HYPOCRISY: If Kingdoms of Amalur is marked down for being generic, than why.....

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for DarkLink77
DarkLink77

32731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#151 DarkLink77
Member since 2004 • 32731 Posts

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] Mass Effect at least has one fun game to show for its existence(mass effect 2) Dragon Age doesn't :]jg4xchamp

I saw that your name was the newest post and I knew exactly which post you were going to quote and what you were going to say. :P I like Dragon Age's world better, generic fantasy or not. ME2 did play better, though. Dragon Age felt clunky, but the system wasn't awful. It was more hampered by level/encounter design than the actual combat system, I think.

I have no problem with the core combat in DA: O. That's fine(not my cup of tea, but it's fine).

It's the level design. Which is dookie in both games, but a reflex driven game that stuff is mitigated since the combat itself is more instant gratification. For something that's suppose to be strategic Dragon Age's repetitive glorified dungeon crawl is BORING. It's so samey after awhile, and the games idea of variety is OH LOOK giant spider that's colored different from the last giant spider I fought.

Plus it's way too ****ing long. A good chunk of it just feels like glorified padding to appeal to those idiots that say "I need my game to be 100 hours long". That game could have been 10-20 hours shorter, and it would have felt more satisfying. Mass Effect 2s shooting just needs to loosen up. It feels too wooden, and if they plan on being "Great" and not just good it's the time the level design was better, and the action was more varied.

True. Origins has a ton of padding. The Deep Roads and The Fade come to mind immediately, though I think if The Fade wasn't so goddamn long and just focused on running around and solving puzzles (the mouse section) and less on mindless, often blatantly unfair combat scenarios (everything else) I don't think anyone else would have cared. The Deep Roads was a cool idea, but it was too damn long, and like you said, you end up fighting the same things over and over and over. Maybe if it were more focused and had more unique enemy types instead of "Spider, Golem, etc," but it doesn't. The main questline is solid, but it just has so much unnecessary crap in it. The "recruiting the elves" bit was the best designed, I think. It got to the point and didn;t make you do unnecessary s***.

Mass Effect is still playing catch-up to Gears, which is kind of sad. Level design is okay, but there's too many obvious "This is a video game" combat scenarios in a game that tries so damn hard to be immersive and justify all of its content, where Gears is just like, "This button makes cover, have fun." And maybe if the powers were better implemented. I think they took a step back with them from the original, and I missed the weapon specific stuff like Carnage (huge ass shotgun blast of death).

Avatar image for exiledsnake
exiledsnake

1906

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#152 exiledsnake
Member since 2005 • 1906 Posts

Standards have gone up, thats why. It might have scored differently if it released before DA:O.

Avatar image for Ross_the_Boss6
Ross_the_Boss6

4056

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#153 Ross_the_Boss6
Member since 2009 • 4056 Posts

It brings a manly tear to my eye seeing so many a brave soul defend this epic game till their dieing breath. Shine on, you brave warriors, shine on.

Master_ShakeXXX

I don't think he's defending Amalur. He's just making an excuse to bore us all with his infatuation of Dragon Age II.

Avatar image for SciFiRPGfan
SciFiRPGfan

694

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#154 SciFiRPGfan
Member since 2010 • 694 Posts

and standards and opinions must be consistant and if their is a change in standards or opinions...the reviewer should note that. Otherwise, you have double standards...like US Foriegn Policy. And once again, even if the "positives" overcome its generic narrative, that still means the narrtive is generic and doesn't change this fact. Overlooking is double standard. Its you who are idiotically defending this double standard. texasgoldrush


I have to disagree with this - well I don't understand your "the reviewer should note that" part so maybe that's a valind point, but otherwise I am pretty sure I disagree. Remaining in error, insisting on something what is - supposedly - wrong or refusing to admit a mistake for the sake of consistency or because of fear of being accused from hypocrisy is the worst thing one can do. It's a sign of rigidity and inability to learn and improve. The real world is full of examples of people who refused to learn or stubbornly insisted on someting and failed misarably because of that. Basically, you are denying Kevin the right to learn and evolve as critic which is pretty cruel IMO.

Also from another perspective, for the sake of discussion about changing opinions, I have a hypothetical and kinda exagerated question. But those are the best for making a point...

Imagine a situation in which a reviewer would have like a completely different opinion from vast majority of readers and would rate games completely contradictory to their opinions. These readers would complain more and more and at one point they would claim that reviews are useless and no longer serve their purpose of informing about games' qualities, because reviewer's preferences are completely out of place and give the magazine one last warning before abandoning it completely for another magazine, the reviewers of which have preferences much more similar to theirs.

My question is, should such hypothetical reviewer insist on his opinions at all costs? Even if he endangers the existence of magazine? Even if he is labeled as completely useless reviewer with exotic and unpredictable preferences? Or should he change his mind about some things?

Avatar image for dreman999
dreman999

11514

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#155 dreman999
Member since 2004 • 11514 Posts

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] Mass Effect at least has one fun game to show for its existence(mass effect 2) Dragon Age doesn't :]jg4xchamp

I saw that your name was the newest post and I knew exactly which post you were going to quote and what you were going to say. :P I like Dragon Age's world better, generic fantasy or not. ME2 did play better, though. Dragon Age felt clunky, but the system wasn't awful. It was more hampered by level/encounter design than the actual combat system, I think.

I have no problem with the core combat in DA: O. That's fine(not my cup of tea, but it's fine).

It's the level design. Which is dookie in both games, but a reflex driven game that stuff is mitigated since the combat itself is more instant gratification. For something that's suppose to be strategic Dragon Age's repetitive glorified dungeon crawl is BORING. It's so samey after awhile, and the games idea of variety is OH LOOK giant spider that's colored different from the last giant spider I fought.

Plus it's way too ****ing long. A good chunk of it just feels like glorified padding to appeal to those idiots that say "I need my game to be 100 hours long". That game could have been 10-20 hours shorter, and it would have felt more satisfying. Mass Effect 2s shooting just needs to loosen up. It feels too wooden, and if they plan on being "Great" and not just good it's the time the level design was better, and the action was more varied.

