Slashdot Mirror
Putting Fable II Through Its Paces
Kotaku recently had a chance to sit down and run Molyneux's new Fable game through its paces. Fable II is set as an action RPG, and while the combat options were somewhat limited, there is an implied depth that is definitely going to be worth a look. "Molyneux showed off some of the game's Expressions, the silly jigs and smooth moves that let you woo ladies and forge new friendships, prior to our hands-on. You'll pick them from a radial menu when you want to take a wife or receive a gift. They were fairly limited in our demo of the game, but look to provide some welcome options for adding variety to the game world. You'll see non-playable characters throughout town that you can interact with using Expressions, each with icons over their heads indicating their disposition. Wow them with your moves and you'll reap the rewards."
... while I didn't mind playing the first fable, it felt a lot like a platformer like Maximo vs. Army of Zin, with RPG elements. It was basically an action game with some RPG-lite elements, also the character aged way too fast. I remember getting to the end of the game and looking insanely old.
Though I enjoyed the first one a bit, I hope this one will be better.
With Molyneux's track record for exaggerating his own games; I do not trust any product he develops until I have seen it for myself. Or usually, read a lot of reviews and tried a demo. Even then, I am sceptical.
The Long Now Foundation
If the combat seemed kind of shallow in the preview but Peter Molyneux implied that there's a great deal of depth to it, gamers everywhere can rest assured on the strength of Peter Molyneux's track-record that the combat is indeed very shallow.
In the future, mothers will tell children the cautionary tale of The Molyneux Who Cried 'Features'.
The first game was fun while it lasted. You can beat the game in a single, albeit long, sitting. From what I've read about this sequel, the Lion's head people have chosen to focus on the simulation aspect of the game as opposed to the story/action aspect. This was a poor decision. I could really care less about spouses, STD's, pet dogs, etc. What I want is an engaging story. I'm not holding my breath.
Or did the first Fable have "Expressions... that let you woo ladies and forge new friendships" that "[You picked] from a radial menu when you want to take a wife or receive a gift" and "non-playable characters throughout town that you can interact with using Expressions, each with icons over their heads indicating their disposition"?
I mean, I'm all for news about a game to let people know it's still out there... but this could be fable one with a "II" painted on the box for all this blurb tells me. The actual article reveals that there is additionally a dog now.
Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
The Witcher is along the same lines as Fable, albeit a little more MMORPG and less Arcade in terms of combat. But the decisions you make during the game -- which are based on what you've gone through in the game -- come back to bite you later on. For example, in the first chapter, I'm trying to either protect or give up a witch to an unruly mob of townspeople. She has her story, while I go through about 5 of the townspeople's stories. Depending on what clues you've uncovered in the town, you might have discovered who's lying and who's not -- or worse, like me, you're pretty sure at least ONE of the townspeople is lying, but not necessarily the others...
So how do you decide the fate of the witch?
The physical gameplay wasn't as fluid as Fable, and you can't go wooing every woman you meet (most conversations are through multiple choice), but it was a very deep, dark game, both with the decision-making and the character development. It did have some fairly "mature" content.
Fable was fun though. :-)
So... TFA says Fable 2 will be like Fable 1? Exactly the same? Not unlikely.
Now more emo kids can make choices to behead NPCs rather than doing their quests! Now if only those choices actually impacted the story of the game in any way whatsoever, you'd have the actual "open-ended" game the fanboys claim this garbage is. Fable is trash and until I see otherwise any sequel probably is as well.
We better hope there's no option to woo and marry men. It might destroy some conservatives, considering the last game to allow the option of homosexuality nearly caused them to riot
http://kevinmccullough.townhall.com/blog/g/ad4fece3-3a1e-42bd-8546-295599024191
If I see a NPC with screw and a hole next to it over his head, will I be able to target him and write '/nigeria' to make a lot of money?
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
From what I read of the first game, and now the second one, Fable 2 will be what Fable 1 was supposed to be. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they two games were extremely similar, with added depth in Fable 2.
