We Recommend


  • db1331 - February 1, 2012 10:52 a.m.

    I was really unimpressed with the demo. The combat and camera were pretty clunky, the menus were poorly designed (made for a controller and not a mouse), and everything looked really, REALLY low resolution. I know they have come out and said the demo was old code and not indicative of the final release build, but damn. You have to wonder how much of it is actually improved upon in the full release. I'm certainly not going to spend $60 to find out. As soon as I made it through the tutorial and they plopped me out into the world and told me I had 45 minutes to explore, I turned it off and haven't been back. Obviously it's no Skyrim, but if you are going to call your game an open world RPG and ask $60 for it, you're going to invite a ton of comparison. Would you really recommend a friend buy Amalur over Skyrim if they could only choose one?
  • babyhenchy1 - February 1, 2012 11:51 a.m.

    Well to be fair, that was months old demo that was built up by a third-party company. EA wanted a demo and 38 Studios didn't feel they had the time to make it so they handed it off. Schilling has acknowledged this and apologized for the poor state of it. The game still has some great ideas that if done right will make for a really good game.
  • babyhenchy1 - February 1, 2012 11:52 a.m.

    Don't acknowledge my last post, somehow I didn't see you acknowledge their acknowledgement of the demo. ACKNOWLEDGE
  • db1331 - February 1, 2012 12:14 p.m.

  • babyhenchy1 - February 1, 2012 12:26 p.m.

    LOL But in all seriousness, I'm still quite excited. The lack of openness does concern me, especially with a game that's supposed to be about breaking destiny. But the unhindered character customization really has me excited.
  • HeavyTank - February 1, 2012 10:49 a.m.

    Maybe all these are true, but, as others have said, the issues in Skyrim can be fixed with mods, and frankly, Kingdoms isn't very good. The combat is alright, but the whole thing feels waaay too much like a console-adapted single-player MMO, if that makes any sense. Yes, I know that it was originally meant to be one, but that doesn't excuse the horrifyingly bad camera controls that look like they're MEANT to be used with dual sticks, the average voice acting, the dated graphics (First thing that popped into my mind: Guild Wars, and that's a four-year old MMORPG) and the whole..empty feel this has. There is a lot to explore, and the environments are creative enough, but..I just feel like there's no point. I just think that it would be better off as a DMC-GoW fantasy clone rather than an epic, open-world RPG.
  • MidianGTX - February 1, 2012 10:43 a.m.

    I'd argue it's impossible to screw yourself over in Skyrim. Don't put enough points into a particular skill? No problem, look for another solution to the situation, because there probably is one.
  • BladedFalcon - February 1, 2012 11:43 a.m.

    Or just lower lower the difficulty any time you feel the game is too hard...
  • jasoncarter - February 1, 2012 10:34 a.m.

    Seriously, just mod skyrim, those issues are gone now for me. Sucks though that console players are stuck with it.
  • ObliqueZombie - February 1, 2012 10:24 a.m.

    You're missing the one thing that makes Skyrim, and subsequently other Elder Scrolls Games, one of my favorite batches of RPGs: the freedom. Yes, Kingdoms of Amalur is quite good, and I was more than impressed by the demo, but it led me down a blurred linear path, always barring me with invisible walls--even when I got out into the "open world" after my tutorial. As for the limited skill/ability points that Skyrim has, I much prefer it. I don't dig the "one point per level" deal, nor do I like the fact you can't re-skill something (seriously, Bethesda, SOMEONE in Skyrim can retrain our Dovahkiin), but I like feeling like I have a purpose, a calling. For instance, my main character was a warrior/mage type. And I KEPT it that way. How stupidly far-fetched would it sound if my Orc said, "So yeah, I'm the Dragonborne. I'm also the top warrior in the land, the brightest mage, the sneakiest thief, and the most masterful Assassin. Not to mention I have a good shot with the bow." I feel more driven to experiment with things, but with the rationale that I can't DO every-fucking-thing the game has to offer on one character. Some like it, I personally don't. BUT, I digress. Kingdom's of Amalur looks and plays pretty well, and I'm moderately excited for it. The combat was fast, and weapons you fight with were disproportioned in the best way possible. The fact that I don't have to make room for certain items now, too, is a welcome addition. UI is a take it or leave it for me; hell, I'll get used to it as I play the game.
  • GR HollanderCooper - February 1, 2012 10:40 a.m.

    I'm not missing that - I never said it was better. Just that those elements are better.
  • ObliqueZombie - February 1, 2012 1:01 p.m.

    Yeah, I guess you're right. I'd have to say most of these ARE better, even if the game itself is missing that which I love most. Do you think Skyrim will be a major comparison point in your/your coworker's review?
  • camilo-hache - February 1, 2012 10:23 a.m.

    If the demo is any indication, it is even buggier than Skyrim
  • Mezolitik - February 1, 2012 10:25 a.m.

    Agreed. I charged through it to get the Mass Effect bonus. And after 2 or 3 attempts, I still haven't got it. The game freezes when I pick up the longbow.
  • cory-smith - February 1, 2012 10:50 a.m.

    True, except the build for the demo is an old build that was handed over to another studio. 38 Studios stated that they felt that they didn't have the time to build a demo, so they handed over an "alpha" build of the game over to another studio. What was seen (bugs, etc) in the demo does not reflect the final product as the demo build is actually several months old. The game will be MUCH more polished than the demo, as stated by the producers.
  • Travia220 - February 1, 2012 10:50 a.m.

    The Demo is a three month old build created by a third party company. Curt Schilling has apologized on more than one account for how bad and sloppy the demo was. While he says it's his companies fault, in the end the blame lies within EA for wanting a demo. They have promised everything works fine in the normal game.. and no.. no game is buggier than Skyrim.. maybe Fallout 3. The fact that Skyrim has a wikipedia dedicated to it's bugs would show it has serious issues.
  • inkyspot - February 1, 2012 12:31 p.m.

    The demo is not an indication, the Demo wasn't even made by them, I heard the game is a lot better.
  • samsneeze - February 1, 2012 10:22 a.m.

    This article states the four main reasons I am excited for Amalur. The last time someone said something was better than Skyrim on this site, they were called a troll and several other things. Then people told them they played the game wrong. Then they said that the person was expecting too much. Then they just started flat out making excuses for Bethesda as a company. Though to be fair, I didn't say something was better than Skyrim directly, just that Skyrim was a disappointment is all.
  • BluegrassSmoker - February 1, 2012 11:50 a.m.

    Agreed. One of my biggest pet peeves with the game is the lack of different perception of your character. Maybe Fable has spoiled me on that notion, but If I'm the leader of basically every faction in Skyrim. Can I get some different dialogue from people than what they have been saying since minute one? Something. If I've entered the mage college ONE TIME don't fucking say 'oh your the one from the mage college. It's like no sir I'm not. It's really hard to 'role play' your character in Skyrim.
  • Blasto - February 1, 2012 10:10 a.m.

    "Amalur’s UI is significantly better than Skyrim’s Ummm....I don't even know what to say.

Showing 101-120 of 125 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.