Yep, da: o is padded from hell and back and the "gasp, not blood magic" twists don't help

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

15251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#156 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 15251 Posts
I have to disagree with this - well I don't understand your "the reviewer should note that" part so maybe that's a valind point, but otherwise I am pretty sure I disagree. Remaining in error, insisting on something what is - supposedly - wrong or refusing to admit a mistake for the sake of consistency or because of fear of being accused from hypocrisy is the worst thing one can do. It's a sign of rigidity and inability to learn and improve. The real world is full of examples of people who refused to learn or stubbornly insisted on someting and failed misarably because of that. Basically, you are denying Kevin the right to learn and evolve as critic which is pretty cruel IMO. Also from another perspective, for the sake of discussion about changing opinions, I have a hypothetical and kinda exagerated question. But those are the best for making a point...Imagine a situation in which a reviewer would have like a completely different opinion from vast majority of readers and would rate games completely contradictory to their opinions. These readers would complain more and more and at one point they would claim that reviews are useless and no longer serve their purpose of informing about games' qualities, because reviewer's preferences are completely out of place and give the magazine one last warning before abandoning it completely for another magazine, the reviewers of which have preferences much more similar to theirs. My question is, should such hypothetical reviewer insist on his opinions at all costs? Even if he endangers the existence of magazine? Even if he is labeled as completely useless reviewer with exotic and unpredictable preferences? Or should he change his mind about some things?SciFiRPGfan
no, the review just has to have the same standards, that is all. A under the radar game should be reviewed with the same standards as a hyped game as well.
Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

15251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#157 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 15251 Posts
[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]You simply do not get simple logic....X with Z elements done poorly and Y with Z elements done well still means X and Y have Z elements. Just because it is done well doesn't mean its any less generic, do you get that fact? If you are going to mark something down for being generic than mark everything down with the same generic elements. Its simply logic, other than that, its hypocrisy and double standards. You keep idiotically thinking that just because something is done well changes that fact, it doesn't. A strong duck and a weak duck is stilla duck. And why do I keep bringing up Ultima, as a damning reminder on how RPG makers have gotten away from innovation that founded the genre and embraced the same old story...like DAO and KoA.

No I don't even care any more, you're beyond even looking at the individual context of reviews, critiques and opinions this side of timespans - as far as I'm concerned you're an idiot on this topic, and should sit down and say this -
and standards and opinions must be consistant and if their is a change in standards or opinions...note that. Otherwise, you have double standards...like US Foriegn Policy. And once again, even if the "positives" overcome its generic narrative, that still means the narrtive is generic and doesn't change this fact. Overlooking is double standard. Its you who are idiotically defending this double standard. texasgoldrush
out loud to yourself, and if that fails to the nearest friend, family, or loved one. It takes a certain idiot to put themselves on a pedestal and simultaneously make themselves look like a fool. You sir have done both, so that neatly sits you in the category of pretentious internet juvenile. Easymode.

And you keep insisting that TWO YEARS is enough to influence storytelling standards...wow. you are clueless. Nevermind the fact that stories have been labeled continously "generic" or "cliched" well before DAO. This timeframe of yours is your invention. You keep making excuse after excuse for these double standards. And you keep going on about context, saying that how well made it is is an excuse for being generic, and that it is "fair" to "overlook" it...dumb as a brick. Holding DAO and KoA to the same standards in storytelling and originialty is fair (both fail miserably)...have I said that Warcraft I and II should be held to the same standards, thats when "timeframe" makes it unfair.
Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

15251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#158 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 15251 Posts

[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

It brings a manly tear to my eye seeing so many a brave soul defend this epic game till their dieing breath. Shine on, you brave warriors, shine on.

Ross_the_Boss6

I don't think he's defending Amalur. He's just making an excuse to bore us all with his infatuation of Dragon Age II.

And did you even read my posts about DAII.......lol, guess you didn't.

Standards have gone up, thats why. It might have scored differently if it released before DA:O.

exiledsnake
And I am not talking about scoring here, I am talking about how the reviewer notes a flaw for one game, while he glosses over the same flaw (which even at the time of that games release was seen as a flaw) of another game. I am actually only criticizing one aspect of his review which turned out to be such as markdown for KoA.
Avatar image for dreman999
dreman999

11514

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#159 dreman999
Member since 2004 • 11514 Posts
[QUOTE="SciFiRPGfan"]I have to disagree with this - well I don't understand your "the reviewer should note that" part so maybe that's a valind point, but otherwise I am pretty sure I disagree. Remaining in error, insisting on something what is - supposedly - wrong or refusing to admit a mistake for the sake of consistency or because of fear of being accused from hypocrisy is the worst thing one can do. It's a sign of rigidity and inability to learn and improve. The real world is full of examples of people who refused to learn or stubbornly insisted on someting and failed misarably because of that. Basically, you are denying Kevin the right to learn and evolve as critic which is pretty cruel IMO. Also from another perspective, for the sake of discussion about changing opinions, I have a hypothetical and kinda exagerated question. But those are the best for making a point...Imagine a situation in which a reviewer would have like a completely different opinion from vast majority of readers and would rate games completely contradictory to their opinions. These readers would complain more and more and at one point they would claim that reviews are useless and no longer serve their purpose of informing about games' qualities, because reviewer's preferences are completely out of place and give the magazine one last warning before abandoning it completely for another magazine, the reviewers of which have preferences much more similar to theirs. My question is, should such hypothetical reviewer insist on his opinions at all costs? Even if he endangers the existence of magazine? Even if he is labeled as completely useless reviewer with exotic and unpredictable preferences? Or should he change his mind about some things?texasgoldrush
no, the review just has to have the same standards, that is all. A under the radar game should be reviewed with the same standards as a hyped game as well.

