Uninstalled it 15 mins later because of the camera. I will not play this game again before the camera is fixed. I want to be able to zoom out and I want to be able to control the camera properly. That just destroyed the game for me in 15 minutes.
You paid $60 for 15 minutes? You should have just played the demo to learn about the camera (which I agree with you by the way, it's why I'm not getting the game).
The price, sadly, is way over the top. It's not about games not being worth 60 dollars or what we pay, 60 euro's, but rather about the fact that this particular game, simply isn't worth that amount of money.
The quests are linear, very generic and hardly contain any form of fantasy. They lack every possible sort of uniqueness.The characters are basic, no special features, no unique animations.There are invisible walls to direct you on a certain path and only that path.
The graphics, are not the same as in the screenshots. They are low quality. Compare them with low quality SWTOR if you will, Medium settings tops. It won't ever get near high settings, they simply do not have the quality textures you'd expect from a rich, living world.
The only thing that really speaks for this game, is the incredibly fluent combat. That's all there is and it's not worth €60 or $60. Everything about the game is at least 6 years old, in terms of technology. Only the combat works properly as you would expect.
How people reckon that this will be the next best thing is beyond me. Had it gone for the indie price of half of what it currently is, it would definitely have been worth it for the fun factor, but this is just insulting.
So what your saying is that IF the game was say 30 bucks, all the above that you deam the game to be would be just fine? Thats all it takes is 30 bucks to change your prespective of how you would view this game? I wonder what else 30 bucks would change your prespective on.
No. See it as a matter of principle. I believe in paying full buck for games that are worth full buck. Granted, you do not always know in advance, so you make mistakes and you live with them. In the case of Amalur there was a demo and it was only half impressive.
The game doesn't buy love from me by reducing its price, I'd love or hate it just the same. I would, however, have bought it on the account of the price/quality equasion being more in line with what I'd expect. See it as a moral code. I simply personally do not condone developers that try to cash hard based on dated technology, dated systems and dated promises. I'd pay for effort and hard work. No doubt they did their best on some aspects of their game, but they purposely made sacrifices to the rest. Whatever the reason, I do not care. The game isn't worth 60 bucks.
The demo is the reason I won't buy the game. Pretty much not any type of RPG I want to play. I like my RPGs more in depth and not so easy to play. There was no challenge in the demo and the combat was more for an action game than a RPG, not tactical enough. The targeting was terrible and shield is pretty much useless with the OP dodge mechanic in the game.
If I wanted to play God of War I would play God of War, this isn't an RPG.
And I can't believe the story was so bad given who wrote it.
Interface isn't PC friendly, defiently a console game.
The stylised graphics and dramatic sfx don't do it for me. Makes me feel like I'm playing Super Mario in 3D, lol.
I prefer the realistic and "boring" gfx styles used in games like Fallout and Skyrim, or Lotro and Fallen Earth, where the game world makes me feel as if it's "real", which is essential for my immersion in the game.
i feel the opposite way depending on the genre.. The only RPG i can stand with realistic graphics is Skyrim (and i love it to death). I tend to feel more immersed in RPGs with colorful graphics since i started playing RPGs on NES, SNES, Gameboy Advance, PS1, etc.. all the way to the newest consoles and of Course the PC...
I prefer realism in some fighting games, all shooting games(including rpg shooters like Mass Effect 'cause they are just shooters for me so yeah), all sport games, and some MMORPG like Age of Conan. I will enjoy everything else with colorful graphics more than realism.
I've only gotten through the demo but the game looks like a lot of fun. Skyrim is an awesome game and it's sort of unfair to compare the two titles, IMO.
Single player RPGs ; Yes difficult to compare, give me a break the two games are very comparible difficult for anything to beat Skyrim at the moment..... But if the demo has anything to do with the live release the game is not as polished graphically it's inferior with respect to detail and the loot and chests seem very linear prescriptive drops where a lot in SK are random.
Something to play but not what I expected ......
________________________________________________________ Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
Why was this even posted on here? It isn't an MMORPG.
And Skyrim isn't that great of a game, unless you like paying $60 for a single player game ... which is a complete rip off. I only paid $45 the day it came out, and I still don't feel that was worth it. It is kind of cool, but overally, pretty boring after a few hours.
