It's a hard habit to break and I see myself falling into the trap sometimes too but we really need to stop caring about Metacritic. In a world where ME2 is 96 and Fallout 3 is 9 points higher than New Vegas, we really have to start questioning the validity of most reviewers.
Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning - Review Thread
- Thread starter eshwaaz
- Start date
It's a hard habit to break and I see myself falling into the trap sometimes too but we really need to stop caring about Metacritic. In a world where ME2 is 96 and Fallout 3 is 9 points higher than New Vegas, we really have to start questioning the validity of most reviewers.
CrankyKong
Member
Dragon Age 2 averaging 8.2 on metacritic killed it for me.
Sounds like every single Bioware game.
British Monsoon
Member
Same here - I don't see the way Borderlands or Amalur does things as inferior to the big, open sandbox style of Skyrim...just as a different way of doing things. When did it suddenly become unacceptable for an RPG to not have a huge, open Skyrim-like sandbox?
Kem0sabe said:
The impression I've got from previews and the demo suggest that while it uses a 'closed route' method like Fable, it's open enough to allow you to explore out into the wider world in a non-linear fashion.
Mine is Nier and i think it ended up around 68%
It's definitely inferior, but does allow solving some of the issues stemming from having your game too open. The review does not suggest it's unacceptable, just that it would better if it was more open and thus the world would appear more real and immersive.
The_Darkest_Red
Member
I don't see how this game is going to average more than 85% on Metacritic once the reviews start hitting. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of reviewers salivated over every square inch of Skyrim, so every component of a fantasy WRPG coming out only a few months later is absolutely going to be compared (unfairly) to that game. Personally I think it's ridiculous to basically expect the game to be something it is consciously not trying to be but unfortunately I don't think most reviewers will share that sentiment.
As others have mentioned this particular world is being modeled in a fashion more similar to games like Fable and Mass Effect, but I am expecting to see quite a few "cons" centered around the world's lack of complete openness; regardless of that never being an issue for the previously mentioned games.
I could be wrong of course, but it just seems inevitable to me given Skyrim's critical success.
As others have mentioned this particular world is being modeled in a fashion more similar to games like Fable and Mass Effect, but I am expecting to see quite a few "cons" centered around the world's lack of complete openness; regardless of that never being an issue for the previously mentioned games.
I could be wrong of course, but it just seems inevitable to me given Skyrim's critical success.
There is nothing definite about it. Whether or not it's inferior is purely subjective. I'll take the more restrictive "open-world" of Dark Souls over any completely open world game any day.
I wonder how they will translate this world into an mmo. Unless it suffers from some kind of cataclysm type event like the Guild Wars 2 story that allows for the redefining of existing geography.
I would love an action mmo with KoA´s combat, but the way this world was imagined doesnt lend itself to the typical ideal of a western mmo.
I would love an action mmo with KoA´s combat, but the way this world was imagined doesnt lend itself to the typical ideal of a western mmo.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
I don't see why the reviewers are comparing it to Skyrim when it is clearly trying to be a different type of game. If anything, they should be comparing it to Fable.
British Monsoon
Member
I totally disagree. It's not inferior, at all. If I can still explore the world in the way I choose, then it's an open world RPG and the fact that it doesn't allow me to cover every square inch of the map is only detrimental if there isn't enough to hold my attention within the confines of the closed routes. On the flip side, a game like Oblivion, with it's sparsely populated, dull and repetitive environments, could have benefited from not being quite as open. Just because Skyrim got it right shouldn't mean that every other RPG has to accede to it's method of doing things.
chifanpoe said:
I think the telling thing with a lot of these critically underrated games on metacritic is the user score - one of my favourite games this generation is the charming action adventure 'Mini Ninjas', it received only 73% on metacritic, but the user score, from people who actually paid for and got their money's worth from the game, sits at 90%.
