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

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You can't play all stealthily in KoA due to it not being a stealth game. Once you get smoke bombs, the stealth aspect is a lot better. You are an arcade-y, flashy rogue in KoA for sure. The attacks and abilities are very rogue-like; the charged dashing dagger attack, the sneak attacks, the smoke bomb, the shadow flare attack, the lunge, and all the poison, bleeding, and critical hit buffs you get.

My point isn't that KoA is so awesome and stands above all other RPGs, but that it's flaws are the same as other RPGs yet it gets knocked for them when other games don't and get praised. Skyrim/Dragon Age/etc. are generic fantasy, Skyrim is easy too, all RPGs have a bunch of bad fetch questy sidequests, most RPGs have bad stories and characters, etc. I think KoA is better in some ways like art style and combat.

It doesn't have to be exclusively a stealth game to have stealth in it and that argument holds no water when you keep bringing up Skyrim as a benchmark (I haven't played Dragon Age so I comment on that) - is Skyrim a stealth game? No. Can you play as a stealthy character? Yes, you bet your shadowy dagger wielding butt you can. In fact a point I didn't mention before is that Skyrim really gives you more freedom when creating your character than Kingdoms did. There are more races and more skill trees and the way that levelling is structured there are just more options and more encouragement to build a more refined character. Also you describe Skyrim as too easy but have you tried changing the combat difficulty? At its standard level its not going to be a challenge to an experienced gamer (much like KoA) but if you bump it up as high as it goes it's a whole different ball game from start to end game.

I'd be annoyed that you completely ignored my second paragraph questioning your motives for responding however I am increasingly getting the impression this is exactly the situation where "fanboy" is appropriate ("KoA is so awesome and stands above all other RPGs" - you're taking this as objective fact, if it were then you wouldn't be so outnumbered by people with differing views). I'm not telling you you're wrong to like this game or that you should like it less however you seem intent on telling everyone else they don't love this game enough based entirely on subjective good points that you specifically enjoy. Either you are indeed essentially a fanboy desperate for validation of your own opinion or you're secretly promoting ahead of a KoA sequel. Either way I don't really see any point in anyone responding to this thread since you're clearly taking the (perfectly relevant and specific) criticisms of this game far too seriously and are not willing to accept that others see this matter differently.

With more freedom, more elements of the game end up being subpar. Yeah, you can stealth in Skyrim, but the stealth isn't obviously up to a stealth game. The melee combat isn't very good in Skyrim because the game is too open and allows for just about everything. KoA is more focused in combat so the combat is actually good at something instead of good at nothing while allowing everything. The more open you make the game, the more every element is hurt. For example, GTAV isn't a very good shooter because of having so many mechanics at play.

I haven't played Skyrim, I saw my friend play it for a couple hours and he was 1-hit killing just about everything. If you min/max in Skyrim, you can easily become overpowered like my friend. I'm pretty sure that is possible even if you up the combat difficulty.

I didn't say "KoA is so awesome and stands above all other RPGs." I said "My point isn't that KoA is so awesome and stands above all other RPGs, but that it's flaws are the same as other RPGs yet it gets knocked for them when other games don't and get praised." That is exactly in what you quoted and replied too.

dude, it's a little unnerving to read your posts because, as someone earlier pointed out it honestly does not seem like you played the same game we did. I don't point this out to delineate the obvious difference in opinion but rather that you're honestly saying things like "I can block and slowly poke sif to death as an underleveled thief" and that the implication is that the game is bad because that's all you had to do. I don't think you did it at all without dodging and knowing timings because sif's strong attacks would utterly wreck a light shield-using dex build who's only blocking, and leaving that part out is some sophistry, huh? this obvious discrepancy between what I know/we know and what you're including in your presumably biased argument is making it impossible to take you seriously because you're, again deliberately or not, sabotaging yourself.

as for your idea of what being "badass" is, if we were to draw a chart of power increases achieved solely through the mechanics of the game and not internal numbers, KoA would be a flatline and DS would be a slow and steady rise if you take a player of reasonable ability and who isn't viewing the game as out to ruin his fun from the start. that you aren't interested in the difference between the slow buildup of power and understanding that DS offers you and the gradual descent into sameness and tedium that KoA gives you from the very start of the game doesn't bother me, because that would be a valid opinion at the very least. deliberately misrepresenting the experience by leaving out vitally important aspects is not only the strategy that's allowing you to agonizingly drag this thread on and on re: both games in question, but what's driving people mad in this case.

frankly, your only point outside odd DS jibes is that apparently bigger releases have flaws too and that somehow relates to KoA...or something. I sincerely do not understand if you're trying to draw dichotomies in critical reception and popular acclaim between something like KoA (which I thought did pretty well on release, 38 studios went down in flames for different and more internal reasons, no?) and skyrim, or if this is simply an all-too-common case of creating a venue to wail on some releases you don't like. either way, I'll engage the more valid of the options and just say that KoA is utterly mediocre in every reasonable way and that you're wasting your time. pointing out that KoA might have a leg up on another release in one of the many, many different facets that comprise a quality RPG is simply not enough logically or rhetorically to justify your zeal and this thread.

