Last December, Destructoid’s Jim Sterling broke the story that Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning would feature a seven-part quest line, hidden behind an online pass.

Sterling called the practice "slimy and unjustified" on his personal Twitter account, and the topic quickly became a hot-button subject amongst savvy internet-dwellers wishing to offer their tuppenceworth on EA's new favourite money-making strategy. Part of the anger stemmed from the fact that Kingdoms of Amalur’s online code was restricting access to single-player content already on the disc, instead of online content, like previous games with EA Online Passes.

This is not the first time this year that a kerfuffle has been raised over single-player content restrictions. Last September, Warner Bros. Interactive and Rocksteady Studios came under fire when they sealed off several playable sections of Batman: Arkham City featuring Catwoman behind an unlock code. The move came under fire from users who felt they were being cheated out of the full experience, especially from the perspective of gamers who may not have an internet connection for their console, or anyone who might try to buy the game used.

Unfortunately, online passes are likely here to stay, especially seeing as publishers are trying their utmost to head off used-game sales. What started as a justification to recover operating costs for online servers has turned into yet another way for EA to coax a little more money out of its customers. And, beyond EA and Warner, THQ has also used online passes for Homefront and both of its UFC games, whilst Activision has as yet chosen not to follow the online pass route.

A hefty amount of digital ink has already been spilled on the subject of online passes, forming everything from reasonable discourse to righteous indignation. Some see online passes as a regrettable but understandable business decision, a reasonable push-back against used-game sales. Others feel they punish a significant part of their consumer base, and provide gamers with a worse experience; after all, typing in a new code every time one buys a new game gets very old, very quickly.

On a side note, I’m not certain that used-game sales cut into profits quite so much as publishers say they are, but I bet the fact that one of the world’s largest game retailers depends so heavily on used games sales doesn’t help.

I used to be reasonably tolerant of online passes; as a gamer who tries to purchase new games and support developers, rather than retailers, it didn’t affect me too heavily. Most of the games using online passes were sports games: the likes of Madden and FIFA, games I wouldn’t usually play but would likely purchase new if I did - new rosters, after all. However, online pass implementation has become much more ubiquitous - and, one could argue, much more stupid - in recent months. Entering each new code becomes more tedious every time, and the content hidden behind these codes has grown from bonus, thank-you-for-playing content to important, central portions of the game as a whole.

Perhaps my worst experience with online passes came when I rented Battlefield 3, for what was supposed to be a review. I ploughed through the campaign in one five-hour session (my preferred method for tight, focussed FPS campaigns), and after watching the credits roll, I sat down for a few rounds of multiplayer, excited to spend more time with one of my favourite online series in recent years. Instead, I was greeted with a screen that told me I needed to buy a brand new copy of the game in order to try the multiplayer at all.

I was shocked. Not only was the game depriving me access to arguably the reason to purchase Battlefield 3, but it wouldn’t even let me try it out and decide if it was right for me. Rather than spend an extra ten dollars on top of the eight dollar rental, I returned the game, frustrated and unsatisfied - at least online sports games like Madden allowed a seven-day free trial for online modes. And the sad thing is, I decided not to purchase Battlefield 3 in the end, because I wasn’t sure whether I’d enjoy the multiplayer; without an adequate chance to sample it, the purchase became too great a risk, and caused me not to follow through.

On the other hand, I can understand why publishers use online passes, despite how much they're inarguably awful. 38 Games' Curt Schilling recently talked about why they chose to implement their 'day-one DLC', saying that, as a new series in a crowded market, they wanted to stand out and provide extra content to gamers who would buy it new; after all, if they don’t sell enough copies, the studio may not be around long enough to deliver a sophomore effort.

To me, it really comes down to expectation. Amalur is an absolutely massive game, and as sucky as it is to miss out on a seven-quest cycle, there’s still a huge amount of content already available for playing. In terms of Batman: Arkham City and its infamous gated content, I rented the game shortly after it came out, and during the time I played it, not once did I feel ripped-off for not being allowed to experience Catwoman’s sections. Batman’s main storyline was so fun and well-paced, I never felt like anything was missing from the experience, making Catwoman’s sections truly feel like 'bonus' content.

