Skyrim or Kingdom of Amalur?

[dehro]

I went past a game shop today and peeked inside. first time since burglars nicked my xbox last christmas. I was thinking of checking out Kingdom of Amalur for PC..then I saw Skyrim, both on sale for 35 € each..
I wasn't sure whether my PC would meet the minimum requirements so I decided to wait and check that first.
I did look for what the requirements of both games were..specifically the video card, easily the weak point of my 'puter. (nvidia geforce 315)
as it turns out, skyrim will run, and Kingdom of Amalur won't.
I'm surprised.. I thought Skyrim would be bigger trouble than KoA.
so..what to do now..buy skyrim, or wait until I've a bit more cash, upgrade my video card (is it really that old?) and then buy KoA?
consider that I'm not a regular gamer and would upgrade the card just for that game..since movies and stuff run just fine on what I have now.

what would you do? and is KoA worth the effort? (I kinda got hooked on it through the youtube vids of day9 together with Felicia Day playing it.)

also, what would be a decent video card to upgrade to?
my computer is a hp 584037-001 pavilion thinghy

[Erloas]

A quick search shows that that HP is a laptop. Which means that there really is no (practical) way to upgrade your video card.

I'm not actually sure how well your current video card will run either game. Technically you do meet Skyrim's minimum requirements, how playable the game will be is another question. Do either of them have demos to see how it actually runs on your computer before you buy either?

As for which game to try, I haven't played either, so I couldn't say anything in that regard.

[Sipex]

I've played Skyrim and can heartily recommend it...provided your PC can run it to the extent that it's playable. However, it's not the Hack & Slash type game that Amalur is, and is more of a 1st/3rd person open world adventure.

If you really want a hack & slash game for your PC and don't want to upgrade your video card, you could check out Torchlight 1 or possibly 2 (depends if your PC meets #2's requirements).

[Maquise]

Having played both, I'd say you're going to get more out of your money for Skyrim on the PC, especially if you decide to mod it (which I heartily recommend). KoA is pretty fun, but it is definitely a console game; I wouldn't recommend trying to play it without a controller. I feel Skyrim is a little deeper, and definitely more detailed in its world.

[dehro]

duh..then either someone has put the wrong sticker on my pc, or I've read the wrong number..because it's definitely not a laptop

anyway, thanks for the replies so far.

[Calemyr]

KoA's fighting style is livelier, but the game caps out WAY too early. I had the best weapons I could craft before I hit the halfway point and the customization options are pretty poor for gear. Actually, it's a lot like an MMO in the way you build your character and gear.

The DLCs for KoA are gorgeous, but the gear does not are mid-grade in a game where you cap out in the first half of the game.

The plot is pretty good, and your partners are fairly cool, and the setting is frankly amazing, but the game feels (oddly) too linear and static. There's also the fact that the company that made it closed their doors, so nothing more will (likely) be coming from the franchise.

Skyrim is... well... Skyrim. It's Elder Scrolls in its finest form to date. The game world is huge and the main plot is a drop in the bucket for what the game offers (and it's really little more than an excuse to introduce dragons, in my book, which are darn good fights once you get the hang of them). You have a much larger non-combat presence than even in previous Elder Scrolls game (at least Morrowind and Oblivion), can get married, buy a home, earn titles and reputation, even adopt orphans (with the Hearthfire DLC).

The biggest problems with Oblivion are that the game sometimes feels a mile wide and an inch deep - you don't really form real deep bonds (even with your spouse) and everything just comes a little to easily to you. Like Oblivion, there are no inter-guild conflicts, so you can easily become the master of every guild in the game whether or not you have the skills associated with them. Additionally, the combat is a lot more lively than previous Elder Scroll games, but that's really not saying much. It still lacks the fluid and graceful style of KoA and none of the quick-time events that let you feel so badass in KoA.

Customization is a major part of Skyrim, and the modding community has done their level best to make it even grander. Nearly anything can be upgraded to end-game quality with the right tricks, and no style is truly unplayable, though Destruction mages might disagree.

The real things that Skyrim have going for it, however, are the fact that Bethesda isn't done with the game and that the Elders Scrolls modding community goes beyond words in their ability to make virtually anything into a reality (including an approximation of Super Mario Bros).