Tex, what you don't get is that DA: O had many thing KoA didn't. A great story, involving character and world and charm. It wasn't just that KoA is generic, it generic with nothing develop on the story.The origins part of DA:O clearly illustrates that, not many game can get you that connected to your character just the beginning of the game like DA:O did, which is a major fault of DA2.
Avatar image for princeofshapeir
princeofshapeir

16652

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#160 princeofshapeir
Member since 2006 • 16652 Posts
I came here expecting this thread to be about Skyrim Because ALL of the "Bad" things listed for Amalur apply directly to Skyrim.
Avatar image for Goyoshi12
Goyoshi12

9687

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#161 Goyoshi12
Member since 2009 • 9687 Posts

I came here expecting this thread to be about Skyrim Because ALL of the "Bad" things listed for Amalur apply directly to Skyrim.princeofshapeir

Shut the hell up man...just...stop it please.

Avatar image for princeofshapeir
princeofshapeir

16652

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#162 princeofshapeir
Member since 2006 • 16652 Posts

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]I came here expecting this thread to be about Skyrim Because ALL of the "Bad" things listed for Amalur apply directly to Skyrim.Goyoshi12

Shut the hell up man...just...stop it please.

"Generic story and characters"

Savior of the world is born, you are that savior, kill the big bad dude tearing everything up. How original and new

"Generic world"

Skyrim is run-of-the-mill medieval fantasy with a lot of LOTR thrown in.

"Generic quests"

Every other major quest is either a dungeon run or a fetch quest.

Avatar image for Goyoshi12
Goyoshi12

9687

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#163 Goyoshi12
Member since 2009 • 9687 Posts

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]I came here expecting this thread to be about Skyrim Because ALL of the "Bad" things listed for Amalur apply directly to Skyrim.princeofshapeir

Shut the hell up man...just...stop it please.

"Generic story and characters"

Savior of the world is born, you are that savior, kill the big bad dude tearing everything up. How original and new

"Generic world"

Skyrim is run-of-the-mill medieval fantasy with a lot of LOTR thrown in.

"Generic quests"

Every other major quest is either a dungeon run or a fetch quest.

You, sir, are the hypocrite.

You're treating it like this is the worst game ever created? I know you didn't like it the first time around but...really?

Avatar image for princeofshapeir
princeofshapeir

16652

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#164 princeofshapeir
Member since 2006 • 16652 Posts

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

Shut the hell up man...just...stop it please.

Goyoshi12

"Generic story and characters"

Savior of the world is born, you are that savior, kill the big bad dude tearing everything up. How original and new

"Generic world"

Skyrim is run-of-the-mill medieval fantasy with a lot of LOTR thrown in.

"Generic quests"

Every other major quest is either a dungeon run or a fetch quest.

You, sir, are the hypocrite.

You're treating it like this is the worst game ever created? I know you didn't like it the first time around but...really?

I'm not saying it's the worst game ever made, I'm just saying it's disingenuous to GS readers to say Amalur is bad for all these reasons when those reasons can be applied directly to Skyrim, which scored a 9.0. Why are you trying to make it sound like I hate the game? I LIKE Skyrim, I just think it's full of obvious flaws, and I'm tired of it being praised as "THE" best open-world RPG that has to be the new standard that games like Amalur have to live up to.
Avatar image for dreman999
dreman999

11514

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#165 dreman999
Member since 2004 • 11514 Posts
[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]

"Generic story and characters"

Savior of the world is born, you are that savior, kill the big bad dude tearing everything up. How original and new

"Generic world"

Skyrim is run-of-the-mill medieval fantasy with a lot of LOTR thrown in.

"Generic quests"

Every other major quest is either a dungeon run or a fetch quest.

princeofshapeir

You, sir, are the hypocrite.

You're treating it like this is the worst game ever created? I know you didn't like it the first time around but...really?

I'm not saying it's the worst game ever made, I'm just saying it's disingenuous to GS readers to say Amalur is bad for all these reasons when those reasons can be applied directly to Skyrim, which scored a 9.0. Why are you trying to make it sound like I hate the game? I LIKE Skyrim, I just think it's full of obvious flaws, and I'm tired of it being praised as "THE" best open-world RPG that has to be the new standard that games like Amalur have to live up to.

You do know it's just not that alone. Skyrim has all the lore and character to back up all the talk...While KoA is.....Fable....*VOMITS.
Avatar image for Goyoshi12
Goyoshi12

9687

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#166 Goyoshi12
Member since 2009 • 9687 Posts

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]

"Generic story and characters"

Savior of the world is born, you are that savior, kill the big bad dude tearing everything up. How original and new

"Generic world"

Skyrim is run-of-the-mill medieval fantasy with a lot of LOTR thrown in.

"Generic quests"

Every other major quest is either a dungeon run or a fetch quest.

princeofshapeir

You, sir, are the hypocrite.

You're treating it like this is the worst game ever created? I know you didn't like it the first time around but...really?

I'm not saying it's the worst game ever made, I'm just saying it's disingenuous to GS readers to say Amalur is bad for all these reasons when those reasons can be applied directly to Skyrim, which scored a 9.0. Why are you trying to make it sound like I hate the game? I LIKE Skyrim, I just think it's full of obvious flaws, and I'm tired of it being praised as "THE" best open-world RPG that has to be the new standard that games like Amalur have to live up to.

You know, that's the develoeprs fault. They hyped the game up to be better than Skyrim, many websistes claimed it to be THE challenger to the Elder Scrolls throne. So with that glaring it down it damn well better live up to the standard that Skyrim set for individuals.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

15251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#167 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 15251 Posts
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="SciFiRPGfan"]I have to disagree with this - well I don't understand your "the reviewer should note that" part so maybe that's a valind point, but otherwise I am pretty sure I disagree. Remaining in error, insisting on something what is - supposedly - wrong or refusing to admit a mistake for the sake of consistency or because of fear of being accused from hypocrisy is the worst thing one can do. It's a sign of rigidity and inability to learn and improve. The real world is full of examples of people who refused to learn or stubbornly insisted on someting and failed misarably because of that. Basically, you are denying Kevin the right to learn and evolve as critic which is pretty cruel IMO. Also from another perspective, for the sake of discussion about changing opinions, I have a hypothetical and kinda exagerated question. But those are the best for making a point...Imagine a situation in which a reviewer would have like a completely different opinion from vast majority of readers and would rate games completely contradictory to their opinions. These readers would complain more and more and at one point they would claim that reviews are useless and no longer serve their purpose of informing about games' qualities, because reviewer's preferences are completely out of place and give the magazine one last warning before abandoning it completely for another magazine, the reviewers of which have preferences much more similar to theirs. My question is, should such hypothetical reviewer insist on his opinions at all costs? Even if he endangers the existence of magazine? Even if he is labeled as completely useless reviewer with exotic and unpredictable preferences? Or should he change his mind about some things?dreman999
no, the review just has to have the same standards, that is all. A under the radar game should be reviewed with the same standards as a hyped game as well.

