| TheRealMafoo said:
I did watch the videos. For example, video one is Peter talks about this dog and love. He makes this concept that the dog is not controlled by you some sort of big deal. He also sounds incredibly condescending when explaining it, and makes it sound revolutionary. I get it, and it's not. Then you have another guy in the video talking about how he can make the dog seem more real because he has more variables to work with. When using the fact that you have more variables as an indicator that your dog can feel more real, is a really bad sign of how they plan to do the AI. I have a feeling the dog will be very basic in it's execution. Played with the dog lately? Check, Fed it? Check. Dog will love you. It will probably be less simple then that, but far simpler then Peter makes it sound like. So the question is in the end how will it play to the user? The only way to know is to play it. Soon we will know if he was right :) |
I agree that we'll soon know if he was right. 
I bought, and was disappointed by, Fable 1. But it wasn't a terrible game as much as it was a good concept with poor execution in a few critical areas. I played it for about 8-10 hours but never finished it. Some aspects were fun, but the storyline unfolded too slowly, the "courtship and marriage" aspect was too superficial, the world "seemed" open, but only in a Zelda sort of way, i.e. - you could roam anywhere you wanted as long as it was along certain paths. Compared to Oblivion or Morrowind, it was very constricted and didn't feel open at all.
I find it amusing to read so many people talk about how Killzone 2 will be a great game, in part because the developers learned a lot of lessons from Killzone 1 and in part because the PS3 provides so much more power, and then I read a lot of the same people saying Fable 2 will be bad because Fable 1 was bad. Okay, so which is it? Can a bad first attempt be dramatically improved upon or is it hopeless?
