Fable 3

Ok, i've been away, because I'm at college and college life is really hectic and hard to manage. When i finally do get settled down i will start writing for the paper and then you can expect stuff, but until then...sorry.
But other people will write stuff, this is Soulbanish's review

This is my first time attempting a blog post so please don't eat my soul and devour my remains.

Sometimes, less is more. This is not the case for Fable 3. There will be spoilers in this review so if you care, turn back now.

In the fable series each game has its own options. However, the further along in the series you go, the less options you get. In fable 1 you had the choice between 12 different weapons, Now, we go to Fable 2 where they took out a couple of weapons and put in a few with a net loss of 1 weapon. Not horrible but they should have been more concerned about putting things in than taking them out. Now, lets cut ahead to fable 3. Now you have 4 options. Pistol, rifle, sword, and Hammer.

Now, even if we ignore that, there's still the matter of Will spells. In Fable 1, you had 18 with a fair amount of versatility in terms of character concept. In fable 2, you had 8. Not a lot but there were at least a few that worked for different concepts. Now you have six, all of which are blasting spells and until you get a specific upgrade you can only cast one at a time.

Now, this is forgivable. I can forgive plenty of mistakes if the game itself is good but Fable 3 has plenty of other problems.

One of my least favorite changes was to the inventory. Instead of an inventory, you get what is essentially a dressing room. You get to look through several different mannequins each wearing various items. To me, this seemed like an unnecessary change and they could have focused on something else.

Next, lets talk about the Health bar. It no longer exists. I have no way to tell if my character is dying short of an onscreen D-pad flashing red. Now, not all games need a health bar. For example, one of my favorite games, Super Mario brothers doesn't have one. However, this is because in that game all enemies deal the same damage and you either die in two hits or one. In fable 3 though, damage is variable. In a game where damage is variable such as the Megaman series, a way to measure health really helps.

A really odd thing is that they apparently expect you to play a guy in the game, because in order to get into a Mercenary camp you have to look like a Mercenary that's currently knocked out. The mercenary has a freaking beard. Yeah, you're a girl and you have to get a beard. What.

A new change is that your weapon evolves as you upgrade it. This just changes the look of your weapon. This is a gimmick and does not improve the game for me one Iota. I would prefer that they had focused on other elements than something that's only there for aesthetic appeal. Know what else appeals to some people's aesthetics? More than two types of weapons for each category. Now, I don't deny that looks are important in a game. However, I think they would have been better served by making different options for the various components than a gimmick that I have no clue how to control.

Now some weapons upgrade by you doing specific things. This wasn't a bad idea and there are items for both good and bad characters. However, there are at least two weapons that, if you want to upgrade them, you have to have a lot of sex. I just have to ask why they did this. Who is this supposed to appeal to? Honestly, I don't mind sex being in the game but when I get the swinging sword and see what I have to do to upgrade it? I have to ask what five year old thought that was funny.

Now, let's get onto the plot.

The plot has been done many times before and it wasn't done very well here. Your character is the brother of the evil overlord, finds out he's the “Chosen one” and is helped to reach his full potential by a mentor and a wisecracking sidekick to overthrow his brother and then save his homeland from an unknown force. Now, being cliche isn't bad but this just felt like the writers were being lazy. I didn't particularly care about any of the characters and I didn't particularly hate any of them, with the exception of Reaver. One other complaint I have is that you don't get any indication of when the eldritch abomination is going to attack. On my playthrough I planned on selling the properties I'd bought to finance the resistance. However, due to the fact that I didn't get any indication of when the attack was going to happen (Goes from 112 days to 1) around 650,000 people died. Not as bad as it could have been but if I'd had any indication, there would have been no civilian casualties.

Slight rant about Reaver here. Feel free to ignore it. Reaver to me seems like a complete monster. He has literally no redeeming features and yet, for some reason, you aren't allowed to kill him. I think my problem with Reaver is that there's absolutely no justification for what he does other than that it entertains him. The evil Overlord is attempting to protect his country from an eldritch abomination (Although that seemed to come out of nowhere.) and the Eldritch abomination is an Eldritch abomination. Reaver will kill you if you annoy him. So, you're allowed to kill the evil overlord and the eldritch abomination, but not Reaver? Why not? He's arguably worse than the evil overlord in

Okay, back to the game itself. There are some things I like about the game and I'm going to talk about them here. The Co-op mode in this game? It's actual Co-op. While the second character is somewhat ignored by the plot you get to actually customize that person, and you can take that person back to your own game and play through the plot on your own while keeping what you earned from your adventures with your friends. This alone gets points with me.

Another thing I like is the humor. Maybe it's just that some of the humor appeals to me personally, but I feel like they actually got people to write the jokes for this game.

Another thing they did that I felt was a good idea was getting rid of the experience system from previous games. Those were fairly easy to break and now you have to make some progress in the game to get better upgrades. The game is still pretty easy but it's definitely better.

Final verdict? A 5 out of 10 or average. Some of the stuff they changed didn't need changing, they took stuff out instead of putting it in, and due to the fact that almost nothing in the plot varies, the game feels like it was rushed out. In fact, considering there isn't even a two year difference between the release dates of fable 2 and 3 it probably was. It's still a fun game to play with your friends and the flaws aren't big enough to make the game unplayable. There are probably better Co-op swords and sorcery games out there but this one certainly doesn't seem bad. I just feel they could have done so much more if they decided to delay the release date.

If a decent amount of people like this review I'll review a few other video games I've got lying around.

Radiata Stories is more innovative than Dragon Age Orgins

Why are the two most boring characters given the most screen time?

Radiata Stories (NO I don’t know what Radiata stories means)

Normally I don’t explain why I’m reviewing a game, it’s just an arbitrary decision based upon my whims, and so I’m not going to start now. Nah, just kidding, through that would be funny, instead I have I a whimsical story which serves as a forced metaphor for my views on the game rather than just saying them directly (spoilers, its mediocre). I also love self aware narration. Anyways, I got this game right after I bought a PS2 at my Grandparents, basically as a test game to play something cheap before I went home and borrowed (steal) better (slightly less crappy) games from my friends (people whose addresses I know), and I jus saw my younger sister (younger sister) playing it today when I basically remembered its existence, and figured that since I’m playing assassin and I’m hiding inside my house (there everywhere), I might as well write a review on it, because despite the fact I think the name is silly and I really don’t like the art direction other than character creation, I think it had enough potential to be wroth an article. Basically, I don’t really want to write about what the game is, which is as you’ve noted, a mediocre time killer, but more what it had the potential to be. Because unlike almost every other bad game out there, Radiata Stories faults are born not from lack of creativity or ideas, but simply through general incompetence. And I know that this is going to shock people, but Radiata Stories was possibly one of the bravest attempts in gaming in the last decade.

