×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Putting Fable II Through Its Paces

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the games-die-without-wow-factor dept.

Role Playing (Games) 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

65 comments

Fable 2 another action RPG... (2, Insightful)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#24306537)

... 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.

Re:Fable 2 another action RPG... (2, Informative)

Narpak (961733) | more than 5 years ago | (#24306583)

Apparently using magic in Fable 1 aged you faster. I still don't know if this was a bug, or supposed to be a feature.

Re:Fable 2 another action RPG... (3, Interesting)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 5 years ago | (#24306713)

It's because you were aged based on your upgrades, but to be a decent mage-type character, you'd need a lot more cheap upgrades than otherwise.

Re:Fable 2 another action RPG... (1)

christ, jesus H (1317921) | more than 5 years ago | (#24307389)

Agreed, I also felt the world was a little small and tight. I know it was built to the sparse memory requirements of the XBOX but I played it on PC and it still felt very small and tight. The load times were mercifully better but loading every 50 feet or so is terribly jarring especially in an experience that immersive. There didnt seem to be enough items and geegaws in the world for me either. I liked the game too, but I also hope the new one is better.

Re:Fable 2 another action RPG... (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#24308873)

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.

Re:Fable 2 another action RPG... (2, Interesting)

MaXMC (138127) | more than 5 years ago | (#24309443)

Read TFA:
"The ability to upgrade your career skills via mini-game diversions looks better than grinding and cold, hard stats arrangement."

It didn't seem like more grind to me than any other RPG released in the last years...

Re:Fable 2 another action RPG... (1)

discord5 (798235) | more than 5 years ago | (#24309021)

I remember getting to the end of the game and looking insanely old.

I remember getting to the end of the game and having insanely big horns...

Having said that, when I played it the thing that bothered me most was that halfway the game your character becomes uber and the game becomes a laugh while you spend most of your time using two or three abilities over and over and ...

That, and the fact that it was way too short. I waltzed through it on two or three evenings after work, which I think is way too short.

Re:Fable 2 another action RPG... (3, Insightful)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 5 years ago | (#24310087)

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:Fable 2 another action RPG... (3, Funny)

discord5 (798235) | more than 5 years ago | (#24310381)

Apparently to be evil you had to go on killing sprees amongst villagers.

This would explain a lot. For some reason those villagers just kept on running into my sword. I mean, there I was minding my own business just waving around a sharp object in some random direction and suddenly they can't wait to jump into it. Don't these people know how dangerous that is?

I still find it strange that sniping bandits who can't even see you is considered good.

You're pro-actively preventing them from doing harm. That's "good", right?

Re:Fable 2 another action RPG... (1)

DCheesi (150068) | more than 4 years ago | (#24318321)

It's only vigilantism if there's a real justice system that's being subverted. In Fable the Heroes' Guild, while essentially mercenary, seemed to be the closest thing they had to a real police force out in the countryside. So taking out bandits was part of the job description...

Re:Fable 2 another action RPG... (1)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 4 years ago | (#24319521)

Crunchy chicks.. that was the quickest way to becoming evil. The very quickest. That or slaughtering villagers. But then you can't walk through the town without having to wade through the blood of infinite guards and that is a hassle. I thought, "Hey, infinite EXP!!!" But they keep sending tougher guards and you get crap for EXP.. LAME!

Re:Fable 2 another action RPG... (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 5 years ago | (#24313689)

Swords and levels are not "RPG elements"
No more than doors and a steering wheel can give an RV "Ferrari elements"

Roleplaying games comes from the players ability to make choices which have lasting and meaningful effects on the game world in which he plays. "Should I use a sword or a mace?" is not one of those choices. "Should I save the child or slaughter this village?" are those kind of choices. The underlying game mechanics are meaningless. While many "RPGs" employ a level system, have some sorts, etc. That doesn't actually define what an RPG is in any manner. An RPG could exist without any levels at all, or skills for that matter. STALKER could very easily be an RPG if some of the choices had a little more far reaching effect.

