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

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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.

- Sorry, I thought I saw a video in the past of Mount and Blade and it was in 1st-person or maybe you can toggle views. I don't know.

- I haven't played many fantasy RPGs because I don't like the art style. Why would I need to play it to like or dislike the art style? I haven't played Dragon's Crown and I know I don't like the character designs. I never said KoA is new or fresh, it's as generic as every other fantasy WRPG. I'm sick of Tolkien fantasy in general (only LotR and DnD have passes to use it in my book); I want new worlds, races, classes, etc. My point, which I have to keep saying, is that why is KoA labeled "generic" (which it is) and the other fantasy WRPGs aren't generic (which they are). I'm playing KoA (and not playing say Skyrim or Dragon's Age) because I actually like the art style and the combat. I would like to try The Witcher 2 but it's not on PS3 and I hear the combat is fun. Combat is important to me in an RPG because you spend so much time fighting enemies. Why should I spend so much time not having fun with a boring combat system? I'm not a gamer that will trudge through a bunch of bad to get to the good stuff.

- Again, I just played Nier, its combat never surpassed adequate. KoA isn't awesome or anything, but it's far better than Nier.

- I'm not saying RPGs don't have good sidequests, I'm saying every RPG does indeed have bad sidequests, along with good sidequests. KoA is no different, there's good sidequests and bad sidequests. You are very much exaggerating with KoA's sidequests because I haven't seen one that is kill or collect 20 of anything. I think kill or collect 10 is the highest I've seen (and that one isn't even a quest, it's literally called a "task"), and the one with collect 10 books is something you do over the course of the game as you access new areas and towns. I'm maybe halfway through so it could get worse but I haven't seen it yet, it's usually something like kill 5 trolls (actual quest).

- I'd play more WRPGs if they stopped using Tolkien fantasy and the combat was better (I'm interested in The Witcher 2 because of that, it's not on a platform I own so...). I'm very interested in their Cyberpunk RPG. I loved Mass Effect because it's actually a pretty good TPS (better than many pure TPSs) so combat was fun, it was a new world (new races, classes, etc. even though many followed sci-fi tropes), and the game focused on actual role-playing, which many RPGs (J or W) don't focus on.

 

[siveon]

I'm bored, it's a Friday afternoon, and I'm willing to partake in this hilarious thread.

Not gonna bother to argue over your other points except for this one:

I'm not understanding the flaws of KoA, I'm saying every other RPG has the same flaws.

Bull. Crap. You have just stated that every RPG in the world has the exact same flaws as Kingdoms of Amalur. Okay, so apparently Planescape Torment had no likable characters. Fallout had a locked in player system? Ultima Underworld had boring level design? Ugh. Just hits a note, y'know? Before you generalize, actually be familiar with the genre at hand. You'll sound like a troll if you keep doing that. Though I wouldn't be surprised if you were.

Look, other people thought this game was okay. Just that- okay. A vast and varied amount had their own qualms, complaints and otherwise annoyances with this game. So regardless of your personal standing and your inability to comprehend the complaints, a lot of people thought this game was meh. That's why it wasn't as praised. If you found it to be "amazing", good on you. Other people haven't and you don't understand why, oh well. Try harder next time.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I'm not understanding the flaws of KoA, I'm saying every other RPG has the same flaws.

Bull. Crap. You have just stated that every RPG in the world has the exact same flaws as Kingdoms of Amalur. Okay, so apparently Planescape Torment had no likable characters. Fallout had a locked in player system? Ultima Underworld had boring level design? Ugh. Just hits a note, y'know? Before you generalize, actually be familiar with the genre at hand. You'll sound like a troll if you keep doing that. Though I wouldn't be surprised if you were.

Look, other people thought this game was okay. Just that- okay. A vast and varied amount had their own qualms, complaints and otherwise annoyances with this game. So regardless of your personal standing and your inability to comprehend the complaints, a lot of people thought this game was meh. That's why it wasn't as praised. If you found it to be "amazing", good on you. Other people haven't and you don't understand why, oh well. Try harder next time.

