Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning - Review Thread

I have not read it, but according to a few people who i've read comments from it seems a strange situation. He seems to hold things against Reckoning, that he praised in Skyrim, and it's coming off as less then genuine. Like I said I have not been able to read it yet though. still compiling more reviews.

The "overall" opinion though seems to range from good to great, and it also seems to be leaning into a Darksiders/Borderlands situation. So as long as the word of mouth from players is positive, I think Reckoning should do fine.

I've noticed of late that G4 seems to have something against games with combat that doesn't involve mashing the back triggers.

The game definitely has a fair number of flaws, it's kind of light and airy like a pudding when it clearly wanted to be a steak, but it still tastes great. :p

QeIbU.jpg
 
I haven't played the game yet but the G4TV review is downright laughable. The only cons they handed out to KOA were all characteristics of Skyrim (sometimes worse in Skyrim, LACK OF POLISH), yet they praised Skyrim to no end with a 5/5.

After XIII-2's reception and this, I'm done with reading review scores...
 
I like this game... a LOT.

But I have work tomorrow. I must sleep.

If Copernicus goes back to a WoW style combat system after this...
 
Absolutely agree, and there isn't a doubt in my mind that Amalur wouldn't be criticized for its side quests or genre conventions nearly as harsh if it came out before Skyrim and SWTOR instead of directly after. I'm sure a lot of these reviewers are quite burned out from the WRPG grind.

I haven't had a chance to read any reviews, but if I find someone criticizing this game's quests and they either praised Skyrim's or made no mention of it at all then I will forever ignore that publication's reviews/articles/previews. Skyrim has the worst quests in a non-MMO WRPG I've ever seen.
 
I haven't played the game yet but the G4TV review is downright laughable. The only cons they handed out to KOA were all characteristics of Skyrim (sometimes worse in Skyrim, LACK OF POLISH), yet they praised Skyrim to no end with a 5/5.

After XIII-2's reception and this, I'm done with reading review scores...

Both of those games have received plenty of 80% plus scores. Not every game you like is going to get 90% scores across the board.
 
3 months after the release date and Skyrim is still unplayable on the PS3 and Xbox 360.

They DEFINITELY do polish their games better........

..... wait for it......

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This.

I've had my fair share of issues on PC as well. To suggest that Skyrim was "polished" is EXTREMELY laughable.
 
Both of those games have received plenty of 80% plus scores. Not every game you like is going to get 90% scores across the board.

But they should've received higher praise IMO. What I'm getting at is that I believe I'm completely out of sync with the gaming community in general anyway.
 
Kill Screen has posted a very well written review: http://killscreendaily.com/articles/reviews/review-kingdoms-amalur-reckoning
I guess some will not agree at all with it but he at least articulates his problem with the game in a way that makes sense.
Reckoning presumes that combat has always been the weakest part of role-playing games and addresses the issue by, perplexingly, adding even more combat to the experience. There is something ridiculous about pretending you have a role in a fairytale civil war, the conflicts of which are regularly reduced to missions where 10 trolls must be killed in a particular cave. Reckoning has been designed as if this ridiculousness was not a result of mathematical kill quests existing alongside conversational melodramas—in which players listen to villagers recount local histories while periodically getting to ask a follow-up question—but instead a result of the kill quests' lack of combo strings, animation timing, and slow-mo spatter effects.
 
So basically, what I'm getting from these reviews is that you gotta go in for the combat and the loot.

I am perfectly fine with this.
 
I haven't had a chance to read any reviews, but if I find someone criticizing this game's quests and they either praised Skyrim's or made no mention of it at all then I will forever ignore that publication's reviews/articles/previews. Skyrim has the worst quests in a non-MMO WRPG I've ever seen.

That's what is boggling my mind about the reviews panning this game. Skyrim (and more closely Fable) have many of the same faults such as 'lack of polish,' boring quests, bad storylines, etc. described but because it's an established series/game studio, that gets overlooked.