I'm sure people that beat DS at SL1 have all this awesome equipment they got from a previous playthrough.

no, it's just skilled players within an engine that allows them to show off to the best of their ability. the fact that this is possible refutes any idea of the overall game (we can allow the possibility and existence of the occasional cheap/lame death, it happens) being cheap so completely that I would be deeply confused if you resorted to it again.

I never said "I can block and slowly poke sif to death as an underleveled thief." That's not what I did. One of Sif's attack chains gave me the time and opening to cast Lightning Spear. That's how I won the fight. My point was that I was able to block Sif when a character of my build shouldn't be able to block a boss like Sif.

My character never got more badass in Dark Souls. For example, those tough skeletons at the start of the game, you can't really beat them due to you not having your stats high enough. You can take your time and very slowly kill them. When you come back to that area at the proper time, you can kill them normally because you simply do more damage and can block more damage, that's it, it's all numbers. In KoA, you get new moves and abilities to make your character more powerful, you just don't get stronger weapons and higher stats. You don't get any new moves to your arsenal in Dark Souls. Any good RPG is a combination in upping your stats and getting new skills and abilities like say DnD.

Dark Souls is all about your equipment, I can beat the game at SL1 too if I wanted to. Your level doesn't really matter. Leveling up weapons, armor, and shields is more important than your character's level.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

One of Sif's attack chains gave me the time and opening to cast Lightning Spear. That's how I won the fight.

[...]

My character never got more badass in Dark Souls.

[...]

You don't get any new moves to your arsenal in Dark Souls. Any good RPG is a combination in upping your stats and getting new skills and abilities like say DnD.

Tell me, as I'm interested - which starting class has Lightning Spear available from the get go?

Here is a list of magics/ miracles/ pyromancies. Most become available as you progress (and have prerequisites), rather than being initially available.

http://darksoulswiki.wikispaces.com/Magic

Flawed arguments are flawed.

Edit: For that matter, how did you block/ weak attack the Hellkite Dragon to become a Sunbro and thus have access to Lightning Spear?

I'm talking about new melee combat moves, the combat system doesn't evolve over the course of the game. You can do the same block attack routine vs your first enemies as you do vs the knights as you march to the end boss. You can get fire magic at the start I believe, which is basically the same as other magics.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

It just wasn't very good. I am really surprised you praise the combat so much because while at first it seems very interesting. You quickly realize that it is ultimately pointless because even on the hardest setting, you won't ever die. The game is absolutely beyond easy.
Combine that with very WoW MMO style graphics, MMO style quests, and in general an MMO style world. It really starts to put you to sleep after awhile.
It was a shame because I was interested in the focus on courts of fae and such.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Oh, I see - as long as it conforms to the examples you've decided to cherry pick (clearly "any" doesn't mean "any" but means "melee" - TOTALLY my bad). I mean yeah, only melee matters when talking about how bad ass a character is and not their overall make-up - even if one decides to defeat bosses, like say Sif, with a move that is not available at the start of the game...

And I mean yes, OF COURSE the basic fire spell is identical to every other spell on that list "basically". Silly me. And here I thought the variety of spells and effects like Magic Weapon, Iron Flesh, Wrath of the Gods and Tranquil Walk of Peace, as a limited set of examples, were much different than a simple basic fire spell. I must be stupid or something...

The wheels just fell off your argument. You might want to bow out gracefully at this point, since you've really painted yourself into a corner.

I'll say it again: Flawed arguments are flawed.

Also, you never did answer my question about Hellkite. What about Gwyn - can you do the simple "block routine" on him or does that just lead to the obvious quick death outcome.

But yeah, *clap, clap, clap*, you beat the second easiest boss in the entire game, Seath, with weak attacks in his obvious weak point (in front of him - tight - slghtly off-center). Did you try to cut his tail for the Moonlight Greatsword as that's where the real challenge is?

And if you try to feed me the "I don't prescribe to artificially difficulty" line, I will remind you that you are suggesting the same thing for other players in Amalur (ie. don't do side quests as you end up over-levelled).

Edit: Hint: NG+ is where it's at. NG is basically easy mode anyhow.

If I was properly leveled and had decent equipment, I could've just blocked and meleed Sif. The point is as a Dex build, I shouldn't be able to block boss attacks nearly as well as you can in Dark Souls. Also, the Lightning Spear is overpowered as fuck. Didn't they nerf Iron Flesh to where it was no longer useful?

I said there's only a select few bosses that you actually can't block that well in a previous post, but 99+% of your enemy encounters you can do the same thing and win easy. And usually if you can't, you can cheese with a bow and arrow.

I'm not a Dark Souls expert, I don't know that Seath is the 2nd easiest boss, lots of the bosses were easy as shit (Quelaag, the Butterfly, Gaping dragon, the invisible boss, 4 knights, etc.). I just know he's a dragon and I shouldn't be able to stand in front of him and just mash melee. The other Dark Souls "expert" that I was replying to for much of this discussion who has like 400 hours played said you can't do what I said I did to Seath. He said the game glitched or something. Why would I care about cutting off his tail and getting the Moonlight Greatsword? I was playing a Dex build, the sword would be useless to me.

