What are the major differences between Dargon's Dogma, Game of thrones and kingdoms of amalur? Pages 1 2 NEXT | |
I can say Dragon`s Dogma is fun and i normally dislike RPGs. From playing this game i got the old classic Diablo vibe with collecting stuff and the combat is almost like an arcade brawler if you play with the melee classes. You can climb on enemies or grab them, it`s awesome. | |
Dragon's Dogma is just plain fun. It has some problems but it eats time; plot is a bit variable until you get towards the very end when it is quite interesting. Kind of sad that my favourite WRPGs of late have been developed in the East :/ I've not heard great things about GoT but I haven't seen for myself. | |
Kingdoms of Amalur is basically Skyrim, but with a more action-heavy combat system (sort of like a God of War-lite) and more "high fantasy" colorful world. Its got a lot of interesting lore, if you are into that sort of thing, but most of the storylines are fairly underwhelming (with a few gems here and there). I'd like to add that, once you get it, the battle system is actually a lot of fun, though the game is easy enough that you rarely need to get that deep into it.' Game of Thrones is kind of like The Witcher, but not nearly as good. Also, for something with such a pedigree, the story is actually really uninteresting. Mostly the fault of focusing on a bunch of side characters (and made up ones) that no one really cares about, and will obviously have no real effect on the story as a whole. Think back to LOTR: The Third Age, and you'll have an idea. Dragon's Dogma is could probably be called "Skyrim by way of Dark Souls". Unfortunately, it's not quite as good as that sounds, but it's still a lot of fun. My only big gripe with it is how repetitive it felt, but thats a problem with most open-world RPGS. | |
I can't say anything about GOT as I haven't played it but KOA approaches Skyrim from WOW and DD approached Skyrim from Dark Souls. DD has one difficulty and is brutal in that the enemies can destroy you as fast as you can them, You can get OP if you grind long enough or in NG+ but other than that, difficulty is good. I honestly think DD is the best game I have played since Borderlands, it is far from perfect but the one thing is does good, it does better than anyone else. Plot is cliche yet campy enough that you will be grinning through it, the final 20% percent of the game is fantastic too. Easily has one of the best boss fight(Red Dragon) I have played in quite some time. KOA is all right but doesn't reach DD greatness, other than loot, DD does everything better. | |
I can only speak for Kingdoms of Amalur but it's fun...in a kinda 'baby's first RPG' sort of way. It's not very challenging at all. But it is fun and addicting since the combat is pretty sweet. | |
Haven't played Game of Thrones, but it seems more like Dragon Age than the other two. The others are big open world RPGs, like Skyrim, but the fighting is more action in both of them. Fighting big monsters in Dragons Dogma is fun, but Amalur has a cool setting and a robust character customization system. Also, Amalur's story is better than Dragon Dogma's in my view. Well, Dragon Dogma's had a decent story, but they just didn't convey it well at all. It was very lack luster, but the concepts involved were cool. | |
Haven't played Dragon's Dogma, but I have played Game of Thrones and KoA. KoA plays a lot like a single player WoW style MMO, but it has a really good real time combat system, it's got a surprising amount of depth too, classes are distinct and cross classing is actually pretty awesome and well done, no two characters will play the same, my brother and I both played character centered around magic, but his used a bit of stealth and mine a bit of combat, and they played way differently. The writing is pretty good, as you would expect from Salvatore, but it takes the sideline, if you like loot drops and exploration it's pretty good. The visual style is really nice IMO, lot's of color and a pretty good high-fantasy feel, but it's nothing unique. I got bored around 40 hours in, mostly because of the grindy quests, but that's a damn sight longer than most grindy games I play. The closest thing to Game of Thrones that I can think of is KOTOR. The RPG elements are pretty cool in the beginning, but about half way through the game you fall into a routine, stun opponent, knock him down, use skill that does extra damage to knocked down opponent, wait for stamina to recharge, repeat. The game doesn't look very good, maybe if it was a last generation game, but it isn't, environments are pretty boring and easy to get lost in, there are tons of graphical glitches, and nothing really pops out and looks interesting. Voice acting ranges from well above average to middle school play levels, but dialogue is mostly pretty well written, the game also does a good job with the lore, I watched the show and recently began reading the novels and I really enjoy the lore and the game does a pretty good job with it. The story is alright, forgoing a wide-arching ever-present story to focus on a core group of 4 or 5 characters and their personal problems, in true Game of Thrones fashion nothing good ever happens ever, so the story is a bit of a downer, especially the end where everything and everyone dies or suffers huge personal losses that they can never recover from. All and all I enjoyed both games, go for Game of Thrones for a story, and KoA for gameplay. | |