Wind's Howling
Member
Average review scores lost it credibility for me once games like Modern Warfare 3 got a score of 88%, when Singularity got a 76%, when Vanquish got a 84%... yeah.. you catch my drift.
Unity2012
Member
I am still hyped regardless of what reviews say at this point.
I've had so much fun playing the demo--multiple times and yet, every time I turn on my 360 I want to play it again.
I like the Art style, the camera could be better but is by no means a game-breaker; plus
I have the feeling that 38 and BHG will support this baby for a while. This is a committed group of artists and extraordinary creative people with a clear goal in mind.
I've had so much fun playing the demo--multiple times and yet, every time I turn on my 360 I want to play it again.
I like the Art style, the camera could be better but is by no means a game-breaker; plus
I have the feeling that 38 and BHG will support this baby for a while. This is a committed group of artists and extraordinary creative people with a clear goal in mind.
MushroomSamba
Member
Well, to be fair, it was 38 Studios who made a concerted effort to market those connections in the first place ("Skyrim meet God of War"). Understandably, they're probably trying to garner attention from those crowds, given it's a new IP and all, but the result is that it does generate certain expectations, some of which that may not be appropriate for their product.
The_Darkest_Red
Member
It seems that any game released within a 5 month window before or after Skyrim's release will be compared to it by reviewers as long as it has 1) swords* and 2) quests*. See Dark Souls or Skyward Sword.
*comparison may still take place in the absence of these similarities
Sure, but just because there are certain similarities between games doesn't mean we should expect every aspect to be handled in an identical fashion. KoA isn't as linear as God of War, should we knock it for this?
That's a completely different kind of game and as such irrelevant. If you can explain to me why the apparent design of the Amalur's world is in any way superior to a completely open world, you may have a point.
You have not stated a single reason as to why the design is better, other than the fact it takes more resources, time and effort to build a completely open world with interesting environments. Unless you are saying you like having more invisible borders and smaller areas, it is inherently inferior. Yes, that completely open world may have issues of its own, but open world is inherently better for this kind of game than Amalur's approach. That is not to say you necessarily will enjoy the game less as the other aspects can more than make up for this specific design choice.
Maybe they are trying to be nice by not comparing it to shitty games?
Baconsammy
Banned
I can't wait to see how reviewers think SSX compares to Skyrim. They both have mountains.
Seraphinianus
Banned
Not everyone reads neogaf 24/7 or cares enough to open every thread, so why don't you chill the fuck out and not be a douche
Curt Schilling the baseball player?
The_Darkest_Red
Member
There are plenty of advantages and disadvantages to each approach, in my opinion. In a game like Skyrim the advantages would be the inherent sense of connection in the world, the gratification that comes with the ability to truly explore everything, and the "immersion" (if you value such a thing as highly as most reviewers seem to). The advantages of a tighter, more zone based open-world design such as the one seen in KoA include things like the ability to create more controlled and directed gameplay scenarios, the ability to emphasis purposeful level design more effectively, and the ability to make the game feel more "full" and tight with less chance of random events breaking the "immersion."
To me, either choice is a valid one because they are both unique and interesting in their own way. Either method can be used to create a wonderful world just as they can both be used to create a terrible one.
Dark Souls is definitely a very different type of RPG than both of these games but I think the point is still relevant. Dark Souls features a world that is very focused and linear in many respects, but it is still a world that is completely connected and open (in the sense that you aren't restricted from re-visiting areas and you can fast travel). I think this conscious design decision benefited the game tremendously in the ways that I've already mentioned.
Empty Space
Member
Yes that one hes way into video games.
Not surprised so far. I am expecting it to be around 85% on average, with a few reviews around 9.0 or so here and there. Which is by all means within the realm of being a great game. What is funny, and as others have mentioned, is that some of the games that I usually end up loving most are ones that score in the 7.5-8.5 range. It is like that is a sweet spot or something.