I think I referred to "artificially difficult" as when the game gives the enemies so much health, it's just annoying to fight them (instead of giving them better AI, giving them new attacks, making them faster, etc.). I don't feel like looking for the post I said that in, feel free to find it and quote it if I've mistaken. The only thing I said about overleveling was that pretty much every RPG lets you grind and get OPed if you want to.

Why would play a game twice if I didn't care for it? Secondly, why should I have to play an RPG (which requires a lot of hours for just one playthrough) more than once for a challenge? Lastly, why should I have to play NG+ to get a challenge out of a game that literally says on the back of the box "Prepare to Die"?

What I mean by combat evolving is Bayonetta for example. You get knew weapons that totally changes the style of the combat system. You also get accessories that greatly change the combat as well. Lastly, the game throws enemies (normal enemies, not just bosses and mid-bosses) at you that force you to learn the game's advanced mechanics like dodge offsetting to defeat them. Where are the enemies in Dark Souls that force you to change up your strategy and use advanced moves (like the riposte and up & R2 or even just a heavy attack)? They just aren't there and the enemy AI is a joke as well. Outside of a very few select boss battles, all you do is block and light attack all game. Even Heavenly Sword has a more solid combat system as it forces you to use certain combos vs certain enemies to defeat them.

 

[veloper]

DArigins on a console is a horrible mess of a clusterfuck too, but the game belongs to a different subgenre so it's hard to compare the two, let alone if you consider the PC version, which plays more RTS-lite like during combat.

I was comparing DA to KoA just in setting. KoA is said to be generic fantasy but DA is just as generic with an even more bland art style.

It's been some time already, but I do recall that Origins did get some flack for being generic fantasy. There was a somewhat negative reception to the setting, excluding ofcourse the Biodrones lapping everything up. Thing is though that it's setting is the least of DA's problems.

When you play alot of videogames you get simply used to crappy settings, poor plots, cliched characters and all that fluff. You can get good at ignoring it and focus on the gameplay, or you can develop an abused taste for mediocrity, or you leave in disgust and at the very least, stay away from action-RPGs, JRPGs and diablo-clones.

So I didn't really mind the KOA setting.
The poor dialogues and voices were a little harder to ignore, but I managed. In this respect KOA is atleast better than Skyrim and much, much more palateable than Oblivion. Bioware on the other hand do hire better voice-actors than most companies though. It must be a real challenge to utter all those unnatural bio dialogues, but the professional results with drivel are usually better.

Graphics then. DAO and Skyrim both fail at (illustrated)realism, though the scenery in Skyrim does look very nice, but only the scenery.
KOA succeeds at being over the top cartoonish and colorful, but that's much easier to pull off than illustrated realism and it's also not everyone's cup of tea. It's a wash then and real gamers don't care much about graphics anyway.

So I'll give you KOA > Skyrim, Oblivion, Bethesda, because of combat and slightly less jarring dialogues, but KOA vs DA:O over the non-gameplay aspects is still not a chance.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

It just wasn't very good. I am really surprised you praise the combat so much because while at first it seems very interesting. You quickly realize that it is ultimately pointless because even on the hardest setting, you won't ever die. The game is absolutely beyond easy.
Combine that with very WoW MMO style graphics, MMO style quests, and in general an MMO style world. It really starts to put you to sleep after awhile.
It was a shame because I was interested in the focus on courts of fae and such.

I played through the Fae questline and it had two hard battles back-to-back so you couldn't just use Reckoning mode and just win each one. The Maid of Windemere had one-hit kill attacks against me, I died several times on that battle. The game is too easy, but the combat is fun and it does keep you on your toes just.... enough. It's the 1st game where I feel like a badass rogue. I don't get the graphic complaint, yeah it's WoW/Fable like but Skyrim, Dragon's Age, Witcher, Dragon's Dogma all have that realistic type fantasy graphics. It's fine if you don't like KoA's style but it is more different aesthetics-wise than most other fantasy RPGs. The quests aren't anything different from other RPGs, you got your fetch type and kill X amount of enemy side quests as every other RPG. The main quest line and faction quests are just like other game's main quests. Borderlands is set up in basically the same way as KoA.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

It's been some time already, but I do recall that Origins did get some flack for being generic fantasy. There was a somewhat negative reception to the setting, excluding ofcourse the Biodrones lapping everything up. Thing is though that it's setting is the least of DA's problems.

When you play alot of videogames you get simply used to crappy settings, poor plots, cliched characters and all that fluff. You can get good at ignoring it and focus on the gameplay, or you can develop an abused taste for mediocrity, or you leave in disgust and at the very least, stay away from action-RPGs, JRPGs and diablo-clones.

So I didn't really mind the KOA setting.
The poor dialogues and voices were a little harder to ignore, but I managed. In this respect KOA is atleast better than Skyrim and much, much more palateable than Oblivion. Bioware on the other hand do hire better voice-actors than most companies though. It must be a real challenge to utter all those unnatural bio dialogues, but the professional results with drivel are usually better.

Graphics then. DAO and Skyrim both fail at (illustrated)realism, though the scenery in Skyrim does look very nice, but only the scenery.
KOA succeeds at being over the top cartoonish and colorful, but that's much easier to pull off than illustrated realism and it's also not everyone's cup of tea. It's a wash then and real gamers don't care much about graphics anyway.