Non-multiplayer games simply don't interest me much anymore, and don't have enough dynamic anything to keep it really rolling. I don't think I will buy another single player game above the 30 dollar mark ever again, it simply isn't worth the amount of gameplay you get out of it.
As far as Amular vs. Skyrim. Amular is hundreds of times better just because of the combat. Skyrim and all their stupid games have some of the worst combat I have ever seen. Unresponsive and just bad. The action game play is much more fun for me.
My early impressions: A flawed but solid effort for a first entry of a new IP which makes some sacrafices to focus on a couple strengths. 7/10. A promising start to a new IP, *IF* the developers don't get cocky, take the criticisms, and improve themselves. Also, the Collector's edition is awesome.
(please someone who has actually played both Risen and KoA answer)
I place Risen and Gothic 1 & 2 very high on my personal RPG list and I do not like KoA. The games are not similar. KoA is all about marketing and presentation and lacks the depth of Risen in every possible direction.
Everything in KoA smells of consoles, everything in Risen smells of PC. You can always try the demo to find out.
(please someone who has actually played both Risen and KoA answer)
I place Risen and Gothic 1 & 2 very high on my personal RPG list and I did not like KoA. The games are not similar. KoA is all about marketing and presentation and lacks the depth of Risen in every possible direction.
I feel the same way Thillian. Ok thank you. I will stay away from this game. I need some depth in my RPG's.
I have the same problem with this game that i have with the whole Fable series. The world is just too shiny. Everything has a glow to it, it's just plain annoying. Did they have to make all the flowers shine ? Too much bloom to my taste.
I thought the combat in the game was pretty good, I liked the art style and voice acting...but one huge negative.
I don't like Fable-style designed worlds. At least in the demo, everything was so linear...quests...the world layout...everything. It didn't feel like an open world RPG, but more of a linear rpg. Which I guess is fine for those who like that...but there was mostly linear paths and a few open areas in the game. That pretty much made me decide the game wasn't for me. I think if I went in expecting it to be like Witcher or Fable...I would have enjoyed it more. But I went in expecting it to be an open world RPG and was disappointed.
The combat is the worst part about this game I think, if you like feeling like your playing street fighter II constantly hitting the enemy higher and higher in to the air thats cool I guess, but I think thats crap. The combat lacks much in the area of tactics as well, you can pretty much just button mash your way through all the enemies, Skyrims combat is far superior in my opinion. The world is not open in this game either, meaning you can not stray from the path which is funny considering they call it open world. I liked the Fables, Risen, the Gothics, Two Worlds 2 games you would think to be similar to KoA but this one does not compare to any of those, well, it has a better map system than Fable but thats about it. The world is not interactive at all aside from the oddly placed planks you can jump off of in certain areas. You can jump off the plank but not the cliff that the plank is on, you can jump in some pools of water if theres a slope to walk out. No jumping, you cant even walk over a rock raised 2 inches off the ground, any 3D object you see you ingame is most likely an impassable object even bushes. So if you like exploration, youre SoL. As of now, im only level 5 but I was more impressed at level 1 with Fable, Risen, Gothic and Skyrim. If they wanted a fun fast paced combat system for this title they should have taken a look at Assassins Creed and BatMan in my opinion because the one is place leaves a lot to be desired as well as a sour taste in your mouth, like old milk which I took a sip of a little while ago by mistake. Let this game be a lesson to you, always smell the milk before you drink it.
Charging console game prices for a PC game, very greedy.
It's the exact same game regardless of platform, there is nothing greedy about them charging the same price.
You people expect everything for free these days, it's sickening.
No shit? That is what I'm saying. PC games should not be as high as console games. Console games are/were higher for a reason. Plus again this is not anywhere near worth the same amount of money as say Skyrim is. Now THAT was worth $60, but barely. I hate the fact that $60 seems to be the new price point for AAA PC games coming out. You should hate it too.
Free, no. A price worth the product, fucking A right I do!
Is no longer the case.
The reason why Console games used to be more expensive, is because at that time they games were sold on cartridges, which were a lot more expensive in production, than a CD/DVD format used with PC versions.
Now all consoles have shifted to the standard DVD/Bluray disc format and there is no longer a reason for the price difference.
No, it was because console manufacturers charged publishers an extra fee per game sold for the privilege of selling games for their console. As far as I know they still do. This was the main reason for the $10 price difference between console and PC releases of the same game. Development for PC doesn't have these extra fees. The person you quoted is correct. Charging the same for a PC game as it's console counterpart is just plain greedy.
