Metareview - Untold Legends: Dark Kingdom
by Alan Rose 
{ Nov 29th 2006 at 8:54PM }
You have to wonder if Sony Online Entertainment was so co-dependent during the development of the Champions of Norrath games that they had to abandon the successful series when partner Snowblind Studios was bitten by the superhero bug. Instead of leveraging EverQuest's popularity for the launch of the PlayStation 3, SOE decided to stick with their more generic Untold Legends setting, which debuted on the PSP nearly two years ago. But with its paltry 18-20 hours of gameplay, lack of SIXAXIS support, and all of three pre-customized characters to choose from, Dark Kingdom ends up being little more than a rushed launch title, not the next-gen Norrath many people were hoping for.
- IGN (65/100) wants more PS3 and less PSP: "Apart from the repetitive combat system, there's a ton of gameplay issues that you'd hope would've been fixed with the transition over to the PS3. Load times are surprisingly long when you're accessing new levels. Rocks and boxes, as well as hills or background objects can cause your character to freeze in mid-jumping animation for at least five or six seconds. You'll also run into a lot of camera problems during combat, where the camera will unexpectedly zoom in or out during a fight."
- GameSpot (60/100) thinks Dark Kingdom is ill-suited for looters: "Gear lust is one of the more prominent driving forces in dungeon crawlers, and it's here that Dark Kingdom comes up short. Pieces of armor with different names and radically different effects look identical on your character, limiting the joy of equipping new gear and seeing how it looks on your increasingly badass adventurer. Your character will use the same basic weapon, as well as most of the same combo attacks, from beginning to end."
- GameSpy (60/100) hopes Sony is planning to make better use of the PS3's storage capacity: "What surprises me the most about the whole pre-formed character shtick is how confining it seems for a next-gen console with the power of the PS3. Look at the character customization options in Oblivion and you might understand where I'm coming from with this. All that power and I only have three options to choose from?"
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
The1 @ Nov 29th 2006 9:04PM
The only game I got my PS3 is RFOM. It's the only game that good for the PS3.
Captain Awesome @ Nov 29th 2006 10:46PM
Wow another killer app for the PS3, I cant wait to drop my 600$ on this system.
Kamalot @ Nov 29th 2006 10:00PM
How could you possibly get more generic than Everquest?
Bizzaro Stamos @ Nov 29th 2006 10:06PM
And yet 1up.com gave the PS3 the highest rated launch of any console, is there really anything worth playing save for resistance?
Bizzaro Stamos @ Nov 30th 2006 12:13AM
I actually played legends on PSP when it came out and it was a blast during psychology with 3 other friends in on the wifi action, but the gameplay only held up for about a week and then we never played again.
Really to summarize the PSP version it was a basic hack slash spell level experience,however the most stand out exceptional part of the game had to be the RIDICULOUS LOAD TIMES!
Carl @ Nov 30th 2006 3:36PM
While I want a ps3, I dont think I'd buy any games right now. I was a total PS2 fan last gen, but resistance seems really unimpressive when I've been playing gears for past month straight (gave in and got a 360... for good measure from looks of things)
Only thing worthy about ps3 right now is blu-ray player, which is what I want it for right now, then later when the good stuff comes out I'll buy the games.
mietha CAG @ Nov 29th 2006 10:12PM
This is the one game that could have made me buy a PS3. Too bad it's a subpar PS2 game. Way to go Sony!!! Then again, after the PS2 launch line up, no one should really be surprised. Summoner and NHL 2001 were the only good games. Smuggler's Run was ok, but not great. But hell, this time around, looks like they only managed 1 decent game, and I really don't feel it's a system seller, at least not with Gears, FEAR and Call of Duty 3 all recently releasing on the 360.
darko82 @ Nov 29th 2006 10:37PM
@Kamlaot, EverQuest's lore might not be as richly detailed as LOTR and the realms of D&D (or even Warcraft), but it's been around for almost eight years and has more recognizable characters, races, and kingdoms than Untold Legends. UL is a throwaway fantasy setting that should have been scrapped in favor of Norrath, Vah Shir berserkers, and Firiona Vie.