So I'll give you KOA > Skyrim, Oblivion, Bethesda, because of combat and slightly less jarring dialogues, but KOA vs DA:O over the non-gameplay aspects is still not a chance.

I think KoA is the first fantasy WRPG I played this gen because I'm sick of standard Tolkien fantasy; give me new worlds, new races, new classes, etc. And KoA at least has a world that actually looks nice and it's a place where I would've mind actually living. Realistic fantasy worlds just look like you are living in medieval times but with magic, it just doesn't look very nice or appealing. You'd think it would kinda be like the Flintstones in the sense that they'd use magic (instead of technology like present times) to make living more comfortable using magic for indoor running water, some kind of magic way of communicating across long distances, etc. Anyways, KoA has the same flaws as other RPGs yet it's average and generic while Dragon Age and Skyrim are GOTY material, I just don't get it. It even does some things better like combat and far less glitches.

 

[veloper]

It's been some time already, but I do recall that Origins did get some flack for being generic fantasy. There was a somewhat negative reception to the setting, excluding ofcourse the Biodrones lapping everything up. Thing is though that it's setting is the least of DA's problems.

When you play alot of videogames you get simply used to crappy settings, poor plots, cliched characters and all that fluff. You can get good at ignoring it and focus on the gameplay, or you can develop an abused taste for mediocrity, or you leave in disgust and at the very least, stay away from action-RPGs, JRPGs and diablo-clones.

So I didn't really mind the KOA setting.
The poor dialogues and voices were a little harder to ignore, but I managed. In this respect KOA is atleast better than Skyrim and much, much more palateable than Oblivion. Bioware on the other hand do hire better voice-actors than most companies though. It must be a real challenge to utter all those unnatural bio dialogues, but the professional results with drivel are usually better.

Graphics then. DAO and Skyrim both fail at (illustrated)realism, though the scenery in Skyrim does look very nice, but only the scenery.
KOA succeeds at being over the top cartoonish and colorful, but that's much easier to pull off than illustrated realism and it's also not everyone's cup of tea. It's a wash then and real gamers don't care much about graphics anyway.

So I'll give you KOA > Skyrim, Oblivion, Bethesda, because of combat and slightly less jarring dialogues, but KOA vs DA:O over the non-gameplay aspects is still not a chance.

I think KoA is the first fantasy WRPG I played this gen because I'm sick of standard Tolkien fantasy; give me new worlds, new races, new classes, etc. And KoA at least has a world that actually looks nice and it's a place where I would've mind actually living. Realistic fantasy worlds just look like you are living in medieval times but with magic, it just doesn't look very nice or appealing. You'd think it would kinda be like the Flintstones in the sense that they'd use magic (instead of technology like present times) to make living more comfortable using magic for indoor running water, some kind of magic way of communicating across long distances, etc. Anyways, KoA has the same flaws as other RPGs yet it's average and generic while Dragon Age and Skyrim are GOTY material, I just don't get it. It even does some things better like combat and far less glitches.

Dragon Age and Skyrim would NOT be GOTY in my book either, but many game "journalists" just love sentimental fan-fiction done more professionally and many gamers love to have a pretty scenery to simply mess around in, bugs, glitches and all.
It's just the way it is.

 

[joest01]

I checked his psn profile. He actually finished dark souls. He also platinumed bayonetta and, get this, Resonance of Fate!! He can game!

The man is just really really misguided when it comes to comparing games.

One potential explanation I can think of is that - and this is a pet peeve of mine - the most difficult games can sometimes in a sense also the easiest. Don't change the channel, wait for it. Take Ninja Gaiden. Brutal difficulty if you don't know what you are doing yet as well balanced as they come. It gives you all the tools to completely dominate the game if you know what you are doing. Dark Souls falls into a similar category. KoA doesnt. It's more of an RPG in the sense that avatar skills matter over player skills. At least in comparison to Dark Souls. In DS you can take on pretty much any enemy with your starting gear if you know what you are doing. Hard, very hard, but possible. In proper RPGs this is neither possible nor desired. But it does give you a sense of achievement when you acquired that level or weapon to finally get through that difficult sequence (or beat that post game boss). I guess you could grind through DS in a similar fashion but its not necessary if you understand the combat. And the combat is fairly straightforward. Especially for somebody that holds a plat on bayonetta (which I dont endorse btw, her evasion and finishing moves are flash over substance )

just one possible explanation...

 

[t00bz]

Because while Skyrim and Dragon Age brought new things to RPGs or took old concepts and made them much, much better, KoA:R was just a rehash of all the cliches of the RPG genre.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I checked his psn profile. He actually finished dark souls. He also platinumed bayonetta and, get this, Resonance of Fate!! He can game!

The man is just really really misguided when it comes to comparing games.

