Fable gets....... at gamespot

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

mm explain himself...    you been smoking pot dood?

amen

Originally posted by Ginko
I\'ve...

Heh, two things. One, the orgasm quote claim was unfounded. I made it up as an exaggerated example of the truth and lied about a link because I thought it was obviously false. Two, your posts give me a headache.

The fact is they\'ve been working on Fable for a long time and the final thing does not reflect that period. To make that point simpler, we\'ll generalize. "Despite working on it forever, Fable sucks."

Leading into it, one might have thought that with all the time they put into it, there\'d be something to show for it.

That would be what we call common sense.

But not in this case. Because for common sense to apply, we\'re assuming that the developers were doing something productive during that lengthy development cycle. In Fable\'s case, after five years, the game still looks rushed, unfinished, and not fully realized.

The developers wanted to achieve more, but weren\'t able to. I wanted to play something better, but I\'m not able to.

Understand?

The point is Fable is decent, but not great. The development time would lead one to think otherwise, but let\'s not forget the point: that Fable is not great.

What\'s the big deal? There isn\'t one.

It\'s just another average, run-of-the-mill, play-it-and-forget-it game.

When I drop $50 on a game, I look for something better.

...

And then when I find it, it\'s glitched or my goddamn PS2 craps out... Arrgh...


Anyway, as for sales numbers, I don\'t use them to judge quality. I use the game to judge quality and sales to judge how well something sells.

I use other\'s opinions to sometimes save myself from wasting $50 by trying to gauge if I\'d like the game beforehand. Five years ago, Fable sounded great. Now, it doesn\'t.

-Dan

Originally posted by Eiksirf
Heh, two things. One, the orgasm quote claim was unfounded. I made it up as an exaggerated example of the truth and lied about a link because I thought it was obviously false. Two, your posts give me a headache.

I would say I\'m sorry, but...

The fact is they\'ve been working on Fable for a long time and the final thing does not reflect that period. To make that point simpler, we\'ll generalize. "Despite working on it forever, Fable sucks."

How do you judge any game based on development time?  When you break it down by genre do you have to break it down by features?  Number of people working on it?

If said game takes longer than set time should I assume it\'s because the developers are making it better?  How do I tell if it\'s simply a delay?

The development time rests on the developers\' shoulders, not ours.  They had to put in the time to make it, we simply got to read about it until now.  I suppose one could consider it a burden...no matter how ridiculous that might sound.

The reviewers managed to judge the game based on its\' merits and faults...not on the shoulda/coulda/woulda.  

I don\'t think I could be a gamer if I judged every game by what might have been, I\'d be in a constant state of disappoinment.  Then again I\'d have no one to blame but myself...I might turn out like mm. /shudders  

Leading into it, one might have thought that with all the time they put into it, there\'d be something to show for it.

That would be what we call common sense.

But not in this case. Because for common sense to apply, we\'re assuming that the developers were doing something productive during that lengthy development cycle. In Fable\'s case, after five years, the game still looks rushed, unfinished, and not fully realized.

There is something to show for it, you can go out and buy Fable right now if you wanted to.

How much of that development cycle did you sit in on?  Did they make you get their coffee or something?  I can\'t think of any other reason why you would complain about it?  

The developers wanted to achieve more, but weren\'t able to.

And the game turns out to garner an average 9.0 regardless.  Again, what\'s the big deal on development time?

I wanted to play something better, but I\'m not able to.

Understand?

What are you comparing it to?  I suppose it doesn\'t matter as your grounds for argument would be entirely subjective.

The point is Fable is decent, but not great. The development time would lead one to think otherwise, but let\'s not forget the point: that Fable is not great.

What\'s the big deal? There isn\'t one.

Who made it a big deal in the first place?  It seems that you and mm are the ones who can\'t seem to get around the idea that Fable should be judged on what it is, not what it isn\'t.  You either enjoy it or you don\'t, like any other game.  

