Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning review

Back to Article


  • Fuzunga - February 7, 2012 10:01 a.m.

    I am genially offended by your comments about the visuals. Are you kidding? Imagine for a moment that this was a Wii game. Would you say the graphics look dated? No, because Nintendo always makes up for it with artistic style. This game ought to be praised for it's fantastic style and vibrant color pallet, not criticized because the visuals look "dated". But the simple fact that it's on HD consoles means it has to look as good as Battlefield 3. The constant comparisons to WoW and Fable make me want to punch people.
  • Fuzunga - February 7, 2012 10:04 a.m.

    * Genuinely goddammit!
  • talleyXIV - February 7, 2012 12:33 p.m.

    I am not surprised by this (someone being mad at Cooper). I would have liked to see this review from someone else because I genuinely do not like him.
  • GR HollanderCooper - February 7, 2012 12:44 p.m.

    I'll win you over yet, talleyXIV!
  • Beoftw - February 7, 2012 11:42 a.m.

    I am "genially" offended by your fascist definition of artistic style. Last time I checked style was a relative term. The graphics in this game are still sub par no matter how you fan boy it up. And you said yourself they would look good if on the Wii, which ironically defeats your whole point.
  • Hydr0ponicK - February 7, 2012 11:10 a.m.

    The demo felt like I was playing an uglier version of Dragon Age Origins.
  • EwoksTasteLikeChicken - February 7, 2012 12:24 p.m.

    Ha I had the same thought, it made me wonder why create an entirely new fantasy world when they could have put these resources into making Dragon Age 3.
  • BladedFalcon - February 7, 2012 2:26 p.m.

    ...Because they are not being made by the same companies at all, for starters? Also... It's you guy's opinions if you compare it to DA. But seriously? Aside from the fact that both are set in a high fantasy setting, how are they exactly similar? The combat is shraply different, with DA's being more akin to a strategy game, and Amalur's more akin to an action game. The vibe is different, DA is a far more bleak setting than Amalur. Not to mention that DA doesn't really provide a huge world so much as it mainly provide stages across a map. And likewise, Amalur features no party members and thus is less focused on character relationships. Also, no offense, but if you think this game is that much uglier than DA, you kinda need to remove the nostalgia googles. Amalur is by no means gorgeous, but DA was never known for it's beautiful graphics either, which were significantly uglier than even the first ME.
  • BladedFalcon - February 7, 2012 11:58 a.m.

    Hmm, interesting review, and I liked what I read so far. Honestly, the graphical style doesn't bother me as much, maybe because I've never played WoW. And linearity doesn't normally bother me as long as there is enough story or incentive to go forward. Main question I have though. How is the overall story? Mainly,t he ending? I mean, yes, I know Cooper explained that the world is well made, and the story can get muddled along all the sidequests and factions. But I didn't have a clear impression of how the endgame's story is, does it deliver? does it end in an annoying cliffhanger? Or a predictable cliche? I ask, because after spending hours in Skyrim to find that the overall quest-line stories are rather ho-hum, I currently don't feel like putting at least 40 hours into a game with a crappy conclusion. (This is also affected by the fact that I just recently played RAGE... WHo has one of the obviously most incomplete, anticlimactic endings of this entire current generation of games.)
  • MetroidPrimeRib - February 7, 2012 12:22 p.m.

    Day one dlc locked out on disc that you can only get with an online pass that you have to get from buying the game new
  • KnowYourPokemon - February 7, 2012 6:56 p.m.

    What? You mean purchasing a used game actually has you miss out on something compared to people who buy it new at full price? My god the absurdity!
  • MetroidPrimeRib - February 7, 2012 8:24 p.m.

    So you're saying Day One DLC that is on the disc locked out that cannot be accessed without internet is okay as long as you spend extra money to support it.
  • KnowYourPokemon - February 7, 2012 8:33 p.m.

    That's one way of completely twisting my words, sure. That response is rather vague to the actual issue. You make it sound like they're forcing you to pay for that DLC whether you buy the game new or used. No, they're forcing you to pay for that DLC if you bought a copy that they will not see ay revenue from at all. It's not even remotely important DLC, anyone who decides to purchase a used copy of the game will still be able to complete the story without the few extras. The only real issue I have with this is that even in today's world not everyone has the internet, the vast majority of gamers do but I don't doubt there are some without it and that's a downside. In the end it's no different than when games include a code to access multiplayer or whatever to their game that can only be obtained through a new copy. I honestly can't blame them for doing it, they should just sit back while retailers make money off of their games and cost them sales through used purchases that they will never see any revenue from? Is that what you're saying?
  • KnowYourPokemon - February 7, 2012 8:35 p.m.