One potential explanation I can think of is that - and this is a pet peeve of mine - the most difficult games can sometimes in a sense also the easiest. Don't change the channel, wait for it. Take Ninja Gaiden. Brutal difficulty if you don't know what you are doing yet as well balanced as they come. It gives you all the tools to completely dominate the game if you know what you are doing. Dark Souls falls into a similar category. KoA doesnt. It's more of an RPG in the sense that avatar skills matter over player skills. At least in comparison to Dark Souls. In DS you can take on pretty much any enemy with your starting gear if you know what you are doing. Hard, very hard, but possible. In proper RPGs this is neither possible nor desired. But it does give you a sense of achievement when you acquired that level or weapon to finally get through that difficult sequence (or beat that post game boss). I guess you could grind through DS in a similar fashion but its not necessary if you understand the combat. And the combat is fairly straightforward. Especially for somebody that holds a plat on bayonetta (which I dont endorse btw, her evasion and finishing moves are flash over substance )

just one possible explanation...

I have no reason to lie about anything. The Bayonetta plat is probably my favorite as it may have taken the most skill out of all my plats while at the same time not requiring much grinding or time consuming BS trophies (which I just don't do even if I love the game). And, Bayonetta can own any Dark Souls' character build ever, she'll dodge offset you to death (she doesn't even need Witch time), her flash is substance

It's not only about Dark Souls allowing you to own if you get good. It's about the game not requiring you to learn the advanced mechanics or change up your strategy. I don't mind being able to get good and own ala Bayonetta as long as I really got good if that makes sense (and fully mastered the game). Also, just something as simple as being able to backpedal when you have your shield up but not locked-on, that would help immensely in being able to fight more than 1 enemy at a time.

Also, check out my Youtube (Phoenixmgs) if you wanna see some high level Ghost Recon Future Soldier matches. My cover swap montage is comprised entirely of moves that less than 1% of the community actually knows how to do. I came from playing Metal Gear Online, which is by far the hardest online shooter of this gen, the game required headshots to kill as body shots did almost know damage so if you aimed for the chest, you fucking died. I know what I'm talking about with game mechanics, I can literally go step-by-step and explain how Max Payne 3 is a bad shooter.

 

[Battenberg]

I haven't played Skyrim, I saw my friend play it for a couple hours and he was 1-hit killing just about everything. If you min/max in Skyrim, you can easily become overpowered like my friend. I'm pretty sure that is possible even if you up the combat difficulty.

I didn't say "KoA is so awesome and stands above all other RPGs." I said "My point isn't that KoA is so awesome and stands above all other RPGs, but that it's flaws are the same as other RPGs yet it gets knocked for them when other games don't and get praised." That is exactly in what you quoted and replied too.

First off apologies for the misquote, genuine mistake due to not reading your post carefully enough.

Secondly if you haven't even played Skyrim then how on earth do you expect people to take your opinion on this seriously. Actually yes if you change the difficulty the game does become more challenging, dragons in particular become terrifyingly powerful on max difficulty and, as you can guess, there are a lot of dragons in the game. I wasn't basing my argument on having _watched_ someone play KoA for a mere couple of hours, I actually played it. If you haven't played these games you're comparing KoA to then how do you know these 'generic' criticisms still apply to them? For example the difficulty thing
- KoA is absolutely the easiest RPG I've played, this is not a criticism I would make of Dark Souls/ Demon's souls (and I would consider Skyrim to be of above average difficulty for its top tiers which is where players wanting a challenge would go - KoA's top tier just doesn't have the same level of toughness)
- The Rogue class in KoA is a massive letdown - you're decribing the stealth is Skyrim as "subpar" and "not up to a stealth game" however I have played a lot of stealth games with worse stealth systems and if Skyrim's stealth system is subpar what does that make KoA's?
- The warrior class makes the game play more like a hack n slash than an rpg (although this is partly true of all the classes). While the melee combat in Skyrim is raw and clunky it still has a unique feel to it and in fact certain weapons/ combinations are great fun, for example the perks on the blocking tree allow you to slow down time when a heavy attack is incoming or make your shield bash powerful enough to make a dragon stagger or even turn it into a battering ram to run through your opponents like skittles. Hack n slash is fine in an rpg as long as there's something more to it that makes it interesting and exciting.
- There is not enough freedom in KoA
- Skyrim has a far bigger map and a hell of a lot more missions to do, the environment Bethesda spent a decade creating gave them so much leighway to let the player essentially _choose_ their own experience. I certainly did not feel this with KoA's somewhat linear main story and the huge abundance of fetch quests/ kill monster X quests.
- There are, as I recall, only 4 races in KoA each giving a different selection of skills a small boost. Skyrim has 10 and, due to the large number of skill trees there is basically a race for every class (not just warrior, mage, rogue) PLUS each race has a more individual look PLUS each race has their own special ability, unique to them, PLUS each race gets bonus resistances/ bonuses outside of the skill trees.
- Finally there's the skill trees and classes themselves. In KoA there's rogue, mage, and warrior and you can, to a certain extent, combine these 3 giving a whoppin potential of seven class makeups for a character. There are 18 skill trees in Skyrim and these skill trees go beyond simpy creating a character for battling with, they give you skills that are useful when talking to strangers or that bring the price down on that shiny weapon the local merchant has or, for a less lawful character, simpy steal the extra gold you need. These skills just aren't there in KoA, your character only really develops as a fighter. Of course that isn't to say these skills aren't useful in combat, I can think of combat based uses for 16, maybe 17 of those 18 skills, because several of them are multi purpose and this just gives the player so much free roam to make exactly the character they want. You want a typical RPG mage? Sure, go for the destruction tree. You'd rather have the ability to conjure a hoarde of allies to fight for you? Great there's an option for that too. You'd rather have the power to simply alter enemies minds/ deceive them? Well there's a tree for that too and of course it goes without saying that there's nothing stopping you from combining these skills to your preference because each of these skills will improve as you use them. If you want to make them even better then you can spend perks in them as you level up to get new powers.