Now as I have made abundantly clear at this point, I don’t really like JRPG (grr, Final Fantasy) so I’m naturally bias against the game, but it did make some attempts to move away from what normally bothers me, it just didn’t do enough. They ditched turn based combat, but I’m still going into another world to fight and its still limited and tedious, just less so. The outfits aren’t as stupid as Final Fantasy’s absurdities, but they still make everybody look gaudy and out of place, and while the system isn’t as obsessive when it comes to all this minute details, its still boring to the point where I don’t really want to actually modify my character in the least. Beyond that the characterization is simplistic, the dialogue lacks any trace of subtly, and everybody has stupid hair. However it is where Radiata Stories tries to do something original that it all goes horribly wrong. Basically the game has the set pieces to be great. The story is about a young noble boy named Jack Russell (I hope that is more subtle in Japanese) who wants to join the nights of his realm. Unable to get past the entrance exam due to his general ineptitude, he is accepted into the knights through blatant nepotism instead. This got the whole game off to a very good start, because it subverts the normal JRPG, instead of my excitable not so smart character overcoming the odds based on the power of his will, he has to deal with the guilt from his lack of actual merit. This built up the expectation that the game would be about my character trying to come to understand how the world really works and being forced to confront his own privileged background, rather than the main character being the underdog. But like almost everything else in this game, all of these small subversions only serve to disappoint me after raising my expectations because the game doesn’t go anywhere with this idea. Jack has a few seconds of “OMG I don’t deserve this” before going off like the typical JRPG hero non the wiser. Sure he will feel guilty once or twice, but it will come completely out of nowhere and feel like an obvious effort to insert angst. Later once the actual game play starts, this happens again, the castle you start out in is HUGE. Its this massive complex full of different people and stuff happening, it could be a whole game in itself. But you can’t actually do anything with the fact that they have this huge castle because all of the rooms are practically the same and the characters are so dull it just feels like your wasting your time. So, contrary to my nature of saving the main quest until absolute last, I ran to do the main quest before I became more hopelessly lost. Yeah, I know that I missed a massive backlog of important information and potential characters/items, but it was just so generic and uninteresting that what could have been a great beginning. Anyways, so I am then introduced to my party, the snotty rich girl, the overly noble knight and…….my least favorite character the southern hillbilly priest. WTF. Why does every character with a southern accent have to be a dumbass hick? I mean I know this is the fault of the dubbers not the game itself, but I’m half southern, my moms from North Carolina, is the game so bad at characterization they have to use an offensive stereotype. I mean imagined if his character was exactly the same but I made his accent Hispanic. Anyways, I planned to resume the plot summery but honestly, I really don’t care at this point, I just want to talk about the game’s main selling point, the immersion. Basically, the main city (and by extension the surrounded towns when you get to visit them) are all populated by 150 NPCs who you can get into your party. All of these characters have their own schedule and personality and you can collect all of them (Between two play through obviously blah) like lawyer collecting clients through a variety of tasks. These vary from simply talking to them, talking to them at a certain level, fighting them, saving them, having a friend of theirs, to having a special item. The game is run in kinda sorta real time, so you have to pretty much stalk these people before getting them into your party. As you can expect, it suffered from all of the problems you would expect from such a system, namely all of the characters being underdeveloped, existing more as an accomplishment than a party member (you don’t even get to talk to them once you get them in your party), many of them being totally unmemorable, and their listed personally traits never actually effecting the game. For example, I don’t remember his name, but one Frankenstein guy was described as being as sociopathic mad scientist, but once I got him to join me, that never came up, he never betrayed me for his own personal gain or tried to actually experiment on somebody it was just an idea that never came to anything. However the idea is pretty much what I want from an ideal RPG game, if we had a game with better funding and writing backing it, this could be the most innovative game since Baldur’s Gate. Instead we get this idea coming from a mediocre JRPG, where it fails horribly, but at least they tried. And I’m rapidly losing interest, here is some basic information (filler) before I come to the stunning conclusion

The Good and the Bad (wait what else would their be?)

• I like that there is a lot going on. People are going into houses, out of houses, regular schedules, and doing their own thing. It makes the society feel alive and people actually having a point. Disturbingly enough, it handled it even better than Oblivion/Morrowind did, by having the characters actually change their reactions when they are in different locations. True is a shallow portrayal that is based entirely upon adding these characters to your friends list, but that’s more than most games can say.
• The races. Despite having their art design ripped off from World of Warcraft, Radiata stories actually are pretty fleshed out. Ok, no they are just shallow stereotypes, but they are new shallow stereotypes. The Light Elves are winged fairy elves who are isolationist and snotty. Ok that’s typical, but they are more fairy elves rather than LOTRS Elves. The Black Elves are the tree loving nature elves who are into physical exertion and are kinda a sporty martial artist race who are kinda all athletes. The Goblins are either Green, who are basically an entire race of trashy hobos, or Black who are all stoners, and the dwarves are all Russian industrialists. Apparently there are two types of orcs too, but I never bothered to recruit them. The downside of course is that they are again, only shallow stereotypes, jut with kind of a nifty idea.
• The weapons are very much hit and miss, but about half of them are pretty cool. The rest are just stupid
• While the NPCs are almost universally shallow representatives of actual characters, they at least have a nifty concept they revolve around. While they lack anything resembling depth, when you first met them they seem pretty interesting. Again, if they actually developed these character you could have bioware styled interesting characters.
• A cool plot. This they almost pulled off perfectly, a almost totally morally grey battle between humans and nonhumans. The latter are slightly more morally justified, but that’s like saying the allies were slightly more justified in WWI, its true but the resulting conflict was way out of proportion, as the humans are more likeable honestly. The fact that for the first two thirds of the game you have been making friends on both sides makes the resulting confrontation between the two sides hammers home the feeling of “Wow, this is a civil war, not a war between good and evil”. Of course then you realize how shallow the characters and cease to care, as well as your allies tendency to respawn, which makes the whole point of a civil war kinda pointless. Also the fact that humans get so much more characterization makes all of your non human allies seem weird (Also why are the purple people considered human? Eh?). The problem is that by the end of the game, the purpose or even conclusion of the war are kinda obscured, due to a mix of shoddy story telling and stupidly long periods doing pointless quests.
• The quests that involve talking to people and fighting unique foes and interaction between characters was cool, all of the rest were a pointless waste of time
• The actual set pieces of the plot were cool, you have these long painful periods of filler intermittently mixed with really good cutscenes that actually make me eager to keep playing (unlike final fantasy games, where I’m just killing time for the whole game). I liked most of the major characters other than jack (see below), the voice acting was good, and while the game didn’t actually make any use of their personalities, they were presented really well in the limited screen time they had. The fact that random NPCs suddenly showed up and made a different was really great, if again, they actually did something with that beyond a few disconnected scenes
• The only thing I really didn’t like was the main Character. Jack is simply put, unappealing. Like his namesake, he is excitable, really stupid, moronically brave (I had to use moronically because I had used stupid already), socially awkward and shallow. Basically, the typical JRPG main character, why does Japan love the stupid brave guy with a good heart motif? His lack of intelligence just makes him unappealing, because the random NPCs are honestly more interesting as characters, because he feels like he should be a random NPC who joins your party, because he has about as much depth. This is a massive personal issue I have with JRPGs, but stupid main characters cripple games that rely upon complex stories, because the character himself is unable to actually understand the complexity, thus forcing the game to dumb itself down to the point where it is patronizing. A stupid main character also forces the minor characters to be more polarized so he (and presumably the audience) can understand the conflict better, the main human villain Lord Cross has to be such a massive ass so Jack can know who to fight to. Also its boring, he doesn’t have anything to say, he just follows around from plot point to plot point. A good protagonist is central to a video game of this design, a distinctive personality is vital for this understanding.