Tex, what you don't get is that DA: O had many thing KoA didn't. A great story, involving character and world and charm. It wasn't just that KoA is generic, it generic with nothing develop on the story.The origins part of DA:O clearly illustrates that, not many game can get you that connected to your character just the beginning of the game like DA:O did, which is a major fault of DA2.

I do get it, but a "great" story that is generic is still a generic story. And really DAO is not a great story. The narrative is generic, the mid game stories only loosely connects to the plot, the villian Loghain is atrocious (he is no Blackthorne, a similiar villian of Ultima V who tries to usurp the kingdom's throne), and the characters are just generic clones of past Bioware characters. DAO never takes any risks and never sets itself apart from more inspired RPGs with more original narratives like Mask of the Betrayer. The problem with DAO fans is that they don't think the game is broken or needs changing. They want more of the same. They do not get the fact that DAO wasn't good enough to be rehashed and Bioware saw this. So DAII already lost before it was even released with its story premise and voice acted hero. And whats really stupid is that fans complained that Leliana comes back if she "dies" but wanted the sequel to follow up on Morrigan's "god baby" which most players didn't even have her get. Then they criticize DAII for not being a "true sequel", wow. The real problem with DAII was NOT the direction it took (the storytelling direction and the character direction it took was not only great, it was necessary in an attempt to set it apart from other RPG narratives), it is the fact that it was rushed out the door well before it was even finished, like Ultima VIII: Pagan or KOTOR II were. And this was not the DA teams first rush job, DAO's expansion was rushed as well. However, DAO took far TOO LONG and it was outdated shortly. The game looked so 2006, not one for 2009. The series has never been great, maybe DAIII will be the first great game, or it will remain Bioware's "B" franchise behind Mass Effect and the next IP the main team puts out.
Avatar image for xOMGITSJASONx
xOMGITSJASONx

2634

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#168 xOMGITSJASONx
Member since 2009 • 2634 Posts

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]

"Generic story and characters"

Savior of the world is born, you are that savior, kill the big bad dude tearing everything up. How original and new

"Generic world"

Skyrim is run-of-the-mill medieval fantasy with a lot of LOTR thrown in.

"Generic quests"

Every other major quest is either a dungeon run or a fetch quest.

princeofshapeir

You, sir, are the hypocrite.

You're treating it like this is the worst game ever created? I know you didn't like it the first time around but...really?

I'm not saying it's the worst game ever made, I'm just saying it's disingenuous to GS readers to say Amalur is bad for all these reasons when those reasons can be applied directly to Skyrim, which scored a 9.0. Why are you trying to make it sound like I hate the game? I LIKE Skyrim, I just think it's full of obvious flaws, and I'm tired of it being praised as "THE" best open-world RPG that has to be the new standard that games like Amalur have to live up to.

Princeofshapier you need to visit other gaming forums. Its just on GS where Skyrim is praised like that. Most forums i been a member on they call it average like you. So keep that in mind.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

15251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#169 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 15251 Posts
[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"][QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]You, sir, are the hypocrite.You're treating it like this is the worst game ever created? I know you didn't like it the first time around but...really?dreman999
I'm not saying it's the worst game ever made, I'm just saying it's disingenuous to GS readers to say Amalur is bad for all these reasons when those reasons can be applied directly to Skyrim, which scored a 9.0. Why are you trying to make it sound like I hate the game? I LIKE Skyrim, I just think it's full of obvious flaws, and I'm tired of it being praised as "THE" best open-world RPG that has to be the new standard that games like Amalur have to live up to.

You do know it's just not that alone. Skyrim has all the lore and character to back up all the talk...While KoA is.....Fable....*VOMITS.

Wow...no... Fable's lore and characters, as well as world are awesome, with a twist of British humor added to the mix. And it is not only far from generic, its satire of the generic while delivering good story and memorable characters. Read Fable: Blood Ties, set in the world of Fable III with Ben Finn, Page, and that hilarious insult gnome that tags along. The world of the Fable games are great while the games themselves weren't as great.
Avatar image for glez13
glez13

10314

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#170 glez13
Member since 2006 • 10314 Posts

No, no, no. It's not hypocrisy but lack of funds. EA payed Kevin for Origins but by the time of 2 they payed him less and now with KoA they hardly payed him. See the pattern? They are watching us...

Avatar image for meetroid8
meetroid8

21152

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#171 meetroid8
Member since 2005 • 21152 Posts

oh god...

freedomfreak
I That sig matches this comment so well it's downright creepy.
Avatar image for dreman999
dreman999

11514

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#172 dreman999
Member since 2004 • 11514 Posts
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="dreman999"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] no, the review just has to have the same standards, that is all. A under the radar game should be reviewed with the same standards as a hyped game as well.

Tex, what you don't get is that DA: O had many thing KoA didn't. A great story, involving character and world and charm. It wasn't just that KoA is generic, it generic with nothing develop on the story.The origins part of DA:O clearly illustrates that, not many game can get you that connected to your character just the beginning of the game like DA:O did, which is a major fault of DA2.

