Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Preview Fable gazings at Boomtown

triCritical

Erudite
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
1,329
Location
Colorado Springs
My opinion about requiring long CRPG's is that it will only result in more mundane shit that isn't fun. Like stupid quest in KotOR, which I have to do 15 peripheal things, instead of one thing, which I would do if I was actually allowed to explore a role. Not to mention adding more cannon fodder combat, or just slowing it down. There are millions of things one can do to make a CRPG long, whats important is if a short CRPG offers a quality playing experience and replay value.
 

Roger P

Novice
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
40
It's obvious that you are incapable of evaluating Fable as nothing more than a mindless diversion. "It's different", "it's silly", "don't take it seriously", "don't treat it as a normal rpg." And then you compare it to an actual rpg- Arcanum. I understand Fable is a light-bloomy medival romp, but the mechanics and balance are off. Honestly, it's the kind of game that dosen't even attempt to challenge the player, combat or otherwise. Combat is fun until you are about halfway through and then it's "I am God of Albion" time.

And pretending that there is so much to do and see is quite misleading. I took my sweet time with the game and still said "That's it?" at the credits. Underwhelming to say the least.

This is why TLC is coming, to actually fill out the skimpy original. And the "Xbox restriction" argument is nul: TLC is coming to the Xbox shortly. Do you think it took Big Blue Box 3 years to realize the Xbox's limitations, or could it have been poorly managed development. Case in point: how many developers have had to apologize for their game? That should indicate poor development pretty well.

If you think Fable's "interaction" is anything but a crude gimmick, you are grossly exaggerating its impact in-game. Sure, it's fun at first, but wears thin and is only meaningful when wooing a mate. Otherwise, just a gimmick. I guess you like that sort of thing, but to me its novelty wore of quickly.

I'm curious to see how the PC crowd reacts to this game, as I felt it was a derivative experience ON THE XBOX. But PC gamers just might be desparate enough to
embrace its goofy, Playskool gameplay. And I'm sure TLC will far surpass the original in content and polish.
 

Chefe

Erudite
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
4,731
Roger P said:
It's obvious that you are incapable of evaluating Fable as nothing more than a mindless diversion. "It's different", "it's silly", "don't take it seriously", "don't treat it as a normal rpg." And then you compare it to an actual rpg- Arcanum. I understand Fable is a light-bloomy medival romp, but the mechanics and balance are off. Honestly, it's the kind of game that dosen't even attempt to challenge the player, combat or otherwise. Combat is fun until you are about halfway through and then it's "I am God of Albion" time.

I only compared it to Arcanum in regards to clothing items changing your alignment.

But, okay then, for the rest of your statement.

And pretending that there is so much to do and see is quite misleading. I took my sweet time with the game and still said "That's it?" at the credits. Underwhelming to say the least.

I didn't say there was so much to do. Notice I refer to the "little things" and how F:LC is, hopefully (note: I DON'T KNOW YET... just so we're clear on that), going to add more content so you don't feel a "That's it?" at the credits.

This is why TLC is coming, to actually fill out the skimpy original. And the "Xbox restriction" argument is nul: TLC is coming to the Xbox shortly. Do you think it took Big Blue Box 3 years to realize the Xbox's limitations, or could it have been poorly managed development. Case in point: how many developers have had to apologize for their game? That should indicate poor development pretty well.

I'm sure poor management was at least some part of it, but it was also that they took on something too ambitious at the time and really didn't know what direction to head in. I know it's coming to the Xbox. They intended it for the PC, then had to port it to the Xbox so maybe they thought they had to remove more features than they did and cut back...?

Yea, Peter screwed up, but at least he had the guts to come out and say it. He didn't have to, the game sold a million.

If you think Fable's "interaction" is anything but a crude gimmick, you are grossly exaggerating its impact in-game. Sure, it's fun at first, but wears thin and is only meaningful when wooing a mate. Otherwise, just a gimmick. I guess you like that sort of thing, but to me its novelty wore of quickly.

The whole game is a novelty. Take it for what it is or go play some serious RPGs. They're adding a pimp and chicken hat for christ's sake, why the hell are you trying to take this game THAT seriously?

YES it's a novelty. It's a fun novelty. It doesn't wear out because the game doesn't take 40+ hours to beat. The original was too short, and I could have ridden that humor and "novelty" for longer, so that's why I'm glad to see it expanded.

I'm curious to see how the PC crowd reacts to this game, as I felt it was a derivative experience ON THE XBOX. But PC gamers just might be desparate enough to
embrace its goofy, Playskool gameplay. And I'm sure TLC will far surpass the original in content and polish.

