🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 00:31:57 +0400, Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't even remember why I put Kingdom of Amalur: The Reckoning in my wish list.  A couple quick searches doesn't turn up much.  Comparison to God of War, which I like, but it's a console game, not sure how that would work on the computer, and Torchlight style art which I hate.
>

get it. And if you have a controller GET it! Don't forget addons.

-- 
Andrew Rybenkov

"Kingdom of Amalur: The Reckoning"
There are 2 DLC's of extra Lands .

YES ! TOTALLY GETS MY RECOMMENDATION.
Most underrated action/RPG game of 2012

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/kingdoms-of-amalur-reckoning

Modern game engine & looks in a slightly Fantasy style.
Think Skyrim ...Oblivion ...Gothic 4 ...bit like the MMO RPG's.

Well made for PC ...Save/Load anytime - its silly-Fun.
It looks good on a modern machine also buts runs remarkably well on 
something
like a P4 with AGP graphics.

Central quest - single Hero character- LOTS of side quests.
Its a sort of Open world - big go where you like areas with corridor like 
design
sections in-between.
If searching the Net re. this Note its often titled "The Reckoning"
 & its "Kingdoms" with an 's'.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse. (Slash n Bash n Fireballs n Stuff)
 

Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>So many games so little time.  I've been playing Diablo III for quite a while now, but I think I'm nearing my limit again (Btw if you liked necromancer in D2, the Witchdoctor is pretty good at getting big mobs of minions now).  I've got a bunch of games in Steam I haven't even tried yet, Skyrim & Arkham Asylum to name a couple.  
>
>I don't even remember why I put Kingdom of Amalur: The Reckoning in my wish list.  A couple quick searches doesn't turn up much.  Comparison to God of War, which I like, but it's a console game, not sure how that would work on the computer, and Torchlight style art which I hate.

Maybe this gameplay video will help
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnKFXhm-Kbk

I'd heard nothing about the game previously but that video makes me sure
I want to stay well away from it.

Characters in plate armor jumping and rolling around like gymnasts,
instantly swapping between a giant hammer and sword and shield, combo
moves and supercharged finishing moves and so on.

Total consolitis.


>From the wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdoms_of_Amalur:_Reckoning

"Combat is based on the timing of button presses, similar to an action
role-playing game, with occasional quick time event cutscenes. The
combat includes a 'fate' system which allows players to accumulate 'fate
points' and ultimately enter 'Reckoning Mode', a slow motion mode that
allows the player to quickly dispatch enemies."

Xocyll

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 07:47:40 -0400, Xocyll <Xoc...@gmx.com> wrote:

>Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
>the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>>I don't even remember why I put Kingdom of Amalur: The Reckoning in my wish list.  A couple quick searches doesn't turn up much.  Comparison to God of War, which I like, but it's a console game, not sure how that would work on the computer, and Torchlight style art which I hate.

>Maybe this gameplay video will help
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnKFXhm-Kbk

>I'd heard nothing about the game previously but that video makes me sure
>I want to stay well away from it.

>Characters in plate armor jumping and rolling around like gymnasts,
>instantly swapping between a giant hammer and sword and shield, combo
>moves and supercharged finishing moves and so on.

>Total consolitis.

While I disagree on the defamatory "consolitis" jab, I generally have
to side with Xocyll on this one. It was different enough from more
traditional RPGs to keep me from enjoying it. The game felt too much
like a loot-focused action/RPG like Diablo (albeit in chase view
rather than top-down) than a game focused on story and exploration
(e.g., Skyrim).

Then again, I will also admit that I did not play the game long enough
even to get out of the starter dungeon, so I failed to experience much
of what the game had to offer. Still, based on the short part I did
play, it was obvious from the start that the game held little appeal
for me.

On the other hand, the game has received good reviews, which would
seem to indicate it isn't total crap. Many people like this game; you
may be one of them too. Just be sure you know what you are getting. If
you want an action-focused RPG, then Amalur will probably appeal to
you. But if you want a more free-form adventure, then you may wish to
rethink the purchase.