If you have to be explained the differences, then you're not interested in the answer. | |
I played Kingdoms of Amalur. It was a bit meh. I couldn't get myself to give a damn about the story, even though I normally love stories. The combat is cool, but it doesn't make up for the fact that the game is just... Meh. You see, I like open worlds for the exploration first and combat second. Discovering new places, reachin unreachable places (I made a pilgrimage to the notched pickaxe!) and that's just not fun in kingdom of amalur. I actually stopped playing because I had to walk a long distance. Traveling is not fun at all: There's no natural wildlife, enemies just stand around in the middle of nowhere doing nothing, unlike the bandit camps of skyrim. And the worst atrocity of all: It's not an open world! There are a bunch of larger areas which take 2 minutes to walk across, and each of those areas is connected by a long, narrow patch which is a 5 minute walk. I also heard bad things about game of thrones, so I'd go for dragon's dogma. If you can order it. IM FINALLY GETTING IT AFTER ORDERING IT ON THE 6TH! :D | |
Well if we break it down with a critical view: - Kingdoms of Amalur is just an MMO that you play alone, while the combat is pretty solid it still gets hampered by standardly bad MMO design, random spawns, bad AI, unchallenging combat, grindfest, lack of atmosphere, silly story, flat characters, and content smeared so thin you can barely tell it's there. - Dragon's Dogma however is a great package with some strange choices, let's just lay this down first they have brought the next evolutionary step to hack and slashers, real emergent combat, reacting with your opponents and companions to further the combat, none of that QTE retardo press random shit to unpause the cutscene bollocks. | |
The difference between the three: | |
All I really know about them is from a forgotten playthrough of the KoA demo and a review of Dragon's Dogma. The boss-fight gimmick for DD looks really cool and seems like the best selling point. Basically, you climb up the big bosses Shadow-of-Colossus style and stab at their soft bits. That's all I've got as I haven't really played any of them. | |
I haven't played the Game of Thrones game. Kingdoms of Amular is just pure "meh" from top to bottom. It's not impossible that you would enjoy it, but I certainly wouldn't recommend paying more that bargain-bin price for it. Dragon's Dogma is pretty fun, but hampered by some ridiculously bad design. However, the core of the game is good. If you can get over having to hoof it across the entire map on a regular basis, the respawning monsters and the irritating companions then it will be an enjoyable experience. | |
Having played all three I would definately recommend Dragons Dogma. Kingdoms of Amalur is just way to average and cliche in everything but the combat which is pretty good, the Game of Thrones RPG absolutely sucks and Dragons Dogma is a fun mix of genres that sucks you in. | |
KoA has really fun combat, especially for an RPG, and it's gorgeous and colorful. The setting has some interesting stuff, too. Haven't played the other two games, but I can definitely recommend Amalur. It also has probably the longest demo I've ever played, so you should check that out if the game interests you at all. | |
Can't say, they all look like generic high fantasy RPGs made to exemplify why maybe developers and even film makers need to lay off the orcs and elves a bit until fresh ideas can start pouring back in. Give it a generation or so. I'd say the same thing about zombies, but then again I've been saying it since 2008 and you motherfuckers still won't let go....0.o | |
Play The Witcher 2 or Skyrim instead. | |
Just buy Skyrim, that's what they're all trying and failing to copy anyway. | |
One is good (Dragon's Dogma) and the other two aren't. | |
Have to disagree with you there, KOA and DD actually have classes. KOA and DD actually have useful abilities. KOA and DD actually has interesting combat. Skyrim might look better in screenshots but KOA and DD both look better in motion by leagues. Skyrim has them beat in open-world but as RPG's, The other two are better, much better. Edit: I lied KOA doesn't have classes, my bad. XD | |
Kingdoms of Amalur is sort of like Fable if Fable were actually good, Game of Thrones is awful. Haven't played Dragon's Dogma. | |
already have skyrim. Who hasn't played skyrim yet ? As for The witcher 2 . Not sure if any good on console, but i might consider it. | |