Perception is also a big part of this discussion. There are those who feel that, because both Catwoman and the seven-part quest are on the disc, they should be available right out of the box, lest the experience be otherwise 'incomplete'. Yet, for some reason, removing the content from the disc and forcing players to download it through Xbox Live or PSN seems to make it okay. Perhaps we’re all hardwired to expect a more 'transactional' feel when purchasing digital items, and the physical distance the data travels and the time needed to acquire it perhaps make the content more worth the money than if it were simply unlocked from the disc. For me, if the experience feels complete (like in the case of Batman), anything extra is worth the extra money.

A similar situation happened last year with Gears of War 3, when Epic revealed that their game had a good amount of on-the-disc DLC. Their justification? They had already drawn up and followed a projected budget for the main content (single-player campaign, multiplayer, co-op, etc.), and the DLC followed a separate budget, making both sets of content two different sets of costs. The $60 purchase covered the main game’s budget, while the on-the-disc purchases would cover the cost to design, develop and test the DLC.

Also - and this makes me part of the problem - I would much rather have buy-new incentives that are actually worth ponying up the money for. Remember the Cerberus Network, EA’s free-DLC service from Mass Effect 2? Remember how awesome your new equipment was, and how engaging your new party felt? Of course not; they were all terrible. If I’m resigned to expect extra content from buying a game brand new, that content had better be worth the money I spent over buying it used. There’s a thin line between withholding content that’s worthwhile and keeping players from experiencing the game to the fullest, but the latter feels so much more satisfying than discovering your 'bonus content' was an extra pea-shooter and two differently-coloured T-shirts.

I’m not trying to be an online pass apologist; they add new layers of difficulty to customer experiences, and they could easily lead to a slippery slope of paying for even greater and greater chunks of content. Still, I know there’s a middle-ground that can be attained, in rewarding players who buy new without penalising those who buy games used, and hopefully developers can find that happy medium in the future. In the meantime, let’s get back to complaining about something that is really irritating. Like pre-order DLC.

Labels: 38 Studios, Andrew Testerman, Batman: Arkham City, EA, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, Online Passes, Opinion, PlayStation 3, PSN, Warner Bros., Xbox 360, Xbox LIVE

I try to stay away from open-world games.

I appreciate the charms of their huge, sprawling environments, and I understand what attracts people to them, but they've never held sway for me. I prefer my games focussed, linear and respectful of my time. I want bang for my buck, and I like moment-to-moment gameplay that keeps me on the edge of my seat. After resisting the likes of Red Dead Redemption, Fallout 3 and Grand Theft Auto IV, I've finally met my match with EA's newest fantasy RPG, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning.

Except it isn't for the reasons I thought. Whenever a game gets into my head, as Kingdoms of Amalur has, it's because the story has firmly snared me in its tendrils, or because I've bought so heavily into the game's world. Instead, I'm counting down minutes on the clock until I leave work, raring to go home and fire up my Xbox 360, because Kingdoms of Amalur is so bloody fun. It's both exciting to play and engrossing to explore, and it renders me incapable of playing for less than two hours at a time.

Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning is an action-RPG from developers Big Huge Games and 38 Studios, a games company founded by former Boston Red Sox pitcher, Curt Schilling. Kingdoms of Amalur's design is informed by open world RPGs like Dragon Age: Origins and The Elder Scrolls, which fits, given that its executive designer, Ken Rolston, was also the lead designer on the latter series, working on both Morrowind and Oblivion. Like those games, Kingdoms of Amalur is all about exploring, levelling, and combing each and every dungeon for epic drops.

At the outset of Kingdoms of Amalur, your character wakes up amid a pile of corpses, and soon learns that they've been brought back to life by a magical artefact called the Well of Souls. That's not all, though; it seems as though your character is unaffected by the hand of Fate, a very real and present force in Kingdoms of Amalur, and your destiny is completely yours to decide. It's your task to find out what killed your character in the first place, and why Fate cares about you even less than Americans care about football.


Kingdoms of Amalur's fiction comes from the mind of author R.A. Salvatore, whose catalogue of fantasy literature includes the Forgotten Realms series of Drizzt Do'Urden books. Similarly to Mr. Salvatore's previous works, Kingdoms of Amalur's lore comes thick and Tolkien-y, and wastes no time in presenting players with halflings, dark god-kings and names in dire need of a pronunciation guide (amongst them: Ljosalfar, Alyn Shir, Dalenfarth; a race of elves, a person and a region of land, respectively). I find the game's intense dedication to popcorn high-fantasy tropes endearing and entertaining, even though it often seems borrowed from an overly-enthusiastic fourteen-year-old's favourite Dungeons & Dragons: 2nd Edition campaign.