So my vote would be for Skyrim. It flags a bit in combat style and the characterization is pretty shallow - but that's a flaw for both games. In the end, however, Skyrim simply offers too much for there to be much contention.

[The_Jackal]

Skyrim. Better graphics, better story, just more fun. Amalur has good combat, but the world and story are just paper-thin.

[Divayth Fyr]

Skyrim. Better graphics, better story, just more fun. Amalur has good combat, but the world and story are just paper-thin.

This. Apart from combat there isn't a single thing I'd say KoA does better than Skyrim. Even unmodded, the game will give you tons of things to do - steam shows me I have spent something around 300 hours playing the game and I still find places I haven't seen before.

[Erloas]

duh..then either someone has put the wrong sticker on my pc, or I've read the wrong number..because it's definitely not a laptop

Well a search for what you posted that is all that came up.
So without any additional information to go on there is only so much I can do for recommendations.
I will operate under 2 basic assumptions from dealing with pre-built PCs, that you probably have a fairly small power supply and there is a good chance you have a low-profile case.

The AMD 6670 runs about $65-70 in the USA, so a bit more then a game.
Its going to run decent if you are running resolutions less then 1080p (ie 1920x1080, if you are running a smaller monitor around 1680x1050 or less you should be ok.)
And next is the AMD 7750, which runs about $110-120. It will be the minimum you'll want to use if you are using a 1080p or higher monitor (or running a game at those resolutions anyway, can always run at less then the native resolution of the screen)
Neither are going to do amazing but they doesn't require any extra power (above what the PCI-E bus supplies, no extra cable) and they can both be found in a low-profile option.

There is a pretty good chance that anything more powerful then that will probably require you to update your power supply.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Skyrim. Better graphics, better story, just more fun. Amalur has good combat, but the world and story are just paper-thin.

Eeh... I'd disagree with that, actually. The world is just fine, the problem is the game's quests and plot instead choose to follow predictable cliches while completely ignoring the hooks that the setting itself provides. It's like they were deliberately saving all the interesting stuff for the (now-defunct) Copernicus.

I also have to disagree with KOAR suffering from Consolitis, at least any more than Skyrim. KOAR's PC port is actually pretty damned good, all things considered; I've certainly seen a million times worse, especially from EA.

Finally, I have one more consideration: Have you ever played the earlier Elder Scrolls titles? One of Skyrim's major flaws is it assumes that you already care and understand a lot about Tamriel as a setting (mostly in subtle ways rather than big obvious ones). If you're already a huge Elder Scrolls fan (which you're probably not or you would have gotten Skyrim on release day) you won't notice but to a newbie this is quite jarring. KOAR is much friendlier to newcomers on the lore front.

Aside from that, I agree with what everyone else has been saying: KOAR is one of those games that really could have been great if only a few things had been done just slightly differently, but it doesn't hold up when you directly compare it to Skyrim.

[The_Jackal]

Eeh... I'd disagree with that, actually. The world is just fine, the problem is the game's quests and plot instead choose to follow predictable cliches while completely ignoring the hooks that the setting itself provides. It's like they were deliberately saving all the interesting stuff for the (now-defunct) Copernicus.

Well, I'd have to say I don't share your enthusiasm for generic Feyworld of immense blandness, and once you remove the games quests and plot, there's not much world left, is there? I'll admit I didn't dig that deep into the game, but after 3 zones I was bored out of my skull.

I also have to disagree with KOAR suffering from Consolitis, at least any more than Skyrim. KOAR's PC port is actually pretty damned good, all things considered; I've certainly seen a million times worse, especially from EA.

I totally disagree. Skyrim is designed from the ground up as a PC game. Creation kit and mod support? For a console title? Get real. KoA:R wasn't a BAD console game, but it was still spending more time being Gaelic God of War, and less time delivering a fully-realized world.

Finally, I have one more consideration: Have you ever played the earlier Elder Scrolls titles? One of Skyrim's major flaws is it assumes that you already care and understand a lot about Tamriel as a setting (mostly in subtle ways rather than big obvious ones). If you're already a huge Elder Scrolls fan (which you're probably not or you would have gotten Skyrim on release day) you won't notice but to a newbie this is quite jarring. KOAR is much friendlier to newcomers on the lore front.