So in conclusion, Radiata stories was a brave, but ultimately futile attempt to make something good out of the JRPG format, and to try out some really inventive new ideas. However its departure from the norm made it unappealing to JRPG fans, while its sticking to old traditions made it useless to WRPG fans. So in conclusion, Radiata Stories is more innovative than Dragon Age Origins. While it isn’t as good as a game by a long run, it does something that Bioware didn’t attempt to do, namely try to depart from a formula that has long since proven stagnant.

From

EE

Video game Trailer ideas

Right I was watching the Tailors for Dragon Age, and I was disgusted by the EA style anti intellectualism in them. Bioware is famed for their deep plots and good dialogue and well written stories (well not so much Dragon Age, but it still has those elements) and by the tailors you just have a mindless hack and slash, with the implication that there is more in there if you buy the game. I'm playing the game right now and while I like it, it not breaking any boundaries, which is what Bioware is suppose to be for. So I was just thinking of game ads that i would love to make

First
We have a man walking with some weapons over his shoulder, when a bunch of guys appear and we have a typically epic fight with lots of grunting and hitting and blood, with dramatic music, then the camera moves back and we realize that he is a gladiator fighting in a ring, and as the camera moves back we see how small and human he seems. We then go to a pair of senators who are talking about various things in the Roman based city when one of them goes "hey that was awesome" and they make some jokes about how much the fighter must work to get his six pack, then it moves back even more and we see how big the area is, then we move out to see crowds outside the city, trying to get through their daily lives, then we move back even further to see the vast expanse of the city at its whole before the camera moves away

Second
We have typical dramatic music as we see a Roman Legion marching across the field (not real rome, fantasy wold based after one since we will see some magic and stuff) and we see vast hoards of various non roman ethnic groups the idea being that you have the whole barbarian image", and the fight starts. basically exactly like that first blight fight in dragon age orgins where the Blight charge the ruins in a style totally ripping off helms deep. except in this version, we have the Romans do some badass stunts and start to win, and lots of drama, when suddenly we hear "Bloody Sunday) as the fighting goes on and we see the mass of bodies being trampled by the approaching force

Third

Very typical set up, a fight going in a city with badass people running around fighting, with these title going across the screen
"The most innovative RPG ever made"
"Great fun, an great hack and slash for the new system"
"A fine addition to your collection of games"
but the fight is revealed to be more a fight between revolutionaries and nobility, with both sides showing doing bad things and both sides having deserters and people trying to escape, with Zombie playing in the back ground. And the comments change to more
"A shocking display of human ability to indulge in our base instincts"
"A literal cornucopia of large words to try to sound like its intelligent"
"The most innovative game since....we haven't actually had any innovative games before, um....yeah ever?"

Actually DragonAge has gotten me thinking, expect a bunch of articles in between college vists
from
EE

PLanscape Torment day 1

after hearing massive amount of things about this game, i've finally got PLanscape Torment (not the collectors edition, i don't know what is in that). And i'm about 5 mins in of this writing....and it is amazing......now i need to go play. chow

Ok, fine, later i will write up some of the cool things about the game, but for now, game awaits
from
EE

Tales of Symphonia

It takes a real badass to be a stoic in purple

Now all critics have their own personal beefs, quirks, and biases that they tend to bring into their writing, and if you read enough of anybody’s work you will begin to detect themes in terms of there likes and dislikes. I know all critics try to make the claim of being impartial and not being slaves to popular option, but everybody does have there own personal taste, and a critic’s views will shine through in all of there writing, and I am no exception. Those of you who knows me or have read a lot of my posts will quickly catch onto a trend in my general likes and dislikes, for example, I am a fan of old movies, I dislike over the top violence, I liked conflicts that are very grey vs. grey with fleshed out villains, and I don't like Frank Miller. And building off that, comes the list of “hot topics”, things that I am strongly optioned about and am willing to go into massive rants to back up my fully justified and not at all exaggerated views against everyone else on the internet, who are all entirely wrong and deluded for having the audacity to argue against me.* Even ignoring politics and religion (LINK'S HAT IS GOD) and sticking strictly to more nerdier subjects, some issues that lead to instant polarization for me at least are things like 4th Edition, 300, Vs. threads, and alignment. And now, lets move to the next paragraph, because I’d rather start a new rant after my massive note below, and I’d rather be snarky then think of a better transition, much to the pain of future English teachers.

*for those of you reading this, yes, that was sarcastic, and slightly self mocking. I feel horribly patronizing to have to include this, because almost all of you will easily get my point, even if it is rather heavy handed, and thus might find my explanation insulting to your intellection, but one of the two things I’ve learned about the internet is that there will always be people who simply miss the point when it comes to sarcasm, so I felt the need to include this disclaimer both to protect my image (insecurities ahoy) and to make another heavy handed joke. The other thing I learned about the internet is that it leads to painfully over the top run off sentences, often full of lampshade hangings.