After a brief opening tutorial, players are dropped into the main world with complete freedom to explore, taking quests or simply ambling about and taking in the scenery. It's usually during this section that open-world games lose me, but Kingdoms of Amalur does a good job of leading players along, cataloguing sidequests and keeping everything organised during the course of play. Not only that, the game also implements a very forgiving and flexible fast-travel system, cutting down on wasted time and letting players dive right into the action; travelling slowly and stopping every now and then to smell the flowers, however, is not without its perks, particularly not when the game looks so great.

Kingdoms of Amalur's art style comes from graphic novelist and artist Todd McFarlane, best known as the creator of dark antihero, Spawn. McFarlane gives Kingdoms of Amalur a brightly-coloured and slightly-cartoony vibe not unlike World of Warcraft, resulting in a completely different feel than games with a more 'dark fantasy' bent, like Dark Souls or Skyrim. I've only just finished with Kingdoms of Amalur's first main area, but so far I've enjoyed running amidst its giant trees and swimming through its many lakes.


Where the game truly shines, though, is during its action-packed, fast-paced combat. Kingdoms of Amalur's enemy encounters feel akin to stylish action games like Devil May Cry or God of War, with mid-air juggles, dodge-rolls and split-second blocks and parries fuelling the fun. Players are given freedom to pick from a large roster of weapons, choosing standard-fare equipment like swords and bows, or opting for more unique equipment like faeblades, wrist-mounted daggers capable of delivering more quick cuts than Tony Scott ^[1], or chakram, magical ringed blades that return after having been thrown like flaming boomerangs.

Magic usage is just as accessible and intuitive as mêlée fighting, as players can also hotkey a number of different spells to the face buttons, from lightning bolts, to healing charms, to a magic harpoon that pulls enemies in for further beatings (eliciting a loud "Get over here!" from me whenever I cast it). Finally, as a last-ditch effort, players can fill up their Fate Meter and enter into Reckoning Mode, granting players increased strength, slowed down enemies and an experience boost after having performed an over-the-top, gory finishing move. Combat in open-world RPGs tends to bore me greatly, but in Kingdoms of Amalur, enemy encounters are fun enough to actively seek out, making even the most tedious fetch-quests feel invigorating.

Another of Kingdoms of Amalur's selling features is its class system. Players deposit ability points gained from a level into one of three different categories: might (sword- and warrior-related techniques), finesse (bow- and rogue-related) and magic (self-explanatory). Kingdoms of Amalur offers players a good deal of flexibility when crafting their character, whether they want to concentrate purely on one category or mix and match. I opted for a combination of all three, giving me access to powerful long-range arrows, strong up-close sword strokes and crowd-clearing fire and ice spells.


Players also acquire skill points upon levelling, which can be spent on attributes like alchemy, persuasion, and stealth. Some, like lockpicking, give players greater success in Amalur's minigames, while others, like dispel, can offer different dialogue options. I poured all of my points into blacksmithing and sagecrafting, letting me forge my own weapons and armour and imbue them with powerful gems. Best of all, Kingdoms of Amalur lets players reassign their skill and attribute points at very little cost, letting them experiment with different play styles and find the one that works best for them. Freedom of choice is the name of the game, and you're encouraged to play.

So far, I have had the time of my life with Kingdoms of Amalur, but I do have several complaints as well. There is no option to turn off the mini-map, which can lead to ignoring the environmental art in favour of chasing after quest markers (think Detective Vision in Rocksteady's Batman games). Also, choices made by the player aren't reflected very well in the game, which is odd given the fuss that everyone makes of your Fate-proof demeanour. Lastly, while I do appreciate Amalur's goofy fantasy vibe, I currently have no idea whatsoever about what is going on in the main story, which is as thin and tasteless as a crêpes made of papier-mâché.

Still, these are only small gripes about one of the most engrossing and life-eroding games I've played in some time. It's by no means perfect, and veterans of The Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age might be put off by the game's shallow world-building and storytelling, but for me, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning is an effective blend of epic scope and satisfying moment-to-moment gameplay, and I can't wait to put in another thirty hours. And, perhaps, thirty more after that.