Only friendly like an unwashed hobo talking to you on the bus late at night. Skyrim's exposition on the world and your place in it is much better paced and presented. You're given the initial setup, asked to create your character, given a punchy intro with dragons, and do a well-scripted tutorial which walks you through the game's basics: Lockpicking, stealth, combat, etc.

KoA's fate mechanics, on the other hand, were so badly integrated with the story that they were totally un-intuitive, and thus required way too much blather. One of the nice things Skyrim does is it that it lets you get to grips with the world and run a dungeon or two before you get dragged into the 'Neo' moment. That winds up being a really important pacing decision, as you can get the combat fundamentals down before introducing the next gameplay concept, not to mention let you have some off-leash fun before springing you with another block of exposition blather.

KoA, by comparion has you in an uninterrupted tunnel of tutorial and exposition until you escape what's his diddle's lab, complete with a tragic death of someone you haven't known two seconds to learn to give a crap over.

Aside from that, I agree with what everyone else has been saying: KOAR is one of those games that really could have been great if only a few things had been done just slightly differently, but it doesn't hold up when you directly compare it to Skyrim.

KoA:R had one thing going for it: Fun combat. And that's a good thing. Someday someone's going to find the fairway on a arcade-like combat system with a proper RPG-style quest system, and it's going to be a total game changer. But that means you've got to execute on all fronts: Good combat, good story, good pacing, good quests, good crafting, good detail. KoA delivers one out of six.

[Divayth Fyr]

I totally disagree. Skyrim is designed from the ground up as a PC game.

Not really - if the UI was designed for PC... the person responsible should be shot.

[The_Jackal]

Not really - if the UI was designed for PC... the person responsible should be shot.

I won't deny they made compromises with the UI to accommodate console players. But it's definitely designed as a PC game and groomed for consoles, rather than just a port.

[dehro]

@erloas..I'll look into the video cards you suggest..
as for the games.. I have played oblivion and shivering isles on xbox (bastards took the games with them too, when they nicked tv and xbox..left me with bloody fable 3, of all things )

as much as I liked the main plot in oblivion.. and roaming around finding places and stuff.. after a while the whole notion that I can become an assassin guild master, a thief guild master, a templar a.. well..everything and anything.. it does start to grate on me.
from that pov, I preferred Dragon Age Origins, a great game, despite it being so that at the higher levels you're virtually indestructible, especially so in the awakening expansion (though dragon age 2 was terrible in the opposite way that whatever you did, you still ended up doing the same things, making any choice you make along the game utterly pointless)

reasons for not buying skyrim on release day were manifold..
1) I disliked the hype that was generated around it, I'm enough of a moron not to buy something I might like just because people are fan-obsessing over it and I don't want to join that particular crowd.
2) I refuse to pay 70 € for a game, no matter how brilliant
3) I had played oblivion on console and didn't have that anymore.. it didn't occur to me you can play it also on PC, mostly because I liked playing it on console, use my PC mostly for work and it's in my office..at my dad's place..only a couple of doors away, but still not comfortable.
4) I had a feeling my 'puter would implode if I tried..video card and such. turns out I was mostly right.. my computer can run it, but only just about..

[Triaxx]

Skyrim isn't that bad. I play it on a 9600 GT. (Of course that might be far better or worse. I make no pretentions to understanding the insane naming scheme used.)

It's not hyper smooth, but it's still playable. (Presuming you don't run into issues with scripts slowing it down anyway.)

---

That said, Skyrim is tons of fun. I've played 18, 19 games, and I still run into things I missed.

And that's without mods like Moonpath to Elsewyr, and there's one being built on the Sommerset Isles. (Both linked to the world as it is.)

Yes, there's a lot of lore to Tamriel, but Skyrim does a good job of separating what you want to know about the world, from what you need to know to play. But there's still a lot about the lore of the world. Yes, there are an exceptionally large number of references older games but that happens in all sequels as a matter of course.