Then again, for $5.99, it's not that much of a risk, so I guess in the
end my recommendation is to buy it anyway* ;-)

Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 07:47:40 -0400, Xocyll <Xoc...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
>>the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>>I don't even remember why I put Kingdom of Amalur: The Reckoning in my wish list.  A couple quick searches doesn't turn up much.  Comparison to God of War, which I like, but it's a console game, not sure how that would work on the computer, and Torchlight style art which I hate.
>
>>Maybe this gameplay video will help
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnKFXhm-Kbk
>
>>I'd heard nothing about the game previously but that video makes me sure
>>I want to stay well away from it.
>
>>Characters in plate armor jumping and rolling around like gymnasts,
>>instantly swapping between a giant hammer and sword and shield, combo
>>moves and supercharged finishing moves and so on.
>
>>Total consolitis.
>
>While I disagree on the defamatory "consolitis" jab, I generally have
>to side with Xocyll on this one. It was different enough from more
>traditional RPGs to keep me from enjoying it. The game felt too much
>like a loot-focused action/RPG like Diablo (albeit in chase view
>rather than top-down) than a game focused on story and exploration
>(e.g., Skyrim).

I was referring to a heavily armored character jumping around and moving
like a cloth clad ninja, and the hit the target multiple times in midair
before gravity can drop him to the ground, both of which seem to be
staples of the RPG-Ultra-Lite you get on consoles.

>Then again, I will also admit that I did not play the game long enough
>even to get out of the starter dungeon, so I failed to experience much
>of what the game had to offer. Still, based on the short part I did
>play, it was obvious from the start that the game held little appeal
>for me.
>
>On the other hand, the game has received good reviews, which would
>seem to indicate it isn't total crap. Many people like this game; you
>may be one of them too. Just be sure you know what you are getting. If
>you want an action-focused RPG, then Amalur will probably appeal to
>you. But if you want a more free-form adventure, then you may wish to
>rethink the purchase.

The problem with reviews in these days of PC/console dual developed
games is those reviews are often being written by people who are
predominantly console gamers, not PC players - they're used to
controller only and all the console game memes and sing their praises.
That doesn't mean the game is going to be at all fun for someone who is
PC game only or wants an actual RPG

>Then again, for $5.99, it's not that much of a risk, so I guess in the
>end my recommendation is to buy it anyway* ;-)

I'd say hit Youtube and other sources and see gameplay videos, that
should tell you whether or not it's something you could get into.


The fact that it has quicktime events is enough on it's own to put me
off, even without the silly combo moves, finishing moves and ultra
nimble dodging around while wearing 50+ pounds of plate armor and
wielding a hammer that looks like it must weigh 40 more.

I guess it all depends on how many console "features" you're willing to
put up with in your PC game.

Xocyll

I'm no good at the 'find the fancy Moves' of many Hack n Slash
 Kingdoms of Amalur is for me far more satisfying and feels rewarding
than most ..its much better than (similar) Darksiders II .
The thing I think I really like in Kingdoms of Amalur is that the characters 
(many)
really do have character .
The AI is varied ...get attacked by 3 wolves  (quite often) each encounter 
will be slightly different...
one might run away & might return later or not ..another group will behave 
differently.
Its keeps you interested.
There is silliness , its very 'Camp' ...its Fun.
@@@Mouse@@@ 

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 2:57:28 PM UTC-7, Xocyll wrote:

> 
> >Then again, for $5.99, it's not that much of a risk, so I guess in the
> >end my recommendation is to buy it anyway* ;-)
> 

I ended up buying it.  I haven't started playing it yet.  I decided to give Arkham Asylum a try since it's Batman's 75th birthday. 

Another obvious console title (I wasn't aware of that when I got it, I suppose I should just expect everything has consolitis unless otherwise told), I'm a little irritated by the typical console 'here's an objective you can't get and have to backtrack for later when you get an upgrade' crap, and the camera is a little wonky at times, but other than that it's not bad.

