I have to say, I really did not enjoy the demo... I felt the camera was way too close and floaty, I felt the story could not grab me like it wanted to, I really did not like the interface (having been spoiled by Skyrim), but I still pre-ordered the game.

Why did I pre-order a game that I appear to not have enjoyed? Mainly because I think I can see what Amalur is trying to do and I like that. Combine that with the fact that the developers have been extremely vocal about their game, what they are trying to accomplish, and the updates they intend to make. There is something nice about a company being completely transparent and listening to feedback and making changes their customers want that I want to reward.

It doesn't hurt that it might have just been a bad demo, they've gone on record saying it was 3 months old code, so I'm also giving them the benefit of the doubt. The game itself - loot-driven open world action RPG - is 100% down my alley and it sounds like they want to make it an incredible experience.

Anybody else feel this way about Amalur or any other game?

I too have preorder the game and am looking forward to it, but have been avoiding some things. I played the demo but just to test out the combat, I wasn't listening to people and just clicking buttons through conversations. I found the camera angles to be all over the place at times as well, it doesn't seem like you have total control of it. however, I do like the inventory and menus I'm not sure why lots of people are speaking poorly about it. Since I general pick up everything I enjoy junk buttons where once I know I want to sell something I never have to see it again. There is also no weight just a number of items, which isn't realistic, but I find easier cause I don't want to be dropping a dozen things to find room for 10lbs. Lastly I like the break down in the armor by body part. In skyrim I have a dozen random rings and it clutters up my armor.

I also pre-ordered despite the awful demo. I'm pretty sure the bugs will be fixed, my only concern is the spartan character creation -- choosing whole faces that can't be altered is so Morrowind. Hoping that's just a demo limit. 
 
Knowing that they were making changes to the game based on what people on their forums were saying -- that is pretty great.

I pre-ordered the $80 version of the game. I actually really loved the demo and didn't seem to run into any sorts of problems despite playing through it twice. I didn't like the camera a couple of times, but at this point that does not make or break a game for me.

You have no idea how much better I feel knowing that's a months old build. Man what a relief.

Exactly how I feel. Totally sold on the great combat and specialization though. That + the cozy feel sold me.

I really dislike the low Field of View, which makes me feel like I've blinders on. Didn't stop me from enjoying the demo though. I got used to it in a matter of minutes. Preordered PC version.

That said, I hope people will figure out ways to tweak the .ini files to increase FoV. That sort of thing usually happens.

I couldn't disagree with the original post more ...

I thought Skyrim's UI was all over the place. In the open world it was nonexistent, and didn't tell me the sorts of information I wanted to know ( what effects did I have, how long until they wore off; while stealth, who could see me and who couldn't ... check out stealth in that Amalaur demo - big difference ) and while digging through the menu's they were obnoxious with how much space things took up without giving me any sort of easy way to find a couple items I really wanted ( which made using potions damn near pointless ) or giving me an overall sense of what I was working with.

I thought Amalaur's camera was refreshing after Skyrim's. While Skyrim just stuck to one camera, although one you could adjust, Amalaur opted for one that is controlled partly by the AI. The biggest differences for me came when you compare a very typical fight from both games: a tango with multiple wolves. In Skyrim you end up just spinning around looking for stuff while you stand in place. In Amalaur the camera pulls out and circles around to keep as many wolves in view at any time. As a result in Skyrim I felt like I was responding to the wolves' attacks, whereas in Amalaur I could take the offensive far more easily.

Meanwhile, the story ... Skyrim had a story? ... Not really. Skyrim's story was optional. Amalaur's story also appears pretty optional. Both have a world that you explore and discover. To me, this is totally different from a game having a story. A story has a sequence of events you play through in order to have a shared experience that the game's designer intended, and that all players go through. Both of these games couldn't be further from that. As a result, neither game "pulled" me into the world with the "story." The premise, however? ... I like the premise of Amalaur a lot more. You're a freak experiment intended to combat the hordes of psycho blood-thirsty immortal elves. Or. You're just one of these guys nobody's seen for a long time, now go fight some dragons that ( if you give them enough time ) a bunch of town guards can kill.