[Yora]

I quite enjoy Skyrim even though I hate nonlinear open-world games. But Skyrim has the quality of area design and NPC behavior to make it work well. It does not feel like empty streets with the same people standing in the same empty square every day without doing anything, and unlike Morrowind people actually talk to you.
All open world games suffer from a lack of plot, but Skyrim has activity beyond the main storyline, so it isn't nearly as annoying.

[Triaxx]

Agreed. And it's not just the cities. If you're a stealthy character, you'll hear the various chatter of the enemies.

For example, there's a cavern near Whiterun, where if you go running in, you'll miss two of the NPC's talking about training a wolf, over a dog. It's a surprisingly well thought out piece of story. It makes even the small areas much more interesting.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I totally disagree. Skyrim is designed from the ground up as a PC game.

No. Skyrim was designed from the ground up as a console game, then very clumsily ported over.

A. The menus make no sense unless you're using an analog stick. Way too much scrolling up and down to find what you need. This is why SkyUI had to be made.

B. Playing a spellcaster, or indeed, any character who switches between multiple types of things in their hands in combat (like, say, switching your dagger for two axes), is total bull**** and requires far too much immersion-breaking pausing and unpausing. It only makes sense when you're using a console controller that's starved for buttons.

C. The dialogue system straight-up hates you if you're using a mouse and will often select entirely different options for you than the one you picked. I can't even count the times I've had to reload an old save so I could try again, but it works just fine if you use WASD to do it. Once again, very clearly designed with the assumption of the analog stick.

Only friendly like an unwashed hobo talking to you on the bus late at night. Skyrim's exposition on the world and your place in it is much better paced and presented. You're given the initial setup, asked to create your character, given a punchy intro with dragons, and do a well-scripted tutorial which walks you through the game's basics: Lockpicking, stealth, combat, etc.

That opening scene in the cart. Need I say more? I've been gently caressing each new TES title as it comes out for nearly a decade now and even I had no idea what the hell they were talking about.

There's also lots of other fan-wank that's indecipherable (or at least needlessly opaque) to people who aren't lore nuts. Queen Potema, the Gray Quarter, Sheogorath's quests, just about everything concerning the Dark Brotherhood and Winterhold. In some cases these are just bits of in-jokes and fanservice but in others they're major parts of the tone that section of the game is trying to set. When I first got to Winterhold I was absolutely heartbroken at what it had become. This was very clearly the intended reaction but there's no way someone could possibly have it if they aren't already deeply invested in the lore when they come in.

[Yora]

The great thing is, it doesn't matter. If you don't know about certain things, some things don't have quite the punch they have to people who know the world inside out. But none of them are things the character would have to know, so you never miss anything important. Everything that is important is said in the game.

And it works the other way round as well: Not being familiar with the other games, I thought Barbas was just some guy turned into a dog by his wizard master. It was a fun quest that turned out to be very different from what I expected. Though people who knew Barbas before from other games would have known exactly what's been going on from the very beginning.
Or learning about the Dark Brotherhood in Windhelm, or Hircine and the Bloodmoon. Those are great moments of the game if you don't know anything about those things before and only learn about them as they appear. But I guess they would also be quite great for people who know more about the context before and can enjoy the anticipation and recognition of encountering them in Skyrim.

I only play the game on console and I can say it works with those controlls very well.

[Triaxx]

Yes, but on PC, the third time you hear Lydia inform you that she's 'Sworn to carry your burdens' because it's reading your click to leave conversation as inventory, you want to do some horrible things to the UI designer.

[hobbitkniver]

As someone who's played both, I'd say Skyrim. No question. I got bored pretty quick in KoA. There's a reason Skyrim is so popular.

[factotum]

That opening scene in the cart. Need I say more? I've been gently caressing each new TES title as it comes out for nearly a decade now and even I had no idea what the hell they were talking about.

The opening scene of Skyrim was rubbish, let's be honest. You're selling a game as this big, expansive open world, but the first thing you see is a narrow road between lines of trees, and the first time you get to see the world properly is a good hour or two into the game? Makes no sense. They did the same thing in Oblivion, too. At least Morrowind allowed you free access to all the weirdness of Vvardenfell within minutes of starting!

