i really don't like the way he said "when microsoft told us to do a core kinect game" it just makes it sound like they were forced into it

yeah or a good old top gun remake could be fun too....

are we deRAILING the thread here ??? lol :P

LucasArts and ICOM for the win.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuNn_wFa4rc

they probably was

Well, just because you are on a horse doesn't mean it has to be on rails, you can still explore Albion while on the horse. It may sound a bit boring to think you are riding a horse for the entireity of a game, but in many games you are running for the whole game, but its still fun because you do a variety of things while on foot.

Yea, I think it was very clever of them to actually use this horse riding mechanic to make it non-on-rails because using your hand to make a horse move+change direction is quite natural, but jogging where you stand sounds absolute garbage. But I do expect all the off-horse segments to be on rails, it just seems there's not many of those segments.

Fable was supposed to be Molyneux's achievement in perfecting the modern RPG, but his actions are always at odds with his words. Fable has gone in so many directions its crazy. Never has it matched what Molyneux has to say. I believe he should be the ring leader at the circus because at least people with weird, in-human talent can back up his bullshit.

I think Microsoft noticed a lot of people who are buying kinect already own the system. Trust me, the wont support the "core" titles. They haven't established a core yet. They don't even know what core is.

I do think that people on these forums are often chauvinistic about certain game genres. However it isn't without a good reason. The thing is we know how hard it is to make a good game in a genre, and we know how much it does tend to cost. So when you say that a game is on rails. Two thoughts spring to mind this was a cheaply made game, and it is pretty hard to screw up a game in this genre. What really doesn't help matters is that developers are rarely willing to price accordingly. Often we see these games priced at the same level as games we know took a lot more time, money, and innovation. So a lot of people are justifiably jaded against them.

I agree games on rails are perfectly fine, but they are only fine within a context. That being that they are priced in a way that is respective to what they naturally offer. Someone in this thread said they would rather play a great rail based game over a bad open world game. My answer to that is this I wouldn't pay sixty bucks for either. There are a lot of game genres that I refuse to fork that much money out for.

Maybe this might clear things up for some? http://e3.gamespot.com/video/6318603/ its pretty much the same thing but it is better to actually listen to it explained.

"Basically, the theory is that if a game has horses, it’s substantially more likely to be extremely good. Ocarina of Time: horse. Shadow of the Colossus: horse. Assassin’s Creed 2: horse. Red Dead Redemption: TONNES of horses."

Hmm how great would those games be if you can't get of the horse and move around. Plus every time you have to drive a carriage in a game it looks and controls terribly.

I never liked combat on horse in Zelda. I rather got of to fight. I hardly ever used a horse in AC2. It was fine in SotC to get places fast as long as you don't want to turn too tightly. RDR shooting from horse, awful, getting over walls or through gates, terrible, but the animation was good.

Anyway great way to hide the lag and unresponsiveness, blame the horse.