I was mainly aiming that statement at games like Skyrim (as seen in the thread title). Bethesda games just don't have good characters for example (Bethesda are just horrible writers in my opinion; Bioware and Obsidian are much much better), neither does KoA but Skyrim is GOTY material and KoA isn't. KoA is considered generic fantasy when many other games use Tolkien fantasy and they get a pass whereas KoA doesn't. Those are the kind of things I'm talking about. I never tried to imply literally every RPG ever made has poor characters. If you are going to knock KoA for poor characters, knock Skyrim for it as well instead of giving it a 10/10.

 

[irok]

I think at this point , we've answered exactly why it isn't as praised as skyrim or dragon age, if everyone here but yourself and a few others is telling you its bad, if we take that as a statistical average, most people think its bad and even if you can overlook its flaws most people cant, after reading this like 3 days ago I reinstalled KOA to give it another go and after about an hour it was uninstalled again and I started playing skyrim for the first time since that came out , cause I was like, man I could go for a good arpg right now, so I'ma go play a good one.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

Simple.

It is incredibly boring, The combat is pathetically easy even on hard mode, the world is far too big for its own good, the world is mostly empty and feels lifeless, the main villain is pathetic, there are too many samey side-quests that aren't even worth the time to complete, the loot system sucks and it all just feels painfully generic in every conceivable way.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I think at this point , we've answered exactly why it isn't as praised as skyrim or dragon age, if everyone here but yourself and a few others is telling you its bad, if we take that as a statistical average, most people think its bad and even if you can overlook its flaws most people cant, after reading this like 3 days ago I reinstalled KOA to give it another go and after about an hour it was uninstalled again and I started playing skyrim for the first time since that came out , cause I was like, man I could go for a good arpg right now, so I'ma go play a good one.

I get why several people like Skyrim or Dragon Age more, Battenberg posted why he liked Skyrim better. Even then, Battenberg posted flaws of KoA that just don't exist like there's no skill to bring down merchant prices; yes there is, it's called merchantile. But a lot of reasons why people (in this thread and elsewhere) didn't like KoA is because it's generic (so is Skyrim/DA), the characters suck (same with Skyrim), the sidequests aren't great (same with Skyrim), etc. KoA has better combat and far far less glitches.

 

[The_Lost_King]

Because it is not nearly as good as Skyrim or Dragon Age.

I will give you the fact that the gameplay is fun. However, that is really all KOA has going for it. It's world was abviously designed with as an mmo. If you want an example look at skyrim's map, then look at KOA's map, then look at WoW's map. hmm, KOA looks like a very linear WoW map, with quest zones, then you progress the story and move to the next zone. That sounds very mmo-like to me.

Also it isn't as engaging as Skyrim or Dragon Age. I have 508 hours on Skyrim, I played DA:O for months to beat it once and then kept playing, while with Amalur I haven't gotten out of the first zone yet.

That is why it is not as popular as those, all of them had areas that they excelled at and were better thn a lot of other games, while Amalur's combat is not all that standout. Dragon's Dogma's combat is better than amalur's if you want an example of a rpg with better combat.

But a lot of reasons why people (in this thread and elsewhere) didn't like KoA is because it's generic (so is Skyrim/DA), the characters suck (same with Skyrim), the sidequests aren't great (same with Skyrim), etc. KoA has better combat and far far less glitches.

Those flaws that the other games have can be overlooked because other parts of the game outshine them. KOA has nothing to outshine its flaws. Also, I liked Skyrim's sidequests.

I'm not understanding the flaws of KoA, I'm saying every other RPG has the same flaws.