Frankly Skyrim is, in my opinion, as close to a pure dungeons and dragons based video game as I have ever played and that is what makes it a great RPG in my opinion. Others may disagree that point but, on average, the odds are stacked against people finding KoA a better game than Skyrim, you are just in a minority on that one.

Regardless of the misquote earlier my point still stands - you are overemphasising the pros of this game and understating its flaws (flaws that apply specifically to this game, not to all RPGs) to convince everyone it's the bees knees. If your experience of this game better than the average experience of others (KoA (PC) got an average of just 63 from over 800 players on metacritic) then that's good for you but I don't know why you are so desperate to make everyone else feel the same outside of some validation of your own SUBJECTIVE opinion. My experience of Skyrim was above the average player's and I rate it as one of the most enjoyable games I have ever played however I don't fly into a rage when people don't hail it as the best game ever because I also see its flaws, something you are totally failing to do here. As such unless your next reply comes with a healthy dose of perspective I think I'll leave this argument here as I could do something more productive with my time like bang my head against a brick wall.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

I agree Mass Effect 2/3 are better shooters than KoA is a hack and slash. However, what other action RPG has better hack and slash gameplay? I should've reworded that line as a shooter is very different gameplay-wise and I had in mind all the fantasy RPGs like Skyrim in my head when I wrote that.

I'd have to say that Mount and Blade has the best combat system in an Action RPG without magic. Sure its not high fantasy but its melee combat hasn't been beat in my opinion. The game constantly throws you in situations that aren't boring, unlike KoA.

For Action RPGs with Magic its either Dark Souls or The Witcher 2, and it really depends on the kind of game you like better. I'd have to give it to The Witcher 2 because its more comparable to KoA overall.

OP:This is a thread we've seen many times here. KoA is a mediocre ARPG that borrows way too much from other successful franchises to be called unique. It also doesn't help that the "amazing combat" hits its peak very early in the game. KoA reminds me a lot of Neir on the consoles. The combat was awesome for the first 3 hours and then it turned into sidequest mania.

I don't PC game and only have a PS3 so I haven't played Mount and Blade or Witcher 2. I hard for me to see Mount and Blade having great melee combat as it's in 1st-person. It might work like how I thought Mirror's Edge wouldn't work since it was 1st-person platforming. Witcher has that standard realistic fantasy art style that I'm so sick of and I've barely even played many fantasy WRPGs. It's like the WWII shooters of last gen, I think I only played 1 of them and I was sick of them already. I'm very interested in their cyberpunk RPG though.

I literally just played Nier, that game's combat was never good at any point in the game. Also, just like Nier, you don't have to do the sidequests. I don't get why people complain about sidequests, every RPG has shit sidequests.

Firstly, Mount and Blade is not first person. At all. Secondly, your sick of the realistic fantasy art style used in The Witcher yet readily admit that you haven't played many fantasy WRPGs. How can you be sick of an art style in a genre that you haven't really played a lot of outside KoA? If anything KoA's Tolkein-eqsue fantasy style has been done to death since 30 years ago when Dungeons & Dragons started. Hell, KoA's story was written by R.A. Salvatore of Dragonlance fame(which uses D&D lore, so the tropes within story of KoA damage it severely due to it not being original in the world of fantasy anything. The irony of you saying that you don't like The Witcher's art style due to you feeling that its overdone but like KoA is hilarious. Its funny because KoA is the distilled pot of every Tolken/D&D inspired fantasy WRPG that has come out in the last 20 years and that seems to be lost on you.

That's one of the reasons that people didn't like KoA so much. If they've played, read, or watching anything influenced by Lord of the Rings/D&D, it comes off as yet another high fantasy game with the typical elves, dwarves, and wizards with high magic. The Witcher was a fresher look at fantasy with a lower look at magic in fantasy. Its more realistic fantasy art style that you're apparently so sick of isn't portrayed nearly as many games as the over done style within Kingdom of Amalur.

Thirdly, Neir's combat, like KoA is good in the very beginning. Then it falls flat into a boring stale state for the rest of the game. Like KoA.

And here's why people complain about sidequests in some RPGs. You're statement that every RPG has shit sidequests reiterates the point that you haven't played a lot of WRPGs. Good sidequests in RPGs while not always there to progress the main story, are there to tell the story of the world that the story takes place in. The Witcher's sidequests they add story to the side characters as well as set the tone for a specific area of the game's world.

The sidequests suck in KoA because they don't explain anything. The sidequests in KoA are all "kill or collect 20 of blank". Then 30 of blank, than 50, then 200 etc. Either that or it turns into fetch quest mania. That is why I say that KoA and Neir are both so similar. Both have sidequests that are nothing but padding and the combat blows its load in the first 3 hours.