I enjoyed Fable 1 so I'm really looking forward to number 2 to see how much deeper the world is.
...when it actually gets released. Anything Molyneaux says about his games, even showing pre-release demos or whatnot, is complete and utter bullshit. Remember the original Fable, which promised such a dynamic world that you could cut down forests and have them stay cut? Or planting a tree and watching it grow? Or how your actions changed the world forever? Yeah, not so much. You could get a haircut, though.
hookers and grits.
Well, you illustrate another point, namely: games who try too hard to judge my actions into good or evil, and guilt trip me about them.
Almost any choice you get in The Witcher will sooner or later come back to "haunt" you. Or rather, it will be twisted into pretending to reveal something about you (or your character, same deal) that you didn't actually mean. The witch situation does have at least a right(er) choice, but a lot of other choices just have two "wrong" options.
Warning: minor spoiler alert. It's from the tutorial, though, so nothing major.
You remember how you had to choose whether you want to go inside and prevent the theft, or stay outside and help fight that beast? It doesn't actually matter which you chose. In both cases your character will have an "OMG, it's all my fault. If I had gone the other way, this wouldn't have happened!" moment. Essentially, it'll try to blame you either way.
At other points I even got blamed for deaths that weren't my fault in any form or shape, and couldn't have possibly prevented, no matter what. And stuff like that.
I realize they were trying to make a game where there is no good-vs-evil in the D&D way, but at times methinks they tried _too_ hard. They don't need to twist everything I say or do into sounding like a wrong, immoral, selfish or heartless choice.
Just so it's not completely OT: B&W at times suffered from the same problem. There was more than one situation where being merely being incompetent (e.g., failing to save your villagers from an attack) got judged as being more evil than Satan.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Better be available for the PC within a reasonable amount of time.... Otherwise I might have to.... *shudder* ...buy a console...
The story was "OK" but was missing huge parts. It felt dumbed down to the point I gave up on it.
It had a lot going for it, but missed the mark in too many places to be an epic game. For one, and I realize it is a nitpick, the scars were a stupid addition, especially with how easily they were earned.
The guild you joined was the "Hero Guild?" Seriously? THAT is the best you can do?.......and it allows "evil" heroes too....O...k. That wasn't just dumped in after a whole 8 seconds of thought.
I liked the demon doors, I liked the combat system, to a degree, but the stupid orbs for experience were a waste of time. Why not just give me more experience based on combo kills?
Well, I still have a problem with that. In fact, a bigger one if it's that. If it's _my_ character, then let _me_ play it. Don't role-play my part. I'm not an NPC.
I think I even have a better example of the situation you describe: Grandia 2. There my character all the time just suddenly goes into "I'm an insensitive jerk" mode at times, and does stuff like being an unfunny jerk to of the girl who... well, is possessed by something which will kill her. Sorta like a demonic sort of cancer, if you will. She's walking with a death sentence. So, you know, it's the last person I'd want to be a jerk to.
Apparently just because they have to tell the fundamentally _Japanese_ CRPG story of the traumatized boy who hides behind a facade of being a self-sufficient jerk, but love and support from his friends turn him into a valuable member of society again. I don't know what it is about Japan that 2 out of 3 CRPGs have to be a "see, you wouldn't have done it without all these people supporting you" _lecture_. But that's not the real problem. The problem is when they essentially end up role-playing that character for me.
I understand _why_ they're doing it, but it's not fun anyway. It can be done better and it _has_ been done better by other games. You _can_ tell a story without essentially taking control of my character and forcing him back into the mold that your story needs.
Because that character is, essentially, _me_. My avatar or representation in the game world. Those moments where someone takes it upon himself to control or redefine _me_ to suit his needs, are _extremely_ annoying. Control the environment, if you must. Control what the other characters or the landscape let me, do or where they let me go. But keep your filthy hands off my character itself.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Your definition appears to alienate a lot of the genre's classics. I don't recall any choices like that in many Japanese RPGs. Most of the revered SNES RPGs are incredibly linear 16-bit novels.