I do get it, but a "great" story that is generic is still a generic story. And really DAO is not a great story. The narrative is generic, the mid game stories only loosely connects to the plot, the villian Loghain is atrocious (he is no Blackthorne, a similiar villian of Ultima V who tries to usurp the kingdom's throne), and the characters are just generic clones of past Bioware characters. DAO never takes any risks and never sets itself apart from more inspired RPGs with more original narratives like Mask of the Betrayer. The problem with DAO fans is that they don't think the game is broken or needs changing. They want more of the same. They do not get the fact that DAO wasn't good enough to be rehashed and Bioware saw this. So DAII already lost before it was even released with its story premise and voice acted hero. And whats really stupid is that fans complained that Leliana comes back if she "dies" but wanted the sequel to follow up on Morrigan's "god baby" which most players didn't even have her get. Then they criticize DAII for not being a "true sequel", wow. The real problem with DAII was NOT the direction it took (the storytelling direction and the character direction it took was not only great, it was necessary in an attempt to set it apart from other RPG narratives), it is the fact that it was rushed out the door well before it was even finished, like Ultima VIII: Pagan or KOTOR II were. And this was not the DA teams first rush job, DAO's expansion was rushed as well. However, DAO took far TOO LONG and it was outdated shortly. The game looked so 2006, not one for 2009. The series has never been great, maybe DAIII will be the first great game, or it will remain Bioware's "B" franchise behind Mass Effect and the next IP the main team puts out.

That's true but they have to do these changes slowly. Ironicly, the fans have the same mind set of the people of the same game world they like.(Change is bad. RAHHH.) It's also not like bw is not at fault ether. DA: O is an example that presentation can g a long way. Off topic:Read DA:ASUNDERS....IT'S REALLY REALLY GOOD.
Avatar image for dreman999
dreman999

11514

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#173 dreman999
Member since 2004 • 11514 Posts
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="dreman999"][QUOTE="princeofshapeir"] I'm not saying it's the worst game ever made, I'm just saying it's disingenuous to GS readers to say Amalur is bad for all these reasons when those reasons can be applied directly to Skyrim, which scored a 9.0. Why are you trying to make it sound like I hate the game? I LIKE Skyrim, I just think it's full of obvious flaws, and I'm tired of it being praised as "THE" best open-world RPG that has to be the new standard that games like Amalur have to live up to.

You do know it's just not that alone. Skyrim has all the lore and character to back up all the talk...While KoA is.....Fable....*VOMITS.

Wow...no... Fable's lore and characters, as well as world are awesome, with a twist of British humor added to the mix. And it is not only far from generic, its satire of the generic while delivering good story and memorable characters. Read Fable: Blood Ties, set in the world of Fable III with Ben Finn, Page, and that hilarious insult gnome that tags along. The world of the Fable games are great while the games themselves weren't as great.

The game died for me the moment the face less towns folk as me to save them from slavers for the hundredth time. It a character game where most of the npc has no character.
Avatar image for arkephonic
arkephonic

7221

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#174 arkephonic
Member since 2006 • 7221 Posts

It's because Kevin VanOrd is the man, and his reviews are fact. If he says Dragon Age Origins isn't generic, then it isn't. If he says Kingdoms of Amalur is generic, then it is.

I mean come on, who has time for 7.5 games these days? Thank you Kevin for informing me that I should pass on Kingdoms of Amular and spend $60 dollars on a game that is more deserving.

Avatar image for SciFiRPGfan
SciFiRPGfan

694

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#175 SciFiRPGfan
Member since 2010 • 694 Posts

no, the review just has to have the same standards, that is all. A under the radar game should be reviewed with the same standards as a hyped game as well.texasgoldrush
I would agree if the games were assessed around the same time. But they weren't, so what might have happened is, that the reviewer has finally started to take generic stories / characters into account and started to take away / not give points for them anymore.

Even if the shift in scoring policy was too big for two year timespan to call the reviewer consistent, based on your posts, it was still an improvement - in the first case in 2009 the flaw of having generic story / setting was overlooked, in the 2nd in 2012 it finally wasn't, so now I would say, that reviewer might have priorities more in line with yours - is more strict about originality - so you should actually be happier about the review. Or do you want him to overlook these flaws forever for the sake of consistency? That's why I am saying that you are cruel, because you want Kevin to stay in his old flawed ways for its sake.

Consistency is a good and important thing, but if the change is for better, it should be welcomed and not frowned upon.

Avatar image for edidili
edidili

3449

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#176 edidili
Member since 2004 • 3449 Posts
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] I do get it, but a "great" story that is generic is still a generic story.

It doesn't matter. You don't seem to get it. Yeah is generic but the majority of games are generic at this point. It's you saving the world from orcs/aliens whatever blah blah blah. There is nothing wrong with generic as long as it is presented in a good way and DA:O achieved that.
Avatar image for Planeforger
Planeforger

20116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#177 Planeforger
Member since 2004 • 20116 Posts
I don't often agrew with texasgoldrush threads, but I was asking myself exactly the same question when I read the review. Not that I think Amalur should have gotten a higher score - I think Dragon Age Origins should have been about a 7.5, too.
Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

25309

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#178 Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 25309 Posts

Here is what Kevin said about DAO's lore.

"Ferelden is a colorful and fascinating kingdom that takes enough cues from well-known fantasy tropes to be familiar, but bends enough conventions to feel original. Dragon Age features dwarves, but their caste-based society and the social paragons that rise above it twist the norms enough to keep you intrigued. Mages remain under the constant watch of templars, a restriction that doesn't sit well with those who view such policing as virtual slavery. The role of religion in human circles is of particular note. Chantries provide refuge to those worshiping the all-powerful Maker, and chanters recite the holy word near their houses of prayer."

From Kevin's perspective, Dragon Age Origins didnt feel overly generic like he may have felt with Kingdoms of Amalur. Which is why he didnt mark DAO down for it. Disagree with that if you will, but do understand that that is his opinion, and he is entitled to it.

Avatar image for Strutten
Strutten

1263

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#179 Strutten
Member since 2008 • 1263 Posts

Maybe because was a far better quality generic, like Skyrim

Amalur is the lowest quality RPG i have seen in years, even Bastion seems to have vastly better production values

loosingENDS


You still say that even tho you only played the demo for what like 10 min ?

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

15251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#180 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 15251 Posts

Here is what Kevin said about DAO's lore.

"Ferelden is a colorful and fascinating kingdom that takes enough cues from well-known fantasy tropes to be familiar, but bends enough conventions to feel original. Dragon Age features dwarves, but their caste-based society and the social paragons that rise above it twist the norms enough to keep you intrigued. Mages remain under the constant watch of templars, a restriction that doesn't sit well with those who view such policing as virtual slavery. The role of religion in human circles is of particular note. Chantries provide refuge to those worshiping the all-powerful Maker, and chanters recite the holy word near their houses of prayer."

