The Fable II Review Conundrum

[DoctorFinger]

Review copies of Fable II have begun to arrive in the mailboxes of games journalists (note that we here at CoG did not receive one ;) ) and along with the usual documentation - tips on how to pass tough spots and items of interest to see - came a note from Peter Molyneux. I have a favour to ask you -- we build this game not only to appeal to gamers like yourself, but to appeal to anybody. So please, please, please, please, please find somebody who doesn't play games, watch them play it and see how their world turns out, because I think it's only when you see those differences that the unique experiences comes through.It's unusual for such a request to come with a review copy. Normally this would be a good time to pimp the online co-op play in the game, but if you'll remember Fable II won't ship with co-op on the disc: you'll have to download it as a patch that is only promised for "soon after launch". This led Joystiq to ask Variety's game blogger Ben Fritz what reviewers in other branches of entertainment journalism do when confronted with 'incomplete' products to review. I talked to one of our film critics and he said we usually do review the earliest available print, even if it's not the final version. If they're showing it at a festival to the public, for instance, we often review it. Even with the understanding that it may be re-cut or altered if/when it is released commercially. When that commercial release occurs we usually don't write a new review, unless it has been hugely changed.
--
The basic rule is: If they are showing it to the public in any way shape or form, we feel justified in reviewing it.
--
So, the short answer is, if Fable II were a movie or play, we would absolutely review it the day it opened, even in its "incomplete" form. Which is why I have decided I will do the same with this game. Luckily in the age of blogs, however, I can update my thoughts when online co-op becomes available."But, beyond the question of whether the game should be judged sans co-op, is the larger question: how much should a reviewer have to sublimate their opinions of a product and 'put themselves in the shoes' of a more casual or non-gamer? Obviously you have to do it to some degree, but how much weight should that point of view be given? If you review every game from that point of view, then a lot of great but complex titles will get the short shrift. Conversely some overly simplistic games will be overrated by that method. It's a question every game reviewer has to ponder while passing judgment on the product of the day.

Sources - Variety (http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_scene/2008/10/peter-moores-re.html); Joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/07/molyneux-asks-for-special-review-consideration-we-ask-what-wou/); Co-Optimus (http://www.co-optimus.com/article/644/Peter_Molyneux_Asks_for_a_Different_Review_of_Fabl e_2.html).

[TheFlyingOrc]

Umm...that's really lame. Nintendo never asked reviewers to make sure that they saw other people play Wii Fit or Wii Sports. Why in the world should I review a game based on what other people like?

[bapenguin]

I still think the best thing here is to co-op with them.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I still think the best thing here is to co-op with them.

Says the guy who runs a web site dedicated to co-op gaming.

[Gorvi]

Bullshit. Review the game like any other, no game deserves "special treatment".

[DoctorFinger]

I still think the best thing here is to co-op with them.Except the game doesn't ship with co-op. Meaning you can't even begin to review it until that patch releases.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Bullshit. Review the game like any other, no game deserves "special treatment".

I'm actually having flashbacks to the Lair review guide.

[Iron Past]

He's not asking for special treatment. The original article (from Variety) said the letter simply described the co-op and Variety was in a conundrum to either wait for co-op before publishing the review or to state in the review that it wasn't available at the time of publication (which makes more sense, since it's constantly done). A missing feature is not an incomplete game (not in this case, at least). But I attribute the confusion to Jostiq's frequent fudging of facts and misleading headlines.

Single-player and multi-player should be reviewed separately anyway.

[Straximus]

I don't think Molyneux's request is being understood.

He doesn't seem to be asked for reviewers to "put themselves in the shoes of a more casual or non-gamer". Re-read what he said, and put in the context of the aspect of Fable II he keeps raving about: That supposedly the world in F2 itself reacts and changes dramatically based on your actions and choices. The meat of his request was this statement: So please, please, please, please, please find somebody who doesn't play games, watch them play it and see how their world turns out, because I think it's only when you see those differences that the unique experiences comes through.

