Fable III

[Crimson King]

Oh noes! You killed Wrex in ME1?! I played that game through eight times and I think I only let him die once. Kaidan, however, died 100% of the time.

 

[El Bastardo]

Wrex tried to bully the wrong Shepard.

She didn't even bother having Ashley help out.

As the quote goes, when asked by Kaidan if she's alright: "I'm feeling a hell of a lot better than he is."

Then she had Kirrahe have his men drag the traitor out and dump him in the swamp.

 

[El Bastardo]

Legendary Weapons:

I have multiples of:
Dragonbone Hammer
Aurora's Shield
The Casanova
The Splade
The Merchant's Bodyguard
Facemelter
The Barnumificator
Hero's Companion

Would anyone be interested in trading some multiples they have, that I need?

 

[Saint]

...but underdeveloped is subjective when used to refer to something that works and is a complete product.

That's fair, I guess I'm just not satisfied with what the complete product is. Fable III: Hold down any button to win. Not to say there's nothing of value in the game; I was having fun for most of my playthrough, but the design philosophy here doesn't mesh well with me. Everything you can do is trite and simplistic (Hold A to fall in love!), which is mitigated by the fact that there's a lot of things you can do, but ultimately I need a gameplay mechanic that's a little more engaging.

Incidentally, you said the final product works--and I know that this isn't what you meant--but I might dispute that, as my copy just decided to introduce a glitch so that I can no longer fast travel or visit the upgrade path. Anybody encounter this? Is there a fix?

 

[El Bastardo]

Interactions and expressions are easily overlooked and/or not bothered with. They aren't even a huge point of the game, nor are they very necessary outside of, I think, a few instances of tutorial. They're there for immersion.

If you don't like them because they're not engaging enough, don't do them. Why let an inconsequential portion of a game bother you to such a degree?

I'd liken it to people proclaiming ME2 an inferior game because of having to fly the Normandy around the galaxy map.

 

[Saint]

Interactions and expressions are easily overlooked and/or not bothered with. They aren't even a huge point of the game, nor are they very necessary outside of, I think, a few instances of tutorial. They're there for immersion.

If you don't like them because they're not engaging enough, don't do them. Why let an inconsequential portion of a game bother you to such a degree?

I wasn't talking strictly about expressions (though the argument that I can just ignore them doesn't sway me; the mechanic should be good enough that I don't want to ignore it), I was talking about all elements of the gameplay. Everything in Fable III is fairly simplistic, whether it's combat, interactions, the upgrade path, doings jobs, or whatever else. The extreme most games go to is that they only give you one thing to do, but they develop that mechanic to make it as engaging as possible, so you don't get bored with it. Fable III is the opposite extreme; any given mechanic in the game amounts to little more than a simplistic mini-game, but you've a lot of them to keep you entertained when one gets old. It's almost a party-game mentality. That's fine, though less satisfying for me personally.

 

[El Bastardo]

The combat in Fable III is the same as it was in Fable II is the same as it was in Fable.

Whether a mechanic is "good enough" or not is, again, subjective. You think it's not good enough - you should ignore it, as no game designer anywhere can make a mechanic that will satisfy the subjective desires of 100% of the game's players. Therefore, if it's not "good enough" to you, you should probably ignore it if it's not something that prevents you from actually playing the game. Or don't, and hate the game over something minute, I suppose.

To effect: I don't really care one way or the other about the expressions and overall interacting. I do it when I need to. I don't bother with it when I don't. Whoopie.

Nothing in any of the Fable games has ever been what one could call deep. Ever. People like to delude themselves into thinking Fable-one was some godsend, but each game is the same thing with a few new additions or refinements or things gone awry.

Complaining about these things in the third game, when not the first game nor the sequel gave fans any reason to expect different, is silly.

 

[Saint]

The combat in Fable III is the same as it was in Fable II is the same as it was in Fable.

I haven't played those games, so I wouldn't know.

Whether a mechanic is "good enough" or not is, again, subjective.

Thank you for confirming that my opinions are, in fact, my opinions. Since the purpose of my posts was to present my opinion of the game's offerings, "Well, that's just your opinion" doesn't seem like a meaningful response.

You think it's not good enough - you should ignore it, as no game designer anywhere can make a mechanic that will satisfy the subjective desires of 100% of the game's players.

This is largely meaningless, as unless a game mechanic is non-functional, you could say "Well, they don't have to satisfy everyone" about any mechanic in any game. I think I'll stick to providing my evaluations of the game content, and how engaging I feel it is.

