Fable, Why the Criticism?

stealth toilet

Moderator
Ok, I've been playing Fable for almost 10 hours now. My character hasn't fallen over and died of old age yet, in fact, I've married two wives since, so he must be reasonably verial. And from what I can tell, he's not going to have a cardiac arrest anytime soon. So that leaves me to question some of the criticism that was handed on to this game. I mean, from what I understand I've still got a fair number of quests to go through. I'm on the verge of getting some kickin rad armor and weaponry, but I don't have a ton of money and I'm nowhere near maxing out any of my experience attributes. I've also got several places that I haven't even explored, quests I haven't completed, and demon doors I haven't even begun to gain access to. I've yet to unlock any silver key treasure chests, and there's a whole island on the map that I haven't even gotten to yet, that is assuming I ever will.So what I'm wondering is why did I hear a bunch of comments about this game being a short one? Most games I've played recently take about 10 hours to beat, even collecting the extras. I've barely scratched the surface of this game and I'm already 10 hours into it.

The only thing I can come up with is that people played this game just for the quests, which really haven't been a big deal for me. Before every quest I usually make sure all my armor and weaponry is up to date, that I've upgraded my experience points, checked in with the wife, haggled a few deals, had a few rounds at the bar, and have explored every area I now felt confident I could survive in. Then after each quest I always had fun seeing what new items were available, finding the cheapest price, stocking up on supplies, checkin in with the wife, and running a few side quests and whatnot on the side. Arguably I don't need to do any of that, thus making the game considerably shorter, but many great games can be beaten fairly quickly if that's all that one tries to achieve. Plus, this is a game that's meant to be played through several times in different ways. I know for myself being an evil character next time is going to be a lot of fun, and also playing through as a thief or merchant will be ver interesting. Even if playing through each time only took me 6 hours, that's still 18 hours worth of enjoyment from one game!

I dunno, to me the criticism seems unwarranted. I mean, SMB3 can be beat in like 10 minutes (well, I'll say a good half hour for us regular folk, maybe 1 hour to be safe) if that's all you want to accomplish. But playing through the whole game is a much longer, and more enjoyable, experience. To me, that's what Fable is like. I could just stick to the quests and "beat" the game, but there's so much more I can do in the game, and so much more fun that I can have, why would I limit myself to the quests?
 
I've played Fable for many hours and my character stopped aging eventually. I don't believe you can die of old age. I think the aging mainly affects peoples reaction to you and your own appearance. I agree if you play only for the quests it can be over quickly, if that's what your after. I had 20+ hours into The Lost Chapters. 8)
 
I just don't like being "baited" and then getting the old "switch". Seriously, I remember them hyping this game to be the most epic RPG since Morrowind. Basically it was advertised as being like Morrowind in gameplay {i.e super long, open ended game} only with superb graphics. But let's see the huge difference here, MW=300+ hours gameplay set within a 10 sq mi area of game world compared to Fable=10-20 hours set within a pretty small, somewhat linear game world. And it's not so much a rag on Fable itself, I was just upset at the pr guy or whoever it was that kept comparing this game to MW and saying it was going to be uber epic.
 
x2 said:
I just don't like being "baited" and then getting the old "switch". Seriously, I remember them hyping this game to be the most epic RPG since Morrowind. Basically it was advertised as being like Morrowind in gameplay {i.e super long, open ended game} only with superb graphics. But let's see the huge difference here, MW=300+ hours gameplay set within a 10 sq mi area of game world compared to Fable=10-20 hours set within a pretty small, somewhat linear game world. And it's not so much a rag on Fable itself, I was just upset at the pr guy or whoever it was that kept comparing this game to MW and saying it was going to be uber epic.

Well it's not really the PR guys fault. That's what the developers were aiming for and couldn't pull it off. If anybody is to blame it's the developers for not being able to deliver.
 
The game was horribly short. I did EVERYTHING in the game, and my play time was 11 hours.

The biggest problem was they advertised this game as having it all, you know, and it was really a crappy action RPG.
 
I just don't like being "baited" and then getting the old "switch". Seriously, I remember them hyping this game to be the most epic RPG since Morrowind. Basically it was advertised as being like Morrowind in gameplay {i.e super long, open ended game} only with superb graphics. But let's see the huge difference here, MW=300+ hours gameplay set within a 10 sq mi area of game world compared to Fable=10-20 hours set within a pretty small, somewhat linear game world. And it's not so much a rag on Fable itself, I was just upset at the pr guy or whoever it was that kept comparing this game to MW and saying it was going to be uber epic.