Having said that, I am far more interested in the world of Amalaur than the world of Skyrim, and I want to explore the world of Amalaur far more than I do Skyrim's world. Why? ... one looks so much better than the other. There's a lot to be said about sticking to a single province per game ... but artistically, I would rather see more variety. But beyond that, the artistic direction in Amalaur is much better. Animations look more fluid. The creatures and people have a look to them that screams "Amalaur" and not "I am trying to be medieval Norse fantasy, please pretend that I am as real as possible while that dragon flies backwards."

Having said all that ... The Witcher 2 is still better.

@Centimani: Yeah, Curt Schilling himself has gone on record on their forums saying that the demo is 3 months old and they had a separate team working on it (because it is a big deal creating an hour long demo out of an entirely open-ended world) and that during that process they fixed a number of bugs that just couldn't be done in the demo as well.

@Seppli: JoeQ, the combat designer guy from the Giantbomb Podcast, said they've made some improvements to the camera, specifically the field of view, its lowness to the ground, and how it reacts to player movement--allegedly he's got a build with all those improvements that he's going to show off at some point this week. All of it is toggles and sliders, which should be pretty great for us to tweak until we get it just right.

@celegorm_menegroth: I dunno if you disagree with my post in its entirety... you disagree that Skyrim had a better interface, and that's fine. To each their own. Though... you might want to look at Amalur again from the artistic standpoint... at least from the demo, the "Purple Forest" screams "Night Elven Territory"... I'm not saying McFarlane was seriously influenced by World of Warcraft... but McFarlane was seriously influenced by World of Warcraft. The animations though are leaps and bounds better than WoW, more Fable-ish which is what I like. But we can both agree that Witcher 2 was a better game.

I wonder how Molyneux feels about all these comparisons I've been reading to Amalur being "Fable done right." I'm sort of feeling that, too. This is the game I wanted Fable to be.

@Enigmatical:

Great news. Thanks for the info!

@Enigmatical said:

@Seppli: JoeQ, the combat designer guy from the Giantbomb Podcast, said they've made some improvements to the camera, specifically the field of view, its lowness to the ground, and how it reacts to player movement--allegedly he's got a build with all those improvements that he's going to show off at some point this week. All of it is toggles and sliders, which should be pretty great for us to tweak until we get it just right.

Really want to see this as well.

Also hope it will be in the day 0 patch, if not on release.

And WarCraft screams WarHammer ... what does that prove?

It proves everyone is inspired by something.

Skyrim screams Norse mythology. What does that prove?

It proves everyone is inspired by something.

The source of the inspiration is meaningless. What you do with that inspiration is everything.

We can hang out going back and forth all day long saying who inspired what ... it all goes back to some cave drawings of deer migratory patterns in southern France, anyway.

MacFarlane's own linework, his own history ( all on public record ... buy some comics ) were more influential in the creation of what he is than a video game that was developed after his own style was firmly established. Strong line work. Use of color. Exaggerated weapons.

None of these things are unique to WarCraft.

Everyone was inspired by something.

Maybe you should consider if WarCraft was inspired by the artistic movements of mid to late 1990's comic book art? Or ElfQuest? Perhaps the action movies stars of the 1980's were influenced by heroic pop art movement of the mid-century, which took cues from the Conan stories originally published in the 1930's. These same stories which "invented" the action adventure genre of modern American literature. That same genre which later had an influence on the D&D story-telling style used by many other authors, who in turn inspired WarHammer and then WarCraft.

Or, maybe we should consider the influence of the Tale of Gilgamesh on ancient mythology, which had an overriding effect on what we in modern society call a hero, not to mention it's profound impact on modern religions.

Or perhaps someone who worked for Blizzard went on a hiking trip in southern France.

Inspiration is meaningless. What you do with it is everything.

I feel a stronger draw to the artistic vision of Amalaur due to the use of color, the animations, and the overall style and how it is all tied together than I do to Skyrim, or WarCraft for that matter.

Except The Witcher 2. Which is still better.

See: New Witcher 2 trailer. Case closed.

http://www.giantbomb.com/celebrate-the-witcher-2s-360-port-with-an-execution/17-5604/

@Tennmuerti: Yeah, me too.