SNES RPGs (1)

Ayavaron (971110) | more than 4 years ago | (#24321459)

Your definition appears to alienate a lot of the genre's classics. I don't recall any choices like that in many Japanese RPGs. Most of the revered SNES RPGs are incredibly linear 16-bit novels.

Re:SNES RPGs (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 5 years ago | (#24328907)

Bingo.
They were essentially called RPGs because they started off as swords and sorcery and had a stat system. When RPGs were first made, D&D was a popular game among the people who were the target audience. Making it resemble it as best they could, with the limited ability they had at the time, ensured an audience. They became more refined with fancier graphics and more fine tuned systems, but in reality they never actually became "Role playing games" because the role you played had no meaning. The story and what you did was really already laid out. MMORPGs are no different. The persistent worlds are utterly meaningless in this regard. Nothing you do means anything in those worlds.

Think about actual role playing games. Like D&D, Gurps, etc..etc.. The draw of these games is that you can do anything. Sure the DM might try and steer you in a certain direction, but any good DM will think on his feet if you don't take his bait and go in a completely opposite direction. The role you take and define has meaning in this game world. A video game role playing game though really doesn't have that meaning. The "role" I take in Final Fantasy 7 has no more meaning than if I wrote a backstory for the pilot in Space Invaders. The world in either of those games is no different no matter what role I imagine myself playing in them.

RPG is a term which has been abused by game publishers and developers to lend credibility to a genre of games and has seriously diluted the meaning of the term. I've seen people calling some of the various "tactics" style games RPGs... Why? Because you can level up in it. Yet table top RPGs exist with no levels, or hell no dice for that matter, (Amber springs to mind), because a role playing game is about the role playing, and not the underlying system or mechanics of the game. Those are utterly meaningless. If the role you play is just as meaningless, then it isn't really a role playing game. In order to play a meaningful role, you need to be able to make choices and the choices you make need to have permanent effects on the game world. Anything else is just a good interactive book.

Fable 2 (5, Insightful)

Narpak (961733) | more than 5 years ago | (#24306555)

With Molyneux's track record for exaggerating his own games; I do not trust any product he develops until I have seen it for myself. Or usually, read a lot of reviews and tried a demo. Even then, I am sceptical.

Re:Fable 2 (1)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 5 years ago | (#24306767)

From the article, they just seem to be talking about improved features from the first game that everyone* didn't really care about. I'm with you on this.

*Or at least, everyone I know that played fable.

Re:Fable 2 (4, Interesting)

zehaeva (1136559) | more than 5 years ago | (#24306971)

yeah his games have been over hyped a lot, B&W was supposed to be this amazingly long and awesome with this real life ai monkey hanging out with you, which was kinda true, it wasn't long at all but you got a monkey that learned and did most of what you asked it.

then B&W2 which was supposed to be everything that B&W1 was supposed to be and more, but i think they forgot about the more part and just did what B&W1 was supposed to be

and fable was supposed to be this hugely open world where you could do anything and everything with a huge open story line and we got a game where you have to run along in small paths.

sure peter did a lot he said he would but he left out just as much stuff as he put in.

he's got great vision but can't seem to stuff it all into one package.

the movies did everything i thought it should, that didn't disappoint.

err i'm rambling on here.

Re:Fable 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24308787)

you got a monkey that learned and did most of what you asked it.

You're kidding, right? Mine never learned anything (except that villagers are tasty) and never did anything I told it at all.

Re:Fable 2 (1)

Narpak (961733) | more than 5 years ago | (#24308869)

I agree with what is being said here. Personally I awaited the launch of B&W one, even preordered it, and got burned by it. After that I was a bit more sceptical, but seems everything he wants to make he gets overambitious. It sounds great, but is actually fairly uninspiring in practice.

That being said, if technology and software keep evolving; maybe one day he will be able to make the game he imagined in his head.

Re:Fable 2 (1)

discord5 (798235) | more than 5 years ago | (#24309165)

but you got a monkey that learned and did most of what you asked it.

My monkey wouldn't stop pooping in the villagers food supply, it ate half a village before it learned that villagers != food (they're for sacrificing you foolish monkey).