Why do you have to be desperate to embrace a goofy game? The Monkey Island games were pretty goofy and silly, yet they're still really fun.
 

Roger P

Novice
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
40
I admit that I followed the game well in advance of release and that certainly effects my impression of it. However, I didn't hold any of the Project Ego features against the final product. It is worth noting that the game went from a potentially innovative rpg to the childish gimmick-fest it is now, without any warning. Now if Molyneux had failed to adress this switch in styles, aside from the glaring lack of content, he would have alienated quite a few fans (Black & White?) So I don't go for the "He had the guts" argument. If anything, he did it because it sold a million and is a M$ franchise.

As for the Monkey Island series, I believe that was a primarily PC series. F:TLC is a console port. The controls and style of combat are pure console action. I just don't see how that will translate on the PC. Were the Zelda games ported to PC?
 

Chefe

Erudite
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
4,731
Roger P said:
I admit that I followed the game well in advance of release and that certainly effects my impression of it. However, I didn't hold any of the Project Ego features against the final product. It is worth noting that the game went from a potentially innovative rpg to the childish gimmick-fest it is now, without any warning.

I figured you had followed the project from its inital hype as Project Ego. I didn't, but I do know that pretty much everyone who did is extremely disappointed. I guess that's why I can take it in easier than someone who was, essentially, outright lied to. It does serve as a good lesson for developers not to mention features they haven't added in yet.

I still think calling it a "childish gimmick-fest" is a bit demeaning, but I don't want to argue it... to each his own. To me, it still seems like an innovative and fun RPG that has the potential to become greater. I really haven't had that much pure "fun" in video games in the past couple of years except for Fable.

As for the Monkey Island series, I believe that was a primarily PC series. F:TLC is a console port.

From what I've read, they've re-worked the control scheme and done alot of overhauling to make this seem like a Windows game and not just a port. Of course, whether that works or not remains to be seen... so I'll get back to you in a week on that. :lol:

When I compared it to Monkey Island, I was more referring to the goofyness of the game (MI was a point-n-click adventure series). It was a completely different kind of game, probably my favorite PC series of all-time (well... 1, 2, and 3 that is). It had some wild-out of place humor in it. It wasn't your typical pirate game, and Fable isn't your typical fantasy game. I don't see how you could take either of them as being serious. Again, I was more comparing it to the sheer wackiness of the whole thing.

I would like to point out that in no way am I saying that Fable is on the level of humor that Monkey Island presented. The humor in the MI series, in my opinion, cannot be matched.

The controls and style of combat are pure console action. I just don't see how that will translate on the PC. Were the Zelda games ported to PC?

Heh, Nintendo games don't get ported to anything. But I'll say that if Wind Waker was ported to the PC, it would have been a helluva lot easier to access those different items with key commands than using the GC's crappy controller (I hated the game on many levels, but the controls were one of my biggest gripes). That's one reason I'm optimistic about the reworking of the system for Fable. Playing that game on the Xbox seemed a bit convoluted and I never felt comfortable. I can remember thinking that it would be so great just to map these expressions and spells to a keyboard and use a mouse for the menu.
 

aboyd

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
843
Location
USA
Roger P said:
If you think Fable's "interaction" is anything but a crude gimmick, you are grossly exaggerating its impact in-game.
Perhaps it had a decent enough impact on him to warrant his impression. After all, you are talking about perceptions now, and how the game impacts any given person is going to vary wildly. If the game had significant impact on him, and was enjoyable to him, it is only accurate for him to say so. If it had a terrible impression on you, it is only accurate to say so. But trying to hold up either impression as objective fact won't work. Some people like certain games, some don't.

Personally, I think the game sounds interesting. However, the only capable systems I have are a laptop and a Playstation. Neither can handle the game, and I'm not buying a new system just to play a maybe-interesting game. Meh.
 

Roger P

Novice
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
40
I'm not talking about personnal impressions, of course that is subjective. I'm referring to it's impact IN-GAME. A gimmick is a gimmick is a gimmick. Unless you pretend it's not.
 

Drakron

Arcane
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
6,326
Fable reminded me of Zelda with some RPG elements.

Its a decent short game, there are worst choices ...
 

Roger P

Novice
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
40
Still with the Codex pass, I don't get it. For a game which models itself after an rpg, you guys don't seem mind that it is totally mindless. Lots of Molyneux fans here? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
 

Roger P

Novice
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
40
Just surprised at the selective criticism here. Wasn't KotOR dismissed as crap, a game made for the same platform and almost the same genre? Oh wait, Bioware made KotOR. I thought the Codex prided itself on not sucumming to lame fanboy crap, like most sites.
And I didn't know that the Codex liked Zelda clones, for all of the arm-flapping about rpgs today. Hmm.
 

