Kingdoms of Amalur or Saints 3?

VG247 Forum » The VG247 forum

Kingdoms of Amalur or Saints 3?

(31 posts)

Started 10 months ago by ejams
Latest reply from ejams

12 Next »

ejams
Member

I desperately need a new game to play for at least a portion of the summer, and both of these games are looking like nice long ones. I played the demo for KoA and tried Saints at a friends house, I enjoy both quite a bit but I was wondering which lasts longer? I'm assuming KoA since it's an RPG but Saints looked like it had quite a bit of content. I also probably wouldn't be doing a lot of Co-op or anything. Any other ideas for RPGs or games like that for PS3 would be appreciated.

On a side note, I also may pick up some HD collections because I never got to play a lot of those games when it was the ps2 era. I'm thinking Splinter Cell first, then Jak and Daxter are these good choices? Thanks again.

Posted 10 months ago #
fearmonkey
Member

I have played Kingdoms and its a fun game with a ton of stuff to do. Saints row 3 is fun but I'd go for kingdoms. If you haven't played Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout:new vegas, Skyrim, the witcher or the witcher 2, those are long games as well.

EDIT - Dragon Age origins is a great long title to look at as well.

Posted 10 months ago #
silkvg247
Member

I've 43 hours in KoA, uncompleted because it got too repetetive. I was at the point where I wasn't reading quests, main storyline got boring for me personally so just ran out of momentum to carry on.

Got 50 hours in Saints, which includes all the DLC. Everything completed and unlocked, well almost everything.. didn't do all the challenges. I wish it'd lasted longer but can't complain at 50 hours eh?!

In either case Saints is the better, more fun and more interesting game, so gets my vote.

If you missed them on the ps2, then the more obvious HD choices would be the Ico/shadow of the colossus pack, and of course God of War collection - either collection 1 if you want the original ps2 games or collection 2 if you want the psp games. In both cases remastered/HD of course.

Posted 10 months ago #
ejams
Member

@fearmonkey - I've played (and loved) all those games except the Witcher series, I'm on PS3 so I can't get them :(

@silkvg247 - Hm that's interesting. I haven't really heard about a lot of repetition in that game. For remasters, I played the GoW 1/2 HD collection and the ICO/SoC one looks good too. I've heard nothing but good out of SoC, what kind of game is it?

Posted 10 months ago #
frostquake
Moderator

@ejams

Both games are nice and long, you just need to decide, do you want alot of Mature Humor in your game, Get Saints 3. If you want more of a Simplified Warcraft Experience, get KOA.

I am currently playing both, and enjoy both for very different reasons. They basically are the same game underneath, just with different frosting and toppers.

I have been playing KOA quite a bit more then Saints 3, but i like them both the same.

IMHO either!

Frosty

Posted 10 months ago #
ejams
Member

@frostquake - Yea that's how I'm feeling about this. KoA feels like it'll be a lot longer of an experience being that it's an open world RPG though. I'll probably end up getting both some time in the near future so it's not a deal-breaking decision here, but more opinions would be appreciated.

The only thing that really bothered me in the demo for KoA was the camera, especially when using the bow on multiple opponents. I'm sure I'd get use to it though.

Posted 10 months ago #
OlderGamer
Moderator

KoA, hands down.

Almost any game can be repetitive. The question becomes, do you enjoy repeating the same mechanics? Does it stay fun and interesting? KoA, imo does. It is like a more fun to play Elder Scrolls game, with smooth, fast, and fluid combat.

Saints 3? Meh, kind of stupid. But that was the point of the game. But stupid just gets old and doesn't hold my attention. It just, well, stays stupid.

Lots of people enjoy both games. You prolly will too. But if you are only going to get one of them for the month or whatever, you can't go wrong with KoA.

Posted 10 months ago #
Telepathic.Geometry
Member

I'd go for KoA fella, that'll last ya... Proper epic game IMO.

Posted 10 months ago #
silkvg247
Member

Gah.. I'm in the minority again :)

Posted 10 months ago #
DSB
Member

Nah, you're not silk. Saints Row 3 sold 4 million copies, and Amalur didn't break 2 million. That's just statistics though.

I think Saints Row is far better value for money. They've put a bit of thought into the mechanics and the world, whereas Amalur is all about scale. You have a bunch of mediocre content wrapped in mediocre mechanics, but I really don't get why you'd want to play that for 50 hours or more.

In Saints Row The Third you actually have the entire city changing around you as you go around wreaking mayhem. Want to inadvertently start a zombie apocalypse? You will! Want to bring down the anti-gang super soldier army on you and your crew? Their aircraft carrier will be right there! Want to hang out with Burt Reynolds? You can!

To my mind there's no contest. Amalur isn't worthless, but it's just so middle of the road that it hurts. It's like Fable with all the charm and mystery cut out, in favor of some Tolkien'esque schtick.

Posted 10 months ago #
Telepathic.Geometry
Member

I would go as far as to say that KoA was much better than Skyrim for me, though Skyrim DID dazzle me at first...

Posted 10 months ago #
Giskard
Member

DSB: If Amalur is Fable with all the charm cut out, SR3 is GTA with all the fun cut out. And they cut out a lot with GTA4 already.

Posted 10 months ago #
DSB
Member

Giskard, I guess that depends on your definition of fun. I don't see how Saints Row The Third directly effects Amalur.

I don't recall doing anything half as outrageous in any GTA.

