I'm doing an interesting experiment at home. A few weeks
ago, I got two RPG's, and I decided to play through both of them at once. A few
days later, I got another RPG, but haven't played it much. And since, Mass
Effect 3 put out another piece of DLC, I played through that as well. And World
of Warcraft works its way into my daily routine fairly often. So I have a bout
5 games on the go at once (really, SWTOR is the only one I haven't played
recently), but only the first two count. WoW I've played so much that's it's
routine. I know pretty much exactly what I'm going to get. Mass Effect 3
doesn't count because I go full bore on it. I rarely stop to do anything else
when I'm playing it (yes, it's just that awesome). And while King's Bounty:
Warrior's of the North is in fact a
new game, I've played both its predecessors, and so I know what I'm going to
get - a solid strategy/RPG with tongue planted firmly in cheek. Plus, as I
mentioned before, I haven't played it much.
So really, the two games I'm experimenting on are TheWitcher 2: Assassin of Kings, and Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning. Besides having
colons in their names, they have a few other similarities. They're both Fantasy
RPGs, so a lot of swords and sorcery, monster slaying, loot-finding, and
plot-advancing goes on. Both have mainly weapons based combat with limited
magic tossed in. Both are action RPGs, in that each press of a mouse button is
a swing of a sword (or other weapon), so a lot of button mashing goes on. Both
have crafting systems (so, you know, sticking close to the fantasy RPG
guidebook). Both have experience points and levels that a character gain,
advancing along different paths to maximize certain abilities. Both have inventory
systems that have to be managed (occasionally micro-managed), but that's pretty
standard. The only RPG's I know of without real inventory systems are Mass
Effect 2 & 3 (which are more shooters that RPGs at this point), and
Magicka, which stopped being fun and started being frustrating after about 2
hours. Which is why I no longer play Magicka.
Anyway, they're both two different games, by two different
companies, so they have two completely different looks and two different feels.
The biggest difference between the two games, however, is attitude. Kingdoms of
Amalur (KoA) is very earnest. Its heroes are good, and do good things, simply
because they're the right things to do. The bad guys are evil, and do bad
things for the evulz. The character that really drove it home for me was a
guardian of a small town (sheriff-like) who agonized over his inability to
protect one of his citizens. He was all "Woe is me. I'm a terrible person
because I couldn't stop this crime. Here, take my wonderful sword because you
did such a better job than I did." ("well, thank you. Can I have your
shield as well if I go kill those giant rats over there?" And yes, Giant
rats were the first enemies you fight in the game, thus further solidifying
that the game reads off the standard RPG tropes list we're all used to). It's
like the developers read Lord of the Rings and said "I want to make a game
of that."
The Witcher 2 is almost completely the opposite. Everything
is very grey. Good people do bad things for the right reasons. Villains to good
things for the wrong reasons. Most people are greedy, selfish bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling who constantly try to manipulate the people
around them. Alliances and allegiances shift seemingly randomly, but I tried to
stick with the people who were ... well, less evil most of the time. It didn't
always work. It's like the designers read A Song of Ice and Fire and said
"I want to make a game of that."
Which they didn't, because the games are actually based on a series of Polish
books and short stories about the hero of the game, Geralt of Rivia, and they
take place about 5 years after the last book, with some convenient amnesia so
players who haven't read the books can jump in without getting lost.
I got lost anyway. Actually, I got lost in both games. They
both throw a lot of lore at you, but at least they both had the presence of
mind to make the protagonists just as confused as the players. Geralt has
amnesia from being killed, and presumably brought back to life. The hero of KoA
(who we get to name ourselves, so I chose Mjolnir) has amnesia from being
killed and definitely brought back to life. So, more similarities, I guess.
The Witcher 2 follows the fracturing of several kingdoms
after their kings are slain by a witcher. The opening cutscene shows one such
assassination, and its petty cool. It also stars a heavily scarred witcher who
could probably play linebacker in the NFL. He's BUILT!
Anyway, Witcher is actually a bit of misnomer. It's a
neologism (even in Polish), but a better translation/description would probably
be Hexer. Geralt can cast certain signs that do things. Light things on fire,
trap things to the ground, blow things over (several months before Fus-Ro-Dah),
provide protection, and one that should probably be called "Jedi MindTrick." You can convince people of things, from "Tell me what you
know" to "Fight these people for me." Hilarity ensues.
KoA has a 'magic' system based on three different
playstyles. So there are Might abilities (warrior stuff), finesse abilities
(thief/rogue stuff), and sorcery (the actual magic stuff). The Might side has a
spell that causes huge spikes to come out of the ground when you slam into it.
A finesse spell would be to fling knives out in all directions (wait, why is
that sound familiar?) and the sorcery side will have you shooting lightning at
your foes. You cast them by choosing one from the hotbar to activate it, and
right-clicking to cast it. Quickly hopping around the hotbar (and enough mana,
the resource used to cast spell and abilities) can have you electrocuting your
enemies, stunning them enough for you to impale them on giant spike from the
ground, right before you lop of their heads with your sword (which is, as per
standard RPG tropes, larger than you are).