You can already count out Game of Thorns in light of the other two. I'll be one of the few to recommend Amalur over The Witcher 2. I've had much more fun with Amalur than I did with the Witcher. Witcher 2 just barely passed as a 'good' game for me and that's with a generous amount of easy-going consideration. Mostly, it left me wanting. It's another 'meh' game (to be kind) that could have been killer. I found Amalur refreshing. I managed to do a quickie run through The Witcher 2 on the 360 on a five day rental and returned it a day early. Amalur is stuffed full of huge, massive, wide open game areas with shit tons of stuff to do. Amalur's combat is far more satisfying than The Witcher's, and Amalur is also one of the few RPGs or games that isn't shades of brown and grey. Amalur also has much more artistic creativity in the environments. Not only are the graphics more colorful but the design is much more creative as well. Better sightseeing. While Witcher 2 provides a branching story to follow that drastically alters the mid game segment, Amalur will allow you to play any character you want. Granted, the portrayal mostly isn't there but Geralt is already an established character. He can be played in a variety of ways storywise given the decisions to choose from and I actually found myself liking Geralt more than I expected. So, you'll probably get a better roleplaying story in The Witcher, but I found it to be lacking up until the end when it finally delivers. Amalur's story is also unique and captivating, I think, but it will mostly play out the same way. Amalur lacks the frustration I encountered in the Witcher 2. It plays better and has much more going for it. If money's an issue, Amalur will provide a better deal. You'll breeze through the first playthrough of The Witcher 2 in a few days, Amalur will last for months. | |
Yeah you've clearly not played Dragon's Dogma. Dragon's Dogmas combat just puts others in the same fantasy bs genre to shame. The end game is freaking sick too. If Skyrim were to incorporate Dragon scaling, it may very well be the pinnacle of gaming. As of right now though it's just awesome. Dragon's Dogma is my GOTY as of right now. I've never played anything quite like it in 25 years of gaming. The replayability is beyond high. :D | |
Except for not being able to make alt Arisens. (Short of storing not in use save files on a USB drive) | |
It would be nice! You can use the cloud too. There is an item you can get that allows you to change everything, including your character and pawns name, an infinite number of times though so after finding that I kind of got over it. :D | |
But it costs an exorbitant amount of rift crystals and my pawn hasnt been hired once. | |
The 360 version holds up pretty well, I hear. Anyway, if you want something where choice and consequence actually exists, and where 'morally grey' isn't just a buzzword used in marketing, then buy it. TW2 is really what a Game of Thrones RPG should be anyway. Kings, lots of death, sex, and a guy in the middle who doesn't really want to be there. Likewise, you're - very refreshingly - not the 'Chosen One' in any form or aspect. | |
Kingdom of Amalur is Generic: The Game. But wait! It's not elves now, it's Fae! | |
This one has point... The suicide thing is a little extreme though :P | |
I still haven't played the other two games OP suggested, Dragon's Dogma because no PS3 and Game of Thrones because the TV show ruined it enough for me, I don't need more. Not that the show's bad, but it completely grounded my imagination when it came to reading the books. Never doing that mistake again. | |
Dragons Dogma is on 360 too. | |
TW2 on 360 is great, the sound quality is sometimes kind of low, but the graphics, gameplay, story, and everything is still fantastic. | |
I've only played Dragon's Dogma from your list, OP, so my perspective is a bit limited. Gameplay is very good: combat is easier than Demon's Souls/Dark Souls but still nuanced and with the added fun of climbing onto boss monsters and stabbing them in the face, exploration is challenging and rewarding, and there are plenty of customization options. The narrative is built right into the action, so you won't get much long-winded exposition, but the details are there if you pay attention. It's more Nietzsche than Tolkien or the Brothers Grimm, though, and the game does enjoy its red herrings. Be prepared to think if you decided to tackle it. I haven't played Game of Thrones because I love the books, am indifferent to the show, and don't trust the game to get into the material I care most about or play as anything other than an average wrpg. I avoided Amalur because preview material made it look flashy but insubstantial in a Fable-esque sort of way, and I don't really like Salvatore's D&D fiction. People have mentioned Skyrim and The Witcher 2. Both of those are excellent, but one is a giant sandbox and the other is driven mostly by its story and characters. Choosing between them would depend on what you want out of a game. | |
| Pages 1 2 NEXT | |
So These three games have caught my eye , Dargon's Dogma, Game of thrones and Kingdoms of Amalur. Each are fairly recent games. But is there any real difference between three ? I ask this because i am looking for a decent WRPG to play .
So you those who have played any of them, can you recomend them ? And if you have played more than one of those three games, what are the major differences( if any ) between them , and which did you like the most and why ?
Unfortunately, to the untrained eye ( me ) they look all the same ,thus i am looking for a reason to buy one over the others.