Big Huge Wednesdays

[singlepic id=1165 w=550 h=550 float=center]

Reckoning

RPS reviews Reckoning.
More Reckoning reviews.
Even more Reckoning reviews!
And why not…one more Reckoning review!

The tone and tenor of reviews in this batch is definitely much more on the positive side of things, with scores tending to be in the 80% or better range (although Entertainment Weekly didn’t particularly care for the game). One notable highlight is Ten Ton Hammer’s mention of the game’s “anti-grind” formula — the game really has been architected in a way that lets you level up by completing quests, rather than by having to kill countless scores of monsters.

GameBanshee had a lot to say about the game as well, in a four-page review. Here’s a couple of choice quotes:

The odd thing is, Reckoning actually gets better as it goes. Most games are front-loaded with their content, mostly because they want to impress gamers right out of the gate – after all, most players don’t finish games and they want to see all the cool stuff to justify their purchasing decisions right off the bat. Reckoning starts out as an okay action-RPG with some good combat, but the early focus on side-questing around monotonous forests and caves doesn’t do it too many favors. However, stick with it long enough and the game’s better elements creeep out of the woodwork. The game’s first city, Ysa, marks the turning point, and is when the story really begins to come together. Many players may not get that far, which is a real shame as it’s when Reckoning hits its stride; frankly, it should have happened five hours in instead of 25.

And:

All of this that I say about Reckoning’s repetition is worth bearing in mind, but there’s a flip-side to the game that also makes it one of the best action-RPGs seen in years. Though the action-RPG genre has always struggled to marry fast-paced, responsive combat with the depth and breadth of a genuine RPG character system, Reckoning might well be the first game that really succeeds at it. Part of this comes down to the fact that that combat is up there with other dedicated action games like God of War in terms of fluidity and responsiveness, and part of it also comes down to the fact that it doesn’t cut out the role-playing in the name of that action. Reckoning provides a very solid stable of both combat-oriented character development and non-combat options, and it makes previous attempts like The Witcher 2 and Divinity II look clunky and awkward in comparison.

Reckoning is dominating the UK sales charts, at least.

Which, I suppose, isn’t really that surprising, given the game’s heavy reliance on Celtic and English influences in its characters and architecture. It really is quite a contrast with the generally Nordic & Germanic trends in other RPG series.

A World Without Reckoning.

GameBanshee’s Eric Schwarz discusses the game at Gamasutra, and draws out what seems to be a fairly common criticism of it — that it’s almost the first single-player MMORPG:

Aside from the sheer size of the world, Reckoning also does some curious things regarding the structure of that world – namely, it draws very heavy inspiration from MMORPGs. As mentioned above, the world is broke up into distinct zones, connected by convenient canyons and passes that are probably serve both technical and gameplay functions. The player’s progress across the map is more or less west-to-east, with things opening up a little bit more at the midgame point as the player’s objectives expand.

Most lacking from Reckoning, I think, is that sense of emotional attachment. At one point in the game, the player is given the option of destroying the town of Canneroc, a small silk-harvesting village in the middle of a spider-infested wood. In a more traditional RPG, the decision to destroy this town would not be something taken lightly: chances are the player would have spent some time there, got to know its residents, its place in the world, been given some sort of investment into its well-being, etc. However, in Reckoning, it’s just another quest hub to move on from, and whether it continues to exist or not has no impact on the game as a whole. What could have been an interesting moral decision is cheapened significantly by the lack of gameplay repercussions and the structure of the game itself.

I think it’s very strange that Reckoning subscribes to this MMO-style world design. As a single-player game driven largely by its quests, story and exploration factor, there’s very little reason for players not to want to complete every bit of content (at least in theory). Even if a zone’s enemies are cannon fodder, or the loot is no good, players want to be able to tick those quests off one by one. By segregating the game world in this manner, there’s a fundamental conflict of interest between the world design and the motivations of players in navigating it.

And to be fair, there’s an air of validity to his criticisms…although it’s worth noting that inasmuch as modern MMO world design inherits from the Ultima Online tradition, it inherits from a tradition that intended to transpose the large, open world of a single player RPG universe into a multiplayer context. Although, to be fair, MMOs have iterated and permuted how the open world concept is handled quite a bit.

