Technical issues never bothered me too much if other aspects of the game make up for it (like in Mass Effect for example). But still, its a shame they still exist at this point in the series. 

wtf destructriod gave it a 5/10?

ohh dear.....

79 Meta with 8 reviews :/

It's pretty obvious that the Destructoid "review" killed any chance this game had to get a 90 score.

i just wanna know how can Fable 2 got 89 in meta

15/27 reviewers have rated it AAA, not bad!

Funny how you see all these 8's and 9's and then you see this 5.5 pulled out from Jim Sterlings ass.

I might consider buying the PC version. From what I've gathered from the reviews, it's simple yet compelling gameplay, marriage and have kids, Co op with anyone online at any area and some great use of applying politics and moral choices.

Sounds like a pretty good RPG to me.

One question though, is it create your own character? Like can we create a female chracter?

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.