S.T.A.G.E. said:
kain_kusanagi said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
kain_kusanagi said:
Ok so I clicked on the link like I said I would and it turned out that it was Angry Joe. I can't stand his vids and after his deplorable "interview" with Geoff Keighley I don't watch his vids anymore.
So it probably goes without saying that I didn't watch the video. Sorry.
I will say a general opinion I have about Fable. I think people mistake it for something that it never was. The game was hyped up to be a big hardcore RPG, but that's not what it was and each game has moved further away from the RPG genre. I prefer it that way. The Fable games are much more adventure than RPG. Nobody complains about the sparse stories in Zelda and Elder Scrolls games, but for some reason Fable is supposed to have a script to rival Mass Effect and Final Fantasy. All I want from the Fable games is action adventure set in a magical world and the Fable games, all three of them, have done that very well. Kingdoms of Amalur does the same thing, but in a bigger overworld. There are things about both series that I think could be improved, like Fable's restrictive overworld or Kingdoms' MMO style generic quests. But overall I think all of them are good and I enjoy them for what they are.
As for the end of Fable 2. The worst tragedy is the one you don't see coming. I loved that dog and I saved him and my family.
|
So you didn't watch the video, but you're ready to bash the guy's opinion without even hearing it? What "deplorable "interview" with Geoff Keighley? I just watched that video and Geoff as respectable as he is was dicking him around. Geoff called him out on targeting the casual/moderate gaming audience instead of the core gamer.
Fable was hyped to be a big "hardcore" RPG, but what it really is after the original Fable became a memory of a promise unfulfilled. The game held your hand and delivered little challenge. Super Mario was harder than Fable. As for being an Action RPG, it is actually one of the word in category that I've ever seen. The game has made a bit of money, but thats because I believe 360 gamers are in a "waiting for the day" situation where Peter Molyneux might return to his glory days of game making and give us the game we've been waiting to pay $60 for. No one complains about Zelda, because it is a masterfully made franchise.For years it has provided clever levels, brilliant puzzles, great inventory, simple yet satisfying battle mechanics and challenging platforming when need be. Skyrim is a totally different animal crafted for the hardcore grinding gamer of WRPG's (remember the difference). This game's focus is true RPG relationships, grinding for money, power, armor noteriety and more. It's job is to have you truly make a difference in the world and have the people shape themselves around you and the replayability of that game bar none destroys Fable. Fable has an audience, I am sure but it does not hold a candle to the real RPG's. That game is an entry level action RPG and it will always be remembered as such, imho.
I stated from the Fable 2 days that this franchise would not deteriorate in sales, but rather deteriorate from within because of some horrible decisions made. What happened today? Fable 3 comes out and delivers the same tired crap times ten, they put Fable on the Kinect and turn it into on rails crap and exactly what I predicted would happen is that the team would fall apart. Now, with that said....I did not have any idea Molyneux would leave, but I think it's time he walked away from that misleading mess of a franchise. Molyneux is talented, but I think he needs to sit down and think about what made Black & White so great.
|
Yep, I didn't watch the video, but I never bashed his opinion about Fable either. I gave a my general feelings about how I think Fable has been missunderstood, but I never once refered to Angry Joe's review. I've seen enough of his videos to know I don't need to watch any more of them. That's why I said I didn't watch it and then went on to talk seperatly about Fable in an unrealted to Angry Joe manner.
FYI, this is the video I was talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTNkoDzP1hI
He spends a half an hour doing damage control on the most unprofessional interview I have ever seen. Geoff Keighley was a pure gentlemen and Angry Joe had nothing, but half baked insulting pointed questions that all boiled down to him trashing the VGA's.
As for you dislike of Fable. That's fine, I'm sure there are games you love that I don't like. But even if Falbe is an "entry level" "RPG" I don't see what's wrong with that or what's wrong with a spin off. I don't like to grind, so I like not having to grind in Fable. You're right that Zelda is a masterpiece, but I don't see how that would stop me from enjoying games less refined. You say that Fable is not a "real" RPG and I agree. I said as much in my original comment. Even the first Fable was light on RPG elements. It's no more an RPG than Zelda and I'm fine with that. All I want from Fable is a magical world with action and whimsy. That's what it's always been and that's what I like about it. I never expected it to be anything more and that's why I wasn't disapointed. The games got a lot of hype, but just because a game isn't what you thought it was going to be doens't mean it sucks. It just means it's different than you expected. I'm not saying you have to like it, but please understand that there are those of us that do.
|
I understand your point on Geoff, I have no real issues with him, but he did promise the guy time and in that time he couldn't handle the pressure. He's not a professional trained to interview under pressure, so Geoff caught him in a half assed interrogation. Anyone can get a green interviewer who has a bit of fire to screw up. In the end I think it was Geoffs thick skin being in the industry for years overpowering the younger less experienced interviewer and he couldn't make his point when the pressure was truly on causing him to lose professional points. Thats just the thing, I was never talking about him as an interviewer, but rather a reviewer. Calling something damage control and doing a retrospective on a report gone wrong is a two way street and he never corrected Geoff about the MMO RPG category if that was his argument. He should've just asked him general questions instead of being the rogue interviewer.