No, KOA is not a perfect game by any stretch of the imagination and may or may not be the best game this year. I just know that I (and a lot of others) will have a lot of fun with it.
 
So basically, what I'm getting from these reviews is that you gotta go in for the combat and the loot.

I am perfectly fine with this.

The combat is pretty shallow, to be honest. If people are saying it is good I'd have to assume they're comparing it to RPGs with poor combat, not Action games with good combat.

The world is too streamlined. It is obviously a network of hubs where each region is basically a circle around that hub. You're never really far out in the boonies, on the edge, taking risks. You're always just a quick fast travel away from safety and vendors. Kind of sad that they put all that work into the lore only to saddle it with a lifeless, prefab world.

Just another game where making a goal of accessibility for everyone produced a game that is challenging to no one.
 
That Kill Screen review is just.. wow.. utterly scathing.
Yeah, I just finished it. It's probably a good thing for BHG that no score is attached to that one.

I mean...

It's an excruciatingly dull game, a garish succumbing to the inescapable limits of its creators' imaginations. It is a lavish catastrophe in which all the props have been borrowed from the past, and not a single thing worth doing can be done with them.
ouch.
 
So basically, what I'm getting from these reviews is that you gotta go in for the combat and the loot.

I am perfectly fine with this.

Same, I've bought more games than I care to recount solely for these two reasons. If that's wrong, I don't wanna be right~

The combat is pretty shallow, to be honest. If people are saying it is good I'd have to assume they're comparing it to RPGs with poor combat, not Action games with good combat.

Like I said, the game is puddin. I'm more in this for a Champions of Norrath vibe than I am for a fighting game RPG.

Kill Screen said:
In some ways, this approach makes Reckoning even worse than the older games it hopes to improve upon. One of the crucial elements of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, a signal example for story-based role-playing, is the knowledge that any other character you encounter in the world can be attacked. And in the instances when you're sent into a dungeon to fight a particular group or species of enemies, it's safe to predict that very soon after players will discover a village where the supposed enemies live, hear their sympathetic side of the story, and, if one so chooses, abandon an old affiliation for a new one. The point of combat in a game so made is not to make the player feel hyperbolically powerful, but to make them feel like they should be thinking carefully about who it is they've chosen to attack. Reckoning's ardor for action and guttural empowerment squelches any such subtlety for the sake of immediate gratification of one's adrenal gland.

This paragraph really stood out to me. The opinion that Skyrim is a signal example for story-based role-playing kinda throws me off to the whole review, but I did indeed finish the whole thing. The next statement threw me off a bit as well, as you can attack friendlies in Reckoning to some extent.

But then the author differs from having to analyze Reckoning's combat for it's own sake, and instead offers what they presume the very point of all combat should be in a RPG, by definition negating the relevance of the very kind of combat people have been expecting from the game and which the game has presented that it offers. The review comes across more like a polemic condemning things the reviewer hates about the current trends of action games in general, and has Reckoning guilty by association because it exists largely as a mishmash of existing tropes that the author resents on principle.
 
I'm starting to get more interested as I hear more about this game. At first, it looked like something similar to Fable, but it appears that it's more than that. Probably will play it when I get my backlog cleared.
 
Kill Screen has posted a very well written review: http://killscreendaily.com/articles/reviews/review-kingdoms-amalur-reckoning
I guess some will not agree at all with it but he at least articulates his problem with the game in a way that makes sense.

It's really hard to take that review seriously after reading that guys Skyward Sword review as well.

Rant about reviews in general:
I understand reviews are opinions and that different people will have different biases but my biggest issue with reviewers is lack of consistency. The way reviewers give lavish praise or ignore mechanics/design decisions in one game and completely trash a very similar mechanic/design decision in another game is just annoying.

I'm just really getting tired of certain titles getting free passes because one aspect of the game is done really well and reviewers spend the entire review talking about that one thing and then turn around nitpick at everything in other titles that don't do that one thing at the same level of quality or in the same style.
 