The only real redeemable quality of that game was that I got to hurl rocks at houses, throw villagers into mountains or other hard objects, and generally be a really really nasty god.

the movies did everything i thought it should, that didn't disappoint.

Like many people who played the game I got in trouble with my staff about halfway the game. I never had enough people, and the game stopped spawning new applicants. No matter how many awards I got, nobody ever showed up. Sandbox mode was a blast though.

Re:Fable 2 (4, Funny)

morari (1080535) | more than 5 years ago | (#24310285)

My monkey wouldn't stop pooping in the villagers food supply, it ate half a village before it learned that villagers != food (they're for sacrificing you foolish monkey).

The first time my creature pooped, I picked the feces up and handed it to him. While examining his droppings, I began to rub his stomach, enticing him into eating it. He did. Immediately afterward, he vomited. He never pooped again.

Re:Fable 2 (1)

christ, jesus H (1317921) | more than 5 years ago | (#24310321)

I think Peter has a knack for actually including what he promised (as much as any developer), its just that things are never quite what they sounded like. Hes like the used car salesman that promises you unbelievable reliability and gas milage, then sells you a car with no motor.

The Molyneux Touch (5, Funny)

Senjutsu (614542) | more than 5 years ago | (#24306955)

If the combat seemed kind of shallow in the preview but Peter Molyneux implied that there's a great deal of depth to it, gamers everywhere can rest assured on the strength of Peter Molyneux's track-record that the combat is indeed very shallow.

In the future, mothers will tell children the cautionary tale of The Molyneux Who Cried 'Features'.

Re:The Molyneux Touch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24310509)

The Molyneux Method:

1) Make promises and announce features
3) ????
4) Profit

Rent don't buy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24306991)

The first game was fun while it lasted. You can beat the game in a single, albeit long, sitting. From what I've read about this sequel, the Lion's head people have chosen to focus on the simulation aspect of the game as opposed to the story/action aspect. This was a poor decision. I could really care less about spouses, STD's, pet dogs, etc. What I want is an engaging story. I'm not holding my breath.

Is it just me... (3, Informative)

PieSquared (867490) | more than 5 years ago | (#24306999)

Or did the first Fable have "Expressions... that let you woo ladies and forge new friendships" that "[You picked] from a radial menu when you want to take a wife or receive a gift" and "non-playable characters throughout town that you can interact with using Expressions, each with icons over their heads indicating their disposition"?

I mean, I'm all for news about a game to let people know it's still out there... but this could be fable one with a "II" painted on the box for all this blurb tells me. The actual article reveals that there is additionally a dog now.

Re:Is it just me... (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 5 years ago | (#24308903)

Or did the first Fable have "Expressions... that let you woo ladies and forge new friendships" that "[You picked] from a radial menu when you want to take a wife or receive a gift" and "non-playable characters throughout town that you can interact with using Expressions, each with icons over their heads indicating their disposition"?

The radial menu is new.

The Witcher (4, Interesting)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 5 years ago | (#24307007)

The Witcher is along the same lines as Fable, albeit a little more MMORPG and less Arcade in terms of combat. But the decisions you make during the game -- which are based on what you've gone through in the game -- come back to bite you later on. For example, in the first chapter, I'm trying to either protect or give up a witch to an unruly mob of townspeople. She has her story, while I go through about 5 of the townspeople's stories. Depending on what clues you've uncovered in the town, you might have discovered who's lying and who's not -- or worse, like me, you're pretty sure at least ONE of the townspeople is lying, but not necessarily the others...

So how do you decide the fate of the witch?

The physical gameplay wasn't as fluid as Fable, and you can't go wooing every woman you meet (most conversations are through multiple choice), but it was a very deep, dark game, both with the decision-making and the character development. It did have some fairly "mature" content.

Fable was fun though. :-)

Re:The Witcher (1)

christ, jesus H (1317921) | more than 5 years ago | (#24307467)

Was the witcher that game built on Biowares KOTR engine? I remember that had a very similar dialogue mechanic (if im thinking of the right one).

Re:The Witcher (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24307509)

So how do you decide the fate of the witch?

Build a bridge out of her!