I cant speak for him. But from what I can tell ( and agree with ) is at $30 it would be worth it for the outdated graphics, generic story, ect. At $60 its not worth it .
And what does it matter what his perspective is on anything else? you act like he insulted you personally with his opinion. For him ( and others ) the game is not worth the money they are asking. If it is worth it to you then go buy it and play.
Your right. people are alowd the have there opinions and my opinion is that his opinion is wrong. And so is your opinion of my post refering to his post about the game costing to much money. Like someone hinted at in a previous post. If MW3 is worth 60 bucks then this action RPG with 200+ hours of gameplay sure the hell is worth it.
But THAT is just MY opinion....
Thats cool
My opinion is MW3 is not worth $60 and neither is KOA. Have not shucked out the cash for any MW game ever and dont plan on it. If you find the game enjoyable and worth the money then its a good buy for you.
And opinions can not be "right" or "wrong", hence the opinion part. If its not worth the money to him how can that be "wrong"? because MW3 charged $60?
Anyways have fun with KOA, as long as you are then what does it matter if I dont?
Combat looks like trash. give me something real like Skyrim.
Wut?! You mean you don't like big boobs, high heels and ridiculously oversized weapons?
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
Comments
the camera angles are MY biggest gripe.
LOL I only paid $40 D2D, now gamefly had a 30% off deal.
Well other than giving us trhe purple weapons so early in the game that every fight is cake, I am really enjoying it.
No. See it as a matter of principle. I believe in paying full buck for games that are worth full buck. Granted, you do not always know in advance, so you make mistakes and you live with them. In the case of Amalur there was a demo and it was only half impressive.
The game doesn't buy love from me by reducing its price, I'd love or hate it just the same. I would, however, have bought it on the account of the price/quality equasion being more in line with what I'd expect. See it as a moral code. I simply personally do not condone developers that try to cash hard based on dated technology, dated systems and dated promises. I'd pay for effort and hard work. No doubt they did their best on some aspects of their game, but they purposely made sacrifices to the rest. Whatever the reason, I do not care. The game isn't worth 60 bucks.
The demo is the reason I won't buy the game. Pretty much not any type of RPG I want to play. I like my RPGs more in depth and not so easy to play. There was no challenge in the demo and the combat was more for an action game than a RPG, not tactical enough. The targeting was terrible and shield is pretty much useless with the OP dodge mechanic in the game.
If I wanted to play God of War I would play God of War, this isn't an RPG.
And I can't believe the story was so bad given who wrote it.
Interface isn't PC friendly, defiently a console game.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
i feel the opposite way depending on the genre.. The only RPG i can stand with realistic graphics is Skyrim (and i love it to death). I tend to feel more immersed in RPGs with colorful graphics since i started playing RPGs on NES, SNES, Gameboy Advance, PS1, etc.. all the way to the newest consoles and of Course the PC...
I prefer realism in some fighting games, all shooting games(including rpg shooters like Mass Effect 'cause they are just shooters for me so yeah), all sport games, and some MMORPG like Age of Conan. I will enjoy everything else with colorful graphics more than realism.
Single player RPGs ; Yes difficult to compare, give me a break the two games are very comparible difficult for anything to beat Skyrim at the moment..... But if the demo has anything to do with the live release the game is not as polished graphically it's inferior with respect to detail and the loot and chests seem very linear prescriptive drops where a lot in SK are random.
Something to play but not what I expected ......
________________________________________________________
Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
Why was this even posted on here? It isn't an MMORPG.
And Skyrim isn't that great of a game, unless you like paying $60 for a single player game ... which is a complete rip off. I only paid $45 the day it came out, and I still don't feel that was worth it. It is kind of cool, but overally, pretty boring after a few hours.
Non-multiplayer games simply don't interest me much anymore, and don't have enough dynamic anything to keep it really rolling. I don't think I will buy another single player game above the 30 dollar mark ever again, it simply isn't worth the amount of gameplay you get out of it.
As far as Amular vs. Skyrim. Amular is hundreds of times better just because of the combat. Skyrim and all their stupid games have some of the worst combat I have ever seen. Unresponsive and just bad. The action game play is much more fun for me.