That reads to me that he wants to be sure that reviews get a sense of how different play styles can get these "unique experiences" he keeps going on about. If that's true (personally I'm betting it's overstated like most of his comments) then the best way anyone could see for themselves is to do exactly what he suggests. You don't have to take the other player's opinion of the game into account at all. You only have to watch, and see how different their world and game experience turns out from your play through of it - and report on to what extent player choice effects F2.

[AgtFox]

Except the game doesn't ship with co-op. Meaning you can't even begin to review it until that patch releases.
Actually not true, there is local co-op. Only the online portion won't be there at release.

[AgtFox]

Also, Peter is only asking for reviewers to do this. The onus is on the reviewers whether they want to actually follow through with the request or not.

[SPBTooL]

Umm...that's really lame. Nintendo never asked reviewers to make sure that they saw other people play Wii Fit or Wii Sports. Why in the world should I review a game based on what other people like?Those are not games where the player and the world change based off the player. The large world in Fable II can be different in the end and through out the game play. All he is asking for is for the reviewer to check out how the game responds to different play styles. Some games warrant multiple play troughs to get the full experience.

He's not asking for special treatment. The original article (from Variety) said the letter simply described the co-op and Variety was in a conundrum to either wait for co-op before publishing the review or to state in the review that it wasn't available at the time of publication (which makes more sense, since it's constantly done). A missing feature is not an incomplete game (not in this case, at least). But I attribute the confusion to Jostiq's frequent fudging of facts and misleading headlines.

Single-player and multi-player should be reviewed separately anyway.QFT

[Gorvi]

I'm actually having flashbacks to the Lair review guide.
Nothing is as bad as Lair.

[National Kato]

I agree with Straximus' take. It seems he's simply asking reviewers to play the game as they normally would, but to also allow a non-gamer to play it to see the depth the developers seem to want to highlight. Let's face it: Molyneux's always seen his games as appealing to all sorts of gamers. I don't see this as any different.

[Blue]

Yeah, I don't see anything negative in that statement. In fact, I really dig what he's asking reviewers to do. I'd love to play through the game and see what happens and then explore the world my wife chose to create as she hasn't played a game really since Super Mario World.

That's what he's asking them to do, not give someone or anything special treatment. I actually think that idea could show the breadth of the title.

[BetterOffZED]

I personally do not see anything wrong with this request. Playing a game like this once thru, and then judging it, would be limiting one of the major aspects of what this game is all about.

[PathMaster]

I agree with Strax and a few others. I think it would be very interesting to see how other's games end up versus mine. I think that plays to the games strengths (hopefully) that the game can be totally different for each and every person. I do not see it as a negative at all.

[MachEnergy]

I would purchase Fable2 even if it didn't have co-op. So, I say review it as the game they shipped to you. If you feel so inclined to update your review when the co-op patch hits, you would be doing a favor to both Peter and all the late comers.

I can't wait to be able to play this with co-op, however, from the beginning it never sounded like you could play through the entire story together. My impression has always been that you and your friend can only run missions together. I don't mind being given time to level up before this feature hits.

[Xerxes]

Poor Molyneux. You guys have him in a fucking wreck over the release over Fable 2. Any other developer would say fuck you and release another game.

[Mike Kelehan]

I think we're blowing this out of proportion. He didn't say, "You must have someone else play this," "You can't publish a review unless it includes a segment about how it plays for a casual gamer, " or "You can't talk about the hour-long cutscenes and install times." Any of those three would be ridiculous. All he said was, "Please let someone else play it and watch how their world turns out." It was a request, not a demand. And, to be honest, it's a pretty damn reasonable one. A review should try to take in the game from as many angles as possible.

I loved Mega Man 9. 10/10. But a newer, more casual gamer would hate it. If I were to write a review, I'd have to mention both of those things.

[Wilkz07]

at least the reviewers didn't have to sign NDAs like mgs4. I started re-playing Fable Lost Chapters on PC to get back into the fable mood. couple more weeks till 2.