Same, I've bought more games than I care to recount solely for these two reasons. If that's wrong, I don't wanna be right~



Like I said, the game is puddin. I'm more in this for a Champions of Norrath vibe than I am for a fighting game RPG.

Yeah the Champions vibe is what I put down my money for. It's a hack and slash with some actual combat mechanics. Suits me just fine.
 
This is great. I never agree with Sessler. Never have since ZD days. I should love this is if he felt it was opposite of what he wanted.
 
Kill Screen has posted a very well written review: http://killscreendaily.com/articles/reviews/review-kingdoms-amalur-reckoning
I guess some will not agree at all with it but he at least articulates his problem with the game in a way that makes sense.

That was a very good review, and it pretty much confirms that this is not a game for me. That Amalur doesn´t really improve anything in the genre besides it attempt to put more focus on the combat, and that really doesn´t interest me.
 
One of my favorite games of the year from last year, Dead Island(after patches. heh), was in the low 70's after all was said and done. So with the high and low scores it seems like a love or hate game. So I'm going to pick up my copy soon and find out.
 
Loving the reviews coming in.

Too bad the game wasn't ready to go as it has to decrypt and DL the last 1GB or so. About 93% done now.
 
Loving the reviews coming in.

Too bad the game wasn't ready to go as it has to decrypt and DL the last 1GB or so. About 93% done now.

Speeeeeed it up! I made the mistake of playing it as soon as it unlocked (and Floe beat Sonic) and now I'm going to be groggy all day (Worth it! Most fun I've had with an RPG launch since Alpha Protocol)
 
Kill Screen has posted a very well written review: http://killscreendaily.com/articles/reviews/review-kingdoms-amalur-reckoning
I guess some will not agree at all with it but he at least articulates his problem with the game in a way that makes sense.

Well, for all those who don't like scored reviews, there you go.

I think he's being very rough on the game however. It's not goty material, but it is a really good time. Hopefully it ensures 38 will be able to build on their universe. Gonna avoid the MMO though, not keen on them anymore.
 
I really want this game, but not for $60.

I'm not saying its bad, I loved the demo, but I've got tons of school work and I don't feel like dropping $60 on a game i'll barely get to play.
 
I really want this game, but not for $60.

I'm not saying its bad, I loved the demo, but I've got tons of school work and I don't feel like dropping $60 on a game i'll barely get to play.

Toys r us has it for 45, if that helps. Just go to the store and ask them to price-match their online price.
 
This paragraph really stood out to me. The opinion that Skyrim is a signal example for story-based role-playing kinda throws me off to the whole review, but I did indeed finish the whole thing. The next statement threw me off a bit as well, as you can attack friendlies in Reckoning to some extent.

But then the author differs from having to analyze Reckoning's combat for it's own sake, and instead offers what they presume the very point of all combat should be in a RPG, by definition negating the relevance of the very kind of combat people have been expecting from the game and which the game has presented that it offers. The review comes across more like a polemic condemning things the reviewer hates about the current trends of action games in general, and has Reckoning guilty by association because it exists largely as a mishmash of existing tropes that the author resents on principle.

Welcome to Kill Screen. It's pretty shit.
 
I'm really surprised by the review scores. The demo felt like every other generic MMO to me, except that it didn't even have the multiplayer part. Combat is a bit more actiony then the general RPG, but still didn't feel all that convincing.
 
With a game like Reckoning, borrowing liberally its conventions and mechanics from other games, do you think the reviewer is right to assume the reader has also played the games from which Reckoning leans on?

I've not played a lot of the God of War franchise. I've skipped out on Skyrim thus far (it being buggy, for the time being, on consoles is not attractive to me). For these reasons, I don't see Reckoning taking some of the best bits of these games to be a bad thing.
 
The combat is pretty shallow, to be honest. If people are saying it is good I'd have to assume they're comparing it to RPGs with poor combat, not Action games with good combat.