Shagi @ Nov 29th 2006 10:47PM
I have this game and I've got to admit I've been playing it more than any other title on any other platform.
The reviews are right that there are major camera issues as well as the lasck of loot, but what none of them mention is how deep the combat is, there are a lot of situational combos you can use. You really feel like you've got the tools to not get hit at all if you can play well enough, its not a button masher.
I guess I can really only speak for the mage class cause that all I've played so far but I would certainly give this title at least a 75.
I quite enjoy it, and its certainly better than Rayman Raving Rabbids...how that game didnt get a 50 is beyond me.
rpg_man @ Nov 29th 2006 11:07PM
Shagi, do you think it's better than BG: Dark Alliance or Champions of Norrath? Just wondering.
obi-wan @ Nov 29th 2006 11:12PM
Screw Sony, and screw MS too. If you really want to have RPG fun this holiday season, buy a slim PS2 for $130 and some cheap copies of the Dark Alliance and Norrath games.
Snowblind FTW!
haisano @ Nov 30th 2006 1:41AM
Hokay, this is from the mouth of a former SOE employee who worked on this game:
First, the game had 8-9 months dev time. That's *it*. *You* go ahead and make a PS3 game with that little time and less than half the budget.
Second, the game is totally unoptimized and the code is horrific. This is because there was no time to make the game properly. Refer to point #1 if you don't get it.
Third, everyone who worked on it was aware that it sucks royally. It exists only to pad the ps3 launch numbers out and was never intended to make a profit. The fact that it scored above a 60 is surprising, but rest assured that only 2 weeks before it went gold, it would have had a worse rating.
Finally, Shagi, the camera and loot issues were left in the game because there were *FAR* worse issues still left to fix! Please think of how hard the coding team worked on that game for 8 months to get it out the door before you rag on it.
And yet, it still sucks :-/
Darth Vader @ Nov 30th 2006 4:52AM
@11, and we should care for what reason? Is it our fault that the game had such a short dev time? Should we cut them some slack and buy a copy out of sympathy?
This industry is a business like any other and if the product is crap then the reviews will reflect that.
If Sony were using it to 'pad out' the launch numbers as you say then they are even stupider than I gave them credit for.
Earl @ Nov 30th 2006 9:04AM
Shagi knows good video games, like I know how to speak Russian! I mean the poor Sony fanboy couldn't help but knock the Wii with a post to a crap PS3 game.
Seriously, $600 to play this s**t??!!? Get with the program Sony
The1 @ Nov 30th 2006 8:45AM
Your comment is a load of CRAP. If Sony knew this was a BAD game, then why charge people? Sony should have given the game away with the console.
------------------------------------------------
comment---
11. Hokay, this is from the mouth of a former SOE employee who worked on this game:
First, the game had 8-9 months dev time. That's *it*. *You* go ahead and make a PS3 game with that little time and less than half the budget.
Second, the game is totally unoptimized and the code is horrific. This is because there was no time to make the game properly. Refer to point #1 if you don't get it.
Third, everyone who worked on it was aware that it sucks royally. It exists only to pad the ps3 launch numbers out and was never intended to make a profit. The fact that it scored above a 60 is surprising, but rest assured that only 2 weeks before it went gold, it would have had a worse rating.
Finally, Shagi, the camera and loot issues were left in the game because there were *FAR* worse issues still left to fix! Please think of how hard the coding team worked on that game for 8 months to get it out the door before you rag on it.
And yet, it still sucks :-/
Posted at 1:00AM
b @ Nov 30th 2006 1:18PM
you mean "UnSold Legends??" har har har. thank 1up yours for that one.
haisano @ Dec 1st 2006 1:47AM
Ok, my point originally was that yes it was crap and I told you *why* it was crap. Don't resort to any of the normal "this sucks" comments without knowing what really went on. If you're going to diss a game, know what to diss and who.
And Earl, get a clue. When would a company not charge for something it could charge for and make money on?