- Justisaur

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 1:31:57 PM UTC-7, Justisaur wrote:
> So many games so little time.  I've been playing Diablo III for quite a while now, but I think I'm nearing my limit again (Btw if you liked necromancer in D2, the Witchdoctor is pretty good at getting big mobs of minions now).  I've got a bunch of games in Steam I haven't even tried yet, Skyrim & Arkham Asylum to name a couple.  
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even remember why I put Kingdom of Amalur: The Reckoning in my wish list.  A couple quick searches doesn't turn up much.  Comparison to God of War, which I like, but it's a console game, not sure how that would work on the computer, and Torchlight style art which I hate.
> 
> 
> 
> - Justisaur

In article <aa4ddd1a-a143-42b2...@googlegroups.com>, 
just...@gmail.com says...
> 
> On Saturday, April 19, 2014 2:57:28 PM UTC-7, Xocyll wrote:
> 
> > 
> > >Then again, for $5.99, it's not that much of a risk, so I guess in the
> > >end my recommendation is to buy it anyway* ;-)
> > 
> 
> I ended up buying it.  I haven't started playing it yet.  I decided to give Arkham Asylum a try since it's Batman's 75th birthday. 
> 
> Another obvious console title (I wasn't aware of that when I got it, I suppose I should just expect everything has consolitis unless otherwise told), I'm a little irritated by the typical console 'here's an objective you can't get and have to backtrack for later when you get an upgrade' crap, and the camera is a little wonky at times, but other than that it's not bad.
> 
> - Justisaur


I don't remember even where and why I bought it ... it  came to my 
attention somehow, just over a year ago. I must say that I am not a 
console kind of player. Sonic the 'edge'og or Trine are really not my 
thing,  much as I like the mere looks of them. So if this was really a 
'console' game, I probably would've binned it in very short order. I did 
no such thing.

Amalur is actually very enjoyable, in my opinion. There are large areas 
to discover and explore, countless subplots that actually have storyline 
to them, especially the faction ones (and you're not tied to joining 
just ONE faction) and a main storyline to top it  all off. 

I didn't regret buying this game one moment. I played one of each 
classes to a fairly high level, but I haven't finished the game with 
either one, as yet. But pretty much everything I saw so far has been 
pleasing. Easily as enjoyable, say, as Neverwinter Nights.

-P.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Am 24.04.14 06:27, schrieb Peter Huebner:

> console kind of player. Sonic the 'edge'og or Trine are really not my
> thing,  much as I like the mere looks of them.

Actually Trine 1 was a PC only title initially, Trine2 came out also PC 
first. If you don�t like Trine you miss out on one of the best puzzle 
platformers in history.

Yes, at that price.

We Human Being Purchaser creatures are never going to learn are we?
WHATEVER the price of a Game its still the same quality-playability
At $3 Dollars its absolutely no better than �30 ...or $300.

Can any Bunny give a real reason why a low price for a Game makes it
in any way more entertainment value ?
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") Mouse (We Fall For It Over & Over tho :) 

>"Trimble Bracegirdle"  wrote in message 
>news:ljpp6d$e4c$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>We Human Being Purchaser creatures are never going to learn are we?
>WHATEVER the price of a Game its still the same quality-playability
>At $3 Dollars its absolutely no better than �30 ...or $300.
>
>Can any Bunny give a real reason why a low price for a Game makes it
>in any way more entertainment value ?
>(\__/)
>(='.'=)
>(")_(") Mouse (We Fall For It Over & Over tho :)

Easy.  You feel less guilty about wasting the money.  Plop $50 on a piece of 
crap, you feel bad.  Drop $3, what are you out?  A hamburger and fries? 
You'll survive.  Plus, there is always the added incentive that you might be 
one of the few who really loves the game and then got a great bargain. 
Everybody has different tastes.

Chuck

"Trimble Bracegirdle" <no-spam@never.spam> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>We Human Being Purchaser creatures are never going to learn are we?
>WHATEVER the price of a Game its still the same quality-playability
>At $3 Dollars its absolutely no better than �30 ...or $300.
>
>Can any Bunny give a real reason why a low price for a Game makes it
>in any way more entertainment value ?

It doesn't.