The world is too streamlined. It is obviously a network of hubs where each region is basically a circle around that hub. You're never really far out in the boonies, on the edge, taking risks. You're always just a quick fast travel away from safety and vendors. Kind of sad that they put all that work into the lore only to saddle it with a lifeless, prefab world.

Just another game where making a goal of accessibility for everyone produced a game that is challenging to no one.

I don't know why I was so excited about this game. And the funny thing is I've never been a big fan of action games.
 
I'm loving the game even though I have had less time with it then I would have liked this week because of a crazy work week. Combat is blast and I find it gets deeper the more you progress into your ability trees and really feels great in some of the tougher Fights. Lore and story seem solid so far imo depends on how much you want to dig into it. Lootshas been great for me so far but a lot of it is random so you could good or lesser experience in that reguard. Finding I like the way the open world is set up here, feels like there is no wasted space so far, looks great very colorful and vibrant, lots of cool little touches that make it feel alive and interesting imo. Right now i'd agree mostly with the 9 scores its not perfect, but there is a lot to like/love with KOA.
 
That's what is boggling my mind about the reviews panning this game. Skyrim (and more closely Fable) have many of the same faults such as 'lack of polish,' boring quests, bad storylines, etc. described but because it's an established series/game studio, that gets overlooked.

No, KOA is not a perfect game by any stretch of the imagination and may or may not be the best game this year. I just know that I (and a lot of others) will have a lot of fun with it.

But KOA doesnt have any of the charm that makes fable enjoyable. KOA doesn't have the living breathing world feeling of Skyrim either. KOA feels like a bad MMO with decent combat. Everything in the world is static and boring.

I play Skyrim for different reasons than I play KOA for. If Skyrim had zero combat, I would still play it for the world. The only thing KOA has going for it is the combat. Which is what the developer must of thought too, considering all the "kill x amount" quests.

What boggles my mind is how you think. Skyrim getting better reviews than KOA is because Skyrim is the better game, not that its an established series, therefore it gets reviewed better.
 
But KOA doesnt have any of the charm that makes fable enjoyable. KOA doesn't have the living breathing world feeling of Skyrim either. KOA feels like a bad MMO with decent combat. Everything in the world is static and boring.

I play Skyrim for different reasons than I play KOA for. If Skyrim had zero combat, I would still play it for the world. The only thing KOA has going for it is the combat. Which is what the developer must of thought too, considering all the "kill x amount" quests.

What boggles my mind is how you think. Skyrim getting better reviews than KOA is because Skyrim is the better game, not that its an established series, therefore it gets reviewed better.

Opinions, I think there is tons of charm in reckoning, the way the boggarts worship at shrines or chase fireflies, the way bears sleep or roll around in the forests, its all the little touches in the creature/ character animations that bring the world to life in my opinion. Its a game that I feel is as simple or as deep as you want it to be. I pretty much fast traveled everywhere in skyrim because the world felt dull and lifeless to me, I never felt like there was a reason for me to go Exploring in the world they created. I have not fast traveled at all in KOA because I actually love exploring this world.

Different strokes for different folks.
 
An 8 from Eurogamer is pretty darn good. They are usually very strict.

Hehe agreed, never saw that coming. IMO that converts to like a 42 out of 10 U.S....
Those guys are hard line in their RPG stuff.
Bottom line is, while biased, and it's going to seem totally askew, but it feels like all the good to great reviews were by people that played far into the game and the ones that were lower were folks who didn't get far at all, and didn't want to.
That's not fair and I don't mean that as a slam, and my distance from the project is clearly impeding to some degree, but damn, I played the Gold Box SSI series, Bard's tale, Wizardry, Baldur's Gate, all of them, this game story is enormously deep and fleshed out, and if you love that stuff there will NEVER be a shortage of things to read, see or hear about someone that matters to the Amalur Storyline.
 
I'm 2 and half hours in (I've got school and work) and I'm on normal mode and iI'm lowing through stuff no problem. Does it ramp up? Should I switch to Hard? What does it do exactly?
 
Top Bottom