It does have a lot less impressive physics, but ultimately I'll trade that for crazy missions and a bit of imagination any day.

Which GTA let you skydive naked?

Posted 10 months ago #
silkvg247
Member

If your defnition of fun is realism and punishment - then yeah. GTA.

If it's immaturity, insanity and utter freedom then it's SR.

If your definition of fun is average fantasy tale spun around a pretty good (at times frustrating) combat system then KOA is for you.

Posted 10 months ago #
ManuOtaku
Member

My vote goes for KOA

Posted 10 months ago #
Giskard
Member

@DSB In which GTA do you even WANT to do that?

Seriously, crazy crap is not content. It is just that, crazy crap that adds no value to the game.

Posted 10 months ago #
DSB
Member

I want to do that in every single one of them.

Like I said, I guess that depends on your definition of fun.

I think Saints Row the Third probably tried too hard to shock people, but then that was also the case with every other installment they've done since the beginning. It's an honest to god B-movie that wants to be nothing more, whereas GTA IV was a fully unintentional B-movie, with far fewer options for the player.

Personally I don't care about the shock value, but fully moddable weapons + cars, a penthouse with a helipad, and a parachute always at the ready. A stripper gang of my own, a zombie outbreak, a Thunderbird with Burt Reynolds in it, and a carrier full of super soldiers is really all I need to have a pretty stimulating time of it.

Compared to being phone-raped by my fat cousin or throwing darts just so I can keep my mobile arms dealer, I don't have a hard time picking my favourite.

I wouldn't mind if the autotuned guy died a horrible death, though. Like really early on.

Posted 10 months ago #
GwynbleiddiuM
Member

If I'm not too late, I'd go for Saints at least it's fun. KoA, it was a mediocre game hasn't done anything that God of War didn't already do, except shinny loots and streamlined combat.

Posted 10 months ago #
DrDamn
Member

@GwynbleiddiuM
KoA put a very good combat engine into an open world RPG game, that's what it did different. What God of War has done before is beside the point - completely different genre. Take a look at the sort of games KoA was competing with - Skyrim, Two Worlds, Divinity 2. It's streets ahead of those in combat mechanics.

Posted 10 months ago #
DSB
Member

I really don't see how it goes any further than Fable. It's just timed button combos with a bit of magic on the side.

Posted 10 months ago #
M. K.
Member

SR3 is way shorter than KoA. But I definitely had more fun with SR3!

Posted 10 months ago #
DrDamn
Member

@DSB
Combat in KoA has a much better flow to it than Fable for me. Very easy to combine ranged, melee and magic based combat with movement. That and it coupled in nicely with a proper stat based loot system - which distinguishes it from Fable.

Posted 10 months ago #
DSB
Member

I don't disagree about the loot. The crafting system was pretty much the best part of the game for me.

The combat was alright, but it was still very rinse and repeat, even if you had all the moves. The camera wasn't really up to snuff, which was probably the worst thing about the combat to me.

I do think they would've been far better off by halving the size of the world and working on it to the point of something like Fable. The world was big, but it just wasn't very interesting. Not that Fable was perfect, but I always thought it was pretty charming, if nothing else.

Posted 10 months ago #
DrDamn
Member

@DSB
Probably agree about the world. Fable 2 I quite enjoyed but didn't like the simplification of loot. Fable 3 was ridiculous in it's overdesigned interface and that killed it for me - I didn't get far at all. Just a simple thing like finding a new pair of gloves and equiping them was stupidly convoluted. You have to go back to your house FFS? Compare to KoA where you get the option to compare, equip or junk directly from the loot screen. KoA may not have set the world alight with the content/story/world - but it does do a lot of things well, particularly within the genre where interface and fluidity are not big considerations. Hopefully some of the other franchises recognise this.

Posted 10 months ago #
DSB
Member

Yeah I agree, Fable never really got as good as the first game to me. Fable 2 put the focus in a lot of the wrong places, and it runs terribly on the 360. I don't see how Lionhead have any excuse for that, being a Microsoft owned studio and all.

I didn't even bother with Fable 3. I don't want to taint my memories of the series more than I have to.

Posted 10 months ago #
ejams
Member

Ok well I made my decision for the time being, and I decided to go for Saints. The biggest influencing factor was that I just got back in to Skyrim again so I have a fantasy RPG to play if I want. So far so good, I'm having a lot of fun! I will still get Amalur later on this summer though because I still had lots of fun in the demo.

Also, I like the debate, lots of people enjoyed both games quite a bit. That's great news for me.

Posted 10 months ago #
Telepathic.Geometry
Member

Absolutely, it's great that everybody can have a rational debate about what they like and don't, and agree to disagree. I don't think I'd ever play Saints, but the Giant Bomb guys really do a good job of selling it, to the point where I am actually tempted.

It's win win. :)

Posted 10 months ago #
OlderGamer
Moderator

Its good that you get your time in with Skyrim now, before you start playing KoA. You won't enjoy Skyrim as much after spending some quality time on KoA. The combat will just feel painful.

Posted 10 months ago #
DSB
Member

In case you're on the PC, don't go buying anything just yet. Steam sale is just around the corner. I'm pretty sure THQ are going to be out in full force.

I know ejams is on the PS3, but I always get caught by surprise by those sales, and it sucks so bad to pay less than you would've if you'd waited a month or maybe even weeks :P

Posted 10 months ago #
stretch215
Member

I felt the combat was the only bright spot in amalur. Personally I'd much rather play skyrim.

Posted 10 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.