Anyways, painful transition aside, one of the issues which constantly leaves me up at night fighting against people I don’t know via forum, is JRPGs. For those of you who don’t know, within the Video Game world, Role Playing Games (RPG, again being patronizing) are divided roughly into two main categories. Oh there are some sub categories, like “action RPG”, such as Dark Alliance, or Legends of Norath, and of course MMO’s and stratigy games, but within “Pure” RPGs, we are given two vaguely defined and yet totally rigid categories. There are Western RPGS, or WRPGS, through the latter title is rarely heard, as they tend to be known as just “RPGs” and there rival is “JRPGS” or “Japanese RPGS” coming from everybody favorite island with a higher living standard than the US, Japan. Now obviously, this is kinda of an “East vs. West” conflict, which is one of those many cultural conflicts between the radically different cultures, but I feel the need to point out that neither genre is exclusive to either region. For example, western games can and often do follow the “Japanese” model, Lord of the Rings the Third Age is a notable example. And while “JRPGS” is a style, Japan isn’t the only video game maker in Asia, South Korea and China are there, through overshadowed by the video game juggernaut that is Japan. Now, while both are RPGs, they have different conventions. Western RPGs are my favorite style of video game out there, and they tend to focus upon wide open style of playing, where the character effects the world around him and makes up his own personality. For example, in Baldur’s Gate, there is a centralized main plot that the player is forced to follow, but the methods in your doing so is left to the player. You have many side missions that you can do in no particular order, which while never actually changing the main plot, subtly effects it. You can chose your own party members and interact with them, you often will have a “good/Evil” path, through the better ones will give you even more options, and you really make up the personality of the character. In short, Western RPGs are about options, and choices, and while some of the lesser ones (Fable) aren’t as good at this, the giants in the genre can offer a massive amount of choices that shape your character, the idea being that it is the player who makes the story happen. Some of the games, such as Mass Effect and Icewind Dale will even have your character design effect the way the game works, such as a character who focuses upon Charisma and diplomacy will have different dialogue options. Most, through not all Western RPGs will allow you to make your own character, and will almost always allow you to alter his actions, thus making it really a “Role Playing Game”. Western titles include, Baldur’s gate, Planescape Torment, Icewind Dale, Fable, Legacy of Kain, Neverwinter Knights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect, The Witcher, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Overlord, Bard’s Tale, Diablo, Knights of the Old Republic, Might and Magic, and Thief are all examples of this, and the debatable example of Warcraft. Now, you might haven noticed two main patterns among these examples. First off, some of the games on the list are literally the best games ever, no exception, and secondly that most of them are kinda old, because many developers have realized that explosions, gore and cleverage sell better than plot and character devolpment. But almost all of the games on that list are amazing, at least the ones I’ve played (Might and Magic can’t comment) with the exception of Fable of course. Ironically, one WRPG I’ve never played, “Wizardry” is apparently huge in Japan, but we have to bear in mind, neither of these are culturally absolutes.

Now JRPGS tend to focus less upon choices and available options, and more upon story and character development. Instead of making your own character and choosing your own paths, and instead you watch a series of pre-made characters who simply go through the plot. Now, when I say it focuses upon story and characters, I’m not saying that Western RPGs are somehow lacking in terms of plot and characters, just that the story details are left up to the player, while in JRPGs the story is much more linear and the characters are already written for you, so the choices are often more minute and subtle. Final Fantasy is the most famous JRPG out there. Now, I dislike JRPGs. I find them tedious, as you are often simply going through a series of cut scenes and just move the pre existing character around and do the fighting. JRPGS are formulaic, and while the formula can and has worked, the fact that the genre relies so much upon the formula just seems primitive to me. JRPGs also tend to be full of my pet peeves, like people wearing absurdly revealing clothes for no reason (WRGPS aren’t innocent of this either through), people being so absurdly good looking that it feels like the graphics matter more than gameplay and story, crazy hair, absurdly young main characters with hard to tell genders, and turned based combat, not to mentioned lazy world design and absurdly over the top weapons and fights (that you see in cute scenes obviously). And also, because the characters are premade, if you don’t like them, well your screwed then, because they aren’t controlled by you. This can become particularly annoying if you want the character to follow a different path, for example, I’d be actually pretty interested in playing a character who serves the cliché evil empire rather than fighting for my generic and shallow motives.

Now, as much as I dislike JRPGs, and the formula they stick to so rigidly, I can’t in good conscious condemn the entire genre to be nothing more than tedious game play and cliché writing, because there are a few that I like. Even through I dislike most of Final Fantasy and what it stands for especially today, I will admit I like a few of the titles, even through I hated FFXII, FFX, FFVIII, FF X-2 (yes, they made a Final Fantasy Ten 2, don’t ask). I liked Tactics and Tactics Advanced, the Crystal Chronicles, and the first 3 games in the franchise, and I fond FFIX and FF XII to be decent. But all of those are not games I’d really love, as I’d never put them in the “RPGs worth recommending” and I more just had a fun time rather than have a great wonderful time. And while I liked Fire Emblem, I’m not sure if that counts as JRPG, so within the JRGP genre, there aren’t very many “Great” games by my standard. In fact, most of the so call “great” games I found to be really primitive and vastly inferior to the biggest hitters in the Western RPG world. And there are so many just bad JRPGs, Lost Odyssey is still the biggest waste of money I’ve ever seen in a video game. Now to be fair, I don’t play JRPGs often, because I’d rather use my money on RPGs that I can have reasonable expectations for a good game, so there are almost certainly some really good titles I’m missing, but for me, there are only two games that prevent me from simply giving up on the genre as a broken formula. FFVI, and Tales of Symphonia. Now the former I don’t own, and I haven’t been able to play it for years, but lets just say it was awesome, and so, after this truly massive introduction explaining my bias, I think this is a good time to review one of the few stable columns that hold the JRPG formula from proving to be a waste of time.