Fair enough. Actually my biggest comlaint with the game is the trails you have to follow. I think the game would be nearly perfect if say, the orchard, were an actual orchard you could walk around in, not just a path you could walk through with an orchard on either side.

However, I do find the game to be magnificently epic, at least, for my standards. I love the music and the beautiful world that they created. Even if I can only look at the orchard from behind a fence, looking at it is still pretty sweet.

The game was horribly short. I did EVERYTHING in the game, and my play time was 11 hours.

To me it really seems like a fantasy GTA, you get out of it what you put into it. They give the player all the tools they need to make their own fun, which I like. Doing just the missions in GTA probably wouldn't take you that long. And if you tried to do all the sidequests and whatnot too I still bet the actual play time would be relatively short, but half the fun of the game comes from not doing what you're supposed to. Perhaps I should look into Morrowind sometime, and see what a "truly epic, open-ended" game plays like.
 
But, in my opinion messing around in GTA is fun. In Fable, errr, not so fun. Killing hordes of guards singlehandedly isn't like in GTA, where I just like seeing how deep I can get myself in and then out of.
 
I didn't have Fable too long before it was stolen, but I loved jus walkin up to people as a kid and punchin em right in the gut. :D
 
Fable is one of the best Xbox Games there is,with al the stuff you can do,and all ther weapons,and all diffrent types of enemies you can fight,i took the role of an evil wizard,he has a dark will power robe on,and he knows every spell there is,and there all maxed out.
 
I don't think it was criticized for being a bad game, though. Most of the criticism was that it was short and that it wasn't what Peter Molyneux had made it out to be. I mean there were people saying it was going to be a huge rpg and a Zelda killer and all this stuff. It just got way overhyped and then when it came out, people were expecting too much, so they were disappointed.
 
SpartanEvolved said:
I didn't buy into any hype. I thought it was going to be good. Judged on its own merits, it still isn't a very good game.

Really?? My brother-in-law rented it once and it seemed like a very good game. In fact, if I were to get an Xbox, this would be the first game I'd buy for it. But then again I am easy to please when it comes to games...
 
I ususally put replay value high up on my list when I judge games. This game has none. Yes, you can replay the game and be good/evil/neutral or whatever, but the game still plays out the same as your first tme through.
 
Wow, you seriously believe that? I honestly don't understand what you mean. I mean, although the end result is the same, the mechanics of the game change drastically depending on what you level up, and how good/bad you are. Like, some things are incredibly easier for evil characters, some are easier for good ones. How you level up your character determines how you strategise for fighting enemies, earning money, and all that good stuff. While the ending may stay constant, the path to the end invariably changes. I'd like to know what game, in your opinion, has good replay value, if not this one.

If anything I thought that the one thing everything could say about this game was that it at least had good replay value (although the first time through might have fallen a bit short or whatever).

I dunno, I don't understand. I really thought this game was a bit of a Zelda killer. I mean, I'll hold my breath till the new Zelda for GC comes out, but comparing Fable to Wind Waker, there really is none for me. I'd play Fable over Wind Waker any day. In epic scale, in control scheme, in story, in replay value, in graphics, in sound, the fun factor, like, everything is just top notch quality. I'm just dumbfounded. :lol
 
Games with good replay value:

CounterStrike (all)
Day of Defeat (all)
Halo
Halo 2
Command and Conquer series
Call of Duty (1&2)
Rainbow 6 series
Ghost Recon series
Star Wars Battlefront (1&2)

Want me to list more?

Look, what I'm saying is, when I got done with Fable, I felt like punching someone in the face because I GOT ROBBED!
 
Every game you listed there sported some kind of multiplayer gameplay (in most cases the main form of gampleay), does multiplayer = replay value for you?

Because Fable always was a single player game, and was never advertised otherwise, so I don't see how it could have robbed you if you knew going in there was no multiplayer.
 
stealth toilet said:
Every game you listed there sported some kind of multiplayer gameplay (in most cases the main form of gampleay), does multiplayer = replay value for you?

Because Fable always was a single player game, and was never advertised otherwise, so I don't see how it could have robbed you if you knew going in there was no multiplayer.

Fable originally had MP planned. If need be, I will back up that statement.

*edit*
http://www.gamershell.com/news/11934.html


Also, you want some singleplayer games with great replay value?

Conker:L&R
Breakdown
Morrowind
Ninja Gaiden
Grand Theft Auto Series
Doom 1 & 2
SOCOM: FTB
RTCW Tides of War
Half Life 2
Splinter Cell Series
Brothers in Arms
Mercenaries
Far Cry
Metal Slug series
Otogi 1 & 2
Mortal Kombat series

Yes, some of these have MP but I am refering to their SP gameplay.
 
Back
Top