Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
http://www.rpgfan.com/previews/Kingdoms_of_Amalur_Reckoning/index.html
http://www.ign.com/articles/2011/03/07/gdc-rebirth-risk-in-kingdoms-of-amalur-reckoning
38 Studios, while working on Project Copernicus, acquired Big Huge Games, who had been working on a single-player rpg. That rpg was launched / sold as Reckoning, while Project Copernicus was developed as an MMO sequel of sorts. Copernicus' extended development is what lead to 38 Studios' bankruptcy.
https://gamerant.com/kingdoms-amalur-reckoning-sequel-production-dyce-151361/
As for whether it feels like a "single player MMO" I'll have to disagree with you there.
Doesn't matter if you "disagree" with it, I played it for dozens of hours and have played.. Idk how many mmos for over a decade and it doesn't feel/play like one.
But it's all right, this forum should be big enough for us to coexist.
I'm not saying it's a horrible game; I'm still playing it (trying to finish my first playthrough). The weapons are cool, mob models are good; combat animations better than decent. But environments and architecture aren't its strong points. At least not so far.
I was involved during the beta testing. I remember that videos and discussions with R.A. Salvatore and Devs. At that time the talk was all about the story, the concept of fate, and how it was an MMO. I was not a very good beta tester as I played very little but my fading memory included other players.
I don't disagree with the business part but they were definatly marketing it as an MMO then. If I had to guess they probably were looking for other investors or companies to pick up the game, in a last ditch gamble.
In KoA I'm referring mainly to the zones, which are more open and expansive than a single-player game really needs, and not exactly bursting with activity: the occasional mob or two, a hidden cache here or there, and tons of alchemical mats to harvest, but not much else. It looks like a world that was meant to be populated by other people, running around doing similar stuff. There's plenty of room, we'd hardly interfere with each other.
Contrast the KoA zone design with, say, FAR CRY: PRIMEVAL. Even though the zones are huge, they're bursting with plants, animals, caves to search, friendly and enemy NPCs, quest goals and dynamic events. It's a single-player game, but the zones never feel empty in the way KoA does.
from someone who lives directly across the street from where the studio was i can tell you that this game is a single player game and the mmo was a totally different game that yes sent them bankrupt. the funny part is the state is still paying off the 75 million it loaned to that idiot curt schilling
MMO = Massively Multiplayer Online
The original meaning is that it ain't just a LAN game. It is meant to have tons of players who are forced to connect to the MMO servers and must be played online.
Single- Player
The original meaning describes a game that is played by one player at a time, requires no online connection during gameplay. (There was even at one time an argument later about whether or not a game that requires online activation to play was still single-player. However, since most of us now "purchase" games from online stores in digital form without a CD/DVD, like via Steam, we now use a broadened term allowing online initial decryption/activation of files and if it is otherwise single-player, then we still call it such).
Playing an MMO Solo
This is when you decide to play an MMO without joining a group or a team. You do the quests and engage in combat with the MOBs (basically the monsters, but it means something like Mobile Objects). General MMO usage in games like Dark Age of Camelot, Everquest, and Anarchy Online did not include merchants and other server controlled NPCs that provided services in the term MOB (no matter what Wikipedia's confused early lines say, that was not the case, I know I lived the era). MOBs were often static as well. You had to "pull" them by either getting within their activation range or attacking them, then they became mobile, either aggressively engaging you or running away.
Single-Player MMO
No such term can exist without it being a total oxymoron. MMO cannot be single-player. They require being Massively Multiplayer, that's the reason for the servers, that's the point of the MM experience. Single Player cannot require that you be online while you play it -- per the history of the term.
Disregard for History/Language/Definitions
This is a core issue in the modern world. Because of this constant disregard for the true meaning of words as they were originally coined and used, it becomes impossible to read with understanding the historic record or the recorded literature, fiction or non-fiction. The result is an isolation of the current world and culture from the initial trends, culture, history, and knowledge from which it arose. AKA the youth think they know everything and the previous generations seem moronic and out of touch. You isolate yourself from your own connectivity to the totality of human experience. AKA boredom, loneliness, a feeling of not belonging.
-----
Any game can seem like an MMO. MMO has nothing to do with how a game seems. There are MMOFPS games, MMORPGs, MMOaRPGs, MUDs, and all the rest of the variants. All those terms are only slightly less generic. I could go on forever about how you can classify things in so many different ways that it doesn't matter anymore.
I could argue that Kingdoms of Amalur looks like a 3D TPS aRPG version of Torchlight -- and if at least 1/3 of you don't know what I'm saying -- I'll pull my hair out and jump off a cliff.
I could just as readily say that it looks like Worlds of Warcraft, plays like an Elder Scrolls game, and looks like a cool cartoon.