OT: Fun, but rubs me the wrong way (3, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 5 years ago | (#24308011)

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:OT: Fun, but rubs me the wrong way (1)

eison (56778) | more than 5 years ago | (#24308209)

I don't see the problem. It's for character development. It's an essential part of telling a story. They can either force the omg it's my fault moment on your character regardless of your choice, take away your choice and have you watch a movie where it just happens to your character, or give up on telling a story and just make digital ping pong because they can't force the character into any interesting situations.

I still have a problem with that (2, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 5 years ago | (#24309361)

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:I still have a problem with that (3, Insightful)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 5 years ago | (#24310169)

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:I still have a problem with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24313741)

If you have no input into the outcome of the story, then it might as well be a movie. It shouldn't be a game.

Games are about providing the player with choice. Without choice, well, it may as well be a movie!

Which, based on seeing Final Fantasy games, JRPGs ARE.

I can understand people liking anime. I like watching anime.

But watching anime pretending to be a game? WTF!?

If you can't make decisions that affect anything, you're not really playing a game. End of story.

Re:I still have a problem with that (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 4 years ago | (#24319763)

If you have no input into the outcome of the story, then it might as well be a movie. It shouldn't be a game.

You think that's what the actors in movies say too? "This sucks, I can't make any real choices about what my character is going to do!" Of course not. The script is all written ahead of time. Sometimes the actor is given some leeway with dialog and such, and other times not. Either way, the actor has very little say about the actual story of the movie.

There's no computer game in existence that offers "no choice". In some your choices are just very limited. But there's still choices. In fact, most single-player FPSs are far more linear than JRPGs. Some are even constructed in such a manner that you can't even choose which gun you want to use most of the time (you can, but if you choose any gun except the 'right' gun you won't succeed).

Again, these types of games are not for everyone. If you don't like them don't play them, it's just that simple. But clearly enough people like these types of games to make the games profitable.

Basically what it boils down to is if you want the main character to be your avatar in the game, don't play an RPG that's story-driven.

Re:I still have a problem with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24320467)

There's no point in arguing this further, but I just have to point something out:

You think that's what the actors in movies say too? "This sucks, I can't make any real choices about what my character is going to do!" Of course not. The script is all written ahead of time. Sometimes the actor is given some leeway with dialog and such, and other times not. Either way, the actor has very little say about the actual story of the movie.

Yeah, but actors get paid big bucks not to have any influence over the story of the movie, while you have to pay for not having any influence over the story of games!

Re:I still have a problem with that (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 4 years ago | (#24321123)

Yeah, but actors get paid big bucks not to have any influence over the story of the movie,

If an actor doesn't enjoy acting, they don't last very long.

while you have to pay for not having any influence over the story of games!

No you don't. Like I said, don't like it, don't buy it. There's plenty of selection in games out there.

Re:I still have a problem with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24316439)

ÂHave you read Sapkowsky books?

It si not YOUR character, he is Geralt of Rivia, and the world is just like it is in the game. The Witcher is a sequel of seven books in which the character and the world around him are precisely defined, so sorry for you, but he's not what you want and the choices between the less of two "wrongs" are just what it's all about.

Re:OT: Fun, but rubs me the wrong way (3, Interesting)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 5 years ago | (#24308443)

That's a good point. Because they don't tell you what went right with your choices, only what went wrong (and nothing about the results of the other choice you might've made). While the pessimistic tone of the game isn't a pick-me-up, life can be like that sometimes too. Mugger pulls a woman into the alley in front of you. Do you keep walking and hope he just takes her money? Or do you try to help and possibly get her or both of you killed? Or the mugger killed?

Life: there are no right answers, only different outcomes.

Re:OT: Fun, but rubs me the wrong way (2, Insightful)

huckamania (533052) | more than 5 years ago | (#24311091)

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...

Re:OT: Fun, but rubs me the wrong way (4, Interesting)

sw155kn1f3 (600118) | more than 5 years ago | (#24308739)

Did you ever read the book? It's exactly what the book is about! Gerald is between 2 fires: people don't accept him as human, fear him, treat more like witch, blame witchers for completely stupid things. So Gerald is always on his own side: not monster, not human, still has attachments and obligations to protect humans.
The game caught this atmosphere perfectly. This is very good game based on the book indeed. Very talented. Questionable game controls, but gameplay is almost perfect.

