing on normal. And most enemies are cannon fodder. But I did get killed by the troll queen once, so it isn't like its a walk in the park. And I ran into a floating enemy in the basement of the tavern in one of the castles that ohk me. Will have to go back to that one after I level a bit. Although I have a feeling it would technically be possible to beat her now. The combat is technical enough for that. So to those who say there is no challenge I don't think that is right.

So thanks OP for getting me back into this one. It isnt half bad.

Now, since yesterday dragons dogma is also on ps+ ...

 

[sumanoskae]

I'm curios, how would you define depth?

There has to be complexity to the gameplay and game mechanics. There are many enemies in Dark Souls but pretty much all of them require the same strategy to defeat, all you do is block and then attack afterward (for any character build). Or you can slowly strafe around and backstab them because the enemy AI is so bad (you can't even do that in KoA). Or you can cheese them all with a bow and arrow because the AI doesn't know how to fight back against ranged combat. A game that has depth will throw enemies at you that force you into using different moves and different strategies, Dark Souls does not, even a game like Heavenly Sword does that (so... yeah, Ninja Theory makes better combat systems than From Software). The combat system is very simplistic, there's only one special move you have and most of them are rather useless. There's no combos of any type; hell, the game at least should force you to properly time your attacks with the weapon animations to maximize damage. Even character builds are very simplistic. There's only 4 stats that you want to invest in as you want Vitality, Endurance, Str or Dex (for weapon scaling), and Faith or Int (for the kind of magic you want). Even then you can eliminate Str/Dex by putting an element on your weapon and Faith/Int if you use fire magic instead so you are just down to leveling 2 stats to increase health and stamina, where's the depth? KoA and Borderlands have more complex builds than Dark Souls. Dark Souls even has a completely useless stat: Resistance. That's how poorly the game's systems were thought out

That was an example, not a definition. I don't want to know why you think Dark Souls lacks depth or what a game with depth will make you do, I want to know what you think depth is.

The first sentence of my reply has my definition of depth (in terms for a video game), which is having complexity within the gameplay and/or gameplay mechanics. Of course, a game can also have depth the same way a book or movie has depth through its story and ideas brought up as I'm not going to say adventure games (which are just basically walking around and talking) can't have depth, they just have a different kind of depth.

I would argue that depth and complexity are not the same thing.

Complexity describes the amount of information that needs to be observed and comprehended in order to play a game properly.

Depth describes the agency a game affords a player; the number of meaningful choices that emerge from the game's mechanics.

Easy to learn, hard to master is a common phrase that describes depth. Simply because Dark Souls has simple, intuitive controls doesn't make it devoid of depth. Because combat in Dark Souls is intense and unforgiving, every move you make has multiple consequences, even slightly misjudging distance can get you killed.

You have to study your enemies, learn their behavior, be aware of your environment, consider the equipment you're using and so on.

Complexity is often necessary but it is not an end in and of itself.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I would argue that depth and complexity are not the same thing.

Complexity describes the amount of information that needs to be observed and comprehended in order to play a game properly.

Depth describes the agency a game affords a player; the number of meaningful choices that emerge from the game's mechanics.

Easy to learn, hard to master is a common phrase that describes depth. Simply because Dark Souls has simple, intuitive controls doesn't make it devoid of depth. Because combat in Dark Souls is intense and unforgiving, every move you make has multiple consequences, even slightly misjudging distance can get you killed.

You have to study your enemies, learn their behavior, be aware of your environment, consider the equipment you're using and so on.

Complexity is often necessary but it is not an end in and of itself.

There needs to be some complexity. Simple to pick up, hard to master is a good quality as new players can play adequately enough to continue and good players can keep improving. Dark Souls controls were simple and combat stayed simple, the same things that work at the very start, work at the end. Dark Souls never came off as intense or unforgiving for me. All you had to do was find a nice spot and pull enemies to you one at a time.