Right, Tales of Symphonia, lets start, and on an actual new page too . Anyways, I have to admit, I’ve never actually played any of the tales series, which is apparently a “different” approach to JRPGs, and if any of them are like Symphonia, I’ll be quite content honestly. Now, it should be noted, that ToS doesn’t break the JRPG story formula, in fact, follows it as rigidly as they come, with the singular exception of combat, and adding in more options than the average JRPG in terms of story. The combat is far more entertaining than turn based, as you have limited control over your characters in terms of fighting, which I gather is a common element of the Tales franchise. But the general JRPG mannerism is readily apparent, so I have to reluctantly conclude that JRPGs can work without being subverted. However, a good deal of the clichés and overused concept are cleverly subverted throughout the game. For example, like most JRPGs, the main character, Lloyd Irving is an overly enthusiastic moron with a short attention span, who is somehow the most moral person in the group, however in ToS, the fact he is a moron is constantly pointed out, and mocked by other party members. The fact he is a legitimately good person comes from him becoming less stupid and more focused, rather than some strange “Dumb people are good” ethic that seems to be prevalent in JRPGs and bad manga (including an infamous orange ninja). And while he is stupid, he isn’t painfully so, and so is actually quite likable, not to mention how, for all of his ignorance, he is rather mature, especially compared to the rest of the cast. Or the plot is very linear and formulaic (with one notable and amazing exception), but a lot of thought goes into the plot and more importantly the presentation, so it doesn’t feel forced or cliché, but instead actually pretty engaging and enjoyable. Ok, I’m getting ahead of myself, lets actually talk about the game?

Tales of Symphonia at first glance seems like a typical cliché story involving a Chosen one, a long epic quest to unlock the elemental seals in order to seal away evil, and a world full of monsters and magic. And, as you will be able to tell almost right away, this is entirely not true, and the plot is in fact a far longer and more elaborate than that, but I’ll save spoilers for the end. The important thing to know is that ToS has an elaborate story that while it doesn’t invent anything, it is still fascinating and wonderfully presented. So if you don’t want spoilers, which is kinda the only way to explain the plot, then know this, it is a shiny gem among the JRPG mine that encourages people like me who don’t like the genre to keep digging...through slowly. I’d go into more detail about the plot and the characters, but honestly, just play it. I will say through, the game has a remarkable sense of humor, which, along with numerous lampshade hangings, makes even the most cliché plot points seem entertaining.

Now for those of you who played the game, or don’t care about spoilers, then just some of my personal notes concerning the story. One thing that struck me was the moral of the story and how, while still very idealistic, was actually pretty thought out, and not quite the typical platitude seen in most video games. The central concept of the story is that people shouldn’t have to sacrifice themselves for a cause, that a truly good person will find a way to do good without sacrificing others, through it is much harder. And I have to say, I kinda like that. I like that the hero rejects not just the sacrifice of innocents, but even people who try to sacrifice themselves. It is absurdly idealistic of course, but the game does acknowledge that, and the massive obstacles faced by somebody who would follow such a path. I mean, if the main characters had simply accepted the need for sacrifice of a single life to save many, and gone along with the unfair system, the game would have been only 1/8 the length as it had been, and they would have been heroes for the rest of their lives, opposed to a massive journey full of hardship and pain. And honestly, while I think the ethics are rather naïve, I agree with it, that it is better to fight against an unfair system than to accept it. Through there are a few inconsistencies, for all of the talk of racism, not much detail goes into the Designs (Half elf Nazis) and how the main characters do kill them pretty nonchalantly (along with the Papal Knights, who only are doing there jobs). But that aside, I like the message of the game, which is rare for a video game to even have a message worth conveying. I also like the dynamic between the Mithos and Lloyd, the latter’s idealism vs. the formers cynicism. Mithos is interesting both in his status as a hero, which is partly legitimate, and his utter apathy for the world around him. He cares about his sister, and gives half hearted effort to caring about his people, but mostly he simply accepts peoples’ weakness as inevitable, and thus doesn’t bother trying to change people, just keep them in check. He deliberately stagnates society and technology because he is convinced that people can’t use power for good, and he tries to rid the world of racism by taking away free will because he thinks people are fundamentally unable to accept each other and doesn’t bother any other way, he dictates who’s lives are sacrificed and whose lives prosper, because he feels human kind can’t take care of themselves (and if this sounds like an Objectivist rant, I assure you, I would never stoop that low). Mithos simply has no faith in anyone but himself and his sister, which might explain his devotion to the latter. Lloyd in contrast, believes in people and has faith in them, and in there ability to change. While Mithos is ultimately alone, Lloyd has 8 other dudes to help him beat people up, and yes, this is a game where the “friendship speech” actually works, shocking as that may be. The whole concept is faith, not in religion per say (which doesn’t really come up much, in a game about angels) but instead in human nature. Now again, Lloyd has the advantage that he is in a situation where people can have faith, opposed to a more complex issue, like say, real politics, but I digress. There are a few nitpicks when it comes to the game, for example, the levels themselves range from painfully tedious to outright infuriating, the wind valley and the sewers being the most painful examples. And I wish they went more into the characters of the pope and the Cruxis, who are only sketched out. But I am nitpicking, in all, the story is astounding. Finally…Zelos. Who I think is the best character in the game series. The moment he is introduced as a foppish ladies man, the audience knows he is more than that and the playboy look is just a disguise, but instead of the pervert who is in fact a gentlemen, I was honestly shocked when it is revealed that he is in fact just an embittered, selfish, self hating cynic in the end, who, like Mithos has little faith in anything. And the thing is, he honestly hides it quite well. When I played through the game the first time, I had no idea about the true nature of his personality, despite numerous hints. It wasn’t until he second play through when it became apparent, in one of the most shocking/emotional traitor scenes I’ve ever seen, especially since you actually kill him. The character is more multi layered than anybody else in the cast, because he is more subtle, you don’t get a sense of his true personality until later, and so he didn’t become my favorite character until my third play through, when I caught all the hints I’ve missed. Just another example of really good writing

So ToS is an example of a very good JRPG, proving that the formula of the genre isn’t inherently bad. But the second question is, while it does prove the formula workable, does it prove it beneficial. And in that I say, no. While it does an excellent job of telling a good story and being a good game, I still can’ in good honesty say that the game is somehow better because the land map is just one avatar walking around, or that combat takes place in some separate world, or that I can’t choose more than two options. In fact, the best part of the game is when you can choose how to influence a single party member. Honestly, ToS isn’t great because of its formula, but because of its writing. The formula doesn’t seem to actually help the game, the game just used it to tell its own story and show its own characters. So yes, JRPGs in there current form can work, but while ToS is amazing and I recommend it to everybody out there (and I hope to play more tales games) it doesn’t debunk the complaints towards JRPGs, it just averts them
From
EE

Remake, EvilElitest's review on Fable Lost Chapters

What if marriage was this easy in real life?

