-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
First Fable Review??? (Maybe, maybe not. Decide for yourself)
- Thread starter sonycowboy
- Start date
- Status
deadhorse32
Bad Art
HAHAHA 9 hours. It's getting better.
JackFrost2012
Banned
bloke said:
Most people won't finish it that quickly ... but if you rush through it and ignore most of the sidequests, well...
I'd like that, actually. That's probably just if you rush through the game, not doing any of the optional stuff. For instance, you could probably finish Shenmue in the same amount of time if you didn't explore the town.bloke said:
Since a large part of Fable's appeal is structured around seeing the way your choices affect the story, world, and the character's development, it would be detrimental if the game were too long. I don't want to have to wait forever to see each alternate scenario.
That is not the point, I will repeat it. You can´t ignore a review based on your opinion of the magazine or the reviewer. If you are going to say that GMR review of Fable is biased, you have to add something more than your personal opinion about old reviews.
This thread is completely absurd until there is a text (actually I only see an score and few sentences), and until the game is out and you can judge yourself. No matter what old reviews you disagree, but if you whant to be fair, you will judge this work, not the personal taste of the review or the tendence of the magazine.
If GMR put it an 8, it will be because something (wrong or right from your own point of view, that doen´t matter), and that something is in the text that some people here is blaming without reading it, based on something as stupid as a score and the personal preferences of the reviewer, whitout give him a chance to show his work.
I will rise here a question, if you don´t believe on objective reviews, why do you want to see gamespot review? because it fits better with your opinion?, it makes you feel better? what a waste... If I were you, I wouln´t read any magazine review anymore.
chaostrophy
Member
Blazing Sword said:
He said he finds straight military games creepy and wrong. Halo isn't a straight military game, it's squarely in the realm of science fiction.
As for the cover...the pink is nice and in-your-face and the photocopy effect is nifty. But the standard GMR logo/game title fonts clash with the retro look, they're too modern and high-tech. Something stencil-ish or handwritten would have been better. Also, when I think of punk/new wave, I think of something fresh, surprising and somewhat underground. Fable and DOAU are both hugely hyped big releases- not punk at all. A punk-styled cover would be a better fit for a game like Katamari Damacy or Alien Hominid. Though GMR does get credit with me for trying something new, and for being overall one of the best-looking gaming magazines around (along with Play and XBN).
JackFrost2012
Banned
chaostrophy said:
This is neither here nor there, and if people REALLY want to discuss it, we should start another thread instead of cluttering up this one. But Christian's point (which I happen to agree with) is that there's something fundamentally creepy about shooting virtual Charlie while listening to the Rolling Stones. Developers brag about going out of their way to make their games as "true to life" and unpleasant as possible. What's next ... NPC "friendlies" raping villagers while you watch on, helpless to intervene? Virtual and imaginary battlefields are one thing, but the oversimplification and exploitation of real, recent conflicts for entertainment value isn't something I approve of.
Shooting imaginary alien forces, on the other hand, is a-okay!
Catchpenny
Member
pilonv1 said:
It was a while back, but I sure seem to recall plenty of Xbots cheering on the madness in the MK: DD thread. Anihawk makes a good point...this is already an 11 page thread using the old default.
I wonder which game's fanboys will have the more ridiculous standard for review scores: Halo 2 or Teh Mature Zelda?
Catchpenny said:It was a while back, but I sure seem to recall plenty of Xbots cheering on the madness in the MKD thread. Anihawk makes a good point...this is already an 11 page thread using the old default.
I wonder which game's fanboys will have the more ridiculous standard for review scores: Halo 2 or Teh Mature Zelda?
if both of them arent 10/10s people will go crazy.
open_mouth_
insert_foot_
Who would you pick in a fight to the death and why...
8/10 or C- or 6.8???
Or better yet, who would you want to be pissed at you the least for severely underrating their game...
Itagaki or Molyneux???
sheeeeet, these are tough questions.
(edited for accuracy)
8/10 or C- or 6.8???
Or better yet, who would you want to be pissed at you the least for severely underrating their game...
Itagaki or Molyneux???
sheeeeet, these are tough questions.
(edited for accuracy)
funcojoe said:
The first time I played and beat Fable it took more than nine hours. Nine hours is sort of a barebones playthrough.
As for the story, well, I have no desire to get into specifics. For me, the best part of Fable was not its story but rather how the player defines it.
open_mouth_
insert_foot_
Disco Stu said:
what would you rate the game if you had to? Does 8/10 sound reasonable?
JackFrost2012
Banned
Redbeard said:
Hil from IGN also has difficulty talking about games without referencing his erect and throbbing member.
Catchpenny
Member
Redbeard said:
It takes longer to play through when the view of your television is blocked by stacks of money and a Peter Molyneux blow-up doll.
Eh, I'll trust Nutt's word on this. I enjoy most of his reviews (anime wise anyways), and will be buying Fable regardless anyways. Besides, if it wasn't for him, I wouldn't have been turned on to Kare Kano (this isn't true, the series would have kicked my ass regardless, but he got my ass properly prepared for the...kick ^^).