From Kevin's perspective, Dragon Age Origins didnt feel overly generic like he may have felt with Kingdoms of Amalur. Which is why he didnt mark DAO down for it. Disagree with that if you will, but do understand that that is his opinion, and he is entitled to it.

Maroxad
but it doesn't bend genre convention....other games had caste system races, such as Gargyoles in Ultima series, the mages/templars I may give to Kevin (but thats more of a focus for DAII) but then again you could not cast spells in town in BGII without consquence, and the role of religion has been done in countless RPGs. But lore is only piece of the puzzle, the plot itself is another, and the plot in DAO is highly generic. Kevin must have not played many older RPGs.
Avatar image for Johnny_Rock
Johnny_Rock

40314

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#181 Johnny_Rock
Member since 2002 • 40314 Posts

Maybe the game just suck.

Masculus

I am playing through it right now. It does not suck by any stretch of the imagination.

Avatar image for juliankennedy23
juliankennedy23

894

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

#182 juliankennedy23
Member since 2005 • 894 Posts

[QUOTE="IAmNot_fun"]Oghren may have been generic and worse of a character than Varric (whom I really liked), put him with Zevran, he's a freaking genius. But I agree with you mostly, DAO's story was extremely boring. I fell asleep while I was getting to Broodmother. But the lore wasn't.texasgoldrush
Zervan was HK47 as an elf...and found his cameo appearance in DAII god awful.

I killed him in the first game and the little bastard still showed up in the sequel.

Of course he looked nothing like his first incarnation so he could have been lying.

Avatar image for arkephonic
arkephonic

7221

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#183 arkephonic
Member since 2006 • 7221 Posts

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Maybe because was a far better quality generic, like Skyrim

Amalur is the lowest quality RPG i have seen in years, even Bastion seems to have vastly better production values

Strutten


You still say that even tho you only played the demo for what like 10 min ?

Lots of people in SW claim that they know everything about a game having only played the demo. They'll give these in depth reviews, criticisms, comparisons, claims of overratedness, all sorts of stuff after only having played the demo, sometimes only half the demo. I was calling out that one guy with the account name ShadowMoses for calling Resistance 3 an overrated and horrible piece of garbage, when he admittedly had only played 3 minutes of the demo. After I called him out, people came to his defense and said that everything you could ever know about a game could be discovered in a matter of minutes with a demo.

I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree with system wars, because I personally don't think you can give a proper full fledged opinion on a game after only having played a part of the demo.

Avatar image for GeneralShowzer
GeneralShowzer

11598

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#184 GeneralShowzer
Member since 2010 • 11598 Posts
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="dreman999"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] no, the review just has to have the same standards, that is all. A under the radar game should be reviewed with the same standards as a hyped game as well.

Tex, what you don't get is that DA: O had many thing KoA didn't. A great story, involving character and world and charm. It wasn't just that KoA is generic, it generic with nothing develop on the story.The origins part of DA:O clearly illustrates that, not many game can get you that connected to your character just the beginning of the game like DA:O did, which is a major fault of DA2.

I do get it, but a "great" story that is generic is still a generic story. And really DAO is not a great story. The narrative is generic, the mid game stories only loosely connects to the plot, the villian Loghain is atrocious (he is no Blackthorne, a similiar villian of Ultima V who tries to usurp the kingdom's throne), and the characters are just generic clones of past Bioware characters. DAO never takes any risks and never sets itself apart from more inspired RPGs with more original narratives like Mask of the Betrayer. The problem with DAO fans is that they don't think the game is broken or needs changing. They want more of the same. They do not get the fact that DAO wasn't good enough to be rehashed and Bioware saw this. So DAII already lost before it was even released with its story premise and voice acted hero. And whats really stupid is that fans complained that Leliana comes back if she "dies" but wanted the sequel to follow up on Morrigan's "god baby" which most players didn't even have her get. Then they criticize DAII for not being a "true sequel", wow. The real problem with DAII was NOT the direction it took (the storytelling direction and the character direction it took was not only great, it was necessary in an attempt to set it apart from other RPG narratives), it is the fact that it was rushed out the door well before it was even finished, like Ultima VIII: Pagan or KOTOR II were. And this was not the DA teams first rush job, DAO's expansion was rushed as well. However, DAO took far TOO LONG and it was outdated shortly. The game looked so 2006, not one for 2009. The series has never been great, maybe DAIII will be the first great game, or it will remain Bioware's "B" franchise behind Mass Effect and the next IP the main team puts out.

The real problem here is that you think that your opinion is some kind of irrefutable fact. You're also a pretentious prick
Avatar image for juliankennedy23
juliankennedy23

894

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

#185 juliankennedy23
Member since 2005 • 894 Posts

[QUOTE="Jolt_counter119"]

I just wish they'd actually write reviews that were less opinionated and more technical. But they can't do that because if they did they would of had to give Skyrim a lower score and they can't do that to the greatest game of all time.

texasgoldrush

Skyrim was VASTLY overrated by the review community. Nevermind how generic that game was (although many of th eside quests weren't). Nevermind the bugs and the unbalanced gameplay, as well as lack of enemy types.

Skyrim is a new high water mark for open world RPGs and the reviews reflect that.

Avatar image for juliankennedy23
juliankennedy23

894

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

#186 juliankennedy23
Member since 2005 • 894 Posts

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

dragon age origin story may have neem generic (i hate that word) but it excelled in everything else, unlike its sequel which failed almost at everything and still managed to get a better score than amalur

texasgoldrush

so it excelled it is broken combat which can easily be exploitable, it excelled in rehashing fantasy cliches and the same company formula over again, it excelled with its rehashes of characters from past Bioware games, and it excelled at getting suckers nostalgic about Baldur's Gate to play a game far inferior to it. Silly DAO fans ignore the game's flaws so blantantly...while bashing DAII for its shortcomings failing to realize the entire series isn't that good. And really I praise DAII for its character cast and its attempt at having an original plot(which MOSTLY works), but nothing else in that game, notice this? While calling it another RPG rush job?