I was originally holding out on a pre-order until they confirmed that the camera issues would be in a Day 1 patch, but after spending some time on their forums and reading their very busy DevTracker, I felt that the guys there are listening to their customers, listening to the feedback, and want what's best for their customers (hence the OP). I'm glad to see them care about their product.

I still don't understand how people actually think the combat system is good. Unless I was playing a different demo. It's like they couldn't decide if they wanted to make it play like Diablo or Arkham City, so they made a sloppy amalgamation of the two that didn't work instead. Actually, what it played most like was DC Universe Online...but sloppy.

I have respect for everyone involved in the project except for McFarlane (never liked his art and the visuals in this game are just...bad) and hope it's much better than the demo. It just reeks of a game directed by people with too big of a vision being created by people with too little experience.

@ProppaT: I didn't have as huge of a problem with the combat system as I think you did, but I did hate that I had to hold a button down to cast a magic spell. I want to be able to beat a guy with a sword and finish him with a spell, not stop, hold down a trigger, and then press the button (which isn't fluid). In that aspect, I think I enjoyed Fable's controls a bit more, having each of your primary attacks tied to a button -- melee, ranged, magic.

And your final point, "a game directed by people with too big of a vision," I agree with you as well. That was my issue with Fable. Molyneux went up there and sold us all on how awesome Fable was and it ended up never reaching that status (though Fable 2 was good). I worry the BHG guys are doing the same, I mean... how grandiose of an experience can a single development team truly make? I think I finally decided to pre-order after reading Tycho's thoughts (on Penny Arcade), reading IGN's on-going review, and their forums that I started to feel confident that, "Hell, they might have made the game they claim to be making."

celegorm_menegroth said:  
 You're a freak experiment intended to combat the hordes of psycho blood-thirsty immortal elves. Or. You're just one of these guys nobody's seen for a long time, now go fight some dragons that ( if you give them enough time ) a bunch of town guards can kill.

I thought Amalaur's camera was refreshing after Skyrim's. While Skyrim just stuck to one camera, although one you could adjust, Amalaur opted for one that is controlled partly by the AI. The biggest differences for me came when you compare a very typical fight from both games: a tango with multiple wolves. In Skyrim you end up just spinning around looking for stuff while you stand in place. In Amalaur the camera pulls out and circles around to keep as many wolves in view at any time. As a result in Skyrim I felt like I was responding to the wolves' attacks, whereas in Amalaur I could take the offensive far more easily.

Was pretty lucky myself; I didn't have any of the demo issues I've heard so much about. [Played on PC]

Enjoyed it and would probably buy it if I didn't have so much else to play.

@Storms: You know... I didn't want to chase after the obvious troll after his first post much less his second post because it seems to me he really hates Skyrim and really loves Witcher 2.

But definitely kudos to you for doing it, though!

And nice points made -- it is super easy to add a ton of superfluous adjectives to a sentence to make one thing sounds better than another.

I kind of loved the fact that, in Skyrim, you were this amazing superhero that nobody had seen in centuries, but had had their father's-father's-father tell them grand stories of.

Assuming the bugs won't be in the retail release, I really enjoyed everything about the game - with the exception of the camera/FoV. I also pre-ordered it...I thought about waiting for the first price drop to $40, but I also want to support the company.

Even if this game doesn't deliver on it's promises, I can see Amalur 2 (or whatever title it is) pairing up with Darksiders 3 to make me one hell of a happy gamer in 201x.

@Storms: Yes, I see what you did there.

You got all upset about the style of my reply and therefore dismissed the content included there-in, including the clearly stated opinions.

Watch now while I do the same.

@ProppaT said:

It just reeks of a game directed by people with too big of a vision being created by people with too little experience.

I actually think you have that backwards. The game was originally created by a group that has a lot of experience, and then a group with a big vision came in afterwards to provide more direction. The game started in BigHuge games, separate from 38 studios and McFarlane. 38 Studios came in after the fact.

What I would like to see ( which one will never see ) is the game that "would have been" before 38 Studios and their "creative visionaries" became involved.

For all that you don't like the lead artist, I actually don't like the lead story-writer. So it's fitting that they're making a game where, as I said in a previous post, there really isn't a "true" story.

Everyone has things about a game they like or dislike ... yet, for some reason ... stating this fact while using perfectly acceptable parts of the English language brands me a troll. Neat!

@Enigmatical said:

I did hate that I had to hold a button down to cast a magic spell. I want to be able to beat a guy with a sword and finish him with a spell, not stop, hold down a trigger, and then press the button (which isn't fluid). In that aspect, I think I enjoyed Fable's controls a bit more, having each of your primary attacks tied to a button -- melee, ranged, magic.

I haven't played with magic in the demo all that much, but from what I have done I'm confused by your dislike of it. I was able to cast spells in mid-combat, as you say you want, all the time. From the descriptions I read, spells have a different set of effects if you charge them or release them quickly. For example, there's a spell in the stealth tree that, if tapped quickly during combat, sprays a cloud of dust in front of you; if you tap your hotkey again you throw daggers. There is also a stealth tree ability that requires a casting time, however it's only a second or two. But, that second or two is an obvious trade-off, as the spell is a charging/teleport ability that sends you ricocheting around the battlefiend a few times? I can see why the combat developer decided to make the cost-of-entry for this spell a bit higher than a puff of smoke that stuns enemies for a second. Vulnerability in the moment exchanged for advantage in the next few moments.

Fable also used a "charged" version of their spells, and in fact charging to different levels could sometimes ( if memory serves ) change the effect of the spell. This casting time also left you vulnerable to attack and interruption, as is commonly done in many games of this type.

Anyway. I agree that spell-casting should be fluid in the style of game that they're designing. I also believe that spell casting which requires a "casting time" is not unheard of and could have a place, if done right, in a more "action heavy" game. I would also suggest that not all spells work the same way, and that there are perhaps some spells intended to be used in mid-combat, as you want, and others that were not intended to be used as such ( for whatever reason ... balance or what-not ).

Sidenote - I totally agree that Lionhead games have always promised the moon, and rarely delivered what they claimed to have set out to do in those early interviews/press conferences.

Was that feedback supportive, sans excessive English flourishes, and non-inflammatory enough for you to condone it's use in a public forum such as this and not decry "troll!" because it disagreed with your point?

I wonder if it will be mod-able? Anyone know of any discussion regarding this aspect of KoA?

Anyways, yes absolutely getting it. Seems to fill a fun niche between the just ok combat of Skyrim and the ultra-serious tone of Witcher 2, with a large chunk of WoW appeal thrown in.

Great to hear the camera and FOV issues are being addressed. I felt like I was craning my neck trying to look up all the time.

Haven't decided which system to buy on though. PS3 or PC. Haven't played the PC demo yet though.

I wonder if it will be mod-able? Anyone know of any discussion regarding this aspect of KoA?

Anyways, yes absolutely getting it. Seems to fill a fun niche between the just ok combat of Skyrim and the ultra-serious tone of Witcher 2, with a large chunk of WoW appeal thrown in.

I am so confused by people's dislike of the UI, especially in comparison to Skyrim's. It's not even a console/PC interface issue. I just think that Skyrim's interface is so scant on useful information to the point where it really brought my experience down with it. It is an RPG, and I tend to like stats in my RPGs, so why is it that it takes roughly 27 actions to see the entirety of my character's skills, and even more actions again to see the sub-skills of those particular skills.
 
It really isn't my kind of game, but I do like a good story no matter what the medium, and the production values alone are enough to make me want to play this.

@celegorm_menegroth: The thing is, Big Huge Games resume isn't that impressive. Their experience lies squarely in making RTS games, and none of them have been amazing. It's a large jump going from making a strategy title to making a huge open world RPG that puts it's largest emphasis on the fighting system. Perhaps you're right, perhaps the original effort was more modest before the "visionaries" came into play and it was more of a Diablo/Champions style title. If that's the case, that's a shame. I could totally see playing the game, as seen in the demo, for 25-30 hours and having a good, cohesive story and enjoyable play mechanics. But the clunky gameplay isn't going to be fun much longer than that. This seems much less of an exploration/backstory type game than it does a "run around and kill things for loot" type of game.