Re:OT: Fun, but rubs me the wrong way (1)

memiliesm (1329199) | more than 5 years ago | (#24315173)

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.

I guess you never played with my DM. Everything every player did was turned into a wrong, immoral, selfish or heartless choice.

Re:OT: Fun, but rubs me the wrong way (1)

Peeteriz (821290) | more than 5 years ago | (#24315509)

Well, but you can choose between the selfish, cynical, stupid and purely wrong options.

For example, classical story of a dragon assaulting a village and demanding the lord's daughter as lunch - which the hero has an emotional involvement with.

If the story is set not in a fairy-tale atmosphere, but in a grim 'realistic' world as I and my tabletop roleplaying group tend to prefer - and where the players tend to be not superheroes, but of average abilities (i.e., a warrior PC is slightly more powerful than the average king's soldier, but has pretty slim chance at defeating 2-3 soldiers), then the obvious options would be:

a) rescue the maiden from this horrible fate - take her away to your place, and marry her.
    (dragon burns the village and kills most of them - but hey, you're happy) - the selfish option
b) take advance payment from the villagers, take the maiden away, fuck her, and then give her up to the dragon
    (dragon leaves, you leave, some people cry, but the rest live happily) - the cynical option
c) challenge the dragon to a duel
    (you die, and the problem of the village remains unchanged) - the stupid option
d) inspire the villagers to assault the dragon with bows and pitchforks
    (Everyone dies. Dragon eats everyone, gets bellyache of overfeeding) - the purely wrong option.

Re:OT: Fun, but rubs me the wrong way (1)

Targon (17348) | more than 4 years ago | (#24316969)

The key to The Witcher is that almost every decision you make isn't a question of right or wrong, good or evil, but more about how your decision affects the world. There may be no "correct" option to a situation, or every choice is the wrong one, and you have to deal with it.

A big thing that makes The Witcher different is that many player decisions end up with major or minor side effects later in the game. Even the example you gave above(in the tutorial/intro chapter) has a very minor side effect that shows up in chapter 1. Other decisions can also show up, including a decision from chapter 1 ending up with a minor side-effect in chapter 4.

The Witcher has some good replay value because you can change the general course of the game. You may end up at the same place in the end, but how you get there can be very different. Sometimes, it's not if you win or lose, but how you get there that is the most fun.

Re:The Witcher (1)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 4 years ago | (#24325111)

Well, first of all does she look like one?
Turn people into newts (for short periods of time)?
Weigh the same as a duck?
Flammable?
If you answered yes to the either of the second two, then it's safe to burn her. Good day.

Wasn't the first one bad enough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24307283)

Now more emo kids can make choices to behead NPCs rather than doing their quests! Now if only those choices actually impacted the story of the game in any way whatsoever, you'd have the actual "open-ended" game the fanboys claim this garbage is. Fable is trash and until I see otherwise any sequel probably is as well.

Wooing the ladies (1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#24307375)

We better hope there's no option to woo and marry men. It might destroy some conservatives, considering the last game to allow the option of homosexuality nearly caused them to riot

http://kevinmccullough.townhall.com/blog/g/ad4fece3-3a1e-42bd-8546-295599024191 [townhall.com]

Re:Wooing the ladies (1)

raijinsetsu (1148625) | more than 5 years ago | (#24307549)

Why would you hope for such a thing? Apparently, only heterosexual men can play? What about women and gay/bi men? I really do hope you were being sarcastic.

Re:Wooing the ladies (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 5 years ago | (#24310753)

He was. You see, a whole bunch of uptight Christians got butthurt when Kevin McCullough railed against the (incredibly tame) sex scenes in Mass Effect.

Re:Wooing the ladies (1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#24311659)

Well, first off I reject the premise that in order to play a game where you're a straight man, you have to be a straight man. As evidence I point to the fact that most people who have played "mario bros" are in fact not Italian plumbers, and most of the people who have played "Katamari Damancy" are not princes of the cosmos, nor have they ever rolled a katamari up to make a star.