While you wasted less money on it, you still wasted it and it still got
counted as a copy sold.
This makes it more likely that more of the same low quality games will
be coded in the future.

Don't buy shit games at any price, and maybe they'll finally wake up to
the fact that we don't want them, and we won't buy them.
The guys signing off on this crap aren't reading the fine print of how
many copies were sold at what prices, they're looking at the overview of
how many copies sold, and if it's high enough, they'll green light more
of the same.

Even if they don't make much profit, being able to say "we sold 100,000
copies" spins it as somewhat of a success.
They reached an audience, and now all they have to do is get people to
buy earlier at a higher price (preorder incentives.) 
Marketing already managed to convince them to buy in the first place,
albeit not at the price point they'd like.

If they only manage to sell 5000 copies on the other hand, it's a
failure on all counts, because not only did they not make the profit
they wanted, they didn't reach an audience either, despite everything
marketing tried.


The only winning move is not to play.

Xocyll

Am 30/04/2014 05:03, schrieb Trimble Bracegirdle:
> We Human Being Purchaser creatures are never going to learn are we?
> WHATEVER the price of a Game its still the same quality-playability
> At $3 Dollars its absolutely no better than �30 ...or $300.
>
> Can any Bunny give a real reason why a low price for a Game makes it
> in any way more entertainment value ?

The price may not have any effect on entertainment value. However if I 
am unsure about wether or not I'll like a game without experiencing the 
gameplay then $3 might be worth the risk of trying it out while paying 
full price would be quite a gamble.
At least as long as there's no free demo.



---
Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus Schutz ist aktiv.
http://www.avast.com

In article <ljpp6d$e4c$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, no-spam@never.spam says...
> 
> We Human Being Purchaser creatures are never going to learn are we?
> WHATEVER the price of a Game its still the same quality-playability
> At $3 Dollars its absolutely no better than ￜ30 ...or $300.
> 
> Can any Bunny give a real reason why a low price for a Game makes it
> in any way more entertainment value ?
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(") Mouse (We Fall For It Over & Over tho :) 

It's very simple, really, in my mind. 

7 bucks is 1/2 the price of a movie ticket here. Or a DVD rental.
So if the 7 dollar game entertains me for a bit over 1 hour I feel I 
have not lost anything.

The 50 dollar game has to do considerably better though, and because  
$50 is a non-piffling amount I expect considerably more than 7 hours of 
entertainment  from it. 

all in my personal opinion and YMMV of course     -P.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

IMO so far Xocyll  has the only realistic answer:

>>>>"While you wasted less money on it, you still wasted it and it still got
counted as a copy sold.
This makes it more likely that more of the same low quality games will
be coded in the future......
....Even if they don't make much profit, being able to say "we sold 100,000
copies" spins it as somewhat of a success...."<<<<

Agreed.
Buying cheap what one wouldn't buy full price is feeding the Monster
"My God..they won't even buy it dirt super-cheap !!!..mustn't do that 
again.."
@@Mouse@@

>"Trimble Bracegirdle"  wrote in message 
>news:ljush2$r5n$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>IMO so far Xocyll  has the only realistic answer:
>
>>>>>"While you wasted less money on it, you still wasted it and it still 
>>>>>got
>counted as a copy sold.
>This makes it more likely that more of the same low quality games will
>be coded in the future......
>....Even if they don't make much profit, being able to say "we sold 100,000
>copies" spins it as somewhat of a success...."<<<<
>
>Agreed.
>Buying cheap what one wouldn't buy full price is feeding the Monster
>"My God..they won't even buy it dirt super-cheap !!!..mustn't do that 
>again.."
>@@Mouse@@

It will be hard for folks to believe this, but I think he is partially 
correct, "He Who Should Not Be Named".  Just the wrong customer.  They would 
be counting the sales to the stores.  Not the store's sale to the consumer. 
After they sell their product, they don't care what the store sells it for 
and if they loose money (the selling store).  When BestBuy, Wal-Mart, 
whatever-the-current-names-are, sells a product at a loss, the gaming 
company takes no losses.  When the retail outlets stop buying into the hype 
and order fewer units and wait to reorder when necessary, then they will pay 
attention to their audience.