[AgtFox]

I loved Mega Man 9. 10/10. But a newer, more casual gamer would hate it. If I were to write a review, I'd have to mention both of those things.
You could write a MM9 review over at Play it Review it (http://www.playitreviewit.com)!

[quidmonkey]

Dear Peter-

Before reviewing Oblivion, I made sure I watched my friend play 100+ hours after I did, because, after all, I'm not reviewing my experience of the game, but his. I also realize that you rock and have delivered on your promise that Fable 2 is the second coming. In addition, I'll make sure not to review your game until several years from now, when all the DLC, Director's Cut and patches have gone public. I also thank you for helping me through all these tough spots, because we gamers always need a helping hand playing games; it's obvious these games are too hard for our wee minds to comprehend your greatness. Thanks for being so awesome.

-BS

[Cyndair]

His request doesn't really bother me all that much. What does bother me is the fact that the whole release now, patch later mentality is becoming more and more commonplace in the console world.

[Raen]

You could write a MM9 review over at Play it Review it (http://www.playitreviewit.com)!

Way to plug a CoG network site Fox :)

I think the request is pretty reasonable. He's just trying to highlight certain aspects of the game that wouldn't necessarily be apparent if he didn't make the request. Makes sense to me.

[Sandman]

Oh Molyneux...you are almost as entertaining as the various Sony execs.

[Stoke]

How does "Please watch someone else play the game so you can see the differences your choices make in the world." equate to "Don't review my game until I've had time to release some patches."?

Some of you guys will bitch at everything, even if you're the one that made it up.

[Disgustipated]

Actually not true, there is local co-op. Only the online portion won't be there at release.

Is that true? Is it System Link co-op or split screen?

[AgtFox]

Is that true? Is it System Link co-op or split screen?
According to the Co-Optimus info page (http://www.co-optimus.com/game/292/XBox_360/Fable_2.html) on it...neither, so it sounds like you share the screen.

[AgtFox]

Even on the Gamerscore announcement (http://gamerscoreblog.com/team/archive/2008/09/26/561381.aspx) that online co-op would not be there day 1 they talk about single-player and local co-op being available out of the box.

More information on the offline component is available via the Wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fable_II#Offline). I am going to guess they share the screen with the second player as a henchperson that may (or may not depending on how the henchperson is brought in) get experience and other things.

[JayK47]

Whoa, wait. Find someone who doesn't play games? That is getting harder to do every day. What an unusual request, especially to a reviewer who is most likely surrounded by gamers. So will my grandma like it better than me or something? I'm a little bit worried now about the quality of this game.

[Stoke]

Whoa, wait. Find someone who doesn't play games? That is getting harder to do every day. What an unusual request, especially to a reviewer who is most likely surrounded by gamers. So will my grandma like it better than me or something? I'm a little bit worried now about the quality of this game.

No, your grandma will have a different experience than you. Reread his request, this time focus on the words, and more importantly, what they mean when strung together in a sentence.

[JayK47]

No, your grandma will have a different experience than you. Reread his request, this time focus on the words, and more importantly, what they mean when strung together in a sentence.

Thanks. I get it. I also think the request is nothing short of retarded. Since when should a reviewer do anything more than simply play a game and review it? Are games so damn complicated we need instructions on how to review them?

[Troggles]

Instructions? I don't see requests as instructions. When I read a game manual for instructions, it doesn't say "Please, give the A button a chance to jump. You never know what may happen."

[Deadend]

At PAX I SAW split screen co-op, at least I am really sure, as there were 2 people holding controllers on each display unit.

Reviewers are free to ignore or follow the advice of the letter, it's up to them. But mainly, they should say what THEY think of the game.

[inmostlight]

Reviewers are free to ignore or follow the advice of the letter, it's up to them. But mainly, they should say what THEY think of the game.

Why? I've read many a review by professional movie critics where they comment on the audience reaction to the film. The request here doesn't seem too different from that.

[KingGorilla]

Why? I've read many a review by professional movie critics where they comment on the audience reaction to the film. The request here doesn't seem too different from that.