[Yora]

And that's a bad thing. If you're not a huge fan of open world games and already have played half a dozen, you need a couple of hours to figure things out. Giving 5 minutes of exposition and then just abandoning people to find their own entertainment is not a good practice.
Making it to Whiterun and fighting the first dragon should take about 2 to 4 hours and at that point you should already have picked up a couple of other quests you might "do quickly" before going to the Greybeards. I think that works quite well as pacing goes.

[Craft (Cheese)]

And that's a bad thing. If you're not a huge fan of open world games and already have played half a dozen, you need a couple of hours to figure things out. Giving 5 minutes of exposition and then just abandoning people to find their own entertainment is not a good practice.
Making it to Whiterun and fighting the first dragon should take about 2 to 4 hours and at that point you should already have picked up a couple of other quests you might "do quickly" before going to the Greybeards. I think that works quite well as pacing goes.

Morrowind does the same thing: Before you leave the census office you're given a package to deliver to Balmora. Only difference is Morrowind doesn't railroad you into a long, incomprehensible cutscene and a clunky tutorial dungeon before the point where you're allowed to start exploring.

Of course you can just ignore the package and start exploring to your heart's content, but in Skyrim you can just as easily skip Riverwood and go off on your own.

[The_Jackal]

A. The menus make no sense unless you're using an analog stick. Way too much scrolling up and down to find what you need. This is why SkyUI had to be made.

My point is that if this was really a console port, the facility to MAKE SkyUI wouldn't exist. I will freely admit the menus are made to be accessed from the console, I said as much in my original post. But you don't get the ability to submit player-made content and UI customizations in a console game. PERIOD.

B. Playing a spellcaster, or indeed, any character who switches between multiple types of things in their hands in combat (like, say, switching your dagger for two axes), is total bull**** and requires far too much immersion-breaking pausing and unpausing. It only makes sense when you're using a console controller that's starved for buttons.

I don't have the console version, but I found the fast-swaps through the favourites menu to be perfectly adequate. I swap between my blades and my bow constantly. If you're on the PC, just favourite an item, then open the favourites menu with 'Q', then hover over the item you want to assign to a hotswitch, and press one of the number keys.

C. The dialogue system straight-up hates you if you're using a mouse and will often select entirely different options for you than the one you picked. I can't even count the times I've had to reload an old save so I could try again, but it works just fine if you use WASD to do it. Once again, very clearly designed with the assumption of the analog stick.

I'm pretty sure I use mouse wheel and 'e' to select.

That opening scene in the cart. Need I say more? I've been gently caressing each new TES title as it comes out for nearly a decade now and even I had no idea what the hell they were talking about.

Nobody knew what was going on. The point is they didn't just barf up a 3 paragraph exposition of the setting and the player's place in it. They set the premise that you've been captured along with a rebel, and start SHOWING you the story unfolding, instead of just sending you to talk to Yakky McBlatherpants and having him lecture you on how you're a unique snowflake. Far better executed than KoA:R's intro, by any measure you care to choose.

I'm not trying to make out like Skyrim is a perfectly, flawlessly executed game. It's just far, far better executed than KoA.

[factotum]

Giving 5 minutes of exposition and then just abandoning people to find their own entertainment is not a good practice.

As Craft points out, that isn't what Morrowind did. Your first objective after being thrown into the open world was extremely clear; it's just you could choose to ignore it if you so desired. Skyrim should be giving you similar choices from the start. I mean, don't get me wrong here, Skyrim was and is an awesome game, but I wonder how many people got put off by the opening and never got to the good bit where the game opens out and starts to give you options.

[Craft (Cheese)]

My point is that if this was really a console port, the facility to MAKE SkyUI wouldn't exist. I will freely admit the menus are made to be accessed from the console, I said as much in my original post. But you don't get the ability to submit player-made content and UI customizations in a console game. PERIOD.

It has publicly released modding tools, yes, but I don't think this is a substitute for the game being a decent port out of the box, without having to download mods.

I don't have the console version, but I found the fast-swaps through the favourites menu to be perfectly adequate. I swap between my blades and my bow constantly. If you're on the PC, just favourite an item, then open the favourites menu with 'Q', then hover over the item you want to assign to a hotswitch, and press one of the number keys.

