Fable II Previews, Molyneux Opinions

Fable II is due out next month, so it's been making the rounds for previews. So has its creator, Peter Molyneux. He talks with Joystiq about the game's Co-op feature, which allows players to drop into the games of others, getting a look at how it would have played out had they made different choices. Molyneux also offered a frank interview to CVG about flaws in the game, such as poor lip-syncing and the occasional "low-spot." (This comes two weeks after he unabashedly rated it as a 9/10 game.) Joystiq also got several hours to preview the game, and Gamespy gave it a test drive recently as well.

Re:It's a Peter Molyneaux game

[darkstar949]

The first Fable wasn't bad, just over hyped. As far as RPGs go it was actually pretty good. There were some interesting ideas in it as well that just didn't see a proper execution. If Fable II is what the fist one was intended to be then it should be a pretty good game.

Summary seems to have missed this...

[Frac O Mac]

"Despite the flaws, the outspoken game designer says he's "incredibly proud" of what his team at Lionhead has managed to create. "You can measure me by this game," he said."

Sounds to me like they were just pushed to release it and he's frustrated over not being able to polish what he called, "sideline issues." For me at least, this is one of the few 360 games I'll be buying any time soon.

Re:Vid

[narcberry]

Games should have more innovation than a "co-op" feature. Unimpressed.

Then what on Earth did you expect

[Moraelin]

As far as RPGs go it was horrid. [...] It was definitely entertaining [...] It was well worth playing regardless [...]

Well, stop right there. Do you even listen to yourself? If it was "definitely entertaining" and "well worth playing", then WTF _did_ you expect from a _game_, and how does it make it "horrid"?

Now I'm not going to tell you what to like and what not to like. Had you said that it just wasn't fun, ok, I'm not going to tell you what to find fun. But if it _did_ entertain you, how the heck does it count as "horrid"?

"Horrid" is when you get get bored out of your skull, or rubs you the awfully wrong way, or generally you'd rather be in a dentist's chair instead of playing it. "Horrid" is when you can't think of any good reason why you played it in the first place, or why would anyone (of similar tastes) even look twice at the box on the shelf. "Well worth playing" and "definitely entertaining" is the bloody polar opposite of "horrid".

Here's a thought: the _only_ thing a game must do, is entertain you. If it did that, mission f-ing accomplished. It doesn't matter _how_ it did it. Maybe it was different, maybe it was easier, maybe it was more linear than a straight line, or the elder gods know in what other way it differed from your preconceived notions. It doesn't matter. What matters is if you were entertained or not. That's it.

Putting any other preconceived notions about what a game should include, above that, is mistaking means and goal. The goal is to entertain you. Anything else is just means and props. If it used different means, but reached the goal, who the heck cares? Why _do_ you care?

And yes, maybe it wasn't perfect, and maybe there would have been opportunities to be even better. Same as any other game ever released. That just makes it, at best, less than perfect, not "horrid". There is no perfection. The only threshold it must clear is that "well worth playing" line. If you don't regret the money or the time you blew on it, then it seems to me like it is well within the bullseye. Maybe it didn't hit the exact centre of the target, but it didn't fail either.

Geeze, Ì swear that some people buy so much into the group-think of what they should and what they shouldn't like, that they don't even try to use their head.

Re:Vid

[3.14159265]

"CGI trailer with no in-game gfx that may very well not have anything to do with any real gameplay whatsoever. Looks cool..."

There, seems more reasonable now, albeit longer :)
Offtopic:
I still remember those Trespasser "screenshots" and trailers, and look it that one turned out.
Still, for the hw at the time they actually did a good job! It was just too overhyped.

Re:Only a 9/10 rating from Molyneux himself?

[moderatorrater]

We are talking about someone who sells magic beans to little children. Only in our case, the beans never bother to sprout anything but beans.

I would disagree with that. He's done a lot of very revolutionary things, especially with Black and White. However, he never finishes. It's like making out with a girl in the back seat, hitting second base, and then she disappears. It's awesome, and there's definitely some promise, but in the end you're frustrated and unable to finish it. After a while, you may even look back and think, "that was a lot of fun, maybe I should go back and do it again."