It\'s just another average, run-of-the-mill, play-it-and-forget-it game.

When I drop $50 on a game, I look for something better.

Again, subjective.

And then when I find it, it\'s glitched or my goddamn PS2 craps out... Arrgh...

boo hoo...Welcome to the age of technology, so glad you could join the rest of us.

Anyway, as for sales numbers, I don\'t use them to judge quality. I use the game to judge quality and sales to judge how well something sells.

This entire post tells me that\'s BS.

Opinions are subjective. My opinion is Fable isn\'t good enough.

Fable also proves that development time doesn\'t neccesarily relate to quality.

That\'s all I\'ve been saying, and I think mm, too. How it gets so wordy, I don\'t know.

-Dan

Originally posted by Eiksirf
Fable also proves that development time doesn\'t neccesarily relate to quality.

It doesn\'t necessarily reflect anything.

That\'s all I\'ve been saying, and I think mm, too. How it gets so wordy, I don\'t know.

-Dan

You just tried to justify why someone should consider development time when judging the game.

mm has been telling us that the game is a turd and that the sales will reflect the failure of the game without so much as playing it.  You do not share common ideas with mm on this one, you\'d know that if you bothered to read the whole thread.

Opinions are subjective. My opinion is Fable isn\'t good enough.

Good enough in what regards?  What might have been?  How does one judge something they never had?

Originally posted by Ginko
Good enough in what regards?  What might have been?  How does one judge something they never had?

Oh, I see your point. Fable is awesome.

-Dan

Originally posted by Eiksirf
Oh, I see your point. Fable is awesome.

-Dan

I don\'t think you do.  

I haven\'t once said that Fable is awesome, I\'ve refered to the reviews everytime...which happen to be synonomous.  My conclusion is that Fable is not a bad game, perhaps not for everyone but in no way a poor game.

By all means, judge the game for yourself.  Halberto said he didn\'t like the game, that\'s fine by me.

The idea of judging a game with what would/could, even given time, is hardly substantial...it\'s just silly.

btw, have you even played Fable or were you just riding on mm\'s ass?

i played black and white
therefore, i played fable

lol, your really going on quite a bit of a stretch there mm

really?

overly hyped, long delayed, peter M title

which game am i speaking of?

Originally posted by mm
i played black and white
therefore, i played fable

Man thats one of the stupiest comments I ve ever heard from you :eek:

Originally posted by mm
it has flopped, 5 years of hype for 240k in sales?  i could put a turd in a green box call it xbox exclusive and it would sell that little.

what was the last xbox title to sell a million in a week, btw?

this was supposed to be the be all-end all of RPG gaming dont forget

this coming from the man who hates blockbuster movies and constantly has to tell us how stupid we are for looking at movies that the grand public watches, kind of hypocritical don\'t you think?

If I don\'t like something because there\'s not enough there, that makes perfect sense. Imagine if Grand Theft Auto Vice City had one house, two bad guys, and one mission.

If it still played exactly as it does now, it should be great, right? No, it\'d suck because there was nothing to it. We\'d say that if they added an entire city and made a ton more missions and side quests, then it\'d be great.

That\'s like Fable. What\'s there shows the potential of greatness, but it\'s not fully realized.

Reviews I\'ve read point out how you can\'t fully explore the world and make obvious how the role playing aspects are superficial. You can blow right through the game or you can putz around pissing off little children and wooing ladies, but in the end it doesn\'t matter.

I also find the graphics a bit lacking and think the character changes are pretty silly. A bit more evolution in character would have been nice. Tattoos and horns don\'t do much for me.

Remember, I\'m juding Fable by what is there. That\'s why I\'m not impressed. What should or could be there would have made it better.

And no I haven\'t played it. Can\'t afford to, heh. But I\'ve already said that fun doesn\'t mean good. I\'m still finishing up Pirates: The Legend of Black Kat by EA and despite questionable controls and repetitive gameplay and environments, I\'m enjoying it most all the time.

-Dan