Dragon Age's 2's plot is one of the more broken things about the game.

Avatar image for GeneralShowzer
GeneralShowzer

11598

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#187 GeneralShowzer
Member since 2010 • 11598 Posts

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

dragon age origin story may have neem generic (i hate that word) but it excelled in everything else, unlike its sequel which failed almost at everything and still managed to get a better score than amalur

juliankennedy23

so it excelled it is broken combat which can easily be exploitable, it excelled in rehashing fantasy cliches and the same company formula over again, it excelled with its rehashes of characters from past Bioware games, and it excelled at getting suckers nostalgic about Baldur's Gate to play a game far inferior to it. Silly DAO fans ignore the game's flaws so blantantly...while bashing DAII for its shortcomings failing to realize the entire series isn't that good. And really I praise DAII for its character cast and its attempt at having an original plot(which MOSTLY works), but nothing else in that game, notice this? While calling it another RPG rush job?

Dragon Age's 2's plot is one of the more broken things about the game.

2deep4u
Avatar image for juliankennedy23
juliankennedy23

894

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

#188 juliankennedy23
Member since 2005 • 894 Posts

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]and how dumb is clunky combat and inventory?texasgoldrush

You mean the ME2 leveling system wasn't dumbed down from ME1?

At least it was more functional and balanced than in ME1, unlike the completely broken ME1 system that causes backward difficulty curve.

Yeah but forcing one into an all renegade mode (or all angelic) was a poor substitute from the first game.

Avatar image for ReadingRainbow4
ReadingRainbow4

18733

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#189 ReadingRainbow4
Member since 2012 • 18733 Posts

I gotta add this because I think alot of you are overlooking this based on the artstyle alone.

This games pretty fun, I gave it flack for being compared to darksouls because it's obviously not. But the game get's alot of fun once you start mixing and matching classes, move sets.

The combo system isn't super deep, but it's worlds better than skyrim that's for sure. If you like action rpgs give it a try ive been playing it for around 22 Hours now.

The story is pretty bad though, and the lore while some of it is a bit interesting alot of it is just really poor and doesn't make much sense.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

15251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#190 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 15251 Posts
Skyrim is a new high water mark for open world RPGs and the reviews reflect that.juliankennedy23
and the reviewers overlook its massive flaws like they did Oblivion or Fallout 3....and oh wait, it doesn't surpass the Ultima games or the early Fallout games either. They were far better open world games than Skyrim and far better written.
Dragon Age's 2's plot is one of the more broken things about the game.juliankennedy23
Nope just pieces of it like parts of the first act due to rushjob cuts........the real problem is that dumb fans came expecting another epic story with massive battles and heroism. It just wasn't that kind of story. And the structure is unconventional, that doesn't mean its bad.
Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

15251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#191 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 15251 Posts
[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="dreman999"] Tex, what you don't get is that DA: O had many thing KoA didn't. A great story, involving character and world and charm. It wasn't just that KoA is generic, it generic with nothing develop on the story.The origins part of DA:O clearly illustrates that, not many game can get you that connected to your character just the beginning of the game like DA:O did, which is a major fault of DA2.

I do get it, but a "great" story that is generic is still a generic story. And really DAO is not a great story. The narrative is generic, the mid game stories only loosely connects to the plot, the villian Loghain is atrocious (he is no Blackthorne, a similiar villian of Ultima V who tries to usurp the kingdom's throne), and the characters are just generic clones of past Bioware characters. DAO never takes any risks and never sets itself apart from more inspired RPGs with more original narratives like Mask of the Betrayer. The problem with DAO fans is that they don't think the game is broken or needs changing. They want more of the same. They do not get the fact that DAO wasn't good enough to be rehashed and Bioware saw this. So DAII already lost before it was even released with its story premise and voice acted hero. And whats really stupid is that fans complained that Leliana comes back if she "dies" but wanted the sequel to follow up on Morrigan's "god baby" which most players didn't even have her get. Then they criticize DAII for not being a "true sequel", wow. The real problem with DAII was NOT the direction it took (the storytelling direction and the character direction it took was not only great, it was necessary in an attempt to set it apart from other RPG narratives), it is the fact that it was rushed out the door well before it was even finished, like Ultima VIII: Pagan or KOTOR II were. And this was not the DA teams first rush job, DAO's expansion was rushed as well. However, DAO took far TOO LONG and it was outdated shortly. The game looked so 2006, not one for 2009. The series has never been great, maybe DAIII will be the first great game, or it will remain Bioware's "B" franchise behind Mass Effect and the next IP the main team puts out.

The real problem here is that you think that your opinion is some kind of irrefutable fact. You're also a pretentious prick

So the notion that DAO is highly generic is just opinion? Or was it a commonly accepted criticism. I wonder why Bioware changed things up for the sequel.....and really how does DAO set itself apart from the rest of the genre? It doesn't. And the pot called the kettle black...lol
Avatar image for skrat_01
skrat_01

33767

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#193 skrat_01
Member since 2007 • 33767 Posts
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] And you keep insisting that TWO YEARS is enough to influence storytelling standards...wow. you are clueless. Nevermind the fact that stories have been labeled continously "generic" or "cliched" well before DAO. This timeframe of yours is your invention. You keep making excuse after excuse for these double standards. And you keep going on about context, saying that how well made it is is an excuse for being generic, and that it is "fair" to "overlook" it...dumb as a brick. Holding DAO and KoA to the same standards in storytelling and originialty is fair (both fail miserably)...have I said that Warcraft I and II should be held to the same standards, thats when "timeframe" makes it unfair.

You didn't read my post son, try again. [QUOTE="skrat_01"]No I don't even care any more, you're beyond even looking at the individual context of reviews, critiques and opinions this side of timespans - as far as I'm concerned you're an idiot on this topic, and should sit down and say this -
and standards and opinions must be consistant and if their is a change in standards or opinions...note that. Otherwise, you have double standards...like US Foriegn Policy. And once again, even if the "positives" overcome its generic narrative, that still means the narrtive is generic and doesn't change this fact. Overlooking is double standard. Its you who are idiotically defending this double standard. texasgoldrush
out loud to yourself, and if that fails to the nearest friend, family, or loved one. It takes a certain idiot to put themselves on a pedestal and simultaneously make themselves look like a fool. You sir have done both, so that neatly sits you in the category of pretentious internet juvenile. Easymode.