The inventories are different, but similar to ones in other
games. The Witcher 2 follows the Fallout/Elder Scrolls route and assigns pretty
much everything a weight. Geralt can only carry 300 pounds worth of stuff,
which would give anyone a workout, but seems strangely limited when you're
trying to carry 87 pounds of iron ore and 136 pounds of timber around so you
can make a bunch of knives later. KoA follows the standard Bioware path and
makes everything take up one slot of space (although items that are the same -
like mana potions - can be stacked into one slot). The amount of slots can be
upgraded by buying backpacks from vendors, giving me flashbacks to Dragon Age.
The one thing I really liked about the inventory system was how it handled
crafting components. Most of the time, each crafting component was its own
item, taking up one slot by itself, or stacking up to some arbitrary number. So
picking azaleas would take up one slot, and picking rhododendrons would take up
one slot, and picking roses would take one slot. In KoA, all the crafting
components are held in a bag, which only takes up one slot for each craft.
Fantastic! Every game should have this! Including The Witcher 2, where I may
have wandered around with 12 pounds of tulips taking up valuable weight.
The crafting systems are different too. Sure, there's
alchemy in both, but even that's widely different. In KoA, there are three
professions: Blacksmithing, Alchemy, and Sagecraft. Blacksmithing is used to
break down any gear you get into its component pieces, as well as a sort of
core of the original item. So a sword might have a sword core, as well as a
hilt, bindings, and rivets. Shields might have grips as well, which might also
appear on daggers, but not on staves. You can make items by using the core and
an increasing number of items, depending on your blacksmithing skill. So a
crafted sword might only have a sword core and a hilt. Increasing
blacksmithing will add bindings, then rivets, then grips, and various
what-nots. The order depends on what you're trying to craft - weapons, or gear
for each specific playstyle (again: Might, Finesse, and Sorcery).
Alchemy is made from ingredients picked from the world
(plants that can be picked sparkle), although if your alchemy skill isn't high
enough, you can fail at picking anything ("Oh man, I squished these petals
again!"). These ingredients can
be used in recipes bought from vendors, or can be used to experiment to try to
find your own recipes.
Sagecraft is used to create gems, which can be added to
weapons or armor to increase stats. Weapon gems can be put onto weapons, armor
gems can be put into gems, and utility gems can be put onto either, provided
that the gear has the slot for gems at all. Gems can also be sold for tons of
money to vendors, so that's a nice boon when your gear isn't good enough to
have slots (or you find gear without slots that's better than gear with slots.
That happens to me a lot. 20 hours in, I've used maybe three gems. Mind you,
I've also made a boatload of cash selling gems).
In The Witcher 2, Alchemy is made from materials from
picking flowers and from parts of whatever monsters or animals you slay. There
are dozens of different materials, but each one has one of eight ingredients,
and it's the ingredients that matter. So there are a lot of different ways to
make the same potion, while also making it possible to save the more valuable
resources for more valuable things, like diagrams.
The other type of crafting is from diagrams, and those can't
be used yourself. You take the exact materials (not ingredients) to a
craftsman, and they make whatever it is for you for a fee. Usually more than
you can sell it for, to prevent gold farming. Oren farming, actually, because
the unit of money is called orens. Anyhow, I managed to pick up a few useful
diagrams and got some sweet armor, as well as some sweet armor enhancements
(basically gems) from diagrams.
Now that I've ruminated on the subject enough, I've found
the biggest difference between The Witcher 2 and Kingdoms of Amalur. And that
is this: while putting in equal hours into both, I've finished The Witcher 2. And
while it was a good game, it just kind of stopped. Okay ... that's nice and
all, but it means I'm going to have to shell out for The Witcher 3 (which was
probably the point of so many sequel hooks). One or two things get wrapped up,
but the overall plot is far from over, and that's really annoying. I have no
idea how much more time KoA will require, but I'd hazard a guess I'm near
halfway through. I've probably put about 20 hours into each, and while a 20
hour game would be a fantastic length for a first person shooter (because it
has many more hours with the multi-player component), it tends to be a bit
disappointing for an RPG. The big caveat to all this is that as an RPG, there's
a lot of replay value. I suspect that if I made a few different choices, I'd
wind up with an entirely different plot. So I might have to put in 20 more
hours to find out what it is. You know, just as soon as I've finished Kingdoms
of Amalur. And King's Bounty: Warriors of the North. And World of Warcraft. And
Star Wars: The Old Republic
Ha, just kidding (not really). Anyway, the point of this
whole thing was to determine if I could play two games at once and not get too
confused. Ultimately, the answer was yes. Certainly, there were times when I
tried to click on things during KoA when I should have pressed F, or pressed F
in The Witcher 2 when I wanted to pick something up, but by and large, the
experiment was successful. What that says about me, I have no idea. Have I
reached the tier of RPG gamers wherein I'm experienced enough to keep two
concurrently played games completely straight in my head? Or does it just mean
I spend too much time in my room?
No comments:
Post a Comment