KoA: Reckoning - Review in Progress #3 @ IGN

Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning is a terrible choice for a name, the kind of name you see on those generic low budget rpg combat campaign games.

I haven't been following the game, is there any reason for what seems to be a fable-lite gone god of war to get so much attention? Are there multi-choice quests and dialog skills?

boardbrtn asks… Colin, I'm curious if you would compare this to Dragon Age: Origins. From what I'm reading, this seems to be similar in a lot of aspects.

Colin answers… I wrote IGN's strategy guide for Dragon Age: Origins, so I obviously spent an incredible amount of time with that game… far more than anyone really should. While I think Origins' heart was in the right place, almost everything about the game was utterly underwhelming. I just didn't care much for the game. So far, just about everything Reckoning does, from presentation to combat to overall usability, feels light years ahead of what Dragon Age: Origins did.

Sounds like he just wants another 3d diablo.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I'm not trying to remove your right to speculation.

I'm just recognising what you have to base it on

That the article is suspiciously biased, of course. As was the case with DA2 and several other EA titles. If the article was a little biased, I could have blamed it on a fan being a fan. But the article is more than 'a little biased'. I remember PC Gamer's review of DA2 claimed that DA2 had the best combat in RPGs ever and now, this review claims the same (or something very close to it). After having played the demo and read the review, I have started to see the same pattern.
I always try to be very careful when I'm using words like 'best' and 'the most' and I get alarmed when other people do so (I'm not going to bore you with the logic behind it, because you probably know the reasons). I see that reviews of EA titles tend to cross that line a lot and this is suspiciously biased for my taste.

Originally Posted by blackcanopus
That the article is suspiciously biased, of course. As was the case with DA2 and several other EA titles. If the article was a little biased, I could have blamed it on a fan being a fan. But the article is more than 'a little biased'. I remember PC Gamer's review of DA2 claimed that DA2 had the best combat in RPGs ever and now, this review claims the same (or something very close to it). After having played the demo and read the review, I have started to see the same pattern.
I always try to be very careful when I'm using words like 'best' and 'the most' and I get alarmed when other people do so (I'm not going to bore you with the logic behind it, because you probably know the reasons). I see that reviews of EA titles tend to cross that line a lot and this is suspiciously biased for my taste.

You have a suspicious mind.

Then again, as a serial killer - maybe that's very appropriate

I dont want Reckoning to fail even though its a stepping stone to what will be a very lame MMO. I would like to see EA fail .

EA definitely needs to fail in a big way.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
EA definitely needs to fail in a big way.

Because they're one of the few big publishers still taking the PC relatively seriously?

Originally Posted by kalniel
Because they're one of the few big publishers still taking the PC relatively seriously?

You mean as a market to exploit?

i only read the quoted text, this guy believes that westerners don't like choices … i think he is 100% wrong.
The term wrpg is ridiculous , jrpgs do not take their genre because they are made in Japan but because of their special characteristics ,

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
You mean as a market to exploit?

Yep, as opposed to no market at all. You only get exploited when you ignore value for money, which can't be levelled at most PC players.

Originally Posted by kalniel
Yep, as opposed to no market at all. You only get exploited when you ignore value for money, which can't be levelled at most PC players.

There is another alternative, but that wouldn't be familiar to EA. Probably not to you, either.

no whining will help: big companies will continue to publish games of little artistic value-since they want to be sure their (incredibly huge) investment and that means more bullshit shiny stuff for those the love glittering things, or more predictability in gameplay since they think that will predict it's success-which is never true!

that's the way of the world-if you want to blame someone-you have to blame it on the market itself, not the companies. they are the fools that think they get value for money, and maybe they're right in their own shallow world of gaming.
so everyone gets what they payed for.

the king is indie but you have to dig so much deep to get a good value for money..

oh and i will check this game out, i'm a fan of any RPG even the most shallow ones(i actually enjoyed DS3 which is revolting?)

I don't so much blame EA as I simply want them to fail for the sake of gaming

Originally Posted by KapitanUnterhosen


Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning is a terrible choice for a name, the kind of name you see on those generic low budget rpg combat campaign games.

I haven't been following the game, is there any reason for what seems to be a fable-lite gone god of war to get so much attention? Are there multi-choice quests and dialog skills?



Sounds like he just wants another 3d diablo.

There are tons of RPGs with bad names out there (arena, drakensang, risen, gothic etc…)

How you got fable lite for this game is beyond me. It has dialogue skill checks and dialogue trees….stats and equipment…it's an Rpg.

Originally Posted by rune_74
There are tons of RPGs with bad names out there (arena, drakensang, risen, gothic etc…)

Don't forget Planescape: Torment, or if you really want to go old school there is Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord.

Sometimes it seems like one the biggest signs of a top RPG is a bad name.

I stopped reading as soon I saw the bit about it "easily outclassing" Skyrim, which I consider to be one of the best crpgs ever, even after playing crpgs for more than 25 years. By his definition I would probably have a heart attack just by the sheer excitment of starting the game up.

Originally Posted by blackcanopus
That the article is suspiciously biased, of course. As was the case with DA2 and several other EA titles. If the article was a little biased, I could have blamed it on a fan being a fan. But the article is more than 'a little biased'. I remember PC Gamer's review of DA2 claimed that DA2 had the best combat in RPGs ever and now, this review claims the same (or something very close to it). After having played the demo and read the review, I have started to see the same pattern.

Fwiw, I agree with you completely. I've never believed IGN to have a great amount of credibility, and this article is a perfect example.

This guy isn't the only one to say it's better than Skyrim. Gabe over at Penny Arcade has pretty much the same idea.

I think they're both nuts. Both games are great in their own way.

Hyperbole for sure.

Skyrim and KoA are very different games despite being in the RPG genre.

KoA is a combat oriented RPG set in a directed world while Skyrim is more open sand-box (or as I read somebody put it - "a hiking simulator" ).

Originally Posted by fadedc
if you really want to go old school there is Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord.

Say what you want about the title, but there's no denying it describes the character of the game quite perfectly.

Schilling was a great pitcher, that's why KoA is the most awesome URPG(Uber Role-playing Game) in the whole universe, for life.

I'm being serious.