Quote Originally Posted by Graal View Post
Yeah, it makes sense from a publisher's point of view. However, Amalur could just as easily have gone belly-up, but from the moment you start playing you can feel that it is a quality game. You can see that the developers poured love into it. Every little feature fits the game, is well thought out and none feel tacked on. This game is probably a monument to excellent design and development in modern times.

Then you get games like Skyrim, which are critically acclaimed, but which really isn't as deserving of the honor. For all intents and purposes, when comparing the gameplay elements, Skyrim should be considered the more immersive title. However, Skyrim feels unpolished, has fundamental issues like the AI being absolutely retarded and quite a few of the features aren't well thought out at all.

Having played both games now, if either were to get a sequel (which I don't doubt they will), I know which one I'm more excited about and likely to buy. Publishers need to realise that new IPs don't always fail because they're no good (although it happens in a lot of cases), but also because they don't receive the necessary thought, love, spit or polish that is required to make a good game.
Could not agree more. Funny story the lead designer worked on Morrowind & Oblivion.
If had I had to choose between Skyrim & Kingdom's Id have to go with Kingdoms simply because its more fun to play. Skyrim was/is awesome in its own right but the combat still isn't where it can be.

Like Monk said, in terms of Originality Kingdom's should have been a total flop, I can name the games they got certain elements out of: Dialog system Mass Effect, Minimalist combat; Fable, Lock picking; Oblivion, etc. But the way in which it was put together in this unique way that just gels so well together... thats what got it the fist place on multiple charts.