When a critic sees a movie for review, the audience is made up of other critics though.

[inmostlight]

When a critic sees a movie for review, the audience is made up of other critics though.

Not all the time. I'm especially thinking of movie reivews where they mention the reaction of people in other demographics. (Did the kids in the theater enjoy a children's movie, for instance.)

[KingGorilla]

Not all the time. I'm especially thinking of movie reivews where they mention the reaction of people in other demographics. (Did the kids in the theater enjoy a children's movie, for instance.)

But most of the time. And more importantly, you should write a review for who reads your review, not who buys the game/movie. Other than What They Play, I cannot think of a site that tackles games for someone other than their primary audience. When you deviate from this, you lose credibility. You become OXM talking about thread quality of T-shirts.

And I know we are all guilty of this. My Spore review boiled down to, it would be great as someone's first RTS.

The fact is that people who are in the group the PR is asking to play the game for review, is not the group that reads reviews.

[Variable Gear]

The fact is that people who are in the group the PR is asking to play the game for review, is not the group that reads reviews.
I'd argue that this is a moot point, because the more casual audience isn't the target of the dynamically changing world, but instead the hardcore. By playing through Fable 2, and then watching for differences in how a non-gamer's world develops, a reviewer can get a sense of just how much truth there was in Peter's claims. If the world does seem to be unique for a great number of players, I'm sure the hardcore would like to hear about that in the review.

I don't really understand why there is backlash to the Fable 2 review documentation. If anything, it provides an effective guide for the reviewer, suggesting a method for testing one of the biggest bullet points of the game. There's no reason for it to be compared to the Lair review guide (http://www.joystiq.com/2007/09/07/sony-sends-out-lair-reviewers-guide-must-not-laugh/), by any means.

[KingGorilla]

The truth is that any time a game comes with something indicating it is "made for the mainstream, not the hardcore;" the game is crap.

I do not doubt the value of different sorts of reviews, and insights into a game. I like Ryan Scott's idea of a 3 person review of a person who finished the game, someone who played for an hour, and someone who just saw press materials, for that reason.

But if the reviewer makes up some theoretical audience outside of her known audience, the article becomes meaningless. Which is not a problem for most reviewers to do. How many MGS reviews began with "well you already pre-ordered and stood in line all night for this...?"

[Widgetcraft]

This all sounds fine to me.

[Codicier]

Molyneux: Please see how someone else's experience turns out.

(Presumably to see how things change between experiences)

Some Gamers: Fuck You.

Look, I still haven't forgiven him for the original Fable let down, but come on guys.

[bean]

But most of the time. And more importantly, you should write a review for who reads your review, not who buys the game/movie.
This is true, but there is a bit more to it than that. I think a good review attempts to think about games for their intended audience. The people on this site are more likely to buy Gears of War 2 than they are to buy the next version of Mario Party, but if AgtFox was reviewing the game, I'm fairly sure he would think about how the game might be enjoyed by children and families playing together. Likewise, Gears of War 2 would not get bad marks for being too difficult for a casual gamer or too violent for Little Timmy.

Plus, this request is asking reviewers to look at how different types of gamers play the game in order to see a more dramatic difference in how the world changes based on the player's actions. Obviously, he fears that hardcore gamers will have very similar results to one another. . . perhaps some of the differences are based on play performance or how long you do things that casual players might find more interesting like talking to villagers, playing the stupid ass bar games (that are all based on chance. . . annoying), or really engaging the family and village buying/building part of the game.

[Variable Gear]

Plus, this request is asking reviewers to look at how different types of gamers play the game in order to see a more dramatic difference in how the world changes based on the player's actions. Obviously, he fears that hardcore gamers will have very similar results to one another. . . perhaps some of the differences are based on play performance or how long you do things that casual players might find more interesting like talking to villagers, playing the stupid ass bar games (that are all based on chance. . . annoying), or really engaging the family and village buying/building part of the game.
I don't think that Molyneux's assertion comes from a kind of fear that the hardcore audience is incapable of creating unique worlds in Fable 2. I think that his reasoning lies in the fact that most publications only have one reviewer available for each individual game. Considering this, it would be challenging for each reviewer to be able to speak about the success or failure of Molyneux's claim that each player's world should evolve differently based on their unique actions.

