Preview Shack's glimpse at Fable 2

[Saint_Proverbius]

Tags: Lionhead Studios

<a href="http://www.shacknews.com/">Shack News</a> has a brief <a href="http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/51472">article</a> about <a href="http://www.fable2.com/">Fable 2</a>. It talks about the multiplayer, a bit on combat, and this:
<br>
<blockquote>"Only 5% of the people that play Fable 2 will have the stomach to play evil," added Molyneux, a bold claim from a designer known for making them.
<br>
<br>
Perhaps not that far from the mark, however. As Molyneux explained, about 70% of players stayed friendly in the original Fable, 20% gave up the dark side after an hour of being evil, and only 5% finished the game as a true jerk.
<br>
<br>
"I'm gonna try and drive that [good] percentage down," he said. "Being good is about sacrifice." </blockquote>
<br>
30% of us also know there's no way he can know those numbers are legitimate, real world statistcs.
<br>

 

[jiujitsu]

It isn't easy to be evil in games, but as a true role player you should be able to stomach it just for the sake of experience.

 

[Fat Dragon]

20% gave up the dark side after an hour of being evil

I don't blame them. The dark path in Fable was the most boring part of the game.

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

"Mini-maps are shit. We've replaced it with this thing, and you're going to hate it, it's called a bread crumb trail," he said, explaining that it will be a system that dynamically points out which way to go based on the players' play-style.

What.

 

[Morbus]

I don't think I'll have the stomach to finish the game itself, no matter the "way"...

 

[RK47]

HAHAH this guy's gone batshitinsane. I wouldn't be surprised if he's Malkavian if a vamp bit him.

 

[Azrael the cat]

I rarely try both alignments, but...

Funnily enough, out of my favourite games I very very rarely choose the evil path - or any alternate path, despite it mattering greatly to my enjoyment of the game that the path exists.

Playing evil in PS:T kind of sucks. Any quest for power and glory will fail - I'm guessing that's why....(SPOILERS)>>>>>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
later on the 'evil' incarnation is described as pragmatic, rather than evil. But frankly I couldn't bring myself to do all the evil stuff except for the sake of seeing what happens, then reloading! That's not because the evil path sucked, it was because I was so immersed that doing the evil options actually felt really uncomfortable. I replayed that game several times, but it doesn't matter HOW often I replay it, I just can't imagine myself (SPOILERS AGAIN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>)
selling Morte, sacrificing a party member, destroying the silent kingdom by letting the ghouls take over etc.


Similar with Deus Ex (yep, SPOILERS AGAIN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>)
I still boot that up and replay it occasionally. But I'll never play it choosing not to rescue Paul, or not finding the bomb to save Jock from getting blown up, or not keeping my kill-count as low as possible in the early anti-NSF missions, or hell, taking any ending other than my prefered Helios one (I've played the others just to check the end-movies tthough).

But oddly enough it REALLY matters to me that those options are there, even though I never take them. Without them the game would just seem railroaded and hollow. I think sometimes developers misunderstand the importance of choice and consequences - it isn't necessarily just for replayability, it is also to create the sensation that what you are doing MATTERS in the gameworld, and that you could at least THEORETICALLY choose differently, and mess things up if you chose badly. I find that far more important than actually pursuing each path.

 

[Balor]

Well, I'm all for mister M. making evil path more interesting and viable (after all, he DID make Dungeion Keeper, didn't he?).
However, I'm talking Obsidian-level 'Evil', not 'jerk' like he said himself... therefore, it is bound to suck, no matter how he'll try.

 

[Nedrah]

In great games I can't bring myself to be evil because it actually makes me feel bad about myself - oh noes, I just did something bad to a bunch of ones and zeroes... silly, yes, but true. I will sometimes make a dedicated, conscious effort to play an evil char - but it just feels wrong. I believe that means that I may tend to project myself into the gameworld too much, which would be a problem if I was larping, but actually helps to intensify a singleplayer experience.

Then, in average games (most bioware stuff, for example), I still tend to be the good guy, just because that way of playing is fleshed out a lot better. So, in the end, I will usually end up being neutral at best.

 

[RK47]

Yes, but in Fable 1 , most of the evil path resulted in some weird 'MORE LOOT'. I can't even remember what the good path pros are except 'Feel-Good' factor.

 

[thesheeep]

In great games I can't bring myself to be evil because it actually makes me feel bad about myself - oh noes, I just did something bad to a bunch of ones and zeroes... silly, yes, but true. I will sometimes make a dedicated, conscious effort to play an evil char - but it just feels wrong. I believe that means that I may tend to project myself into the gameworld too much, which would be a problem if I was larping, but actually helps to intensify a singleplayer experience.