I could also claim that it is modern art, expressive neuroscience, techno-gestalt, and other drivel and I'd be accepted as a genius by some elite specialists in non-communication somewhere, but it wouldn't mean the same thing to any two people in the room. That's why the elitists love it, they can look so great explaining their own personal meaning and scoff at your rube-ish interpretation as wrong -- even though no one in the dang room knows what the heck it is.
Language is meant to communicate to as many as possible what you mean. If you don't stick to the actual original definitions, the purpose of those words is lost. At first only a few may not understand what once was the agreed upon definition of the words. Then more, as the word evolves. Certain nations or regions will not evolve with the regional slang or colloquialism, and so the meanings diverge. The result is devastating. The words mean different things to different people, so the very purpose of language begins to erode.
-----
Things will get more confusing anyway, as dividing a game based on online access is not meaningful. Path of Exile is like the Diablo Series of games, experientally. But it requires constant online access to its servers to play, even while it seems otherwise to play like a single-player game if you play it solo.
There have been MMOs where the official servers went down permanently. Sometimes others created new servers that ran the same or a specialized version of the game. Sometimes they modded the game so that it could be played permanently offline solo or via LAN. Such a game seemed very similar, but was it an MMO?
Don't kill yourself using jargon.
Kingdom of Amalur has lots of quests, lots of dialog, lots of NPCs, lots of monsters, allows customization of your character, has a colorful palette of colors, was made by a producer who worked in the Elder Scrolls series of games, is a great value for your money, has a similar graphical look to the cartoon-y colorful style of Torchlight 1 and 2 and World of Warcraft (but is more detailed than WoW), has great combat animations, tons of loot and items, has crafting, is well optimized so that you can run it even on an Intel HD at 1360x768 with no issues, will provide 100+ hours of entertainment if you like it, is a great escape from the real world if you want such a thing, has a certain charm, will probably even be liked by your girlfriend or daughter or wife, doesn't require you to love Curt Schilling or baseball, will not require you to support State Governmental Subsidies, may end up being your favorite game, or may end up being the one game that literally makes you hate elves so much you break your TV every time you see Lord of the Rings come on ... AGAIN!
That's up to you. There is a demo. Remember, you can bypass the EA log-in by hitting ESC key or clicking on the Red X that closes that window, and you don't have to tell President Obama or the IRS that you did so ... and you may be able to decide whether or not you like it from that experience. Sounds like a plan.
Then again, you might want to get drunk, look at your 10 pound Random House Dictionary from 1963 wistfully, workout using it for bicep curls, and consider going on a date with that cute redhead across the street who says she loves to cook, smells like the best spaghetti you ever ate, looks almost like a model but is much more real and approachable, and makes you want to do 20 more bicep curls every time you think about her, plus she does have that disposal that needs fixing, which you know how to fix and might get you just enough points to get somewhere. I dunno, maybe not KoA tonight.
Another game that isn't considered often enough that you might want to check out is Dragon's Dogma (check out the whole package). It also gets you away from Bethesda owning your fantasy soul and lets you immerse yourself in the expansive Lore of a new milieu (as similarly does Kingdoms of Amalur). Pulling out the Bethesda or Blizzard i.v. (intravenous tube like thing you see in hospitals that inject fluids into your circulatory system) is potentially the main reason to play a Kingdoms of Amalur or a Dragon's Dogma. Otherwise, you may never realize there is another way of doing anything. It is like reading only Tolkien and never reading Asimov or Frank Herbert's Dune. You miss out.
Hmm, maybe that's why in Dragon's Dogma my main character is this great looking redhead, while in Kingdoms of Amalur my constant companion is this great looking brunette. I wonder if she has problems with her disposal as well, she's only two floors down. Funny, I tend to play both games when they are out of town, go figure. Hmm. Must remember that if she comes over, not to show her Dragon's Dogma, I think they know each other. What am I saying ... forget you read that, shh.
Have a good one, everybody, one way or the other.
-----
( I don't think Sacred 1 or 2 really seemed like an MMORPG either, but impressions vary. To me they are more in the Diablo 1, 2 line. But all that is getting more and more blurred, since Diablo 3 blurs the issue a bit and so on)
Some games that are like this?
Dragon Age inquisition
Koar..
I must friend you!
IMO it keeps getting made because KoA looks, feels and is structured like a late-2000s MMO, but supports single-player only. I personally blame the overly-expansive environments. They'd look really cool with lots of characters running around in them. Instead they look nice enough, but mostly empty.
Most of KoA's RPG and crafting mechanics are actually pretty weak, and the balance is whack. This game could be great fun to play casually with friends, but ultimately kind of pointless to play by yourself.
I think "single-player MMO" captures the pointless aspect of it nicely.