Kingdoms of Amalur

[civvver]

I got this on steam special for $15 last weekend. Have only played about 3 hours, but I'm pretty impressed. It's a lot different than traditional rpgs, it plays more like fable (no auto attacking, lots of dodging, combos) but has a class system with talent trees, although you can make hybrid classes. I was really interested in it on release because I liked the style of the art. I love that high fantasy comic book looking style like fable and wow. But it was $60 and I couldn't justify that price, hence why I just got it.

It also has pretty good reviews and seems to have sold many copies. So while looking at the wikipedia page for the game I was surprised to learn that it was a lead in project for a future mmo and the company who produced it, 38 studios, has gone bankrupt.

Anyone have any thoughts or more info on this? It kinda surprises me that a new company could put out a hit game and still go bankrupt that quickly. I wonder what happened. It seems unfortunate because amalur is a nice game, a refreshing change of pace from more traditional rpgs like skyrim. The lore is kind of underdeveloped but it's a cool new universe. It's like a single player mmo in a lot of ways. And now there won't be any sequels. Oh well. Anyone else played it?

 

[Maniacal]

One of the worst games I've ever played (albeit only the demo, no way would I waste a cent on this), more or less a singleplayer MMORPG with lifeless and unremarkable NPCs, bad dialogue, graphics that look a lot like WoW, MMORPG quest system, embarrassingly awful ranged and magic combat mechanics and overly easy combat that is fine on a console but not up to par for PC games.

At least it was colourful.

It didn't really sell that well, it didn't make back the money it cost me make and the company was mismanaged. Its probably for the best that 38 Studios went out of business as if this hadn't kill it their MMO probably would have been yet another WoW wannabe and failed anyway. It goes to show that you can bring together as many talented people as you want, but it doesn't guarantee a good game.

 

[civvver]

I should've known most on this forum would hate it considering your low opinions of games like dragon age 2.

But what is so terrible about the melee combat? I guess you're also not a fan of fable, darksiders or elder scrolls combat systems?

I guess I don't get the cost that goes into developing games. Some of the best games are small indie ones that cost under 100k, and then you have huge travesties (financially, I like the game so far) like amalur that drive a company bankrupt despite decent sales. How many copies does a game need to sell now to be a success? Cus reports were amalur sold around 300k copies in the first month, that'd be around 20 million dollars at 60 a pop. Seems like that would be at least half the budget in first month of sales.

 

[Maniacal]

I should've known most on this forum would hate it considering your low opinions of games like dragon age 2.

That's kind of the thing with low quality games, most people don't like them very much.

But what is so terrible about the melee combat? I guess you're also not a fan of fable, darksiders or elder scrolls combat systems?

Well, no of course not, they aren't very good combat systems, even on the console. Fable 2 in particular is pretty much spam X or Y. KoA's melee is at least a lot better, but still entirely designed for a gamepad and not as much fun as Dark Messiah or M&B. It could be worse though, and its really the ranged and magic (especially the wand) parts of its combat that are the worst (they really are quite pathetically arcadey, the arrows freaking curved to follow their target and they all just involve spamming a button and autotargeting).

I guess I don't get the cost that goes into developing games. Some of the best games are small indie ones that cost under 100k, and then you have huge travesties (financially, I like the game so far) like amalur that drive a company bankrupt despite decent sales. How many copies does a game need to sell now to be a success? Cus reports were amalur sold around 300k copies in the first month, that'd be around 20 million dollars at 60 a pop. Seems like that would be at least half the budget in first month of sales.

IIRC KoA needed to sell at least 3 million copies or something like that to break even. They had already spent tens of millions on the MMO they were making (and it was still a few years away from being ready) and badly needed KoA to sell really well to keep them afloat financially. Also the developer does not get even half of the $60 price tag for games unless they self-publish.

 

[civvver]

I thought studio 38 joint published with EA. I hadn't thought about that though, good point. 3 million is a pretty large number.

That's kind of the thing with low quality games, most people don't like them very much.

Well you can call them low quality if you want most people I think actually disagree. Amalur has a 81 metacritic score, 6.2 user average score, not amazing but I wouldn't say most people didn't like it. Skyrim has a 94/8.2, fable lost chapters has an 83/8.4 so most people did like them. DA:2 has a 79 metacritic ranking, albeit with a 4.2 user score so ok, I guess 2/3rds of people didn't like it, you got that one right (though I'd still argue that score should be closer to 5-6, cus most people review games to complain, if you're happy you're less likely to score it imo).

What would make for an interesting combat system then in your view? I'm trying to think how you implement an action combat system (actual swings, dodging, combos, not just auto attacks and tactical abilities) that would be better. Not saying amalur/fable have it perfect, just it's not a real deep thing to begin with.

