Official Fable III Review Thread

[themanwithnoname]

Doobie_wop said:

themanwithnoname said:

Doobie_wop said:

I knew this would happen, instead of working on all the positives that Fable 2 had and then improving on them, they introduced a whole bunch of new systems that are inferior without fixing the flaws of the old game. The people that are dismissing the Destructoid review should probably read it before getting defensive, Jim makes plenty of good points and he actually identifies the problems the game has. Trusting sites like IGN and Gamespot would be silly, especially when their sites are plastered with Fable ads. 

The guys from Giant Bomb are the most trust worthy reviewers on the Internet, they have no corporate backing and they are some of the best in their field. They gave the game a 3 out of 5. I'm disappointed in Lionhead, they had something special, but Peter's bighead got in the way. I won't judge it any further until I can get a chance to rent the game, but the things I was worried about after reading and watching all those previews seem to be real.

The Giant Bomb review was weak and didn't even mention co-op. I wonder if it was done by the guy who gave Halo: Reach a 4 who played the campaign on heroic and got frustrated because he kept dying. It never ceases to amaze me though how much stock people put into reviewers without getting their hands on the game. How would you know new systems are inferior without playing the game? And when has Jim Sterling ever made good points?

No, the Halo: Reach review was written by Jeff Gerstman. I played Halo: Reach and I would have given it the same score and very similar criticisms. If Jim Sterling gave Fable 3 a 9 out of 10, no one would have blinked an eye or they would have taken it as positive because of how harsh his reviews can be. People can't pick and choose between reviews, they have to take all the points they make and come to final conclusion.

After reading a bunch of reviews, these are things that I'm already troubled by:

- The scale of the game is smaller, less places to explore and less things to do.

- The menu system turns into hub point instead of an inventory system, which is bad for an RPG and doesn't allow for quick and easy access.

- Technical problems.

- The combat has not improved.

- The emotion system is still flawed.

- The AI, especially companion AI, is still stupid.

That's some problems shared by four different reviewers, I doubt they all rang each other up while writing their reviews and exchanged stories. It's just disappointing to see a game with so much potential, release with so many stupid problems that could have easily been fixed. Fable 3 could have been the best RPG of this generation, but instead it's going to fall by the way side while other devs provide better alternatives.

You aren't making any sense.

A) How is the scale of the game smaller when there's a whole new continent to explore? -_-

B) That's just your opinion of what an RPG should be, and the game's creator has said that this isn't an RPG anyway.

C) Just about all of these games have technical problems. That's not an excuse, but still, I can't remember the last one of these games that didn't have technical problems.

D) What's so bad about combat?

E) Did you really expect them to do change the emotion system when it's been the same in both of the previous games?

F) You'd need to be more specific.

But I'm really most interested in your defense of your first point. Every video/interview/review I've seen of the game has not only denied that, but said the exact opposite. I can go get quotes if you want me to.

EDIT: And meh at better alternatives. I like Bethesda and BioWare, but they are not an alternative to Fable, nor is Fable an alternative to what they do. People buy multiple games from similar genres, y'know.