Gameplay-lacking RPGs have met their match
The headline of IGN's Kingdoms of Amalur review.
I had a post but left for 1 minute and was logged out before I got it posted, damn you IE.
But long story short, I disagree, I think what the reviewer actually meant was more "fun" in relation to the combat, and fun is subjective, some people like watching american football, some like watching European Football, some like arcade style combat some like games that try to be a bit more immersive. I didnt get the same kick out of it, I still easily prefered, Skyrim, Fallout NV, Witcher 2, DeusEx, DAO etc
Yes fun is an important aspect but then again my sister finds the Sims fun, I dont. I got a kick out of saints row 3 but it has no replay value for me and that game's buzzword in every review was "fun".
In my short time with the demo I was not nearly as enthralled as the reviewer, I dont have any
intention of picking up the game. Maybe it is my snobish PC gamer attitude coming through but I think that it is visible that the writer is a console gamer
Yes combat has been lacking and could be better, replaying ME1 has that clear in my mind, but is Kingdoms the answer. Not for me I think.
I'm also getting confused by the term Gameplay. Since when did that mean combat? I always use to think what it was like to play the game overall.
I dont know maybe I'm just to tired to think strait but thats been bugging me now ever since I first read it, I know for certain its off some how.
Gameplay tends to mean the primary focus of the game's mechanics now. If you made a shooter where you just walked around and talked to people for 10 hours, and never fired a gun once, I'd say it was lacking in gameplay.
I personally think the gameplay in Skyrim was terrible. I took down giants/mammoths/dragons with nothing but Destruction and Restoration magic. Flames in left hand, Healing in right. Hold down mouse buttons, win game. Sure, it took awhile to grind up. But the grinding consisted of "Hold down mouse buttons, win game". The fun stopped immediately.
but for Skyrim I'd say gameplay is the walking around the map killing stuff/questing/talking, its not just the killing stuff. In Mass effect I geuss I could equate gameplay to combat on the principle that your only really playing when your in combat, otherwise your just talking with npcs.
But with skyrim I didnt get into magic at all except for healing and one or two other things so I didnt have that problem. And I still dont think Kingdoms is the answer to it even combat wise, I think the review really overhypes it.
I will say this, thank you game devs for the return of PC demos, theyve been missing for so long its about time they returned. A demo is much more likely to encourage me to buy a game or not than any review out there.
From everything i heard Kingdoms of Amalur is way better than the demo EA forced them to release. They didnt want to do a demo as they knew it wouldnt come out that great as it needs to show too much in too short of time. I dont think you really get the true feel for the combat in that game from just the demo.
>questing leads to killing stuff
>talking leads to questing
>questing leads to killing stuff
The "Core" gameplay itself is the combat. That's where all other options will (almost) always lead to. This is why IGN argues that RPGs are "gameplay-lacking", when the core mechanic the game revolves around is quite frankly boring. I won't say Skyrim is a bad game, I enjoyed it up until the whole M1+W realization, but in terms of raw gameplay, there's a lot to be desired.
I will agree the review really overhyped it, but it seems to be an opinion shared by a lot of people that the game is, in fact, great.
eh. gameplay will very rarely equal combat for me but thats most like just me.
But I dont understand, arcade combat has been around for a long time, its been done well before, I do not understand why everyone is touting this as the second coming. Its just arcade combat.
I did replay the demo just to see if I came away with a different opinion. Really only played it in the first place to get ME3 stuff. And quite honestly, its not for me, sure the environment is pretty, but most models inside that environment are lacking, lipsync is terrible, and quite honestly I got bored hacking away at bogarts while running around doing the starting quests. Maybe it gets better further into the game but I'm not going to spend the 60 to find out. I cant judge the story as I did more of the side quests, premise is interesting but cant go further than that.
See I think I always prefer first person for the most part, Bethesda has a good thing I think that you can see you but at the same time you dont have 2. Dragon Age and KOTOR type tatical combat is the only third person gameplay that I can live with. And I'm getting the impression its much more of a console game, havent actually read anything written from the PC perspective yet or seen any opinions of it
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:30 AM.|