True... I played through NWN2 OC with an evil dwarven monk (yes, I did), and sometimes, it just felt a bit wrong. Anyway, it was fun for the roleplaying experience

 

[Suicidal]

Only 5% of the people that play Fable 2 will have the stomach to play evil

Oh? Will it include torturing innocent NPCs, raping women, gutting babies with a ritual knife and decorating your house with the innards and heads of you victims?

 

[thesheeep]

That would result in 10%.

You will have to kill a puppy.

 

[Xerxos]

and you're going to hate it,

QFT

 

[Brother None]

30% of us also know there's no way he can know those numbers are legitimate, real world statistcs.

It seems like a reasonable guess.

C'mon, even most of us go for good the first playthrough because we know most RPGs are built for good NPCs and that if evil is even possible it's usually either meaningless or impossible to play.

I can count the RPGs with valid evil paths on one hand.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

30% of us also know there's no way he can know those numbers are legitimate, real world statistcs.

Actually, at least for the Xbox version, isn't shit like that tracked and pinged back to headquarters these days for analysis? Also, what Brother None said.

Perhaps not that far from the mark, however. As Molyneux explained, about 70% of players stayed friendly in the original Fable, 20% gave up the dark side after an hour of being evil, and only 5% finished the game as a true jerk.

70 + 20 + 5 = 95. Are we to assume that the last 5% are those that shot themselves before finishing the game?

 

[elander_]

Yes we all go for the good natured paladin who makes good by cutting heads off their necks, because that's usually the only way to have fun playing a modern crpg.

 

[Szioul]

Maybe the remaining 5% are those who never finished even the good path.
Although I would've guessed that to be closer to 10%.

 

[Section8]

I tried evil in Fable, and it wasn't difficult to "stomach" because I had any kind of empathy with the mindless, cookie cut drones of the world, it was difficult because having the extra resources gained from killing both the good and bad guys made the game ridiculously easy.

And that bread crumb thing? I bet instead of a big green arrow pointing the way, you'll have little glowing dots in the gameworld itself. Exciting stuff. The "LEGO Star Wars" comment is pretty telling too. It's a shame the man finds inspiration in a title where the actual gameplay is secondary to the stylistic wrapper.

 

[Claw]

"Mini-maps are shit. We've replaced it with this thing, and you're going to hate it, it's called a bread crumb trail," he said, explaining that it will be a system that dynamically points out which way to go based on the players' play-style.

Interesting design philosophy. Maybe that's how Bethesda is designing Fallout 3: If Fallout fans hate it, it's in!

 

[Balor]

Maybe the remaining 5% are those who never finished even the good path.
Although I would've guessed that to be closer to 10%.

I suspect this number is much higher. Even my sister, who really like it at first, got bored and dropped it near the ending.

 

[psycojester]

I dare that Petes stats are fairly accurate, but his reasons are way off. The reason so many people ended up on the path of good and niceness, is that every single enemy you are required to kill over the course of the main quest is counted as being evil and slaying them is a good act.

So if you want to play an evil character you have to go through a massive outlay of time and effort in order to slay enough good creatures in order to balance the amount of evil zerglings you have to slay in the main questline.

 

[Globbi]

I finished Fable as evil because at the same time my brother played a good guy. Both ways sucked. Anyway, what the fuck does it matter to the next game?

And is he going to give dead rotten animal sex quest for the evil?

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Oh? Will it include torturing innocent NPCs, raping women, gutting babies with a ritual knife and decorating your house with the innards and heads of you victims?

What got me is the idea of eating in front of a starving family is evil. No, it's not, it's being a jerk. Evil would be offering a deal to the family that they'd never starve again but they have to give up one of their children as part of the deal. I.e. sacrifice one kid so that all the others are taken care of long term.

I like the idea about taking up the challenge of being good, i.e. tough choices. However, evil should have tough consequences backing that up. For example, in the offering up one kid to feed the others, the other kids should become stronger, train to fight and come after you later on down the road.

Eating the food in front of the starving family really won't end up with much of a consequence. There's not much the family can do about it because they're starving. They're weak, and they might die from starvation, so there's really not much they can do about your jerkitude.

 

[Jed]

Is there any cRPG that has a decent evil path? It seems "evil" is only ever presented as "smart-assed jerk" or "kill everything that moves." Neither interpretation is all that satisfying to me.