Geez... a really hyped game gets a "good but not excellent" score and people start freaking out... I could understand if Fable got a 6/10 or so, but an 8 is still a good score. I'm still pretty interested in playing this, I mean did anybody here REALLY expect the game to be the end all be all game? I sure didn't... And it's good to have a few sobering scores every now and then.
It's just a review, don't take it so seriously - Christian gave SO3, a game I've been eagerly anticipating for 3 or 4 years now and sequel to my favorite game ever, a 7/10... doesn't mean I want to rip his head off. People's opinions on games differ - just look at all the people who spend all this money on crap every day.
I'm really surprised that Burnout 3 and NASCAR got such a high score from the mag... My brother has the first Burnout, looks pretty much like generic, uninspiring shovelware. Then again I'm no racing game fan
It's just a review, don't take it so seriously - Christian gave SO3, a game I've been eagerly anticipating for 3 or 4 years now and sequel to my favorite game ever, a 7/10... doesn't mean I want to rip his head off. People's opinions on games differ - just look at all the people who spend all this money on crap every day.
I'm really surprised that Burnout 3 and NASCAR got such a high score from the mag... My brother has the first Burnout, looks pretty much like generic, uninspiring shovelware. Then again I'm no racing game fan
Gaijin To Ronin said:
Gamespot is the review site I trust the most, as they USSUALLY are closest to what I think myself. This is based on the games ive played in the past, though its never a guarantee for any 1 game, GMR included.
I agree that sometimes the review text is the most significant part of a review, but often times in GMR the text is so short for a review that we get nothing more than a paragragh of unspecific complaints. The big games ussually have more meat in their review.
I dont know what your problem is in what Im saying, I think there magazine is pro japanese and anti MS. I get annoyed after reading there magazine, thats because I only have an xbox and feel they dis the platform often. I have read a year of there magazine now and would prefer a different opinion.
The one I like the best is gamerankings, but when a game has just come out and im thinking of falling for the hype and dont want to wait for 3 weeks before enough reviews have piled in, then I trust gamespot the most. Though there biased in their own ways, its more likely i will agree with them then GMR based on past results.
An 8 is a good score for MOST games, but not for top notch aaa games.
For all you people who wonder whats wrong with an 8, what do you think would happen if gamespot or ign gave any one of the below games an 8
Grand theft auto 4
halo 2
metal gear solid 3
gran turismo 4
metroid prime 2
half life 2
All hell will break out on these forums, and we would have the same outrage, and the same people saying your all freaking out about an 8, its a good score.
Armed and Dangerous got an 8, its not a bad game, but whether gmr likes it or not they doll out 8s every issue. Fable was not suppose to be another game.
If Fable averages an 8 at gamerankings then its a failure because its suppose to be a flagship title like halo 2.
Another game that has averaged an 8 at gamerankings is Brute Force.
I hate it when people pretend that they dont understand why people respond to reviews that got lower than expected/hoped for scores.
For all you people who wonder whats wrong with an 8, what do you think would happen if gamespot or ign gave any one of the below games an 8
Grand theft auto 4
halo 2
metal gear solid 3
gran turismo 4
metroid prime 2
half life 2
All hell will break out on these forums, and we would have the same outrage, and the same people saying your all freaking out about an 8, its a good score.
Armed and Dangerous got an 8, its not a bad game, but whether gmr likes it or not they doll out 8s every issue. Fable was not suppose to be another game.
If Fable averages an 8 at gamerankings then its a failure because its suppose to be a flagship title like halo 2.
Another game that has averaged an 8 at gamerankings is Brute Force.
I hate it when people pretend that they dont understand why people respond to reviews that got lower than expected/hoped for scores.
Flatbread said:
jesus, are you still going on about this point? why don't you give it a rest, AAA-hype-patrol. just because all hell breaks loose in fandom when an anticipated game -deservingly- gets an 8 (or whatever score it receives) doesn't make it right or intelligent. and in the end, isn't that why we're all here? why don't you harp on that instead?
----
http://chespace.1up.com
Dagless M.D.
Member
Lets keep this idiot train moving, I petition GA to give Fable a C-, cant have other people stealing this places reputation
JackFrost2012
Banned
Flatbread said:
So what you're saying is that Fable getting an 8 is the fault of the reviewer for failing to match pre-release hype perception, and not the fault of Big Blue Box for producing a game that may, in fact, be an 8.
HEAD. HURT.
DOA: U got a 9. A 9!
I would've expected DOA: U and Fable's scores to be reversed actually.
*add fuel to the fire*
And Good God, Mr. Editors, take it easy. You're going to explode or spontaneously combust if you keep insulting everyone that disagrees or thinks your rating system is skewed towards the high side of it.
Though, to disagree with the review, you'd have to own Ms. Cleo's psychic powers.
And yes, the moment Halo 2 gets a score lower than 9, I'll be there with the popcorn stand.
I would've expected DOA: U and Fable's scores to be reversed actually.
*add fuel to the fire*
And Good God, Mr. Editors, take it easy. You're going to explode or spontaneously combust if you keep insulting everyone that disagrees or thinks your rating system is skewed towards the high side of it.
Though, to disagree with the review, you'd have to own Ms. Cleo's psychic powers.
And yes, the moment Halo 2 gets a score lower than 9, I'll be there with the popcorn stand.
- Status