Look, you've said yourself that you haven't played many WRPGs, I'd suggest that you play some more. KoA is dreadfully mediocre compared to the vast majority of WRPGs. It brings nothing of its own to the table. And to make a thread asking people's opinions of the game only to get mad at them for having a different opinion than yourself is a bit silly. Especially when it seems that the people in this thread have actually played more games than yourself in this specific genre.

Not to say that your opinion isn't valid, but to stalwartly oppose everyone else's opinion simply because you like the game is a fool's errand.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

First off apologies for the misquote, genuine mistake due to not reading your post carefully enough.

Secondly if you haven't even played Skyrim then how on earth do you expect people to take your opinion on this seriously. Actually yes if you change the difficulty the game does become more challenging, dragons in particular become terrifyingly powerful on max difficulty and, as you can guess, there are a lot of dragons in the game. I wasn't basing my argument on having _watched_ someone play KoA for a mere couple of hours, I actually played it. If you haven't played these games you're comparing KoA to then how do you know these 'generic' criticisms still apply to them? For example the difficulty thing
- KoA is absolutely the easiest RPG I've played, this is not a criticism I would make of Dark Souls/ Demon's souls (and I would consider Skyrim to be of above average difficulty for its top tiers which is where players wanting a challenge would go - KoA's top tier just doesn't have the same level of toughness)
- The Rogue class in KoA is a massive letdown - you're decribing the stealth is Skyrim as "subpar" and "not up to a stealth game" however I have played a lot of stealth games with worse stealth systems and if Skyrim's stealth system is subpar what does that make KoA's?
- The warrior class makes the game play more like a hack n slash than an rpg (although this is partly true of all the classes). While the melee combat in Skyrim is raw and clunky it still has a unique feel to it and in fact certain weapons/ combinations are great fun, for example the perks on the blocking tree allow you to slow down time when a heavy attack is incoming or make your shield bash powerful enough to make a dragon stagger or even turn it into a battering ram to run through your opponents like skittles. Hack n slash is fine in an rpg as long as there's something more to it that makes it interesting and exciting.
- There is not enough freedom in KoA
- Skyrim has a far bigger map and a hell of a lot more missions to do, the environment Bethesda spent a decade creating gave them so much leighway to let the player essentially _choose_ their own experience. I certainly did not feel this with KoA's somewhat linear main story and the huge abundance of fetch quests/ kill monster X quests.
- There are, as I recall, only 4 races in KoA each giving a different selection of skills a small boost. Skyrim has 10 and, due to the large number of skill trees there is basically a race for every class (not just warrior, mage, rogue) PLUS each race has a more individual look PLUS each race has their own special ability, unique to them, PLUS each race gets bonus resistances/ bonuses outside of the skill trees.
- Finally there's the skill trees and classes themselves. In KoA there's rogue, mage, and warrior and you can, to a certain extent, combine these 3 giving a whoppin potential of seven class makeups for a character. There are 18 skill trees in Skyrim and these skill trees go beyond simpy creating a character for battling with, they give you skills that are useful when talking to strangers or that bring the price down on that shiny weapon the local merchant has or, for a less lawful character, simpy steal the extra gold you need. These skills just aren't there in KoA, your character only really develops as a fighter. Of course that isn't to say these skills aren't useful in combat, I can think of combat based uses for 16, maybe 17 of those 18 skills, because several of them are multi purpose and this just gives the player so much free roam to make exactly the character they want. You want a typical RPG mage? Sure, go for the destruction tree. You'd rather have the ability to conjure a hoarde of allies to fight for you? Great there's an option for that too. You'd rather have the power to simply alter enemies minds/ deceive them? Well there's a tree for that too and of course it goes without saying that there's nothing stopping you from combining these skills to your preference because each of these skills will improve as you use them. If you want to make them even better then you can spend perks in them as you level up to get new powers.

Frankly Skyrim is, in my opinion, as close to a pure dungeons and dragons based video game as I have ever played and that is what makes it a great RPG in my opinion. Others may disagree that point but, on average, the odds are stacked against people finding KoA a better game than Skyrim, you are just in a minority on that one.

Regardless of the misquote earlier my point still stands - you are overemphasising the pros of this game and understating its flaws (flaws that apply specifically to this game, not to all RPGs) to convince everyone it's the bees knees. If your experience of this game better than the average experience of others (KoA (PC) got an average of just 63 from over 800 players on metacritic) then that's good for you but I don't know why you are so desperate to make everyone else feel the same outside of some validation of your own SUBJECTIVE opinion. My experience of Skyrim was above the average player's and I rate it as one of the most enjoyable games I have ever played however I don't fly into a rage when people don't hail it as the best game ever because I also see its flaws, something you are totally failing to do here. As such unless your next reply comes with a healthy dose of perspective I think I'll leave this argument here as I could do something more productive with my time like bang my head against a brick wall.