Therefore, if it's not "good enough" to you, you should probably ignore it if it's not something that prevents you from actually playing the game. Or don't, and hate the game over something minute, I suppose.

In fact, I do not hate the game; as I stated quite explicitly in a previous response, I had fun for most of my playthrough, even if I was not entirely satisfied by the product. Amazingly, I am capable of holding a position that is not an extreme.

Nothing in any of the Fable games has ever been what one could call deep. Ever. People like to delude themselves into thinking Fable-one was some godsend, but each game is the same thing with a few new additions or refinements or things gone awry.

I don't really care what the other games were like, as I did not play them. I am giving my opinion of this product.

 

[El Bastardo]

Reviews and evaluations are not based on the subjective. Well, to clarify myself, all too often they in fact are, and this is a tradition that should be corrected and returned to the proper technique, i.e. evaluation based on the objective.

I've not stated that Fable III is a perfect game, nor even a great game. It is, however, a fine and working product, complete unto itself in terms of narrative and mechanics and what not. That you find the interaction and expression system "not good enough" is not an evaluation at all. It is, as we've both stated, your personal feeling and opinion regarding that game mechanic.

Also, that you've not played the previous games does matter, because ultimately the past and a series' legacy, whatever the medium, need to go into some form of contemplation, if not a straight contrast-and-compare. It's called research, and this often takes place in the forming of, you know, evaluations.

It's like trying to write something about The Grapes of Wrath without bothering to read anything else Steinbeck wrote.

 

[Eggyman]

Bullsh**.

All reviews are opinions. And I am of the mind that reviews should base their opinions on the lone product, rather than standing it on the shoulders of its predecessors.

 

[Flash Facts]

Also the combat systems in each installment of the Fable franchise are not the same. Particularly in regards to the magic systems.

 

[El Bastardo]

All reviews are opinions.

Incorrect.

Also the combat systems in each installment of the Fable franchise are not the same. Particularly in regards to the magic systems.

Maybe I don't remember Fable I's magic system all that much, but Fable II and Fable III's magic systems are largely the same. I'm not speaking of spell choice. Both involve holding the button to charge the spell. Both involve different levels of spells. Both involve use, or no use, of the left directional stick to result in either a targeted spell or area spell, respectively.

The major difference is Fable III allowing the mixture of two spells, and removing the spell meter thing in Fable II that allowed players to choose which spells they wanted at which level, 1-5. Neither greatly change the general spell mechanic of the two games.

See: "Hold A to win." Or, in this case, hold B to win.

 

[Crimson King]

Incorrect.

How do you figure? Just because reviews might contain some facts about the game, they're one person's opinion of the overall product, nothing more.

 

[El Bastardo]

Not good reviews, they're not.

For any artform, for any medium in which critical thinking can exist, there are objective values by which the medium and works within that medium are judged by.

Example: Do we not all think Rob Liefeld is a horrible comics artist? He's not horrible because we think his work is fugly. He's horrible because he draws things like his **** doesn't stink - largely outside anatomical proportions without choosing to abide by another classification, for instance caricature or manga-inspired or fantastical or what have you - his panel work is generally a mess, etc. These are objective values of the comics medium.

Roger Ebert does not publish reviews consisting of "I didn't like it so it's a poor movie" as a synopsis. Nor would such a synopsis properly fuel any piece of work in, say, a writing class, or a literature class. I hate The Catcher in the Rye, for instance. That does not, in any way, mean that the novel is poor or that it should not me included in the canon of English literature. Similarly, I hate good movies, and I love a bunch of badly-made movies. That I like them does not make them good. If I had Ebert's job, and I was reviewing, I dunno, let's say Kuffs, I could say I enjoyed watching it, I could say the writing is witty, but overall it's not that well-acted, nor that well-written, nor does it have any award-winning cinematography of note. To further make this a paragraph of doom and block of text, I generally find The Departed to be Scorcese's most entertaining piece of work, but it's certainly not his best.

It's the same for video games. Take Dragon Age: Origins. There are people who hate the battle system. It's too slow for them. It's boring. That they think this in no way indicates that the game is poorly made. It means they don't like it, but it has no indication of objectivity (because it's subjective, and subjective and objective aren't the same thing, har-dee-har-har). Meanwhile, I do not mind the battle system one bit, and I enjoy it for what it is, as a more-or-less return to the old days. That doesn't mean the game is phenomenally made. My subjective view - in this case valuing the battle system - in no way indicates objectively how the game fares.

I hate the majority of FPS games. Does that mean all FPS games suck? No. It means I don't like them.