Bull. Crap. You have just stated that every RPG in the world has the exact same flaws as Kingdoms of Amalur. Okay, so apparently Planescape Torment had no likable characters. Fallout had a locked in player system? Ultima Underworld had boring level design? Ugh. Just hits a note, y'know? Before you generalize, actually be familiar with the genre at hand. You'll sound like a troll if you keep doing that. Though I wouldn't be surprised if you were.

Look, other people thought this game was okay. Just that- okay. A vast and varied amount had their own qualms, complaints and otherwise annoyances with this game. So regardless of your personal standing and your inability to comprehend the complaints, a lot of people thought this game was meh. That's why it wasn't as praised. If you found it to be "amazing", good on you. Other people haven't and you don't understand why, oh well. Try harder next time.

I was mainly aiming that statement at games like Skyrim (as seen in the thread title). Bethesda games just don't have good characters for example (Bethesda are just horrible writers in my opinion; Bioware and Obsidian are much much better), neither does KoA but Skyrim is GOTY material and KoA isn't. KoA is considered generic fantasy when many other games use Tolkien fantasy and they get a pass whereas KoA doesn't. Those are the kind of things I'm talking about. I never tried to imply literally every RPG ever made has poor characters. If you are going to knock KoA for poor characters, knock Skyrim for it as well instead of giving it a 10/10.

We do knock Syrim for having bad characters. It is one of my complaints against it, along with having bland main stories. However Skyrim's World is amazing, dungeons are fun, the quests are great and all those great things just outshine the bads, like bland characters and main quest(and some sidequests, I miss awesome sidequests like in Oblivion). Also I would just keep repeating the rest of my post if I went on so just read what I put above.

 

[Elfgore]

The game had fun combat and a good amount of territory to explore.

The game falls apart in story and characters. The story is about as Tolkien as you can get without being Tolkien. Elves are the nicest beings on the planet, dwarves are rough n' tough miners, and gmomes are smart weaklings. The story is boring and uninteresting. The only good thing they add is the concept of faith which was done well.

The DLCs make a comeback though as both were unique and very fun to play.

 

[LetalisK]

We do knock Syrim for having bad characters. It is one of my complaints against it, along with having bland main stories. However Skyrim's World is amazing, dungeons are fun, the quests are great and all those great things just outshine the bads, like bland characters and main quest(and some sidequests, I miss awesome sidequests like in Oblivion). Also I would just keep repeating the rest of my post if I went on so just read what I put above.

I think it's also important to note that I don't think Skyrim was trying to be character driven, so it's neither as shocking nor damaging when characters turn up to be lackluster. KoA, on the other hand, I think was trying to do too much, including trying to focus on memorable characters, and it just buckled under its own weight.

Interestingly enough, when Skyrim did try to make interesting characters via their Dawnguard DLC, I thought they actually did a good job of it...but dropped the ball on some of the things it's more traditionally adept at.

 

[The_Lost_King]

We do knock Syrim for having bad characters. It is one of my complaints against it, along with having bland main stories. However Skyrim's World is amazing, dungeons are fun, the quests are great and all those great things just outshine the bads, like bland characters and main quest(and some sidequests, I miss awesome sidequests like in Oblivion). Also I would just keep repeating the rest of my post if I went on so just read what I put above.

I think it's also important to note that I don't think Skyrim was trying to be character driven, so it's neither as shocking nor damaging when characters turn up to be lackluster. KoA, on the other hand, I think was trying to do too much, including trying to focus on memorable characters, and it just buckled under its own weight.

Interestingly enough, when Skyrim did try to make interesting characters via their Dawnguard DLC, I thought they actually did a good job of it...but dropped the ball on some of the things it's more traditionally adept at.

Yeah that to. I haven't actually player dawnguard, I have it, but I haven't got around to playing it. Haven't gotten around to playing Dragonborn either. I need to do those.

 

[Master_Fubar23]

Actually, it does make perfect sense because their are people who are toxic and either complain about a game they never played or hop on the hate train to be with the "cool" crowd. But my comment is referring to those types of people. Especially when the first comment is bring up Fable to condemn the game like so many others did when the game was first released. If you didn't like the game, then so be it but that doesn't make my comment wrong.

