Fable Reviews

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I brought up WC3 (even though it is predominantly played today as a MP game) because you said it didn't live up to the hype.

It didn't, did it? That doesn't mean that the masses didn't appreciate that it was more like a traditional RTS. Though what was promised was an 'RPS', as they refered to it.

Yes, it did. The gameplay is undeniably different (because of the hero element) from core RTS games, though you will have had to play a couple of games seriously to really get this. Opinions can vary as to whether the change is a good thing. I disagree with GL, but it's a fair position for him to take. If you want SC style then you may not like WC3 precisely because it has changed core MP gameplay.

WC3's new angle was worth mentioning prior to release, since many appreciate what's added. I don't think it's valid to argue they failed in what they tried to achieve, though (as I said) it is valid to argue they took the genre in the wrong direction.

Finally WC3 "lived up to the hype" about how great it was going to be by being a great game that is still widely played a long time after release.

[pg]

my reaction to those quotes from the reviews is pretty negative. i think they are fairly alarming because they seem like they are making excuses and rationalizing why it's a good game but don't back it up with any examples. when ign is saying stuff like that usually it's pretty bad because ign is usually very fanboyish on hyped games. in morrowind you could play a tyrant or a good knight but it sucked because there was no gameplay that tied in your actions. the game world needs consequences from your actions or it's all just imagination(and books do 1000x better in that department). i have a feeling fable will be like this too.

now that i've read the review(the ign one) i'm almost certain it's going to be another b&w. here are some quotes i think are disturbing from the review -

Though Fable is indeed a game about freedom and choice, it is not nearly as wide-open as Bethesda's mammoth RPG

morrowind wasn't really open either though given how few real choices you had. sure you could do anything you wanted but there really wasn't that much to do other than kill things, do quests, and amass hordes of loot.

There are no more branching story paths, though you can veer towards good or evil as you choose, you can't take the clothing off your victims, children will not change their hairstyles to look like you, and your competition with other heroes in the world is much more of a story element than a true gameplay mechanic. Before you start crying over these lost features, you should know that I absolutely love Fable.

i thought that was supposed to be a major part of the game? also wtf is the point of being good or evil if the story in the same? that boggles my mind.

Forget the publisher's line about "for every action, there is a consequence." That's not actually what Fable is about. Instead, Fable's motto is more along the lines of a Burger King ad -- Have it your way.

so basically the whole game is not what it was marketed and hyped to be(ala b&w)?

In fact, magic ages you far too fast. In the span of 20 game days, when using magic heavily, you will easily reach the max age of 65 (at which point you just stop growing older).

but after your done aging there is no game left!

I'm sure if you do a full count of all the quests, the number will be somewhere around 30 or so total.

sounds like a good value for your money.

They are fierce and come in packs, making for a truly insane challenge at times (yet, I challenge you to die fighting them).

um, yeah.

As I played, I kept thinking, "Why didn't they do this or that," but in the end I still had a blast playing Fable and to me that makes all the difference.

anyone notice the pattern yet? everytime he says something negative he always makes sure you know he stills loves fable and enjoyed it immensely. if you believe enough it has to be a good game.

he also talks alot about how your character changes based on your goodness/evilness but that's a gimmick and relatively worthless feature for all the lip service he gives it. b&w does the same thing but it doesn't add much to the game.

he also talks a lot about the npcs reactions based on your alignment but it doesn't sound much different than morrwind except there is probably more fluff(more animated reactions, like girls fawning over you).

seriously that review sounded like he was paid to make it sound as good as possible without outright lying. either that or he was a major fanboy.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I disagree entirely. B&W was indeed a good game. One of the problems though is that it is primary a single player game. How many WC3 players play the single player mode anymore?

b&w is horrible in single player. sure the tutorial and learning the game is fun i will admit but after that there is nothing. iirc it took months to patch the game so you could even beat it. i also think there are only 5 missions and at least 1 they take away your creature which is like 90% of the game. the game only take a couple hours to beat once you figure out how shallow it is. the biggest hurdle is getting over the illusion there is something there. which is fairly hard given how good the graphics/atmosphere is. it just doesn't make sense for them not to put good gameplay in there too.

i have to be honest here, you saying b&w is good game seriously makes me doubt your credibility on anything game related.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
People didn't realize it was going to basically be Populus crossed with RPG elements.

no comment.