As far as reviews go, I enjoy reading them and always root for the games I love, but at the end of the day, the only impressions and reviews that hold any real weight are my own. As long as it is something that I enjoy, then it makes no difference if Joe Blow reviewer gives it a 3.0 or a 10. Does not take away or add to my enjoyment thereof either way. But again, it is always nice to see the games I love do well and that is the only reason I care about reviews at all. They sure as hell don't sway me from playing games that I know I want to play.
As far as reviews go, I enjoy reading them and always root for the games I love, but at the end of the day, the only impressions and reviews that hold any real weight are my own. As long as it is something that I enjoy, then it makes no difference if Joe Blow reviewer gives it a 3.0 or a 10. Does not take away or add to my enjoyment thereof either way. But again, it is always nice to see the games I love do well and that is the only reason I care about reviews at all. They sure as hell don't sway me from playing games that I know I want to play.
While I agree that it's much more harder to design an open world that doesn't suffer from the same issues Bethesda games do, for instance Gothic/Risen manage to it much better. As it's merely more difficult rather than impossible, for an open RPG it's definitely better to keep the world as open as possible as long as other aspects of your game do not suffer. Moreover, we do not know if Amalur actually benefits from the design choice or if it was done purely out of budget and time constraints. Also, it seems to me some of the things you said don't particularly make sense, in particular the part about the game feeling more "full" and random events breaking the immersion.
Amalur is an open world RPG that apparently is "a network of tiny conjoined zones", and based on the demo I've not seen how it has benefited from this design at all besides the obvious ability to allocate resources elsewhere. It certainly isn't more immersive due to it.
British Monsoon
Member
I never SAID it was better, just a different way of doing things and not necessarily inferior to the full open-world method, as you had suggested. However, one benefit of having a more contained area of play would be that it allows the developers to focus their efforts into making the areas as detailed and content filled as possible. Sure, Skyrim's world looks pretty and impressive and expansive, but there's a whole lot of empty space there.
Incidentally, the first ever open-world RPG I played was Ishar for DOS back in 1992. By your reasoning, every single RPG released since then that either presented an entirely linear progression throughout the game world, or that used branching paths to expand the players choices, was only doing so because they lacked the time or resources to follow Ishar's example, which is clearly not the case.
Ditto, the art and camera are so poor in my eyes that I probably won't bother until it's stupid cheap on a steam sale for 10$ in July.
Finally someone else with taste. It's atrociously ugly.
The demo instantly had me making my screw face with the gnomes who look ripped straight out of wow but somehow even uglier. At least wow being ugly makes sense because they want it to be colorful/run on even the crappiest computers.
hahaha, that's pretty much exactly where I turned it off the first time I played it. Those ugly ass gnomes.
I assume the excuse is that they are using the same assets that they are building for the MMO but I find it pretty much unacceptable.
I'll not debate as to whether open world RPGs are better than the more linear types, but Amalur is not a linear RPG. You can apparently move quite freely through the world, but the world does not feel like a coherent, single world but rather a network of tiny zones. This seems clearly a design choice out of necessity, rather than a means to produce a different kind of experience. It is strictly inferior, but not necessarily particularly detrimental. The decision may have allowed them to focus on other aspects of the game, but that isn't relevant to my underlying point.
The benefit you mentioned is exactly what I've already been talking about and related to the lack of time and resources to do everything.
The_Darkest_Red
Member
What I meant by "full" was this:
And what I meant by "random events breaking the immersion" was all of the open world jank that is common in games like Skyrim. Sure, in an idealistic world where a game could be designed absolutely perfectly and hardware, budget, and time weren't considerations at all then perhaps a massive open world could objectively be a better method for designing this type of RPG, but as it stands right now there are realistic pros and cons associated with each approach.
What I like about Reckoning's world design is that by nature of it being a more structured open world, it puts more emphasis on exploring each area individually. Whereas, in the wide-open (Bethesda) approach, you end up with shit to do and places to go scattered everywhere, with no real order or sense of direction, but what you make of it.