I'm going to call bull on that, as you never gave any indication that you were only referring to people like that. Your post was indicating people. You seemed to be implying that everyone who dares disagree and say that the game is bad is simply following the crowd. Which is also bullshit, as this "crowd" people seem to imagine as some sort of villainous hive mind have mostly forgotten about this game. This game doesn't get enough hate for there to even be a hate bandwagon. Hell, most people that have even heard of it have only done so because of the coverage of the series of disasters that was 38 Studios.

So going on what your comment says rather than the subtext you claim to have implied without any indication in the post, yes, it is wrong.

Please, go back to school and take an English class. I didn't say I implied or indicated anything in my first post. I did however specify what group of people I was referring to in my original statement in my second post. Although, I did not need to specify what group of people I was talking about specifically since they are people nonetheless, if you were insulted by it then it says more about your character and the reasons why you dislike the game more than anything else.

 

[Laser Priest]

Please, go back to school and take an English class. I didn't say I implied or indicated anything in my first post. I did however specify what group of people I was referring to in my original statement in my second post. Although, I did not need to specify what group of people I was talking about specifically since they are people nonetheless, if you were insulted by it then it says more about your character and the reasons why you dislike the game more than anything else.

Ah, of course. Forgive me. Obviously, the term "People" only represents a small section of the group it represents (I.E. Literally goddamn everyone).

And of course, me arguing that perhaps I'm not a mindless drone who hates on something 99% of everyone couldn't give two fucks to rub together about proves that I am - in fact - a mindless drone. Logic absolutely without flaw there. Master Debater. 10/10, would get royally served by again.

Also, a lesson from those English classes I oh-so-dearly need: Implications are what's not explicitly stated. If you had bloody said it, it wouldn't be an implication.

 

[LetalisK]

We do knock Syrim for having bad characters. It is one of my complaints against it, along with having bland main stories. However Skyrim's World is amazing, dungeons are fun, the quests are great and all those great things just outshine the bads, like bland characters and main quest(and some sidequests, I miss awesome sidequests like in Oblivion). Also I would just keep repeating the rest of my post if I went on so just read what I put above.

I think it's also important to note that I don't think Skyrim was trying to be character driven, so it's neither as shocking nor damaging when characters turn up to be lackluster. KoA, on the other hand, I think was trying to do too much, including trying to focus on memorable characters, and it just buckled under its own weight.

Interestingly enough, when Skyrim did try to make interesting characters via their Dawnguard DLC, I thought they actually did a good job of it...but dropped the ball on some of the things it's more traditionally adept at.

Yeah that to. I haven't actually player dawnguard, I have it, but I haven't got around to playing it. Haven't gotten around to playing Dragonborn either. I need to do those.

Next time you make another character in Skyrim, I'd recommend doing Dawnguard as soon as possible for no other reason than having a companion that actually has personality. Or download the Vilja mod and get a more personable companion than all of Skyrim combined. XD

 

[Phantom Kat]

The lore and the story were uninteresting.

The combat was clunky and boring, even skyrim had more enjoyable combat but that was probably due to its simplicity.

The environments were boring and an eyesore, the characters were grotesque and there was a distinct lack of character customisation and the armour sets all looked lame.

There was next to no good exploration.

So of all the reasons why I play RPGs, KOA failed to do well in any of them.

 

[scw55]

My problem is that the lore is too heavy handed. You speak to NPCs about the world and they vomit at you various terms that only exist in Amular. With Skyrim and Dragon Age, the terms unique to those worlds were less.

Another problem is respawning enemies. I've just murdered a clearing of fairy beasts. How did they return so quickly? They shouldn't have let enemies respawn. It would have felt like you had a lasting impact on the world.