It was a very well done game. The interaction with your creature was incredible and trying to figure out the puzzles was very nicely done (I remember the one where you had to throw the guy and then quickly cast a spell where he landed to impress the next village people )

yeah, all 20 puzzles were very impressive...

[pg]

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think it's valid to argue they failed in what they tried to achieve, though (as I said) it is valid to argue they took the genre in the wrong direction.

Um... what do you think hype is? Its all the press over what was attempted to be achieved. WC3 failed. A few months before release they told everyone that they couldn't get what they wanted to do and were telling people they were going to do to work and therefore they would go back to having more traditional RTS gameplay, rather than the quasi RPG they were planning.

I probably would have played more than a demo if they did the RPS.

in morrowind you could play a tyrant or a good knight but it sucked because there was no gameplay that tied in your actions. the game world needs consequences from your actions or it's all just imagination(and books do 1000x better in that department). i have a feeling fable will be like this too.

If Fable is like Morrowind, then without a doubt it'll be an amazing game, seeing how Morrowind is one of the best games out there.

Secondly, in Fable there definetly seems to be responses by village people based on your consequences. What review were you reading?

wtf is the point of being good or evil if the story in the same? that boggles my mind.

Ever play KOTOR? Story's the same whether you are good or evil. There are just different ways of doing things (ie, killing vs. negotiating).

anyone notice the pattern yet? everytime he says something negative he always makes sure you know he stills loves fable and enjoyed it immensely. if you believe enough it has to be a good game.

Um... haven't you ever loved a game yet acknowledged its flaws?

If not, then either you haven't played many games or don't know how to spot flaws. For example, I loved SMAC, but it have plenty of flaws. When I describe the flaws, I do make it known that I really do love the game in spite of the flaws.

Besides there were two reviews up there which basically said similar things.

i have to be honest here, you saying b&w is good game seriously makes me doubt your credibility on anything game related.

That's fine, you saying Morrowind isn't a good game seriously makes me doubt your credibility on anything game related .

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I don't think it's valid to argue they failed in what they tried to achieve, though (as I said) it is valid to argue they took the genre in the wrong direction.

Um... what do you think hype is? Its all the press over what was attempted to be achieved. WC3 failed. A few months before release they told everyone that they couldn't get what they wanted to do and were telling people they were going to do to work and therefore they would go back to having more traditional RTS gameplay, rather than the quasi RPG they were planning.

Not sure why you bolded that. The point is not that you can't make the argument, but it is correct, but rather that you shouldn't make it because it is wrong.

They didn't fail for all the reasons I gave above. They wanted to move the RTS genre in a new direction and succeeded admirably, as can be seen from the million plus fans of the game 2 years after release.

Once again people who have not played a game at all after the demo are content to criticise a game in ignorance.

You don't need more detractors in this thread after your statements about B&W. Personally I'd rather sit back and see what case you can muster for that game (the WC3 thing is 2 threadjacks away from Fable ), but don't build your case by making statements about games you haven't played and know nothing about.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd think a demo provides adequate knowledge about a game. Hell, that's why they are released. Someone criticizing SMAC because of what they saw in the demo are not arguing from ignorance but from actually playing the game. Does someone have to play through an entire game they hate simply so they can argue a game to you? That's silly.

The reason I bolded what I did is to try to figure out why you don't think the failing to achieve what a company tries to achieve (and says they would achieve) is not living up to the hype. That's a picture perfect definition. No well publicized game will ever live up to the hype and WC3's junking of most of its RPG elements is an example of a successful game which did not live up to the 'hype'. Simply being successful doesn't mean you lived up to the hype... that's an utterly ridiculous assertion to make. You can be successful and horribly fail to live up to the hype which was created.

[DrSpike]

Well there's no way to know now but I doubt you fully appreciated just how successful WC3 was until I pointed it out.