    Actually, replace "forced" in my comment with "given the option" because like I said, this "DLC" isn't needed to enjoy the game. It's just an extra that people who actually support the developer get for free.
  • MetroidPrimeRib - February 7, 2012 9:23 p.m.

    They take part of the game out and sell it back to you. Would you buy a cake with 7 out of 10 slices when the baker asks for extra money for the rest because you're "supporting a baker you like." Also it is in fact, they're fault, for having EA publish their game. I see no fault for them not to be blamed for being Right Hand of the Devil.
  • KnowYourPokemon - February 8, 2012 5:21 a.m.

    Oh my that is a horrible analogy... Would you honestly try and buy someones used cake? Or are you saying that the cake is brand new and they're asking for more money to get the whole thing because that is completely wrong again. Let me ask you this. Would you expect to buy a used car and have it work as perfectly as a car that is brand new? Of course not. What do a lot of people who buy used cars have to do? Spend extra money into them so that it can work as good as they want it to. It's the price to pay for getting something used. Nobody else buys something used expecting it to work like something new so I'll never understand how some gamers think they're the exceptional group in the matter. And as far as "supporting the baker you like" you have a choice, no one is forcing you to pay the extra, you can still get your used game, it just won't come with the extra little bonus you would have received for getting it new.
  • TheHowetzer - February 8, 2012 9:22 a.m.

    If you want to follow the cake analogy here I think we would have to go with something more like this.... "Here's your nice new cake sir, if you'd like me to add some delicious little sprinkles on top I can for an extra dollar." I don't see anything wrong about that. Also, if you do see a problem with it exersize your right to NOT buy's not like its Obamacare we're talking about here where you no longer have that right. lol. From cake to Obama care, nice even for me. Oh yeah this was about a game wasn't it? I don't like the game and I will not be buying it. I like Skyrim. There we go. ( see what I did there Metroid? I told the baker to keep his damn cake AND the sprinkles.)
  • MetroidPrimeRib - February 8, 2012 11:36 a.m.

    But with used cars they don't take parts out and purposely sell them back to you. "You have a choice" not to buy shitty games and support EA. To bad you do it anyway.
  • KnowYourPokemon - February 8, 2012 2:16 p.m.

    A used car won't work without the right parts, this game will work fine without a couple of extra quests. There's no perfect analogy so yes some things will be different but the idea is pretty much the same, you don't buy something used expecting the full product like it would be if it was purchased brand new. And yes by all means let's completely erase any sense of an argument and turn it into a simple "EA sucks!"...
  • FinderKeeper - February 9, 2012 11:08 a.m.

    Those who buy the game new get the online pass at no extra charge. Those who buy the game used (presumably to save money) have to buy the online pass. Sounds perfectly fair to me. If you don't like buying the game at $60, wait for the price to come down (which it will), and buy it then. It will still have the online pass included at no extra charge. It's a rather simple way to "monetize" the demand for a game more accurately. Those who want to play the game with the full features will buy it new instead of used, whereas before (all else being equal) they would buy used, since there was no loss of game functionality by doing so. Some of the money that was otherwise going to second-hand sellers will thus instead go to the publisher and the developers, and the sales figures (and thus revenue) for the game will more accurately reflect the demand for it. That can only be a good thing, as it enhances the likelihood that both the IP (whether new or not) and the developer can be financially viable. If you want the full car experience... i.e. choosing your color, accessorizing, options, etc., you have to buy it new. When you buy used, you take what you get. If you want a specific color, speaker setup, or wheel rim, you have to spend additional money. Such is life, in both cars and gaming.
  • KnowYourPokemon - February 8, 2012 2:24 p.m.

    That's a better analogy. And I'm not saying I completely agree with Day1 DLC with this, but to use it in a way to fight against used game sales at no cost to people who actually support the developer (because really, EA isn't the soul entity behind this game, they're just the publisher, unfortunately.) isn't a horrible idea. Not prefect, but not horrible.
  • ParagonT - February 9, 2012 12:29 p.m.

    I think trying to stop used game sales is indeed a good way to go, but really they're turning gaming into a service rather than consumers buying game products, which is not a problem except for the price in my opinion. If we assume (this is not factual) that every traded in game is re-sold by second hand retail stores only once, it's easy to see how this would be devastating to companies. The main problem with this is that you, the costumer, still must pay sixty dollars for the game while the company potentially makes twice the financial return. Another issue I have is that if these codes starve the used game industry, the only way to obtain the game is to buy it new, which is no problem, except for the price of first retailers. Honestly, I've seen many games that are absolute not worth sixty dollars but interesting just to check at retailers to find the price un-moving. On the other hand... It could in fact lower second retailers price on used games. Although this could affect monetary return for those that sell their used game.

Showing 41-60 of 75 comments

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

More Info

Available Platforms: Xbox 360, PC, PS3
Genre: Role Playing


Connect with Facebook

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