PixlBit

Ha Ha Jason, Ha Ha... :D

So about the Skyrim thing.  I know I probably don't speak for the majority in this case, but I very much enjoyed (and still enjoy, Etrian Odyssey!!!) isometric dungeon crawlers years ago.  One of the reasons I enjoy Elder Scrolls games so much is they seem very much like a mondern take on that genre.  I think the combat failure is just an evolutionary hold over from the genre's roots.  It actually feels like there's a timer restraining how often you can swing or execute an action, and a dice roll for each attack, even though it's real time.

Where the game really shines is the sense of exploration.  That's what I, and the majority of gamers, play the game for.  It's what I love about the genre more than the combat.  Seriously, I've been playing these for so long that when they came out with the Phantasy Star collection on the GBA, I was able to play through the first game for the first time without writing down a map.

And yes, I still have a pack of graph paper in my desk somewhere.

With Skyrim, what do you typically find when you explore? For example, what if you venture through a snowy, mountainous region only to come face to face with a dragon? Boom. Enter combat scenario, you can fight or you can run. In whatever case, chances are, it's going to be a very bland experience. When you defeat the dragon and stumble upon some sort of rune, you gain....

...An ability that increases your fighting proficiency a little bit. Great! I'm not saying there isn't a sense of exploration in the game, but from what I've seen, quite a bit of it ties into fighting proficiency and such.

Then, I start to wonder things like this: If you don't play the game for some experience with the combat, why not just play Animal Crossing? No, it doesn't have a wide-open, massive world, but at the same time, you won't have to worry about some giant attacking you and flinging you two hundred feet in the air, nor will you have to worry about how long it takes to travel from place to place. If the combat really gives the feeling of recreating the roll of the die in Dungeons and Dragons, it certainly lacks the options for creativity, personality, and sense of comraderie playing a table top game offers.

With older isometric dungeon crawlers, in my limited experience, the combat was simplified. What mattered was what you equipped and how you approached a situation. How you clicked once in a fight seemed a little less relevant, aside from things like timing of spells. With Skyrim, seeing the game played, it looks more like a dull first-person shooter/brawler. Sure, you can equip things, but so many spells are so similar, so many approaches to each fight are the same: Attack and then dodge the enemy's straight-forward attack. Yeah, dragons are slightly different, yeah, giants are slightly different, but from what I've seen, not so much.

Anyway, the point was more about the way many critics and individuals are reacting to Kingdoms of Amalur: When it's boiled down, they're essentially saying the game is like Skyrim if Skyrim were fun to play. That puzzles me. A few months ago, to many people, Skyrim was one of the best titles of this generation. Here we are, a few months passed, and suddenly Skyrim is a great game by their standards, but not one that people enjoy playing. Do you see the contrast here? Are people that short-sighted?

Hey everyone, I wanted to give a heads up: I'm feeling a little under the weather today, so PB & Jason won't be happening this week. If it weren't a sore throat, I'd still be doing it! Tune in next week, I'll be providing listeners with a Vita launch special! Exciting!