Testing this claim should be an important part of each Fable 2 review. In the review documentation, Molyneux specifically asks for "somebody who doesn't play games," but it is my opinion that anyone would do, casual or otherwise. If Molyneux is confident enough to put that little hint in the review guide, I think that Fable 2's reactive world should be tested. That's all Peter is asking for. He's not asking for the review score for his latest work to be influenced based on the incorrect perceptions of the casual crowd. He's asking for those within the industry to find out if he provided what he promised. This is something that will only resonate with the hardcore. Somehow, this same group rose up immediately after this was revealed in order to denounce its necessity and value.

Once again the hardcore have proven to me why their cries often go unheard.
The truth is that any time a game comes with something indicating it is "made for the mainstream, not the hardcore;" the game is crap.
There are quite a few examples to the contrary.

[Johan]

Game reviewers should review the product they have in their hands for the audience they have for their review. Period.

If they do reviews for a casual audience, then they should keep that in mind. If they review for a hardcore gaming audience, that should be at the forefront of their considerations as well. In fact, the platform for the reviews will tend to hire reviewers who effectively target their audience anyways, so this shouldn't be an issue.

I don't believe they should try to be something or someone they are not, or that they should review a product based on possible changes that might come later on. Phooey.

I wonder if this game will suck.

[Mike Kelehan]

The truth is that any time a game comes with something indicating it is "made for the mainstream, not the hardcore;" the game is crap. Sorry, I couldn't hear you. I was playing so much Rock Band 2 earlier today, my ears are a little weak. Could you repeat that?

[quidmonkey]

If Molyneux is confident enough to put that little hint in the review guide, I think that Fable 2's reactive world should be tested. That's all Peter is asking for.

And if it's in there, it should be easily recognizable. Gamers are smart, we don't need Peter to hold our hands. I fail to see how Peter's little comment is any different than some PR guy calling me up just before a review and saying, "Now look-y here, let me pimp my game."

[Codicier]

And if it's in there, it should be easily recognizable. Gamers are smart, we don't need Peter to hold our hands. I fail to see how Peter's little comment is any different than some PR guy calling me up just before a review and saying, "Now look-y here, let me pimp my game."

Peter's comment is a polite, unobtrusive, one sentence request on a note sent to reviewers. I don't see that as anything like a PR person calling you up and giving you the spiel.

[TheFlyingOrc]

The average person beats a game once. Once.

The reviewer is trying to target the average person (usually).

There's no reason for them to go out of their way to experience and tell us about something that will never be communicated to the average user. To put it simply, if I cannot tell how my decisions are impacting the game world around me by simply playing the game, the game designer has NOT created meaningful play.

The most important - listen to me, because this is an industry accepted basic game design principle, not TFO's magic theory he's pulling out of thin air - the most important job of a game designer is making sure that a player can understand the way his actions impact the game world (known as "creating meaningful play").

If I shoot enemies, and they don't flash or flinch in some way, I don't know that I'm hitting them. If I pick up a health pack and don't see my health bar increase or the words "+25 health!" pop up, I don't know how I'm changing things by getting health pickups. If I make a series of decisions that have far-reaching impacts on the makeup of my game world, such as making characters alive or dead, making my appearance radically altered, or making my available quests very different, this should be completely obvious as I am playing the game. Any departure from this is a failure of the game designer.

I'm not saying that this is the case in Fable 2 - however, his suggestion that reviewers watch another person play seems to suggest that you must see it played twice to understand how different the game world can be from person to person. This, however, should not matter to game reviewers - they are there to tell you what your experience with the game will be like - NOT what you will experience if you play the game and then watch someone else play it.

edit: holy crap we need wider tables, paragraphs are impossible to read.