- I can see how the game plays and how the mechanics work by watching someone play it. Skyrim is just boring from a combat standpoint, almost everyone says that about the Elder Scrolls series (that is literally the main complaint about the series). I don't like playing RPGs with boring combat, which is why I don't play many RPGs (J or W). If I'm battling enemies for much of the game, you better make that fun; if not, just take out the combat and let me role-play. I can tell how Watch_Dogs plays from watching the gameplay demos for example, I know exactly how it'll play.
- I can tell you from playing other RPGs that KoA isn't close to the easiest RPG. Dark Souls is easier, Nier is easier (much much easier), Xenosaga is easier, FFX is easier, I can go on and on. I just died a couple times today playing KoA. KoA is on the easy end even on hard, but just doing the main and faction quests will definitely give you a challenge.
- I played Fallout 3, I understand how stealth works in Bethesda games. Stealth games like Splinter Cell, Metal Gear Solid, etc. have way better stealth because they are stealth games. I said the rogue in KoA is a flashy, arcade-y rogue and the stealth, while not anything to write home about, is fun. The smoke bomb is awesome. I was never saying KoA has better stealth than Skyrim.
- An RPG has no gameplay requirements. An RPG being a hack and slash vs a turn-based system has no bearing on being more or less of an RPG. You can make a FPS (Deus Ex) or TPS (Mass Effect) that are RPGs. In fact, Mass Effect is much more RPG than almost all RPGs as its primary focus is role-playing. Player skill not coming into play in RPGs is falsity because video game RPGs came from pen and paper games. Guess what? The pen and paper medium has an inherent limitation to it that doesn't allow player skill to come into play (you can't bring a sword to a DnD session, swing it awesomely, and tell the DM you just landed a crit). The video game medium doesn't have that inherent limitation.
- I said Skyrim is more open and has more freedom. I never claimed that KoA had more freedom. I said that the more freedom you give the player in available playstyles, the worst each playstyle will be. KoA focuses on hack and slash combat and is better at that than Skyrim because it focuses on delivering with that kind of combat instead of trying to do everything. It's just like GTAV is a poor shooter because it has so many gameplay mechanics and is so open that the shooting is diluted and not as good as a pure shooter.
- You have skills in KoA that aren't about combat. There's a skill to lower merchant prices, there's a skill to persuade others, there's a skill to steal and pickpocket NPCs, etc. In fact, I think all the KoA skills (not abilities) have nothing to do with combat except for stealth, which obviously works in combat situations.
- I'm not understanding the flaws of KoA, I'm saying every other RPG has the same flaws.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Yeah, you've said enough. It's obvious that you are so far up your own... can't seem to comprehend even the most basic arguments in that you have not properly retorted to even one of the points I've raised, opting instead to deflect and attempt to change the subject to the same repetitive misinformation that you been posting all along.

People have given you plenty of examples about Amalur and I've disproven your theories about Dark Souls having "no growth".

This thread should be locked as it's completely pointless and asinine at this point.

Keep believing your own hype.

You couldn't even answer these very simple questions:

Why would play a game twice if I didn't care for it? Secondly, why should I have to play an RPG (which requires a lot of hours for just one playthrough) more than once for a challenge? Lastly, why should I have to play NG+ to get a challenge out of a game that literally says on the back of the box "Prepare to Die"?

Your stats just going up in an RPG is not growth, that's the pit Dark Souls falls into. You need to get new feats/abilities/skills along with just stat increases. The only "new" things you get access to are spells in Dark Souls. Where's "new" stuff for the fighters? Only mages get new things.

 

[elvor0]

Well... the combat was damn damn fun and it looked fucking beautiful. Everything about it was gorgeous, especially the kill animations, some of my favourite ever. Some of the lore was pretty cool too, like the elves with their stories. However, it was quite clearly a single player retrofitted MMO. The quest hubs, the bosses. I mean the maid of Windamere can fucking do one, main boss, adds pouring in every few seconds? And the sheer amount of them? And you couldn't go near the walls, lest you get ***** slapped around like a whore in a gangbang for the next 10 seconds. Obviously designed as a multi player boss.

However, it got really stale before you got to the end, the end boss was pathetic, 3 sets of 3 random ghosts as easy to kill as the common bandit and you were done. And Gadflow was a terrible villain, had no presence whatsoever. Golbez from FF4 had more presence.

 

[hermes]

Because it wasn't that good. It was fine, as far as action RPG goes, but it was no Skyrim (even when it tried)

There are elements that seems picked up from Oblivion (not surprising, since I think some of the designers come from Bethesda), but are poorly implemented. For example:
- Lock picking was a joke... Never spend a single point in the skill, but I was able to lockpick everything in the game. The system was extremely similar to Oblivion/Fallout 3, but the difficulty was way off.
- Sneaking and stealing was not well implemented... Enemies would fall for it, but citizens won't. If you tried to sneak past someone in a city, everyone knew it, even when there was nobody else around.
- You could deplete everything there was to do in one area, and the way they introduced the new content was overwhelming. When you entered a new area, you would get dozens of quests, all at once. After you completed them, there was literally nothing else left to do.
- Combat was pretty good, but the difficulty had weird spikes. I would advance in a quest without even needing to heal, but once I reached a certain area (the last of the Fay maiden), I had to engage enemies one by one or they would crush me.
- Having the camera pan to my character face during conversations, but nothing coming out of her mouth, felt rushed.