So... women and gay/bi men could play of course.

Second, if you're deciding whether something you're reading online is sarcastic or if you should be outraged, always always always write a letter to a senator.

Re:Wooing the ladies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24311425)

I guess you could woo men in the first one. According to earlier reports, gay marriage was also going to factor in to Fable 2. Along with STD's, pregnancy, etc.

http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=104408

So... (0)

ZarathustraDK (1291688) | more than 5 years ago | (#24307457)

If I see a NPC with screw and a hole next to it over his head, will I be able to target him and write '/nigeria' to make a lot of money?

Fable 2 is Fable 1 (2, Interesting)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 5 years ago | (#24307869)

From what I read of the first game, and now the second one, Fable 2 will be what Fable 1 was supposed to be. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they two games were extremely similar, with added depth in Fable 2.

I enjoyed Fable 1 so I'm really looking forward to number 2 to see how much deeper the world is.

Re:Fable 2 is Fable 1 (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 5 years ago | (#24310731)

I wasn't impressed by the first Fable, so I'll be renting Fable 2 before I consider buying it. I suspect that Persona 4 will be a more rewarding experience than The Next Peter Molyneaux Game.

Let me know... (2, Insightful)

Lordfly (590616) | more than 5 years ago | (#24307873)

...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.

Re:Let me know... (1)

Targon (17348) | more than 4 years ago | (#24317013)

There is a difference between promises made several years before release and demonstrations about the current state of the game. Every game developer out there has made insane claims about what they were going to put in their titles, and most of them have fallen far short of the initial goal.

Any game that is targeted at the console market will be limited by the power of that console. If the developers find that a console can't handle the demands of the game, features will need to be cut to make it work properly. This is why the PC is a better platform, because you CAN scale forward and scale back. A game title that is too advanced for computers at launch can still be released as-is in many cases, but scaled back based on the power of the computer being used.

I really wish that Fable 2 would have been targeted at the PC market with a console port, because at least then Lionhead would be free of hardware limitations on the console being developed for.

PC (2, Funny)

legoman666 (1098377) | more than 5 years ago | (#24308693)

Better be available for the PC within a reasonable amount of time.... Otherwise I might have to.... *shudder* ...buy a console...

Fable 1 sucked (4, Interesting)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 5 years ago | (#24309281)

The voice acting could hardly be worse if they tried (OOOH here's something fresh, a repetitive cockney accent...) The quests were contrived and did not really lend themselves to allowing you to be the type of character you wanted to be (The stealthy requirement for entering twin blade's encampment was a pain in the ass for a kickass warrior/mage).

The story was "OK" but was missing huge parts. It felt dumbed down to the point I gave up on it.

It had a lot going for it, but missed the mark in too many places to be an epic game. For one, and I realize it is a nitpick, the scars were a stupid addition, especially with how easily they were earned.
The guild you joined was the "Hero Guild?" Seriously? THAT is the best you can do?.......and it allows "evil" heroes too....O...k. That wasn't just dumped in after a whole 8 seconds of thought.

I liked the demon doors, I liked the combat system, to a degree, but the stupid orbs for experience were a waste of time. Why not just give me more experience based on combo kills?

Re:Fable 1 sucked (1)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 4 years ago | (#24326109)

I have pretty much the same gripes. The graphics, too, were overrated. For being an 'free to play any way' style game there were too many situations where being one class was a clear disadvantage. Mages aged faar too quickly (beyond reason). And yes. The story was about as lame as it gets. They seemed to have built the plot around a working game.

Oh, and the interface which is apparently now fixed was a huge pain in the ass. You had to go through far too many menus to, say, eat an apple, or show an expression. And the quick lists did too little to fix that..

However, I did finish the game because I had to. If I'm going to pay money for a game I'm going to finish it.

Re: (1)

clint999 (1277046) | more than 4 years ago | (#24318303)

He was. You see, a whole bunch of uptight Christians got butthurt when Kevin McCullough railed against the (incredibly tame) sex scenes in Mass Effect.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...