Putting Fable II Through Its Paces 65
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."
Fable 2 another action RPG... (Score:3, Insightful)
... 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.
Fable 2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me know... (Score:3, Insightful)
...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.
OT: Fun, but rubs me the wrong way (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fable 2 another action RPG... (Score:3, Insightful)
They showed a long look at gameplay on G4 during E3. Frankly, I wasn't impressed. The developers playing it kept bragging about the damn dog and all the neat stuff you could do in the game. But the actual gameplay showed the dog to be more of a gimmick than anything, showed a pretty bland world, and was ridiculously heavy on combat (which just looked like a lot of grinding and random encounters). Maybe the gameplay they showed was unrepresentative of the game as a whole, but it was laughably incongruous with the developers' narrating it as they were playing. So far the only thing that interests me is the "orb" idea (visiting your friends' worlds for coop play and vice versa). But even that seems little more than a cheap way of trying to be an MMO without investing the resources in a real MMO.
We'll see when it comes out. But I don't take Molyneux at his word either.
I still have a problem with that (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fable 2 another action RPG... (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember getting to the end of the game and having a halo.
Which was annoying, because I'd tried to play as "neutral" as possible. But apparently killing thieves was considered "good" so, even though I had gone out of my way to hunt them down and mercilessly kill as many as I could, I was apparently the paragon of goodness. Mindless vigilantism for Fable sainthood!
Apparently to be evil you had to go on killing sprees amongst villagers. (Or just dump a lot of money at evil temples.)
I still find it strange that sniping bandits who can't even see you is considered good. Seems to be a bit of a strange moral to Fable.
Re:I still have a problem with that (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly these types of games just aren't for you. That's fine. Your personal taste is for sandbox RPGs. But that doesn't make these games bad. These games are more or less like a choose-your-own-adventure book. You're not really changing the story significantly, but you do make some choices along the way that will change the ending somewhat. These types of games are for people (like myself) who like reading fiction to see what happens to the character. In these games, it's not your character. The character is not a representation of you in the game. Rather, you have limited control over the character and have the ability to make some choices for him. The fun part in that is seeing how you can change the character by the choices you make. If you're really feeling devious, it can be fun to see if you can force the character to act out-of-character by making certain choices. Some such games will allow that; others won't.
Re:OT: Fun, but rubs me the wrong way (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a hint: have some empathy and put yourself in the place of the woman. What would you want the other person to do?
I'm sure you would want the other person to do something. Maybe call 911 or try to attract other peoples attention to your plight. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be thinking about the well being of the mugger.
"Life: there are no right answers, only different outcomes."
Moral relativism is pathetic, hyper-materialism even worse...