Labels: 38 Studios, Andrew Testerman, Big Huge Games, EA, Feature, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, PC, PlayStation 3, Western RPGs, Xbox 360

Can you remember the last time that a brand new intellectual property got you excited? For me that was Demon's Souls, back in 2009. The truth is that every single year there's a plethora of new brands, like Demon's Souls, that appear on the market. Unfortunately, few truly make it, and even if some get that taste of success, oftentimes the game will soon after quietly fade into obscurity.

Kingdoms of Amalur is hoping to break this formula with its audacious attempt at melding several genres. What kind of fate awaits 38 Studios' first title? That's up to us. And I'm here to tell you why you need to care.

Take one look at Amalur. It doesn't seem very special, does it? A third-person RPG akin to Fable, with an unmistakable MMO vibe? If you were like me, you wrote this game off right from the start. However, 38 Studios released a demo for the game and I decided to see it for myself. As the demo finished downloading, a friend and I were entirely prepared to sit down and bash the game. I mean, it was just going to be another derivative fantasy world with a terrible subtitle, right? Reckoning? Hah! But something magical happened as we began traipsing through Amalur; we had absolutely nothing berating to say.



My personal anecdote aside, Amalur is surely one of the biggest surprises in recent memory. Its intrepid design philosophies follow a unique path by attempting to mix several genres that normally wouldn't ever be whispered together. It takes open-world cues from The Elder Scrolls series, a questing system similar to World of Warcraft, dialogue options from Mass Effect and Dragon Age, combat mechanics from the likes of Devil May Cry and Fable, and a whole lot more from other various titles. Say what you like, but this kind of over-ambitious design is what can kill a game. Amalur's vision is certainly grandiose, but as ridiculous as it seems on paper it comes together in a package that is extremely enjoyable and accessible to absolutely everyone.

Unfortunately, just being fun isn't good enough for a game to continue its natural progression into DLC and then, perhaps, a sequel. Developers need the coin, and if something doesn't sell then we simply don't see it again. If you couldn't already tell, Amalur is a myriad of ideas and gameplay functions that come together in one beautiful motion. More than that, it's something we haven't seen before, something brand-spanking new, and we owe it to the developers to give it our attention.


Why do we owe it to 'lower-class' developers to support their games? Think about it. If we don't show interest in companies extending their reach into unused regions, which allows them to experiment with other imaginative ideas, we'd get what we've been getting every year - more Call of Duty. That isn't to say in any way that the this particular series is terrible, but since it has become a multi-billion dollar juggernaut it's been obvious that the games have been degrading in quality over the years. Yet people are still buying them. As this trend continues, Call of Duty will eventually meet the fate of both the Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk franchises. Both were phenomenal in their own right, and both were completely wiped out as a result of pure over-saturation and diminished quality. Saying that, there's no reason to embrace something that's sub-par in the quality department, but Amalur is far, far from that.

The biggest reason I'm such a proponent of this game is how much effort 38 Studios has put into it. Huge names like R.A. Salvatore, Ken Rolston and Todd McFarlane are all on board the Amalur train and, as with the examples above, it's obvious that the developers have learned from contemporary games about what works and what does not. Implementing these features is one thing, but making them work and actually enjoyable is something else entirely. You also cannot forget the demo, which is what sold me in the first place; how many games give you a feature-length demo with an open-world to do what you want with after the showcase has ended? Not even Red Faction: Guerrilla's original demo allowed its world to be traversed, and that game was all about roaming around. If that's any indication, these guys want you to explore their game; to do what you want, when you want. For that, I have immense respect.


Playing into the hand of ignorance and literally judging a game by its cover, like I did, can condemn a series in a heartbeat, and that's why a game like Amalur really deserves your attention. Is it the be-all and end-all RPG of all-time? No. Of course not. But Amalur is a familiar world set with seminal design, and it's fun to boot. Ignoring something like this only brings harm to the industry as a whole and yes, I know that the retail prices for games hurt nowadays, but just ask yourself what you're picking up this year.

Give Amalur a chance. Because we all know what happened to Okami. And I do not want to get into that again.

Labels: 38 Studios, Andrew Whipple III, EA, Feature, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, PC, PS3, Xbox 360