It's not too bad for a primarily mundane character, it's when you throw spells into the mix that things get ridiculous.

Just from the destruction school, we have the following spells:

- Three single-target "beam" spells (Incinerate and family)

- Three short-ranged "gouge" spells (Flames, Frostbite, and Sparks, but to be fair these become completely worthless a short time after you get them)

- Three trap-like "rune" spells (that are actually your best DPS option for a long while)

- Three area-control "wall" spells (which I think are pretty fun and I like to use them)

- Three master-level "ultimate" spells (the frost and fire ones are worthless anyway but the lightning one is the best way to take down big opponents like dragons)

Assuming you ignore the gouge spells, the frost and fire master-level spells, and only use two of each other spell type, that's already seven of your 8 hotkey slots.

The problem is compounded if you try to play a more well-rounded spellcaster type and also want to use a gamut of Conjuration, Illusion, and Alteration spells. There's also the absolutely necessary Heal Self and Heal Other spells that no character can ever afford to be without, though the undead-damaging spells can be ignored. Heal Other can only be ignored if you have an immortal follower or you travel alone. It's compounded even further when you install mods that rebalance the magic system to make formerly worthless spells actually worth using, or mods that add new spells that are also interesting and fun.

Thank Azura for extended hotkey mods! That these weren't in the game to begin with is inexcusable.

I'm pretty sure I use mouse wheel and 'e' to select.

Problem comes when you try to select which option you want to say by clicking on it. There IS a trick to do it reliably but it's really, really counter-intuitive.

Nobody knew what was going on. The point is they didn't just barf up a 3 paragraph exposition of the setting and the player's place in it. They set the premise that you've been captured along with a rebel, and start SHOWING you the story unfolding, instead of just sending you to talk to Yakky McBlatherpants and having him lecture you on how you're a unique snowflake. Far better executed than KoA:R's intro, by any measure you care to choose.

I'm not trying to make out like Skyrim is a perfectly, flawlessly executed game. It's just far, far better executed than KoA.

To be perfectly honest, I like the opening of Amalur better than I like the opening of Skyrim.

For the record, I define the "opening" of Amalur to end when you fight the rock troll and escape Allestar Tower. I define the "opening" of Skyrim to end when you emerge from the caves under Helgen Keep. Yes, the scene with Agarth and Riverwood are both near the beginning but they aren't part of the "opening" because they're both after you're given free reign to explore the world, they're just the places the game points you toward first.

(Yes, Agarth and Alyn Shir are both terrible characters, and Fomorus Hughes's off-camera heroic sacrifice two minutes after you meet him was written with all the eloquence and subtly of a 5th-grader. Still, I prefer that to feeling confused and pointlessly being tugged around on a leash. I realize this is just personal preference, however.)

[The_Jackal]

It has publicly released modding tools, yes, but I don't think this is a substitute for the game being a decent port out of the box, without having to download mods.

And I think Skyrim IS perfectly usable out of the box, it's just not innately optimized for using a QWERTY keyboard, for reasons that are pretty obvious. If you're suggesting that Skyrim was the worse for console integration, and that consoles are the canker on the privates of the Devil in Hell, then you're preaching to the choir. But the reality of the market is that there's more money to be made in the console market, and I'd rather have rich and successful developers than poor and idealistic ones.

It's not too bad for a primarily mundane character, it's when you throw spells into the mix that things get ridiculous.

Just from the destruction school, we have the following spells:

Yes, I can see how you'd get into a lot of UI management for a pure casterish character, but really you're complaining that they gave you too many options, and if you use them all, you're punished by having a complicated UI, or you can install a nice Mod to smooth your life out. Or, on the other hand, you can have Amalur, where you've got very few options, and STILL have an onerous and bad UI. Inventory management in that game was a NIGHTMARE, to the point where Vanilla Skyrim is like a dream by comparison.

There's also the absolutely necessary Heal Self and Heal Other spells that no character can ever afford to be without

Carry potions. They're dirt-cheap and have no cast time. It's not like money is hard to come by. Your companions can carry potions as well, just give them to him/her.

Thank Azura for extended hotkey mods! That these weren't in the game to begin with is inexcusable.

