GND Review: Fable III

Alexandria Adams writes: When Lionhead Studios released the first Fable game back in 2004, people didn’t know what to expect. A Microsoft exclusive, Fable transformed the way that people saw RPGs. Instead of a game that made the player fight monster after monster in a grind to the finish, Fable made the player make choices; choices that would shape the world that their character inhabited, the story that they followed, and even the appearance of the character itself. Fable II followed in its predecessor’s footsteps 4 years later, offering players another chance in the world of Albion to create another Hero to save the land.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
SSIDEUP3802d ago

Ok, this is a better review than most of the garbage this site puts up, but only just. It's still filled with some horrible writing and very standard "review style" thoughts...

That having been said...

People were VERY aware of what to expect with the original Fable, because Peter M. made it very clear WHAT it was to be. Fable was going to redefine the role-playing genre with incredible new features that would completely rewrite the book on how an RPG should be developed. In short, he promised the world; and we believed it.

When Fable released, anticipation was in the air and people watched and waited with baited breath to see just how well M. ideas would translate in the game. After several hours, however, the realization set in that the game was not at all what the man promised us and we, as gamers, were truly betrayed. It wasn't a horrible game, by any means, but it wasn't anything truly exciting and new.

Moving on to Fable II, M. again attempted to make known that his game would redefine the genre - only this time, not many people believed him. Sure, Fable II was MORE on par with what we wanted it to be, but it certainly wasn't fantastic by any means. It was good, that's all.

Fable III, however, is where it all goes wrong and where this reviewer fails to realize several things. First of all, this game isn't an evolutionary progression. In fact, it's quite the opposite, it's a devolved piece of work that does little to reassure us that Lionhead knows what it's doing with it's own franchise. They removed most of the core game mechanics from II and altered III in such a way as to make it far more accessible for people who are, for lack of a better word, dumb. In fact, Fable III has been so toned down, that it's an incoherent mess, a jumble of ideas and mechanics that is simply wrong.

To give it an 8.5 is sad and pathetic, but I expect no more from a site that is run by illiterates. You'll praise a game just to get support from the company, I imagine, rather than spend time truly identifying where the game actually went wrong. While the story is good, the rest of the game is trash and should have been reviewed as such, which is why I'm glad some people (such as Jim Sterling from Destructoid) manage to be honest about their materials, rather than try to butter up companies by giving their crap software better scores than they deserve.

Genevieve363801d ago

I thought that that was the whole point of a give an opinion on the game. Sure, I may not agree with her review in it's entirety, but I do see where she's coming from. You can't take reviews at face value because they're just There are some reviewers who see games more the way that I do, and I tend to read their reviews, but this reviewer may just not feel the same way that you do about the game. She's entitled to her opinion. Just because she enjoyed the game doesn't mean it's not valid. Sheesh.

SSIDEUP3801d ago

Sorry Genny,

A review is not a simple opinion piece - a review is meant to rely thoughts on a game from an impartial point of view, which this review, clearly, is NOT.

Whether or not this dolt enjoyed the game is not relevant, at least when once considers the fact the a review is not meant to simply rely a simple "I loved this game/hated this game opinion". Never once does she discuss any of the game's shortcomings, nor does she ever cover the fact that the game is loaded with glitches and bugs - she simply glosses over the negatives, while presenting all of the things that she, on a personal level, enjoyed. This isn't a review, it's a feature about why the writer liked the game.

It's very dishonest and only proves that the writers at this site haven't a clue what a true review should be. They spout their opinions without ever once validating them above and beyond a love/hate relationship, which is ridiculous.

A fair, impartial review would cover every aspect of the game - both the positive and negative, and relay them in an impartial forum. This is not impartial and it's simply meant to inspire the representatives from Microsoft (or whoever they're trying to impress) to give them support. If I wanted a more honest piece, I'd read Destructoid, because they didn't hold back when it came to presenting a fair piece.

This... is not journalism, period. It doesn't even pass as journalism. It's a mockery of journalism and this "writer" should consider a new job.