My early impressions: A flawed but solid effort for a first entry of a new IP which makes some sacrafices to focus on a couple strengths. 7/10. A promising start to a new IP, *IF* the developers don't get cocky, take the criticisms, and improve themselves. Also, the Collector's edition is awesome.
It was at one stage in it's development and the MMORPG of it is still on it's way under the name Copernicus... http://38studios.com/products/copernicus
How does this game compare to "Risen"?
(please someone who has actually played both Risen and KoA answer)
Combat looks like trash. give me something real like Skyrim.
I place Risen and Gothic 1 & 2 very high on my personal RPG list and I do not like KoA. The games are not similar. KoA is all about marketing and presentation and lacks the depth of Risen in every possible direction.
Everything in KoA smells of consoles, everything in Risen smells of PC. You can always try the demo to find out.
REALITY CHECK
Haven't played KoA long enough yet to give a fair and honest comparison.
Ill try and remember to get back to you on this one.
I feel the same way Thillian. Ok thank you. I will stay away from this game. I need some depth in my RPG's.
I have the same problem with this game that i have with the whole Fable series. The world is just too shiny. Everything has a glow to it, it's just plain annoying. Did they have to make all the flowers shine ? Too much bloom to my taste.
I thought the combat in the game was pretty good, I liked the art style and voice acting...but one huge negative.
I don't like Fable-style designed worlds. At least in the demo, everything was so linear...quests...the world layout...everything. It didn't feel like an open world RPG, but more of a linear rpg. Which I guess is fine for those who like that...but there was mostly linear paths and a few open areas in the game. That pretty much made me decide the game wasn't for me. I think if I went in expecting it to be like Witcher or Fable...I would have enjoyed it more. But I went in expecting it to be an open world RPG and was disappointed.
The combat is the worst part about this game I think, if you like feeling like your playing street fighter II constantly hitting the enemy higher and higher in to the air thats cool I guess, but I think thats crap. The combat lacks much in the area of tactics as well, you can pretty much just button mash your way through all the enemies, Skyrims combat is far superior in my opinion. The world is not open in this game either, meaning you can not stray from the path which is funny considering they call it open world. I liked the Fables, Risen, the Gothics, Two Worlds 2 games you would think to be similar to KoA but this one does not compare to any of those, well, it has a better map system than Fable but thats about it. The world is not interactive at all aside from the oddly placed planks you can jump off of in certain areas. You can jump off the plank but not the cliff that the plank is on, you can jump in some pools of water if theres a slope to walk out. No jumping, you cant even walk over a rock raised 2 inches off the ground, any 3D object you see you ingame is most likely an impassable object even bushes. So if you like exploration, youre SoL. As of now, im only level 5 but I was more impressed at level 1 with Fable, Risen, Gothic and Skyrim. If they wanted a fun fast paced combat system for this title they should have taken a look at Assassins Creed and BatMan in my opinion because the one is place leaves a lot to be desired as well as a sour taste in your mouth, like old milk which I took a sip of a little while ago by mistake. Let this game be a lesson to you, always smell the milk before you drink it.
Xplay review is up, it got 2.5 out of 5....
http://www.g4tv.com/games/xbox-360/64296/kingdoms-of-amalur-reckoning/review/
No, it was because console manufacturers charged publishers an extra fee per game sold for the privilege of selling games for their console. As far as I know they still do. This was the main reason for the $10 price difference between console and PC releases of the same game. Development for PC doesn't have these extra fees. The person you quoted is correct. Charging the same for a PC game as it's console counterpart is just plain greedy.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
Thats cool
My opinion is MW3 is not worth $60 and neither is KOA. Have not shucked out the cash for any MW game ever and dont plan on it. If you find the game enjoyable and worth the money then its a good buy for you.
And opinions can not be "right" or "wrong", hence the opinion part. If its not worth the money to him how can that be "wrong"? because MW3 charged $60?
Anyways have fun with KOA, as long as you are then what does it matter if I dont?
So it went up $10 in 8 yrs? Things don't stay the same price forever. If it is too expensive for you, don't buy it. Vote with your wallet.
Wut?! You mean you don't like big boobs, high heels and ridiculously oversized weapons?
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
Great game so far. Love the combat and animations!
Grim Dawn, the next great action rpg!
http://www.grimdawn.com/