Fable:Lost Chapters, Wasted Time

Well, as most of you know Fable II, the sequel to the popular game Fable, has been released, and in the next few weeks everybody who’s anybody will be commenting on it. So I’m stuck in a bit of a pickle. I’ve only recently gotten Fable II, and I haven’t been able to test it out. So while I want to contribute to the newest fad, I realize that until I finish the game I’m not going to be able to offer an opinion that is actually worth anything. And lets be honest, when everybody is talking about a game, who is going to care what I say when you can listen to Game Informer suck up to Lionhead Studios about how this game is the most revolutionary and immersive RPG in the world for anyone who has never played Elder Scrolls, Neverwinter nights, Torment or Baldur’s Gate. So I, as per norm, will do the most annoying thing possible and take the half way stance. I’ll be on the Fable bandwagon by reviewing the series, but in order to be original and creative (if doing something everybody else did years ago is creative) I’ll review the first game instead. Actually, this isn’t that bad as far as my ideas go, because it not only will remind the people playing the sequel how the first game worked out (or, more accurately, didn’t), it also will let the people who actually had some common sense and avoided the first game to see how it turned out now that everybody is talking about the sequel.

Ok, now as most of you noticed, my description of the series isn’t very flattering. If you haven’t noticed, seriously, you need to improve your reading comprehension skills. I admit, I’m being kinda overly hostile, Fable II hasn’t done anything yet to deserve my wrath, so I really shouldn’t mock it as much, through the first game certainly deserves all the mocking I can give it. Now before we start, I want to address an issue that apparently comes up whenever somebody reviews Fable, “Project Ego”. Basically when the game was first being developed, that apparently famous game designer Peter Douglas Molyneux made a lot of fancy promises, and when Fable didn’t deliver, a lot of gamers got upset and dubbed the game “Project Ego”. Now personally, I don’t see why this was such a big deal, because quite frankly, I expect game designers to exagerate the good qualities of their game, and I’m of the opinion that one should never listen to what designer says about their game. Even if you ignore their monetary self interest in getting you pumped up, they also wouldn’t be making the game if they didn’t think it was the best thing in the history of ever, as only a few game designers have what we call modesty. So I don’t feel that angry when the developers claim that their game allows you to plan murders like no murder simulator ever has before, and it turns out that you are only able to plan virtual assault. What gets me pissed off through is when reviewers who aren’t in the pocket of the gaming companies (they exist) declare the game the best RPG in the history of EvaR, and seem unable to notice the flaws in the game. While I don’t think Fable should be burned at the stake, the way it is so overrated is really annoying.

Fable tries to be the most immersive video game in the world; you can buy your own house, get married, customize your character’s dress, alter your appearance, and choose to be good or evil, etc. A new RPG that goes into uncharted territory, bravely exploring the unknown, challenging the limits of the RPG world by….doing exactly what Elder Scrolls, Baldur’s Gate, and Neverwinter Nights did. Fable’s premise is declared as revolutionary, but it really doesn’t do anything that other games haven’t done before. Now, a game doesn’t have to bring about a new age in gaming to be good, it could take a new spin on things, present an old format in a unique manner, or in the still developing concept of immersive game worlds, it could just try to expand upon the concepts used in later games. But Fable doesn’t do that, any good things that come out of the game (and there are some) are overshadowed by the massive lack of originality. Sticking to a format is fine, but you have to at least expand upon the format, not just blatently copy and reuse it. David Edding’s books may be full of clichés but he makes sure he tells the story well and uses the format in a mature and original manner, while Fable is a bit more like Eragon, which just blatantly rips off other works and doesn’t add anything. It’s like that rip off of “Rear window”, “Disturbia” it just doesn’t bring anything new to the table, and no matter how good your premise is, if you just rehash what other people have done better you’re still just a hack. Alright, I’ve made several accusations, and much as I really do want to claim its bad and leave it at that, I am somewhat obligated to go into detail on the matter.

Right, let’s get started. If you haven’t played the game, well as you can expect, Spoilers below, but nothing really that astounding honestly. The story takes place in the mythical lands of Albion, where you start out as a young boy in a small village. From the get go, it is established that you can choose to be good or evil, though it’s a very simplistic kiddy sort of good and evil; beating up the little girl or returning her teddy bear, that sort of thing. You have to buy a present for your little creepy sister, and then your entire village is destroyed by bandits, and everything goes downhill from there. The hero (who if you haven’t caught on, is you) and is never named throughout the game, is taken to the “Hero’s Guild”, apparently a school for adventuring (don’t worry, I’ll address its absurdities later), and then after a few bug killing tutorials, is let out into the wild. The main feature of the game is that the world reacts to you and you can choose to be good and evil (oh yeah, there is some plot about a dragon, a magic sword, a blind girl and a fighting arena, but I honestly couldn’t care).

Well since I have a long list of complaints, let’s start with Fable’s greatest flaw; immersion. For a game that tries so hard to engage you in its world, it does a very poor job, like the fact that you can’t talk to anybody who isn’t a plot character. NPCs (Non Playable Characters) will wave vaguely and make some comments on your appearance, but the game almost glorifies how unresponsive they are. While the reactions are kinda cool at first, they quickly become annoying because they are so generic. At least when you can talk to NPCs you get to choose when you want to listen to them, but hearing “What a swell bloke” or “He is a scary one that Hero” again and again gets really annoying. This also makes the player not attached to the world, because the world is inhabited by a bunch of obviously generic people who all look and act exactly the same.

“Wait a second EE, most games have masses of emotionally dead NPCs, why is Fable at fault here?”

The thing is while plenty of other games have generic NPCs at least you can interact with them. Take Baldur’s Gate for example, the vast majority of the NPCs are nothing more than random people with the generic name “peasant” or “Guard” or “Understudy”, but despite that the player can approach them and engage them. You can learn interesting stuff from them, and they might comment upon the way you act or the things you’ve done, like how in Jade Empire you can go up to anybody and talk to them about what is going on. Even games I am normally critical of, like most JRPGs (Western elitism ahoy) at least have every random dude give you some nifty fun facts about the world. You can talk with people and have some interaction. It’s not perfect, hardly and it certainly could be improved, but at least it’s something.