[Spacetronaut]

The average person beats a game once. Once. (Also other Stuff)

Certainly for most games this is true, but for most games a second play through will be extremely similar to the first. If Fable 2 offers a drastically different experience from one game tot he next then it has a higher replay value than other games, and this should be noted in a review off which people base their decision to buy or not buy this game. At $60 dollars a pop a game that is designed to be played more than once is more likely to get my money.

I agree that it should be obvious on the first play-through that your actions are impacting the game world, but it's not unreasonable to assume that the full magnitude of those impacts will not be visible until you make different choices.

[TrackZero]

Well, if Ikaruga was reviewed for the "casual" player, it'd have gotten a horrible rating. So there's definitely something said for reviewing a game based on particular audiences.

[Straximus]

But most of the time. And more importantly, you should write a review for who reads your review, not who buys the game/movie.

Why are they reading the review though? To determine if it's a game they want to buy for themselves? A friend? Wife? child, parent, etc... I generally am on the lookout for games that will appeal to myself, my wife, and/or my kid. Don't assume everyone (or even most people) reading reviews are 16-24 year old core gamers looking to buy games for themselves.

[Shieldmaiden]

I think that there is a serious issue with reviewers failing to review games from a real gamer's viewpoint. Instead they have to complete them as quickly as possible, write their review and then move on to the next game in the stack. I remember some comments on Penny Arcade about Assassin's Creed where they mentioned that they wouldn't have enjoyed it as much had they played it with a reviewer hat on.

If Fable 2 is anything like the original, I can see that being a major problem. There was a lot of fluff in Fable (too much and with little connection to the game proper, in my opinion) and I can see a reviewer missing it.

TFO, I can see where you're coming from, but we're so used to game worlds being static, or reacting in really obvious, heavy-handed ways, that a really adaptive world would be really easy to miss if you were playing it "review style." We've come to expect the occasional variation based on your character's race/sex/alignment, but if there was a major world divergence that was based on your actions, you might assume that it would happen that way had you make a different choice.

For example, if a game had a sequence early on where you had to race to stop an entire planet blowing up and failed, you might assume that its destruction was inevitable, especially if it seemed impossible to do. You'd never know that it was possible to save the planet.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Certainly for most games this is true, but for most games a second play through will be extremely similar to the first. If Fable 2 offers a drastically different experience from one game tot he next then it has a higher replay value than other games, and this should be noted in a review off which people base their decision to buy or not buy this game. At $60 dollars a pop a game that is designed to be played more than once is more likely to get my money.

And for you, it's probably not a bad idea - however, there's little to be gained for the average player from the reviewer seeing it.

[TheFlyingOrc]

For example, if a game had a sequence early on where you had to race to stop an entire planet blowing up and failed, you might assume that its destruction was inevitable, especially if it seemed impossible to do. You'd never know that it was possible to save the planet.
Right, but the big rulebook of game design(fictional) states, quite clearly, that you should never do this. Games are only enjoyable when the effects of what we do produce interpretable results.

Think about how frustrating it is to play Wii games with bad motion detection - where you can't figure out how your swing changes what happens in the game. It's like that, but on a broader scale.

[Spacetronaut]

And for you, it's probably not a bad idea - however, there's little to be gained for the average player from the reviewer seeing it.

Are you saying that the average player will never play a game more than once no matter how different the experience is the second time? Because that seems a little extreme. I think I am the average player, or at least pretty close, and I think the average player is more likely to spend money on a game that can be played and enjoyed multiple times. Now maybe Peter M. is full of shit and the world doesn't change that much, but I think the reviewer owes it to his audience to find out either way.

[bean]

Right, but the big rulebook of game design(fictional) states, quite clearly, that you should never do this. Games are only enjoyable when the effects of what we do produce interpretable results.

Think about how frustrating it is to play Wii games with bad motion detection - where you can't figure out how your swing changes what happens in the game. It's like that, but on a broader scale.

So did you hate the Fallout series?