 

[Maniacal]

Metacritic scores have surprisingly little to do with a game's actual quality, especially since reviewers usually don't have enough time to really dig into a game and see past the flash and pretty cosmetics and are hardly objective.

What would make for an interesting combat system then in your view? I'm trying to think how you implement an action combat system (actual swings, dodging, combos, not just auto attacks and tactical abilities) that would be better. Not saying amalur/fable have it perfect, just it's not a real deep thing to begin with.

Dark Messiah, Mount&Blade, and Chivalry all have good melee combat. Mount&Blade is the only game to get mounted combat right too.

 

[Rub'Rum]

I like Kingdoms of Amalur enough. Bought it heavily discounted. The fighting is kind of meh at the beginning, but there is diversification of skills and approaches to combat as you go, things to try out. The dungeons need to be smaller because the repetition of combat often doesn't warrant their length, There is a huge amount of lore in the game, it seems the NPCs are bland but the hidden lore in books and such is a lot more interesting. But yes, the NPCs are super bland. I love loot and this game has a LOT. So much loot and stuff to find... Lots of love has been put in making diverse things to wield and wear. It's a fun enough game to explore. I have nothing against its look and there are diverse ecologies. It's a highly magical somewhat nostalgic sort of look, oh well. I'm still not done with it, been thinking of going back recently, try it with my gamepad this time.

Rock Paper Shotgun asked the question "Why didn't everyone play it". The top rated answer "Because it was rarely on sale and the demo was bad". The beginning was tedious indeed. This is a problem with many demos I find. Yay let me try out the sewer level where I fight rats, that ought to make me play a game.

 

[Maniacal]

Yeah I can't comment on the lore and story since that wasn't really in the demo. From what I have heard it worked out well enough.

 

[civvver]

They did take a long time to discount it. And for some reason it took even longer on steam. I remember checking the price on steam about 6 months ago and it was still $60, even though amazon had retail copies for 30-40. Still, I doubt more sales would've saved it. I looked up the numbers on vgzgamer charts and they said it sold ~1.4 million copies worldwide. So it was a moderate success. If you compare it to say mass effect 2 it sold about half as many copies. Not bad. I think the problem was they brought on so many game developer experts and acquired game subsidiaries to develop it and spent far too much. What should been probably a 15-20 million dollar game turned into an estimated 60 million dollar game. Also who knows how much they sunk into other projects including copernicus.

In the end it's always sad to see developers go belly up but I don't think the mmo version would've been compelling.

 

[Maniacal]

Mass Effect 2 sold far more copies, vgzgamer charts doesn't track digital sales.

 

[civvver]

Oh. Does anyone track those?

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Bought this game when it first came out because I enjoyed the demo well enough, but regretted it almost immediately. The demo is all there is. The game never becomes more than that, you just do the same thing over and over every time you enter a new zone. It really is like playing a single player MMO, which is to say it's all the worst parts of an MMO without any of the social parts that keep you coming back day in and day out.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Strangely, I've often felt the complete reverse about MMOs. Sometimes I just wish I could explore them by myself and taste all the good content without investing thousands of hours, an investment that becomes mandatory when the game is multiplayer and there are people playing constantly; there needs to be stuff that is only attainable by the top 20% players. If WoW had been a single player game (or one that allows a few players to play together), you could have a shot at owning all the coolest gear and viewing all the cool dungeons without investing nearly as much time and frustration trying to be part of groups.

 

[Maniacal]

Which is why the only recent good MMORPG is Guild Wars 2.

Oh. Does anyone track those?

The companies don't release that information.

 

[civvver]

Strangely, I've often felt the complete reverse about MMOs. Sometimes I just wish I could explore them by myself and taste all the good content without investing thousands of hours, an investment that becomes mandatory when the game is multiplayer and there are people playing constantly; there needs to be stuff that is only attainable by the top 20% players. If WoW had been a single player game (or one that allows a few players to play together), you could have a shot at owning all the coolest gear and viewing all the cool dungeons without investing nearly as much time and frustration trying to be part of groups.

I agree, but you do have to adapt the mmo grind quest style to something more fitting for single player. Collection quests for example have little place in single player rpgs, except maybe for crafting or side quests for stuff you'd gather along the way. Also there doesn't need to be a ton of travel time since it's mainly a waste in a single player game, you don't need large quest areas. Think dragon age origins, all small zones, a couple side quests for gathering ghoul parts and stuff like that, but mainly every quest advanced the story, nothing was without purpose. Skyrim open world and lots of travel works because you're constantly exploring and engaging in the world, then you can fast travel. So far amalur's world seems a bit too large and empty, but fast travel sort of helps that.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

It's fun for the first few hours. After that it's just depressingly repetitive once you figure out things. And then you see that you're at only 5% through the game.