Chuck

On 5/3/2014 6:02 AM, Chuck wrote:
>> "Trimble Bracegirdle"  wrote in message
>> news:ljush2$r5n$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>> IMO so far Xocyll  has the only realistic answer:
>>
>>>>>> "While you wasted less money on it, you still wasted it and it
>>>>>> still got
>> counted as a copy sold.
>> This makes it more likely that more of the same low quality games will
>> be coded in the future......
>> ....Even if they don't make much profit, being able to say "we sold
>> 100,000
>> copies" spins it as somewhat of a success...."<<<<
>>
>> Agreed.
>> Buying cheap what one wouldn't buy full price is feeding the Monster
>> "My God..they won't even buy it dirt super-cheap !!!..mustn't do that
>> again.."
>> @@Mouse@@
>
> It will be hard for folks to believe this, but I think he is partially
> correct, "He Who Should Not Be Named".  Just the wrong customer.  They
> would be counting the sales to the stores.  Not the store's sale to the
> consumer. After they sell their product, they don't care what the store
> sells it for and if they loose money (the selling store).  When BestBuy,
> Wal-Mart, whatever-the-current-names-are, sells a product at a loss, the
> gaming company takes no losses.  When the retail outlets stop buying
> into the hype and order fewer units and wait to reorder when necessary,
> then they will pay attention to their audience.
>
> Chuck
>

Who cares what they count as a sale?  I'm more concerned about what I 
count as a buy.
-- 
Anyhow
Anywhere
Anyplace
Anytime -- Front Line Assembly, "Sado-Masochist"

In article <ljpp6d$e4c$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, no-spam@never.spam says...
> We Human Being Purchaser creatures are never going to learn are we?
> WHATEVER the price of a Game its still the same quality-playability
> At $3 Dollars its absolutely no better than £30 ...or $300.
> 
> Can any Bunny give a real reason why a low price for a Game makes it
> in any way more entertainment value ?

Well, consider it as the same price for ten games, then... Does that 
work better?

- Gerry Quinn

In article <ljpp6d$e4c$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, no-spam@never.spam says...
> We Human Being Purchaser creatures are never going to learn are we?
> WHATEVER the price of a Game its still the same quality-playability
> At $3 Dollars its absolutely no better than �30 ...or $300.
>
> Can any Bunny give a real reason why a low price for a Game makes it
> in any way more entertainment value ?

Because if the price is too high, it's not worth buying above other more 
important things, therefore, the entertainment value is nil. Or it could 
even be negative, if it stops you being able to afford other things.

-- JLE

Yes.  Game is fun in a mindless hack and slash way.

On Monday, April 21, 2014 1:56:27 PM UTC-7, Justisaur wrote:
> On Saturday, April 19, 2014 2:57:28 PM UTC-7, Xocyll wrote:

> > >Then again, for $5.99, it's not that much of a risk, so I guess in the
> > >end my recommendation is to buy it anyway* ;-)
> 
> I ended up buying it.  I haven't started playing it yet.  

I've played it a little now, got bored with it pretty quick, not even really worth the $6 to me.

- Justisaur

On 6/3/2014 12:32 PM, Justisaur wrote:
> On Monday, April 21, 2014 1:56:27 PM UTC-7, Justisaur wrote:
>> I ended up buying it.  I haven't started playing it yet.
>
> I've played it a little now, got bored with it pretty quick, not even really worth the $6 to me.

Yeah, same here - I bought it based on recommendations from this group 
(paid a lot more than $6 back then too) and absolutely hated it from the 
get go. I probably would have enjoyed it 10 or 15 years ago, but that 
kind of mindless hacking slashing button mashing just doesn't do 
anything for me anymore. And on rails, which is adding insult to injury.

Bleah.

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 08:34:17 +0400, MetalGuru <inv...@chainmail.com> wrote:

> And on rails,

this is completely wrong (ok, 5 min. tutorial level is.)

-- 
Andrew Rybenkov