I think you are looking at this wrong. Yes, on a micro-level it is important for the player to see how their actions effect play. Your example of how loose controls on the Wii make it so that players don't realize what they are doing "wrong" is a perfect example of that.

However, if your game has a branching narrative or a highly changeable world, a game designer can choose to make those the obvious results of your choices (i.e. whether or not you blow up the nuke in Fallout 3) or they can make them surprises for gamers (like finding your wife cheating on you with the female maid in the Sims). Likewise, some games put fail conditions in place that show you a different path than you would have seen if you were successful (Colony Wars 1 & 2 on the PS2).

I don't think that Molyneux is saying that the controls are poor, or that the combat system is inscrutable. I think he is saying that there are things in the changeable world that may be less interesting to a core gamer and more interesting to casuals (and probably vice-versa).

However, I'm not sure how much this matters. . . to be a hit, it needs to impress both groups a lot. If they get a review that says that core gamers will only moderately like it while casuals may love it, then they'll still get bad reviews because those things that are disliked will be described thoroughly. Fable isn't a casual targeted game like Scene It?, Lips, Mario Party, Rock Band, or Smas Bros., and it won't get reviewed like a casual game either (though that isn't a free pass. . . just look at Nintendo's metacritic scores and you'll see that reviewers still demand that casual games deliver the fun).

[JayK47]

Well well well.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2008/20081010.jpg

[johnperkins21]

You know what would make this easier? Multiple save files.

I'll play through the first couple hours being a good guy, then go back and redo the first couple hours as a bad guy. Then I wouldn't need to have a non-gamer play, I could just change the world myself to see how much my actions modify the world.

[TheFlyingOrc]

However, if your game has a branching narrative or a highly changeable world, a game designer can choose to make those the obvious results of your choices (i.e. whether or not you blow up the nuke in Fallout 3) or they can make them surprises for gamers (like finding your wife cheating on you with the female maid in the Sims). Likewise, some games put fail conditions in place that show you a different path than you would have seen if you were successful (Colony Wars 1 & 2 on the PS2).

But you still see those choices have affected things while playing the game. The player wants to feel like he understands the decisions he's making. If you cannot tell that the decisions you've made affected world, it doesn't feel like you're controlling anything. This should not require multiple playthroughs to figure out.

[Xerxes]

Well well well.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2008/20081010.jpg

I feel bad for Molyneux a little more each day.

[bean]

But you still see those choices have affected things while playing the game. The player wants to feel like he understands the decisions he's making. If you cannot tell that the decisions you've made affected world, it doesn't feel like you're controlling anything. This should not require multiple playthroughs to figure out.

You wouldn't see all the surprises in one playthrough of the Sims with one person's playstyle (of course a "playthrough" could be hundreds of hours in the Sims, so maybe you would). Because I wasn't ever interested in families (don't want kids in my house of death), I didn't see the first kiss or some of the really fun and silly animations kids have with toys. . . especially when playing together until years later when watching a girl play. Teaching a toddler to walk is one of the neatest moments in that game. :)

If Fable 2 actually has that many surprises that can only be seen if you scour the game looking for them or you naturally find them due to having a different focus, then watching a different player go through the game could be helpful.

I doubt that it actually has all that though. I was watching gametrailers from TGS and it looks very much like Fable 1 but with a very much improved spell system. One thing I found very annoying from those trailers is that if you want to make a guy very strong, they hulk your character avatar out. That sounds like a neat game design idea, but what it actually results in is armor that looks wrong on some body builds, and ludicrous character design.

Still, I'll just focus on having a magic-focused player so I don't get turned into Vin Diesel. (Sorry if I offended anyone who is a body-builder or something, but my exposure to television has lead me to believe that muscle-bound guys are generally stupid, aggressive, and not deserving of respect). ;)

[DeathtollWRX]

Another game i'm buying this month. Going to be a busy month.

Peter had every right to write what he wrote. Of course games like Fallouts,Arcanum and any Bioware game basically had the same thing. Different people will each get a different game depending on good and evil. I only hope that one guy can be evil and one guy can be good.