Review Why Fable 2 sucks

One of the major signs of evil is extreme selfishness.

 

So, Shamus Young, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

 

Good may be dumb, but it wins because all good characters are healthy thanks to vegetables, while evil, fat, meat-eaters don't have strength to fight against them.

 

I read that article and I clearly agree with the guy. Unfortunately bioware also love to make things forced like he described, although not as horribly as fable 2. All these;
"It is a trap just behind this door, but I can't even buff myself because of a long dialogue"
"I know who the evil guy is, but I can't do anything about it because my character is the dumbest guy in the universe"
"you are maybe level 5000 but now you are surrounded and will be thrown in jail"
"You woke up in prison, they put something in your food"
"This door can not be opened by any means."
so on.

those bad decisions he described was really almost on another level though.

 

Yeah, but being selfish isn't evil in and of itself. When I eat breakfast, I'm doing something for nothing other than my own personal desires. Why you think breakfast is evil?

 

Animals and plants have to die just so you can eat your breakfast. Evil, selfish bastard.

 

Selfishness when you have a reasonable choice not to be so is evil.

Eating breakfast is not evil, but eating it in front of a starving beggar without sharing would be.

 

I'd say the essence of evil is to not acknowledge the suffering of others.

 

No.

The essence of being evil is demanding cash for fedex quests.

 

Wow i wasn't too interested in fable 2 but after reading this not even at bargin bin prices will i pick it up..
When it finally makes it pc debut with its super duper drm, heck its not even worth getting from p2p.

 

"Yeah, but being selfish isn't evil in and of itself. When I eat breakfast, I'm doing something for nothing other than my own personal desires. Why you think breakfast is evil?"

Oh, please. the fact you equate EATING BREAKFEAST as being selfish is just plain retarded.

 

I don't like the whole good/evil dichotomy in video games, hence I don't like Fable. Gray morality is much more interesting.

 

Mind you, if you read on to the author's later gripes, some of the stuff that he was complaining about actually sounds quite good - in terms of following through with the 'it will be hard to be good' claim. Choosing between killing another (presumably innocent + friendly) character and being tortured so that you lose XP equivalent to 2 hours of grinding? Choosing between being good and having your dog killed? The author hated that, but I quite like the idea. Good/evil dichotomies are always a bit naff (unless you do a KoToR2 and use them to question the feasibility of such a dichotomy working), I prefer the Witcher's approach to C+C, i.e. choosing the lesser evil, or PS:T / MoTB's, i.e. choosing an ideological stance. But it's also something that variety between games is a good idea - the constant 'choose the lesser evil' choices in the Witcher worked for me because that was the theme of the story arc for that game - Geraldt starts as the character he is in the books, who doesn't believe in greater/lesser evil and thinks that choosing the lesser evil is a cop-out, and then throws a doozy of a lesser evil situation at in the railroaded 1st act, with the rest of the game being the follow-up to him having to question his position.

Fable 2 using a good/evil 'kid's fairytale' dichotomy COULD have been a similarly good theme, though yes I would have prefered instead a pre-20th century approach to fables, where the elves and pixies are waiting to steal and eat the children while dazzling you with spectacles and treasure. But if you ARE going to do a good/evil dichotomy, then the things the author was complaining about are exactly what you SHOULD do. Good/evil dichotomies are only dramatically interesting where the good have to suffer and crime does pay. That turns it into the classic tale of choosing between the quiet satisfaction of knowing your right / sacrificing for a cause, and gaining the fortune and power of the pragmatic.

Not saying that that's realistic, or even an accurate representation of morality, but it does provide a way within the good/evil dichotomy set-up to create dramatic C+C. Far better, in any event, to the 'good gets the xp reward, evil gets the cash', or 'will you save my lazy ass: yes, no for a fee'. And losing 2 hours of xp, having your dog companion killed - well you can't say that they aren't genuine consequences for the choices.

Pity the rest of the game sucked. Maybe if they combined FO3's side-quests with Fable 2's main quest, we'd have an ok game...

 

The biggest gripe was how all these happened. How they were other alternatives, but those were not available to the player even if they made perfect sense. the whole idea of being a collared soldier in the spire for 10 years! being retarded, especially when being there only to save a guy (that subsequently saved himself and could teleport!).

It is when the perfect alternative three is there that these choices makes so little sense.

 

I was going to give an example from Oblivion, but then I realized that Oblivion doesn't even have stupid choices. All it has is "I'll do the quest now." or "I'll do the quest later."

So Fable 2 actually does have choices?

 

I don't think morality has any place in gaming.

All or any morality - good, evil, grey - is pointless filler.

Niko Bellic crushing 10 pedestrians under his car, and then debating whether he should kill the man who once wronged him is all bullshit.

 

Not all games are GTA...

 

Somewhat true, but if you could create a more complex morality system with actions and consequences, it would be more interesting. It's not so much morality that I have the problem with, it's the division of good and evil, since it is hard to judge actions as either good or evil.

And the above person was right. Not all games are GTA. Most games have consequences for that sort of crap.

 

Not to mention [turns on wanker mode] that the interactivity of RPG gaming makes it a great medium for exploring what morality is - PS:T and KoToR being classic examples of that (though there were some aspects of that in games like FO1 and VtM:B). Whilst we all like to come out with super-confident calls like 'a good/evil dichotomy is silly', or 'morality is all relative' and so on, they're just summary estimates at what is in some ways a darn complex part of human existence, and one which countless generations have tried to come to grips with. There are great philosophical works providing very persuasive arguments for almost every position on the 'what is morality' rainbow, from complete nihilism and cultural relativism through to objectivist and external moral realism. It strikes me as one topic where gaming might actually be a better artistic medium than literature or film to explore that. Most art is great at asking questions, but terrible when it is so condascending as to give answers. I.e. books and film work when they pose difficult moral situations, but degenerate from art into schmaltzy crap (or worse, propaganda) when they try to say what the 'right' approach is (including a 'there is no right approach' answer). Gaming seems a natural medium for avoiding that pitfall - because you give the player the dilemma and then the player gets to explore the world and give his/her answer, and then (in the context of the gameworld) be held accountable for it. If the player has been following a good/evil dichotomy, with a 'moral values are objective and factual' attitude, then throw at him a situation of having to choose the lesser of two evils, or having to deal with a faction that earnestly follows and will defend a completely different moral code - do you STILL want to strike out following your moral beliefs as though they are objective facts about the world, even when surrounded by a society that runs contrary to them? If the player is all 'morality is entirely subjective', then see how far he is willing to take it - is he willing to put his actions where his mouth is, or will he (ala Jean Paul Satre) talk a good existential freedom, but chicken out and end up clinging to moral beliefs in socialism/equality (in JPS's case).

[switches wanker mode off]. Or you could, like, get xp for crapping on old ladies. That would be way cool.

 

One of the main problems I had with Fable was there were only TWO choices for every situation. One good, one evil. Most situations have multiple threads of choice going through them, and different ways of dealing with them. They are not so clear-cut. I think this was a very simplistic system for explaining complex actions. And I always beware of people who try to give me simple answers to complex questions.

 

Oh agreed completely. I wasn't trying to suggest that Fable was a good implementation of the morality in games, nor that it was a good, or even non-shit, game.