Also, since you have such firm views on this I'd like you to produce some press releases showing Blizzard make claims about the RPG elements that they later rejected, as you have suggested in your posts. Perhaps it was before I started following the game........the net is a great place; if you are right you can produce something I'm sure.

I followed everything from early pre-beta (and I played some beta on warforge) until now, and all I recall is them saying they were going to add a new angle to RTS, a goal in which they undeniably succeeded. So they 'lived up to the hype' as you are defining it and lived up to the hype about the game being the next big thing in RTS.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


The reason I bolded what I did is to try to figure out why you don't think the failing to achieve what a company tries to achieve (and says they would achieve) is not living up to the hype. That's a picture perfect definition.

Once again I'll reassert (as I did 2 posts ago) that I wasn't saying failing to achieve stated aims is not a failure (obviously it is), but that they did achieve their stated aims. Thus, as I said, it's not valid to argue that they failed in what they tried to achieve. The criticism from Ludd's angle that they succeeded too well and moved too far away from core SC style RTS gameplay I disagree with, but it's a valid argument nonetheless. That was the distinction I was drawing.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

i have to be honest here, you saying b&w is good game seriously makes me doubt your credibility on anything game related.

That's fine, you saying Morrowind isn't a good game seriously makes me doubt your credibility on anything game related .

There are a lot more people who would sayu that Morrowind isn't a good game than B&W is. Personally, I thought Morrowind was great, but it's pretty easy tosee where a lotof people would have serious problems with it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd like you to produce some press releases showing Blizzard make claims about the RPG elements that they later rejected, as you have suggested in your posts.

Perhaps not press releases, but:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/132/132906p1.html

While this is certainly a far cry from their original RPS idea, the addition of the hero units will make things more interesting.

http://archive.gamespy.com/previews/november00/war3/

When the game was announced last year, much was made of the fact that the game would be a RPS, or role-playing strategy game. Add to that the news that it would be in 3D and RTS, RPG and Warcraft fans were drooling at the thought of getting their hands on this bad boy.

The game was later scaled back.

http://www.pcgameworld.com/preview.php/id/50/Warlords_Battlecry_III/

(refering to it in a Warlords III: Battlecry context)

When Blizzard first announced Warcraft III years ago, they coined a term; RPS, Role-Playing Strategy. With heroes and units that continually leveled and main and side quests to take, the first previews made it sound like a real-time version of Heroes of Might and Magic or Warlords.

In the end, Blizzard opted to create a more straight forward RTS experience, and while Warcraft III is still a superb game, it has always left me wondering what it would be like to see the RPS they first envisioned.

I hope that these quotes from well respected internet publications will convince you that the original design for WC3 was MUCH more ambitious that what came out. While that isn't a big thing (they though it would be more fun not to go all the way they planed), this should be enough to show you that they did not achieve what they set out to do in the design of the game.

[child of Thor]

@ Pg's artwork

Wise design - wise idea!

[pg]

i actually like morrowind now(i was a bit pissed immediately after it was released) and i remember saying that in a few threads though the game still has major problems. i know you are trolling but you're not even being fun with it.

[DrSpike]

Interesting links Imran.

However, those comments came from a period in which the RP hero elements hadn't been introduced properly, and it was uncertain just how much the gameplay would be geared towards them. It turned out they were very central to the game, with whole strategies being built around heroes.

Also, Blizzard no doubt emphasised all along what was different about the game - the role playing element - and this may contribute to your thoughts. Maybe they overplayed that card, but it's not really failing to live up to the hype as I'd think of it.

The hype as I think of it was in the 6 months up to release, where there was a clearer vision of the game, and what they delivered was an RTS with new elements, which was what they were promising.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Maybe they overplayed that card, but it's not really failing to live up to the hype as I'd think of it.

That's generally what I think of living up to the hype. I consider hype to be that which is expected at the beginning of the gaming cycle, not 6 months before the game is released.

[DrSpike]

I think it's quite common for visions of games to naturally change along the early development process though. Wouldn't you agree?

Whereas not living up to what you promise during say the beta test stage is clearly worse, and could be fairly considered hyping then not living up to said hype.