Fable 3

[Thrik]

Oh, no I don't use the map as an actual map. I've kind of gotten used to never having a map in Fable though, so always use landmarks and such to work my way around. I really just see the map as an interface for various things that were done through menus in Fable 1 & 2, not an actual map.

[toblix]

This game is terrible, but in a magical way. It runs on a core of 100% pure shit, but also has some stuff that makes me play it, like:

• Getting the achievements I've already invested so much time in.
  
• Nothing else
  

It's incredible that someone can – for the third time – release something as half-assed as this and not only get away with it, but get great reviews as well. It must be a combination of extreme production value in some very specific areas like:

• Voice acting
  
• Nothing else
  

If you smash Fable 3 against a desk and examine all the bits and pieces, none of them are really very good, like:

• Combat
  
• User interface
  
• Quests
  
• Pacing
  
• Character development
  

Just like Fable 2, there's lots of stuff, but it doesn't mesh – there's a bunch of systems seemingly developed by different teams and then hastily integrated into a running binary days before release. It's not unstable, it hasn't crashed on me, but it has both a goods trading system based on supply and demand in the various villagers – a system I'm sure nobody but the game testers ever bothered exploring (and even then only when explicitly told to) – and the worst minimap ever wrought (in a game about exploring!).

[Irishjohn]

Yeah, the Fable games are weird. I'm not even going near Fable 3, to be honest. I liked the first one quite a lot, although it was a fairly massive let-down compared to what it was supposed to be. Fable 2 was ok, but I didn't see what all the fuss was about at all.

I do wonder how these games get decent reviews. I really believe that not having to pay for your games, or at least not having to budget them into a life with other expenses, colours how some reviews pan out. I mean, a lot of us on this forum will drop a fair bit of money on a game that doesn't review all that well but is an interesting experience, but that doesn't mean we can all play everything. I certainly can't. I look at Fable 3 and I just don't see why I should blow the sixty dollars on it.

[juv3nal]

It's incredible that someone can – for the third time – release something as half-assed as this and not only get away with it, but get great reviews as well. It must be a combination of extreme production value in some very specific areas like:

• Voice acting
  
• Nothing else
  

That's a bit unfair. It has gotten better reviews than it's deserved from some sites, sure, but they haven't been uniformly great reviews (notably, 3/5 gamespy & giantbomb and 5.5/10 destructoid).

Plus, on top of the voice acting, I think the environments are pretty nice-looking even if they are largely devoid of anything interesting to do in them. They're not pushing any boundaries technically or anything, but I think they're well designed from a visual standpoint (although not, it should be noted, anything hugely improved from the environments in fable 2).

edit: also someone needs to let Peter know that you get a pass on 1 "collect x thingies" quest per game, but gnomes, books, AND flowers is totally uncalled for.

Edited December 8, 2010 by juv3nal