Avatar image for Goyoshi12
Goyoshi12

9687

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#194 Goyoshi12
Member since 2009 • 9687 Posts

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"][QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

You, sir, are the hypocrite.

You're treating it like this is the worst game ever created? I know you didn't like it the first time around but...really?

xOMGITSJASONx

I'm not saying it's the worst game ever made, I'm just saying it's disingenuous to GS readers to say Amalur is bad for all these reasons when those reasons can be applied directly to Skyrim, which scored a 9.0. Why are you trying to make it sound like I hate the game? I LIKE Skyrim, I just think it's full of obvious flaws, and I'm tired of it being praised as "THE" best open-world RPG that has to be the new standard that games like Amalur have to live up to.

Princeofshapier you need to visit other gaming forums. Its just on GS where Skyrim is praised like that. Most forums i been a member on they call it average like you. So keep that in mind.

Skyrim is barely praised. Dark Souls on the other hand...>.>

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

15251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#195 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 15251 Posts
[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]You didn't read my post son, try again. [QUOTE="skrat_01"]No I don't even care any more, you're beyond even looking at the individual context of reviews, critiques and opinions this side of timespans - as far as I'm concerned you're an idiot on this topic, and should sit down and say this -
and standards and opinions must be consistant and if their is a change in standards or opinions...note that. Otherwise, you have double standards...like US Foriegn Policy. And once again, even if the "positives" overcome its generic narrative, that still means the narrtive is generic and doesn't change this fact. Overlooking is double standard. Its you who are idiotically defending this double standard. texasgoldrush
out loud to yourself, and if that fails to the nearest friend, family, or loved one. It takes a certain idiot to put themselves on a pedestal and simultaneously make themselves look like a fool. You sir have done both, so that neatly sits you in the category of pretentious internet juvenile. Easymode.

and yet you fail at simple logic...lol You and your unrealistic invented standards and your excuses for these double standards. You are like a politician, trying to worm away out of someones hypocrisy. And you calling me an idiot...ok And if wanting games to be judged fairly puts me on a "pedestal" so be it. I call spade a spade thats all....
Avatar image for Goyoshi12
Goyoshi12

9687

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#196 Goyoshi12
Member since 2009 • 9687 Posts

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] out loud to yourself, and if that fails to the nearest friend, family, or loved one. It takes a certain idiot to put themselves on a pedestal and simultaneously make themselves look like a fool. You sir have done both, so that neatly sits you in the category of pretentious internet juvenile. Easymode.texasgoldrush

and yet you fail at simple logic...lol You and your unrealistic invented standards.

and YOU fail at the simple logic of opinions...

lawl.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

15251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#197 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 15251 Posts

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="skrat_01"]Goyoshi12

and yet you fail at simple logic...lol You and your unrealistic invented standards.

and YOU fail at the simple logic of opinions...

lawl.

and a consensus of opinions is fact.....DAO being known for being generic is one as fans and reviewers time and time again say it lacks originality, same with KoA...same with how DAII is cirticized for bad world design and repititve dungeons, and designers look at consensus.
Avatar image for Goyoshi12
Goyoshi12

9687

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#198 Goyoshi12
Member since 2009 • 9687 Posts

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] and yet you fail at simple logic...lol You and your unrealistic invented standards.texasgoldrush

and YOU fail at the simple logic of opinions...

lawl.

and a consensus of opinions is fact.....DAO being known for being generic is one as fans and reviewers time and time again say it lacks originality, same with KoA...same with how DAII is cirticized for bad world design and repititve dungeons, and designers look at consensus.

If the consensus of opinions said jumping off of cliffs was a good thing, would you do it?

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

15251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#199 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 15251 Posts

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

and YOU fail at the simple logic of opinions...

lawl.

Goyoshi12

and a consensus of opinions is fact.....DAO being known for being generic is one as fans and reviewers time and time again say it lacks originality, same with KoA...same with how DAII is cirticized for bad world design and repititve dungeons, and designers look at consensus.

If the consensus of opinions said jumping off of cliffs was a good thing, would you do it?

and how would that even be a consensus of opinions? And you don't get it. How to game designers try to improve on sequels? By looking at the common elements of praise and criticism. Consensus is important.
Avatar image for deactivated-5ac102a4472fe
deactivated-5ac102a4472fe

7431

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#200 deactivated-5ac102a4472fe
Member since 2007 • 7431 Posts

I think part of the problem with Amalur is that unlike DA:O it does not forge its own Idendity (sofar I am only around 7 hours in, did read alot of the story backgrounds on thier web page when I waited for it to be released).

But untill now, most things Ive bumped into is pretty generic, and the game feels like it shys away from bothering the player with the world. So the world feels like a setting rather then a major character (a key aspect to an RPGs identity being its world, as a sort of character on its own).

This may change the longer I get into the game, but up till now the world seems only to serve as a backdrop for the gameplay (which however is quite good).

I would not disagree with the GS review, but I think that the game is a very good game. Sometimes I do get a bit sad because I can catch glimpses of a really nice gameworld, as its own creature, butit never executes, and often just comes across as static.

In alot of ways it comes across as a mixof fable, Diabloon an mmo foundation, it is not a bad tamplate at all, butin my eyes theyfell just short of making a watermark game, and just ended up with a really good game.

Doessnt help with the somewhat inconsistant character and creature design.

With TC mentioning DA:O I do want to point out, that I did not like it as much as most other people did, since I considered that generic aswell, it was a typical post LOTR game. But it did manage to weave its stereotypes into a gameworld which did get its own idendity,altho it was not exactly the strongest identity ever.

in DA:O the NPC characters helped to paint a far more vivid world, then amalur does. If this does change further in, then I will recall this statement :P seeing as how much potential the game has, it would not shock me, that iw might eventually start comming together.