Now you can use emotes to communicate with the people around you, with your character making a corresponding action, like flirt, dance, laugh, recite Shakespearian poetry etc, to which the NPCs will react. However this really doesn’t replace the ability to talk to NPCs, because their reactions are so shallow. The first time your hero flirts with a girl it is kinda funny listening to their reaction, but after the third time you’ve pretty much heard all there is. When you fart, dance or flex your muscles, every person’s reaction is pretty much the same as everyone else’s and then the NPC interaction goes from intriguing to absurdly tedious. For example, as a good person learned that making people like you increases your good points. To achieve that all I have to do is wave, dance and smile to people, and just generally act friendly. After doing this for ten minutes everyone in town bloody loved me. When I wear black clothes they hate me, but when I change to something happier, they all love me again, which means either the game can’t handle social skills, or people of Albion are more fickle than the crowd in Julius Caesar. Because it’s so easy to change people’s minds it’s not really worth it.

The worst example of this is the romance part of the game. Now I like the idea of being able to marry any person (Boy or Girl) in the entire game, it’s a nice option and I think if handled maturely it could be to a lot of fun. But because the NPC interaction is so shallow, it’s just boring. Here is how you get married.

1) Either become good looking or have a high renown

2) Walk up to a random woman, literally any women and use the flirt emote four or five times.

3) Give her a ring after buying a house and hey, you’re married.

That’s it. I got married and divorced in three different towns in ten minutes, and if I hadn’t run out of money I could have gotten married to the entire female population Bluebeard style. But at no point in this romantic process can you actually talk to your potential wife. On some level the game is remarkable realistic when it come to the post marriage relationship, the wife just stands in the house complaining about your looks and asking you to buy her stuff for. The husband just neglects her, with almost no real love between them, just like all real life marriages (joke).

One thing that baffled me was the same sex marriage. I like that the option is available, although I didn’t use it, and I have to reluctantly praise the game for including it. But I have to ask, how is homosexuality viewed within the game world? I mean, in the Middle Ages it was considered a sin, and even today it isn’t accepted. I mean, in most states gay marriage isn’t legal. So I was rather curious about why it is so tolerated in the world of Fable. Apparently it’s an acceptable if taboo practice, but nobody seems to comment upon it or explain why it is so tolerated. While people take a little pressing to admit to being gay, when they come out nobody actually does anything about it and there is absolutely no mention of its effect on society. I’d expect that the world of Fable would be fundamentally different from our word, but it isn’t and thus gay marriage, in the end, seems to be just a gimmick.

Now Fable is sold on the idea that you can do pretty much anything, and act the way you want. Yeah, these are all lies. The world is like Legend of Zelda in how linear it is, but unlike Zelda it doesn’t make up for that by being creative. The entire world is just a few cities, with a few roads connecting them. You can’t randomly explore the world, or just wander around, because there is nowhere to go. Compare this to say, Morrowind where one can wander literally anywhere in the world from the get go, Fable also makes the claim that one doesn’t have to follow the main quest. One can do all the side quests, but after those are gone there really isn’t anything else to do unless you want to get married or burn a town to the ground. Now this isn’t necessarily bad, BioWare’s games are very linear, but they give you much more freedom of choice. Take Jade Empire. In every chapter before moving on to the main quest, you can do a lot of side quests within a limited area. The biggest difference between Jade Empire and Fable is that the former’s quests tend to be really in depth, like when you have to help fix the love life of the town’s local mobster, while Fable’s are really simple; go here and kill that guy.

I like in Fable how people react to your appearance, despite how shallowly it is implemented. The many different hair styles, tattoos, and clothing designs are a great idea and one of the few things that Fable has to offer that Elder Scrolls would be better off with. Ok, the most badass thing this game has to offer is the voice acting. No, I’m serious; the game has really good voice acting. This might be my inner Anglophile speaking, but the fact that most of the voice actors are British really does go a long way towards making mediocre dialogue really good. I mean I want to kidnap their voice team and force them to be the random voice actors in every game from now on. The only game who’s random people have such good voices that I can think of (and correct me if I’m wrong) is Jade Empire, which has a much smaller cast, and a little behind Baldur’s Gate, which had a more limited number of phrases. The voice acting alone almost forgives the game for all of its other faults. However, despite the great voices, the actual reactions makes it all for not, what a waste.

The absolute worst problem with the game is the alignment system, which makes every edition of D&D look as coherent and comprehendible as the legal system in Russia. Now Fable has this idea that your actions affect your appearance, so a good person will get a halo and butterflies whereas a villain will get horns and creepy skin. Once you get past the gut reaction of disdain, it’s actually quite a cool idea. I mean, imagine if your actions physically changed your appearance, how cool a concept would that be? Good and evil would be viewed in a totally different manner, and people’s way of thinking would change drastically. Even if 1% of the population in Fable had this ability it would be a very interesting feature; the idea that a person’s appearance reveals their inner soul. You could do a lot with that idea, like having a church where the “Halo people” are their saints, and people being very upfront and honest about what kind of people they are because they can’t hide it.

But despite being one of Fable’s most original ideas, they don’t do anything with it. First off, nobody else seems to change like you do, which is disappointing considering how much interaction you could have with other characters in the game. Also nobody really comments on it. Oh they will cower when they see your evil version or feel happy when they see the good you, but nobody goes “hey, that bloke looks like a demonic freak” or “Look daddy an angel.” And nobody tried to burn me at the stake, which I felt very offended by.

But there are bigger problems with the logic of the alignment system itself. One questionable feature is that killing a trader costs you 12 evil points, while killing a farmer cost more? Are farmers more pure than merchants? Is growing food some holy task, while peddling merchandise is somehow evil? And if that’s the case, how is killing the bandit chief after he surrenders more evil than killing a single farmer? I mean, I can see it being evil, but wouldn’t it be less evil than murdering an innocent farmer? Or why is stealing an apple worth eight evil points, but assaulting somebody is worth only two evil points? Bloody hell, how does that make any sense? Also why is divorce evil? Can somebody please explain how realizing that a marriage isn’t going to work and leaving your wife evil? Many of my friends’ parents are divorced, some of my grandparents are divorced, and none of them are evil. And here is the kicker, divorcing your wife earns you more evil points than killing her? Who says video games undermine society’ morals.

Another gripe I have with this system is the fact that killing bandits is considered good. Yeah, it sounds nice, but think about it for a second. Saving merchants? Ok, that’s good. Protecting a village from an attack? Good. Stopping bandits from threatening others? Ok. But why would killing them in self defense be good or evil? Here is an example. My evil character was walking down the road when he ran across some traders, and killed them for no logical reason. Then he was suddenly attacked by a dozen bandits, and after he finished them off, he found he actually had more good points than before the massacre. By the time he got strong enough to wipe whole villages off the map, he had killed so many monsters that it took ages to get him his horns, and then I had to literally run through bands of enemies to avoid losing them. It was really silly when I wanted to do non evil quests, and kept getting good points. When you’re getting paid to kill people, is it really good that you saved the farm, since you were only in it for the money? The “good” thing would be refusing money and saving people for its own sake, but apparently I was good even though I was obviously in it for the money.