While this is very much more like being in a real world, it also can become daunting, leaving you wondering what to do or where to explore next outside of the quests. That is the cost of having such freedom, though, and I think it is very much worth it due to that unique brand of immersion it brings. But there are definitely benefits to having an open world more structured and focused as well. As I think it will simply be easier to get the most out of each location, even if it is at the expense of being totally wide-open.
There are pros and cons for each approach, and like with anything else, it will come down to preference. As for myself, I appreciate both directions for what they bring to the table. I love The Elder Scrolls just as much as ever, but am excited to have a new IP with it's own direction, versus being branded some "Elder Scrolls clone." While Reckoning may not reinvent the wheel, I think it is going to do what it does very well and should be given credit on it's own merits.
While this is very much more like being in a real world, it also can become daunting, leaving you wondering what to do or where to explore next outside of the quests. That is the cost of having such freedom, though, and I think it is very much worth it due to that unique brand of immersion it brings. But there are definitely benefits to having an open world more structured and focused as well. As I think it will simply be easier to get the most out of each location, even if it is at the expense of being totally wide-open.
There are pros and cons for each approach, and like with anything else, it will come down to preference. As for myself, I appreciate both directions for what they bring to the table. I love The Elder Scrolls just as much as ever, but am excited to have a new IP with it's own direction, versus being branded some "Elder Scrolls clone." While Reckoning may not reinvent the wheel, I think it is going to do what it does very well and should be given credit on it's own merits.
That sounds like some good logic.
And apparently now color in a game is a poor art style. Go go grey scale!
To be fair, the Skyrim comparisons are not because of any of that. It's because a) Skyrim just came out and is fresh in everybody's minds, b) Ken Rolston's involvement and c) They're different takes in the same "single-player character based open world western developed fantasy role playing game" genre.
The_Darkest_Red
Member
Do you disagree with him, though?
Any game designed by Ken Rolston that is open world, has the traditional quest giver format, branching stories, faction quests, is set in a fantasy world.......
Yes, the comparisons are made because of what I mentioned before, not because the game contains swords, dragons and bows.
The_Darkest_Red
Member
Well I don't think the suggestion is too far off, to be honest. Obviously the a) that you mentioned is true regardless of the game we're comparing Skyrim to, and b) probably wouldn't matter as long as c) is true. So at best we need to make the leap from "has swords, dragons, and bows" to "is a WRPG", which doesn't seam like much of a stretch.
I'm just sayin', these reviewers love them some Skyrim.
Admittedly there are some good reasons to compare parts of this game to Skyrim, though.
Look what has happened to third person shooters with a cover system and action games. They are suddenly all Gears and God of War clones, lol.
Seriously, the only thing I have ever done is try and be honest by pointing out areas I feel The Elder Scrolls is still lacking in, despite still being one of my favorite series in the genre. I believe Reckoning is simply deserving of more attention as a new IP and should be given credit in areas where it actually can be argued that it excels over what the king of the mountain does. In others words, if it can be held up to The Elder Scrolls in any way, then it is deserving of attention.
When you accomplish them by farts. lol
Well there were some mobs running around with their tits out.
British Monsoon
Member
The original quote from the review criticised that "the sheer scale of the world is never seen" across Amalur's "series of corridors" - that seems like a clear knock on the fact that the world isn't open in the same way as Skyrim is. Nowhere does it mention the cohesion between these zones - that would be a problem I would actually be concerned with, if the zones lacked any coherent feel between one another.
syllogism said:
syllogism said:
Or a design choice out of choice. My point was that if using the zone based method over a 'true' open-world allowed the designers to cram more detail and content into the areas, then that shouldn't necessarily be seen as a bad thing.
Gillian Seed
Banned
No need to be a jerk over a question. If the question bothered you so much, then the solution is do not reply.
Yes because any game with color is automatically not ugly and any game with muted tones is automatically ugly.
Similar threads
- Poll