Again, reference my earlier comment about the way the market works. In order for Skyrim to be an economic success, it had to be ported to the console. It's not realistic for the game developer to effectively build two different games at launch, so yes, the UI was dumbed down for the console market. This is not in dispute. My contention is that had this been 'just a dumb console port', it would look like every other dumb console port out there: NO customization, NO mods, NO improved graphics support, just Halo for the PC.

To be perfectly honest, I like the opening of Amalur better than I like the opening of Skyrim.

Well, in structure, they're alarmingly similar. Both start you off 'in medias res' and funnel you quickly into a tutorial dungeon where you're shown basic gameplay concepts.

For the record, I define the "opening" of Amalur to end when you fight the rock troll and escape Allestar Tower. I define the "opening" of Skyrim to end when you emerge from the caves under Helgen Keep. Yes, the scene with Agarth and Riverwood are both near the beginning but they aren't part of the "opening" because they're both after you're given free reign to explore the world, they're just the places the game points you toward first.

Well, you define the Amalur opening as over at the point at which it completely falls apart: Please go talk to Ignibus Fatewanker where he can dump the game's premise on you. Yes, I suppose you COULD totally bypass him, but given that you're given no quest cues to do anything else, or indeed any connection to the larger world at all, there's little reason to suppose you might take wing into an intricate and detailed world of fantasy. And the way I know you won't is because there isn't one there, just a bunch of jackholes with question marks over their heads.

(Yes, Agarth and Alyn Shir are both terrible characters, and Fomorus Hughes's off-camera heroic sacrifice two minutes after you meet him was written with all the eloquence and subtly of a 5th-grader. Still, I prefer that to feeling confused and pointlessly being tugged around on a leash. I realize this is just personal preference, however.)

Both intros involve heavy use of the leash, until you escape Helgen/the Tower. That's really just an unhappy necessity of the tutorial phase. The difference is that once you're out of Helgen, you CAN go anywhere. The game will largely scale to your level as you scroll around the countryside having adventures. The problem with KoA:R is that the tunnel never really ends, it just widens a bit and has a few forks that loop off then head back to the main quest. It's really a far more linear game. Had the story and world been better executed, it might have been fun, but it sadly didn't deliver.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Yes, I can see how you'd get into a lot of UI management for a pure casterish character, but really you're complaining that they gave you too many options, and if you use them all, you're punished by having a complicated UI, or you can install a nice Mod to smooth your life out. Or, on the other hand, you can have Amalur, where you've got very few options, and STILL have an onerous and bad UI. Inventory management in that game was a NIGHTMARE, to the point where Vanilla Skyrim is like a dream by comparison.

On inventory: Only if you horde things instead of playing it like a Diablo-like. Keep the weapons/armor that are better than the ones you already have (unlikely unless you ignore crafting), junk the rest. Sell all junk button at the store. Could have been implemented a bit better (like having a button to equip something straight from the container where you pick up up, shortcuts to repair tools, auto-sagecrafting, and a "junk all" button, just to name a few things) but I honestly think Skyrim is worse. It only becomes a nightmare when you try to make full use of alchemy and keep stocks of different potion types for different situations... in which case Skyrim has the exact same problem.

On options: Only if you play a highly specialized character who min-maxes a single tree instead of hybridizing. Which unfortunately is the most effective way to play the game (max out Sorc, spam Meteor), but I'm not saying Amalur is perfect.

Carry potions. They're dirt-cheap and have no cast time. It's not like money is hard to come by. Your companions can carry potions as well, just give them to him/her.

They still take up precious hotkey space and using potions means you have to run back to town every so often to restock, which I honestly don't like to do.

Again, reference my earlier comment about the way the market works. In order for Skyrim to be an economic success, it had to be ported to the console. It's not realistic for the game developer to effectively build two different games at launch, so yes, the UI was dumbed down for the console market. This is not in dispute. My contention is that had this been 'just a dumb console port', it would look like every other dumb console port out there: NO customization, NO mods, NO improved graphics support, just Halo for the PC.

You know what I would have been happy with?

- Let us use 9 and 0, not just 1-8

- Let us also bind shift+NUM. ctrl+NUM or alt+NUM would also be good but it's not strictly necessary.

