Yea, this does not affect me and my future expereince with the games in any way shape or form unless, as already stated, they just plain outright rushed the game and there will be other issues besides the lack of the promised content. I don't see how hard it is to grasp the fact that not adding a feature and later patching it in, whether it's on day 1 or not, is a sign of a rushed game. If it wasn't rushed they wouldn't have had a content patch on day 1. If they felt that they MUST have a patch then maybe they would have been more concerned with any other problems that arose from testing between going gold and release.

You have no proof of such rushing, you are just assuming. Content patch on day one might as well mean they actually polished the game even more. And you are still posting on this thread because you got owned and laughed at for raising a non issue. As yourself have stated it won't affect your game experience at all.

You just can't take straight the fact you lambasted this for hurting users when it in fact does not. You can stonewall this one as long as you like, but I'll keep posting until the game ships, scores high on the reviews and it proves you wrong. If it's needed I'll keep the thread alive until then.

Me too, but I'm willing to make a wager on this so as to not spam the forums.

Lol no. I won't let you go that easily. You'll keep stonewalling this one with your "fable 2 rushed" nonsense until you get shamed.

You arguments were discredited several posts ago and you are now just staying alive out of assumptions which can't be disputed as they are just speculative opinion. It's a crappy move and I'll keep lambasting you for it.

Spamming the thread it is then. What makes you believe that the game has all the polish it needs? The only thing we have to go by is the fact that a promised feature will be included in a day one patch which shows they did not push the game back when they should have. I also still stand by the fact that some random guy somewhere will be affected by this.

Considering you've massively derailed the thread stonewalling with your irrational belief that fable 2 is going to be rushed, you should be the last asking people about irrational beliefs. So I refuse to answer you.

Ah, the poor dude with the non-unlimited bandwith ISP... you trying the damsel in distress rescuer again? well, let's hear about who and why is gonna be affected because of this. The last time you tried you got massively owned so I'm looking forward to it.

To be honest, only LionHead Studios knows exactly how much polish this game has... the rest of us, including myself, are guessing.

However, if you read the interviews with Peter M. it appears that the dev team didn't actually end up in crunch mode at the end of the development cycle.  They seem to have paced this one fairly well.  Again, this is all based on his statements, but he appears to be forthcoming on this.

As I suggested before, we should send him an email and see if he responds to the question of why the patch was necessary.

Just to resurrect an old thread, here's a snippet from 1up's review, now please tell me how you can consider this not rushed. It's still interesting to see how some games can be slammed and brought down so many notches for under-delivering on multiplayer (or singleplayer for multiplayer games) yet this one wet scott-free.


"The real action was supposed to be in the online co-op mode, where two players would saddle up with their fully customized characters and hack their way through the game together. And while this hasn't been completely compromised in action, Lionhead -- in this instance -- again underdelivers on their original concept. Players hoping to play together online are restricted to A) the host player, who has his fully kitted-out character on display, and B) the guest player who -- again -- must select from the default set of six character types. What's in it for the guest character, then? By joining a game with your Xbox Live account, you're able to take all of the experience, money, and skills earned during your online play session and transfer it back to your own character once you're finished playing. So, basically, you're sending a proxy into another player's game world. In actual practice the camera is beyond your control most of the time, as even in online co-op both players must illogically share a single screen (instead of just having your own screen, like you would in an MMO), resulting in a perpetual tug-of-war. The whole appeal of playing together in a game like this is to show off your personal style. Remove that, toss in a nightmarish camera, and factor in the total lack of an online setup screen, lobby, or multiplayer interface and this is easily the worst thing about Fable 2. It's a painful example of lost opportunity -- it was supposed to be one of the best things about the game. "

Apparently everyone's on-line experience has been affected and is different from what was promised due to Molyneux unable to push back a date.

The online co-op is lacking. But the amazing single player experience more than makes up for it.

Agreed, but then what about other games which had excellent single-player but bad multiplayer? For instance, Metroid Prime 2 got slammed by everyone for its multiplayer. They weren't even promising anything great in terms of multiplayer either, meanwhile the co-op was one of the centerpieces during E3. In any case, another developer fucking up by not delaying a game when it's obvious they should have and I'm getting tired of developers pulling shit like that.