The zone progression is very linear, and too much. There is too much content, and it's presented in a more linear fashion. Skyrim's content is broad, but it doesn't channel you through it. You don't lose sleep about ignoring some quests. In Amular you feel the need to do every quest. Which results in every quest going grey, and hitting the level cap before you're even half-way in the game. Afterwards the only incentive to keep playing is the narrative, which isn't exciting.
The idea of fate is interesting, but that's all it is. It's an idea you can think about, but isn't actually meaningfully talked about in the story. It might feature beyond a strange game-play mechanic later on, but I quit playing after I reached the capital city.

The DLC is much better than the main game. Because the game feels more focused. The experience feels more complete. The Pirates was interesting, and the secret flying city was absorbing. Shame the main story fell flat.
It's a fun game for the first half. But then it runs out of steam. I blame its length.
I rarely ever complain that a game is too long, but Kingdom of Amular is too long. It's unable to keep my interest for that long (and that's coming from someone who completed Dragon Age Origins 3 times and has 400 hours in Skyrim), and over 1000 hours in Pokemon games.

Combat is fun. But it stops being fun when progression stops (level cap/gear upgrades dry up).

 

[Something Amyss]

What did you not understand?

The part that's not true?

It's more than that.

Except a huuuuuge chunk of the fans will disagree with you there. I've seen tons of people who will admit the game's plot/lore/whatever are ass, but love the game because it is hard and unforgiving. I'd even go so far as to guess they are the majority. Even if not, that is significant enough to make the comment valid.

On the other hand, I rarely hear about this "Dark Mystery" when people talk about the game.

I mean, you're free to disagree on a personal level, but the difficulty is a HUGE selling point on a larger level and it's outright insane to pretend otherwise.

 

[Something Amyss]

Another problem is respawning enemies. I've just murdered a clearing of fairy beasts. How did they return so quickly? They shouldn't have let enemies respawn. It would have felt like you had a lasting impact on the world.

You lock the poor bastards to your initial level. Haven't you had enough impact on the ecosystem?

 

[scw55]

Another problem is respawning enemies. I've just murdered a clearing of fairy beasts. How did they return so quickly? They shouldn't have let enemies respawn. It would have felt like you had a lasting impact on the world.

You lock the poor bastards to your initial level. Haven't you had enough impact on the ecosystem?

It makes the enemies feel like a blank obstacle.
You gain nothing from defeating them. They exist to simply waste your time.

Why this isn't as much as a problem in other games is that they either don't respawn/give interesting loot/give reasonable exp.

Since exp and loot stop being an incentive if you try to do every quest and horrendously out level the game, they're just a waste of time. Even an interesting combat system get boring when you're doing work.

 

[Quarik]

Ok, all of the Dark Souls arguments are terrible. Not just by OP, but by a lot of the responses. Seath is very easily exploitable by standing tight to his stomach, and many of the enemies are exploitable with arrows/kiting/ledges, that's just a fact. However, saying that with an underleveled thief character you can block and win against most enemies is strictly bullshit, especially when it comes to Sif. Unless you have a shield very highly upgraded, you'll run out of stamina very quickly fighting the canine blender if you block every hit, and then he'll gib you. The AI could be a lot better, there are plenty of points where it is exploitable, but you don't have to take those options. You're free to play the game that way if you want, but it's unfair to assume that you're supposed to play that way. You shouldn't be able to, and it's a design fault certainly, but that's not a fault with the combat system itself. The camera functionality isn't nearly as bad as you make it seem, and while lock-on is handy and almost never bugs, playing with camera unlocked is easy, and is actually a key strategy in PvP. Also, the progression on melee characters argument is ridiculous. The progression in that game isn't based on active skills for fighters/assassins, it's based on weapons that have completely different kits and learning new strategies.

I have never played KoA, I have no problem with it. It looks like a fun ARPG, but your arguments about Dark Souls are viewing the game in the worst possible light and some are straight up hocus.