Edit: for clarity's sake, when my reply was typed this was the post I was replying to.

@celegorm_menegroth: The point when a person no longer wants to talk about a thing can be so revealing.

Storms ... I'm more than willing to discuss any topic with you.

However, the content of your post was an exercise in "look at me while I demonstrate my ability to blabber on more egregiously than the post I'm replying to, because I'm upset 'cuz I feel you were blabbering."

That is a pointless discussion.

Especially when you're also accusing me of being a troll ... why would I wish to engage you in conversation? Isn't the point of accusing someone of being a troll that you no longer wish to hold a civil discourse with them?

Point of fact, you skipped over the pertinent points in my post to rail on about a meaningless side-effort that held no interest to me. You were agitated by the methodology I chose to reply with, and wished to articulate that annoyance by rhetorically showing how pointless you felt it to be. This is hardly a worthy topic of discussion.

If you want someone to talk to you ... perhaps you should be more interesting?

Because, as this is a free society, I may be more than willing to discuss any topic with you ... I also have a right to deny you that discussion for any reason I see fit. In this case - I found your reply childish and boring. Sorry, bud ... again, free society permits me the freedom of opinion and speech. And, as a result, that means sometimes ... you get offended. ( Studio 60 )

Hate my own post or not, accuse me of being a troll all you want ... you replied. And then noted my departure from this thread.

A thread that has been dead for a day ... as in ... dead by everyone. A dead thread you drew attention to ... for the sole purpose of trying to claim e-peen victory over by my implied "absence."

And you wonder why my original reply to you was so brief ...

And ... I'm the troll? How does that work, again? Exactly?

Speaking of trolling ... how does your e-peen contest entrant post relate to the original topic ... in ... any ... way?

So as not to be hypocritical ...

@ProppaT: Since your post I have replayed the demo in question twice.

Once because I was bored, once to test a theory.

The theory was, "can I spend 45minutes doing things I have not done in my previous demo plays?"

I skipped or avoided everything I'd done before, and just focused on trying to explore.

I was able to find several new spots nooks, a new unlockable object, and a dungeon that clearly needs some special keys to get in to. I'm now looking forward to the exploration aspects of the game even more.

From a design perspective, and Big Huge studio's history ... I have not dug into the timeline of their releases and paired it with hiring dates of important figures ( such as the guy in with ties back to the Elder Scrolls series, or the combat designer ... the two guys on the podcast ). The combat designer did say on the podcast he was hired specifically for this game, so he was not there for their previous releases. The Elder Scrolls vet, however, did not say one way or the other. One would assume, however, that if someone has a history specializing in one style of game, and then attempts something out of their "wheelhouse" that the quality may not be up to par.

Therefore, I would say that it may be premature to judge the company on those previous releases. Especially considering that they hired people with specific backgrounds in the areas which you have expressed as a concern in the leap from one genre to the next.

Personally, I believe that it is possible for a studio to "change it's stripes" if it brings in the people with which to do it.

Consider a sports team that changes philosophies from one season to the next. Provided they sign the right players and coaches, it's no problem.

I've played the demo, and even knowing that it was old code, I decided not to pre-order simply because I already have too many games to go through. I may pick it up down the road, probably during a sale. As much as I'd like to support the developers, there's only so much time I can devote to games, and there's no point in me buying it full priced when it'll probably be cheaper once I get around to playing it.

@Storms said:

. And now you don't want to play with me anymore =/

When you significantly alter your post so as to hide the pathetic nature of the original? ...

You are correct. And you are incorrect.

I no longer wish to discuss the topic with you, as you do not genuinely wish to do so, either.

You are incorrect because I never had any intention of "playing" with you at all.

If you wish to find a play-mate that will remain with you according to your whims, I recommend posting an ad and making it a paid position.

And on an aside, it's not exactly polite to put words ( typed or otherwise ) into the mouths ( physical or implied ) of others. I never said I "preferred" a first person or third person camera while playing either game.

Pre ordered before the demo.

Inception!

@amir90 said:

Pre ordered before the demo.

Inception!

Gives new meaning to the line " You know where you hope this train will take you, but you don't know for sure."