The criticism of the lack of moral impact of a decision in the game is…you know what? I think I might have said this before, but I (for one) am glad that Reckoning doesn’t make much of a bother about moral decision-making. Not that I don’t like that mechanic in games when it’s there…but it’s nice to have a break from it, too. And, as I am sure I said before, it fits in with the lore of the world. Because really, what is morality in a fully deterministic, fully predestined world? What is a murderer, in such a world? It’s not like he could choose not to kill the other person, after all. Does such a one have moral agency?

Is Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning the “most accessible RPG ever”?

CNET actually posed the question, and the consensus at their end tends toward a positive response to the question. GameBanshee doesn’t quite agree, although their disagreements mostly focus on quibbles over the PC version’s controls. Which, yes, are a bit different from the standard WASD-based control scheme that has become typical in PC RPGs…but which are hardly an insurmountable (or even a significant) hurdle as far as getting into the game is concerned.

Will Reckoning have a sequel?

We already know the answer to this question!

Yes. Yes, it will.

7 Responses

  1. Deckard says:

    Looking forward to the MMORPG they are working on.

  2. Sergorn says:

    I’m rather baffled at some of the criticism labelled at Reckoning from reviewers… while Skyrim, Oblivion or eck Fallout 3 (where was the consequence if you decided to nuke that first village ? Yet the game was applaude for giving the choice) got a free pass for similar issues…

    -Sergorn

  3. Thepal says:

    Haven’t played Amalur to the point of destroying a village (just played the demo), but I’d say Fallout 3’s was probably done a little better. You had gotten to know the people in the town (and unlike most Bethesda games, they did seem like unique characters), and destroying the town did have an impact. The town isn’t really left behind you, but always sitting there as a reminder (I’m guessing Amalur pretty much moves on from there and you never really need to return). Plus, at least one citizen turned into a ghoul. From what the article says, it seems like in Amalur it is just another quest hub (if it is anything like the first town I went to in the demo, the people don’t exactly seem unique), and you never really need to go back to it.

    The reviews I’ve read so far seem to back up my feelings after playing the demo. The game just isn’t quite right. I think when they do a sequel it will be much better. They will learn, fix up the controls, make it a less generic RPG, and end up with a much better game. Kinda like the Witcher (well… it’s mostly the controls in the Witcher 1 that bother me). The skill is there, they just need to learn as a team.

  4. Sergorn says:

    I can’t really comment from having just played the demo, but the NPCs/writting seemed better written in what I’ve seen in the demo than what you find in a TES game (and I say this loving both Oblivion and SKyrim).

  5. Thepal says:

    Better than Oblivion and Skyrim (for the most part), yes (the lack of good NPCs in Elder Scrolls games is still one of my main issues with it). Better than Fallout 3, no. Fallout did a lot better job with NPCs, in my opinion.

    But it was still generic-RPG characters in Amalur (that I talked to at least). They went for size over uniqueness, like Elder Scrolls does. Bethesda and others need to learn that when you walk into a town, it should be like Monitor or Moonshade or Skara Brae. When the Serpent Isle towns are destroyed, that makes you feel something (even if it is just annoyance). When you save Skara Brae in U7, and Caine is left behind, it actually matters. That’s what something like that should be like. Destroying a town you don’t care about doesn’t really mean anything.

  6. Sergorn says:

    Well I didn’t mention Fallout 3’s NPC for a reason 😛 Fallout 3 aimed to be a Fallout game (I’ve always felt the “Oblivion with guns” comment were somewhat unfair), so it certainly was more focused that any TES game ever aimed to be, with better NPCs, and better choices and consequences. I was still hoping Skyrim would take a cue from it, and it did somewhat, but I think TES will always be one of those “quantity before all” kind of game.

    But it’s basically my point really : I’m not saying the criticism against Amalur are necesarilly unwarranted… but a lot of these same criticism could be applied to Skyrim as well, and reviewer gave it a pass, warranting him glowing reviews and awards and such. To me this feels like there’s some sort of double standard here.

  7. Thepal says:

    Skyrim reviews all mentioned the bad, they basically just also said that the sheer amount of awesomeness cancelled it out. Basically, there were like 30/100 points that Skyrim loses for bugs and not-partically-good characters and such, but it was already getting 150/100 for all the good parts. So, it was still getting the 100/100 reviews.

    Amalur doesn’t have that ridiculous amount of awesomeness to fall back on.