Anyway, as for Fable it has a lot more to do than Zelda, but that has more to do with time burning tasks rather than anything concrete. Zelda doesn't screw around with random items, but rather you adventure and over time gain the equipment you need to progress through the game in a non-linear fashion. As for you not expecting much from Fable that means one of two things:
1) You never listened to Molyneux's bullshit.
2) You don't take Molyneux seriously.
The game doesn't need to be as much of an Action/RPG as Zelda and quite frankly the game is far form a masterpiece, again an entry level action/RPG with takes little no thinking at all. Zelda takes a higher level of thinking compared, but really I want to get off of conversation about Zelda since it has absolutely nothing to do with Fable. This game was compared to Kingdoms of Amalur and of course Fable is more beautiful, has better cinematics and has better character models, but as far as core combat action RPG is concerned a lot of reviewers will agree that this is what Fable should've been (as far as gameplay goes). I am glad you think Zelda in most cases is a masterpiece, but really I fail to see how it should be compared. Dragon Age two was one my least favorite western RPG's and it was far better than Fable. It gave you more freedom and was a truer Action RPG and has true choice based on rollover decisions made from the previous game.
A appreciate that you realize the game for what it is, but thats also a very deceptive thing. The game is not billed as an entry level Action/RPG nor is it marketed from first party as one either. The games budget is huge and yet while having an infinite wallet, the team clashed to figure out a proper direction for to a franchise that was more bark than bite.
|
Wall of text time.
Everything you said about Angry Joe is the reason I don't click on his videos. Geoff promised him an interview even though he is a nobody. Instead of making an appointment he ambushed him on the red carpet at insulted him with pointed questions. The red carpet is for fluff questions as people walk by. It's not for full interviews and certainly not gotcha questions, even if they failed. Geoff turned the table and proved to the world that Angry Joe is an ego maniac. I don't want to support him with my views. I don't hate the guy, I don't think he's a bad person, I just don't want to contribute to his ego.
As for Fable. I have never been the victim of overhype. I get excited about new games that interest me, but I never believe they will be anything more than what I see in the trailers and previews. Peter M. can talk a game up all he wants and I take it with a grain of salt just like I do when politicians talk. Anyone promoting their own product should never be taken as seriously as an impartial video game journalist, as so long as their name isn't Angry Joe ;)
I remember all the promises about Fable. I actually didn't pick up the first game because I didn't want to play a hardcore RPG about growing a tree over 40 years and the world twisting as you turn evil or good. It wasn't until I read some reviews and found out that it was a simple adventure game with RPG aspects. The second one was even more so an adventure game with less RPG features. I wasn't looking for an RPG, I wasn't expecting an RPG, and I didn't want an RPG from Fable. I got exactly what I was looking for. Peter M. talks big because he's an idea man who sets the bar high and then has to compromise when it turns out his ideas reached too high. He's a dreamer. I don't fault him for reaching for the stars, especially when his games fall short without crashing and burning.
You expected something more, you wanted something more, and you were disappointed about getting something else. That's a valid beef, but you need to step back and look at the games for what they are instead of what you thought they were going to be. If I tell you my apple is the best tasting apple in the world and let you take a bit, but it turns out that it is a delicious orange, you may complain that it wasn't an apple, but it was still a delicious orange.
Some people complain about Fable as if it's as bad as the Iron Man games. That's what bothers me. Fable isn't broken and it isn't "RPG for babies". It's an action adventure game that attempts to connect the player to the world through the character on a personal level. It does that well.
KoA was good too and so was Dragon Age 2. I honestly don't understand the criticism that Dragon Age 2 gets, but that's another topic for another time. They may even be better than Fable. I just don't see what that has to do with whether or not Fable is worth playing.
Your complaints remind me of the Splinter Cell fans that bashed Conviction. They wanted a hardcore stealth game, but got an action stealth game. I tried and hated the original Splinter Cell, but loved Conviction for the exact reason they hated it. They say it's a bad game and I say it's fun. They say the old Splinter Cell is better and I say it's boring and too strict. They say SC: Blacklist looks terrible and I think it looks great.
It's a matter of taste.
I think we have both said our peace on this. If you reply I will read it, but unless you ask me a direct question I think we are at an impasse. You don't like Fable and I do. Nothing either of us says is going to change that.