Really, do I have to explain this difference anymore?

Have some hands-on learning. Go to CBR. Read reviews by Tim Callahan and Chad Nevett. Those are reviews done right, though do note the sarcasm and tongue-in-cheekness largely present and do not mistake those for subjectivity. Then read reviews by other people, not necessarily those at CBR, and see the differences. (In the event it must be said, TC and CN are good reviewers.)

(Disclaimer: Yes, there will always probably be some degree of bias on the part of reviewers. This bias should never be as full-blown as to value a poor something because they enjoyed it, or to blast a something because they did not enjoy it. If the degree of bias does get that large, the reviewer sucks.)

 

[Crimson King]

Really, do I have to explain this difference anymore?

No one asked you to. What you've posted is the digital equivalent of fapping.

 

[El Bastardo]

"How do you figure?" is asking me to, regarding this subject.

It's not my fault you're ignorant to the workings of my brain.

 

[Crimson King]

Then you acknowledge that it was your brain, and not me, that prompted you to repeat your point three times.

 

[El Bastardo]

Also, whereabouts are you in Fable III? Any weapons to trade?

 

[El Bastardo]

Then you acknowledge that it was your brain, and not me, that prompted you to repeat your point three times.

No, that's not at all what was acknowledged. Two plus two isn't ten.

 

[Crimson King]

None that you haven't already listed. I'm in the king phase of my 2nd playthrough and I've mostly concentrated on raising money. I kind of hate that you have to destroy one character to play another.

 

[El Bastardo]

You do?

 

[Crimson King]

When you hit "New Game," you don't get an option to create a new character. Unless you have a memory card or other device to save your new character to, it will overwrite the previous character.

 

[Saint]

Reviews and evaluations are not based on the subjective. Well, to clarify myself, all too often they in fact are, and this is a tradition that should be corrected and returned to the proper technique, i.e. evaluation based on the objective.

I'm fairly certain I have no interest in reading (or writing) a review that discusses only whether the game assets function as intended before stating "Maybe you will like them." I will happily read and write a subjective review.

I've not stated that Fable III is a perfect game, nor even a great game. It is, however, a fine and working product, complete unto itself in terms of narrative and mechanics and what not. That you find the interaction and expression system "not good enough" is not an evaluation at all. It is, as we've both stated, your personal feeling and opinion regarding that game mechanic.

Ah, I understand your position: if it is not objective, it is not an evaluation. One performs an evaluation to determine value; value is often subjective, and is certainly subjective when one is discussing an entertainment product. What a ridiculous thing to say; I understand if you don't like my position, but this is getting tedious.

Bastardo: "It's just your opinion."
Saint: "That's right, it's just my opinion."
Bastardo: "It's just your opinion."
Saint: "..."

Also, that you've not played the previous games does matter, because ultimately the past and a series' legacy, whatever the medium, need to go into some form of contemplation, if not a straight contrast-and-compare. It's called research, and this often takes place in the forming of, you know, evaluations.

If you feel there is something specific in the previous entries that should inform my position on the gameplay of Fable III, please, present it, rather than stating vaguely that I should play the other ones.

 

[Flash Facts]

Maybe I don't remember Fable I's magic system all that much,

Fable's magic system involved using a trigger to shift the face buttons into user defined spells, except the Y button which was used to cycle though sets of spells. It also used a mana system among other differences.

Fable II and Fable III's magic systems are largely the same. I'm not speaking of spell choice. Both involve holding the button to charge the spell. Both involve different levels of spells. Both involve use, or no use, of the left directional stick to result in either a targeted spell or area spell, respectively.

The major difference is Fable III allowing the mixture of two spells, and removing the spell meter thing in Fable II that allowed players to choose which spells they wanted at which level, 1-5. Neither greatly change the general spell mechanic of the two games.

See: "Hold A to win." Or, in this case, hold B to win.

The ability to choose spells is a major aspect of combat design as is the ability to mix those spells though either succession or simultaneous use. The timing of using those abilities also greatly effects combat.

As for reviews, they are value judgments. Value is subjective. Out of curiosity though, what are these objective values by which you think all video games should be judged?

 

[El Bastardo]

When you hit "New Game," you don't get an option to create a new character. Unless you have a memory card or other device to save your new character to, it will overwrite the previous character.

Ick. That sucks.

I'm fairly certain I have no interest in reading (or writing) a review that discusses only whether the game assets function as intended before stating "Maybe you will like them." I will happily read and write a subjective review.

I don't intend any offense with this, but I didn't bother reading past this.