That's it. 20-30 slots is good enough. Having so few hotkey slots just encourages you to run backwards spamming Incinerate, exactly the thing they promised Skyrim's magic system wouldn't encourage you to do this time around.

Well, in structure, they're alarmingly similar. Both start you off 'in medias res' and funnel you quickly into a tutorial dungeon where you're shown basic gameplay concepts.

Well, you define the Amalur opening as over at the point at which it completely falls apart: Please go talk to Ignibus Fatewanker where he can dump the game's premise on you. Yes, I suppose you COULD totally bypass him, but given that you're given no quest cues to do anything else, or indeed any connection to the larger world at all, there's little reason to suppose you might take wing into an intricate and detailed world of fantasy. And the way I know you won't is because there isn't one there, just a bunch of jackholes with question marks over their heads.

I would argue that Skyrim does the same thing: When you emerge from Helgen Keep, you have absolutely no objectives or connections to the world except "Go to Riverwood."

And Skyrim also gives you an exposition dump telling you how you're a special snowflake, you're just given it at High Hrothgar on the slopes of the Throat of the World, the tallest mountain in the world, from the mysterious, ancient order of the Greybeards instead of from a drunken, homeless idiot you meet on the side of the road.... Okay, so Skyrim wins there in terms of presentation, but I don't think it's fundamentally all that different.

Both intros involve heavy use of the leash, until you escape Helgen/the Tower. That's really just an unhappy necessity of the tutorial phase. The difference is that once you're out of Helgen, you CAN go anywhere. The game will largely scale to your level as you scroll around the countryside having adventures. The problem with KoA:R is that the tunnel never really ends, it just widens a bit and has a few forks that loop off then head back to the main quest. It's really a far more linear game. Had the story and world been better executed, it might have been fun, but it sadly didn't deliver.

Skyrim's leash is far more severe: I'm referring primarily to the whole "your hands are bound" bull that essentially means you spend Helgen doing nothing but going from place to place looking at things on fire, and you're literally on a leash until Alduin attacks, unable to do anything but turn the camera. Once you get into the keep things do get a lot better, but Amalur gives you the freedom to at least defend yourself as soon as the game starts. Also, Amalur's initial exposition dump telling you about the war with the Tuatha is entirely skippable! Granted I never did play Amalur a second time but that automatically makes it better than Skyrim's, at least on the second playthrough.

Also... the only bits of side content in Amalur you have to do the main quest in order to access are the quests in Ysa and those in Klurikon/Alabastra. The latter two are almost entirely barren anyway so it's not that much of a loss. You can explore all of Dalentarth, Erathell, and Detyr straight from the start... I think. I don't think there was anything stopping you from going to Erathell/Detyr but I made sure to do every last quest I could in Dalentarth before moving on, including the main quest, so I don't actually know that for certain. Yes, these are flaws, and gating off parts of the world until you've advanced the plot far enough is bullcrap. Point is though the game is nowhere near as linear as you describe, I played for about 10 hours doing everything I could in Dalentarth before I did any of the main quest.



One more thing... I'd just like to say, I don't really know what we're arguing about here. I agree with you that, overall, Skyrim is the better game, I just like Amalur better in a comparatively small set of respects. There's a few things Skyrim could have done better, and a ton of things Amalur could have done better.

[Triaxx]

You're not the only person to feel that mages are one of those things that Bethesda forgot to add until the last minute. I do know of a companion mod called Cerwiden who's capable of keeping you and herself healed so you can concentrate on not getting dead.

Ultimately, they were trying to eliminate the cheats inherent in the Oblivion magic system and went a bit too far the other way.

The first time I got out of Helgen? I completely ignored Riverwood and by the time I finally got there, I was level 32, grandmaster of the thieves guild, and arch-mage of the college. Don't like the start? Like everything else, there's a mod for that. Random Alternate start.

Also, think you need more hotkeys now? Add Midas Magic, or Phenderix Magic System. You'll weep to have only 20-30.

On the intro: Yes, it's long, and yes the caves are a tutorial, but they are at least a well disguised one. It's also possible to get from the chopping block to the keep in under a minute and a half. You don't have to wait for the scripted sequences. You only have to sit through it cinematically once.