The Fable morality system is simplistic and immature. They reduce good and evil to basic numbers, and completely ignore the subtly of human interactions, making playing good for its own sake somewhat unrewarding. I mean, in well constructed morality game, like Jade Empire or Baldur’s Gate, there is a reason to be evil as it’s much more profitable, but I prefer to play good in those games because I actually feel guilty when I hurt the people in those game, because they are so well developed. However in Fable the characters are so lifeless and unappealing that slaughtering them all like McDonald’s chickens is actually enjoyable and I feel no pangs of guilt when I take them to the temple of Skorn to be slaughtered.

It is not a smart idea to make good and evil have equal value in the context of a point system. The nature of good and evil is much too complex to be represented by a such a simplistic construct and it misses the whole point of why players choose to be either good or evil in a video game. For me I like to be good because I want the challenge of being held to a higher standard, and I like to be evil because I enjoy the chaotic thrill of having no standards. Evil people can be expected to do good things pretty often, because it’s in their interest to do them, it furthers their evil plans and it sets up the evil things that they do later to be even more dramatically evil. So by making good and evil a question of numbers it turns morality into a dull two dimensional Sunday sermon and thus really not worth paying attention too.

Bioware uses a number scale in their games, but they handle it in a more mature way, where the numbers aren’t the motivation for change, it’s the reaction of the supporting characters to your good or evil acts. Being evil isn’t about being a serial killer, its about being smart and thinking of number one, but being good honestly feels more satisfying in Bioware games because the NPCs and the world itself are more responsive to you. In Baldur’s Gate, I gain something from being evil more than just “evil points” but I actually feel bad about myself in the process.

Fable was sold on the idea that it was “non linear”, where you free to effect the game as you please, where the plot is determined wholely by your actions. What a load of bull! Fable is one of the most linear Western RPG I’ve ever played. The “choices” you make are essentially the same, you can either kick the puppy or give all your money to the puppy. The game promises a totally difference experience every time you play, but when I played my second evil game, it was exactly the same except the peasants cowered instead of clapping. Hell, even the “Good only” and “Evil only” benefits are exactly the same. While I didn’t get the holy sword thing in my evil file, I just got the evil giant uber-weapon, so it was all-good. I couldn’t do the saving the merchant quest, but I just did the exact opposite and killed a bunch. And while I couldn’t use the good guy spells, I could use the evil ones that were mostly exactly the same but glowed red instead of blue. And the plot is exactly the same no matter what you do. Apart from good and evil points, there is literally no bloody difference if I save my sister or let her die (spoilers, or wait too late).

Now being linear isn’t in itself bad. I like Baldur’s Gate more than Elder Scrolls, because it compensates for its lack of freedom with a really astounding story. Fable’s plot, on the other hand, is cliché and reads like fan fiction, there is nothing there that you haven’t seen before. A weak story line is OK for a game like Oblivion, because of the immensity and overwhelming detail of its world. Fable’s world, in comparison, is very small, very generic and very controlled and doesn’t feel at all engaging.

Ok, time to give Fable some credit here; the game actually isn’t totally bad. It’s just over hyped. If I had to give Fable a “score” I’d give it a 73, like a test grade. It had all the proper requirements, but no real depth and sloppy management. What Fable does have is a great sense of humor. The game is almost worth playing simply to listen to the NPC comments (at least until they get old) and read the in game books, because they are really very clever. Sadly, like most of the games elements, for all the good clever humor, there is a lot of bad crass humor that weights it down (basically it’s a bit like Harold and Kumar), but I’ve heard that Fable II avoids this. There are other cool ideas, but most of them are so minor. I like the fact that you can age, something almost no RPG has every gotten around to doing. I also like how you can regain your youth using the temples. But that’s undermined by the fact that you only age when you level up, which is a horrible mechanic. I mean first off it doesn’t make any bloody sense because I can walk around without leveling up for a real life year without aging a day, then age 4 decades in 1 minute. Secondly it punishes you for getting more powerful, which is a moronic concept.

Right, so I think the Demon Doors are the only good idea in Fable that is actually implemented properly. For those of you who don’t know, Demon Doors are basically giant faces in doors that keep you from entering certain caves unless you perform a task for them. For example one of them won’t let you in unless you defeat a certain amount of monsters, another will only let fat people in, another will only let somebody who’s slept with a few dozen women in etc. Their voices are great and very funny, particularly the one with a fetish for fat people and they were the only reason I felt obligated to finish the game twice in order to open them all. I really do look forward to them in Fable II.

Um, the monsters are actually pretty cool. Balverines, Trolls, Nymphs, and Hobbes are actually pretty cool, both in their appearance and mannerisms, but that really is all there is to them. They don’t have any real detail, background or content other than “random enemy” which is really annoying when it comes to nymphs and Hobbes, who are clearly intelligent and could be really interesting parts of the game but instead are just random monsters, which is really disappointing. As for graphics, I normally don’t give a damn about the graphics, so I don’t have much to say about Fable’s. Generally speaking they are serviceable, not spectacular. The weapons I have to say are really cool looking. Ok the way they are all out of proportion isn’t great, but that doesn’t change the fact they are really cool in design. I have a weapons fetish I admit, but I think they did a great job with the maces/hammers, and a remarkable job with the cleavers and the weird great swords. My only weapon complaints are that the crossbows are creepy looking, and finally….the katana. Now I’m not saying it doesn’t look cool, because it does, but that thing isn’t a katana. It doesn’t even resemble one. Did they just call it one for the ninja crowd? Weird. Anyways, good weapons and I like the augmentation system.

Alright, here is my Conclusion. Despite the game’s many, and I mean, many faults, it can be kinda fun. It does what it is suppose to and lets you manage your character within a limited scope. While it fails to reach almost all of its expectations (voice acting being the exception), it never falls to the level “bad”, except for NPC reaction. An appealing part of Fable is that it doesn’t take itself too seriously as a game. Now I’m reluctant to allow its sense of humor to be an excuse for its flaws, namely because it wasn’t advertised as a parody game like Bard’s Tale, but was instead was sold as the best RPG. But its humor does make you forgive some of its failings. If I had to sum this review up in one sentence, I’d say “Fails to live up to its hype, but is fun in small doses”.

from

EE