LlamaGod

Cipher
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
3,095
Location
Yes
And I didn't know that the Codex liked Zelda clones, for all of the arm-flapping about rpgs today. Hmm.

"The Codex" is made of different people with different opinions, stupid ass. Some are more popular then others, OBVIOUSLY.

We arnt a group called "The Codex" its just a damn forum where people talk about shit.
 

Roger P

Novice
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
40
You guys are fucking killing me. Yes, this forum is made up of of a plethora of diverse and different views. It's not like you guys force the title DUMBFUCK on those who, say, call Final Fantasy a real rpg. Or on Bioware fanboys. Keep the awsome bullshit coming. :lol:
 

LlamaGod

Cipher
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
3,095
Location
Yes
Roger P said:
You guys are fucking killing me. Yes, this forum is made up of of a plethora of diverse and different views. It's not like you guys force the title DUMBFUCK on those who, say, call Final Fantasy a real rpg. Or on Bioware fanboys. Keep the awsome bullshit coming. :lol:

The only ones who get it are the ones who earn it. The ones who act like they are TEH CRUSADOR OF RPGs and try to 'go to war' and just act like buffoons.
 

Roger P

Novice
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
40
Then why don't you award Vault Dweller with the illustrious title? Every time he talks to a developer here, I half expect him to type "Codex, assemble!"
 

LlamaGod

Cipher
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
3,095
Location
Yes
Roger P said:
Then why don't you award Vault Dweller with the illustrious title? Every time he talks to a developer here, I half expect him to type "Codex, assemble!"

He brings up nice points alot of times beyond FUCK U CLOSSED MINDED FAGETS.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,044
Roger P said:
Just surprised at the selective criticism here. Wasn't KotOR dismissed as crap, a game made for the same platform and almost the same genre? Oh wait, Bioware made KotOR. I thought the Codex prided itself on not sucumming to lame fanboy crap, like most sites.
And I didn't know that the Codex liked Zelda clones, for all of the arm-flapping about rpgs today. Hmm.
Don't be a dick, Roger. Few guys (literally) like Fable, so now the Codex is a Fable fansite? Some people like Bio games, some people like Bethesda games, some people like action RPGs, so fucking what?

As for the dumbfuck title, only a few people earned that privilege. I'm sure you can see that there are plenty of Oblivion fans aggressively defending the game here and nobody is giving them any titles. You, on the other hand, have just submitted an application for one.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,044
Roger P said:
Then why don't you award Vault Dweller with the illustrious title? Every time he talks to a developer here, I half expect him to type "Codex, assemble!"
Your assumptions are entertaining but irrelevant
 

Drakron

Arcane
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
6,326
Roger P said:
Still with the Codex pass, I don't get it. For a game which models itself after an rpg, you guys don't seem mind that it is totally mindless. Lots of Molyneux fans here? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Because Fable was a exclusive Xbox title and the Codex only covers PC RPGs.

We know what it is but we simply dont care, its nothing but a failed Xbox title being ported for PC in the hope it recovers sales (the PC version is even more expensive that the Xbox version).
 

Roger P

Novice
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
40
Agreed, Drakron. I wouldn't even mention it if it weren't getting news coverage.
 

Roger P

Novice
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
40
Well, you could certainly argue that a game a developer publicly apoligized for is a failure. As for sales: No comment.
 

Drakron

Arcane
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
6,326
angler said:
Failed? It certainly didn't fail in sales:
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/rpg/fable/factsheet_6108318.html
http://www.xbox.com/en-us/news/1015/newsflash-fable.htm
http://www.xboxaddict.com/news/view.php?News_ID=5589

They're broading their audience (and upping the resolution and textures for the PC, which is nice). Sure, it'll make them more money. The reason I believe the game costs more cash on PC than Xbox is because they want previous owners of Fable to buy the new version... and they probably wouldn't buy it for $50, while the PC had no previous version of Fable, so it's practically a new game here.

Classic requires ONE MILLION units sold, acording to those links it did not reach it (if it did they would make such statement, the million mark is important) and of course even selling one million does not make the game a comercial success, it depends on how much it costed to develop/advertise/publish and how much money was made in sales.

And sorry, the reason they charge more for the PC version is because they are hoping even with poor sales it combined with Xbox "bargin bin" price that will allow then to recover the loss, Fable was a title that was put much hope on.

In a way its funny, MS expected Fable to be a FF killer and it did not even performed close to FF X-2 that was a low budget FF title (sold 2 millions on its opening days, they run out of stock in japan in less that a week) as most Xbox titles, why Riddick and Suduki that BOTH have the "only on XBox" sticker end up having PC versions?
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom