Fable 3 was my last chance for Peter M. He fucked me with B&W, and he fucked me with the first two fables... always over-promising and under-delivering. And like an abusive relationship, I bought into the hype and let him fuck me again, but I swear this is the LAST TIME. NO MORE.

What pissed me off the most about the sudden change at the end of Fable 3 is that it was symptomatic of very bad setup and story telling. Quest after quest, I was told to do one thing, but in reality the game expected me to do something else.

The best example of this was the quest early on where the game told me that I needed to go and buy a disguise. The in game "GPS" kept leading me back to a pie making mini-game and whenever I went to the store where the disguise was, it just wasn't an option to buy... at no point in this frustrating moment did it tell me that I didn't have enough money for the disguise, or that the pie game would give me said money. Instead it just FORCED me to do the damned pie game because basically there wasn't anything else I could do.

My problem with this is that my frustration could have VERY easily been quelled by one of two things: 1. A price on the fucking disguise or 2. Just something in the quest log itself to TELL me that I didn't have the money necessary and that I needed to go off and do mini-games till I had the funds.

This was basically my experience all the way through. The game wants to fake being a sandbox when in reality it has a VERY clear path it wants you to take, sometimes absurdly so and with little logic to it.

Mind you, I was patient enough to sludge through most of the game after I caught on that I just should not expect logic or ask questions. That was until the end. Yatzee hit the nail on the head, the arbitrary nature of the way the end creeps up on you is pretty much game-breaking. The ideals situation would have been one where I was given the opportunity to KNOW that I would be required to grind out 6mil coin BEFORE the stupid 1 year timer with it's absolutely horrible good/evil choices bullshit came up.

Peter M. must be fucking Frederich Nietzsche because clearly he's gone beyond good and evil with his understanding of what those words mean. I don't think I've ever been as pissed off at a game's concept of good/evil ever.

Fuck you Molyneux. You are the M. Night Shamaylan of the gaming world. Populous was your Six Sense and you've basically shit on us ever since. I vow never to buy another one of your games. (not that he's reading this, but it just feels good to make that assertion)

>> ^00Scud00:

I'm guessing PC users will not be able to play this?


You can pick up the original from GOG for $10.

From what I've read it hasn't been confirmed yet but there's still hope!>> ^00Scud00:

I'm guessing PC users will not be able to play this?

What in the fucking hell were they thinking? I do hope they did something like AC suggests, because hell, this would have given me nightmares now. (that first scene anyway)

>> ^ponceleon:
yeah, way to quote fail:
He who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself; and if you gaze too long into the abyss, the abyss will gaze into you.
-Friedrich Nietzsche


Heh, correction fail.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26964.html

Pff, dragons.. who ever heard of dragons?

I think my first exposure to Nietzsche was a little dual paperback with "The Antichrist" and "Beyond Good and Evil" and it really changed my life, one of the few books that really touched me.

That depends on the "aggressor" and the reasons for their aggression. There are always exacerbating circumstances to war, and it's usually something that could have been solved diplomatically. Say your neighboring country is going to invade to seize your resources. Is there no way for you to share those resources in exchange for something of theirs? Do you even make the effort to try or do you just start chucking bombs and killing people?

Pacifism is about seeking non-violent means to solve conflicts, and accepting the consequences of your unwillingness to fight.

In the war in Iraq, for example, who is the aggressor? The Iraqis? Saddam Hussein? Al-Qaeda? No, it's the USA. We gave Hussein the power to assume his position as leader, knowing he was a colossal uncontrollable prick, and when we get the opportunity, then we make up evidence that he's a threat to the world, invade a sovereign nation, and destroy the lives of countless people. All could have been prevented if we'd just stayed out of Iran in the 50's.

Look at the conflict in Israel, that could have been prevented with diplomatic action in the early 30's, by removing the political/economic reasons that led to Hitler's rise to power and the subsequent invasion of Poland, WWII and the holocaust, that led to the guilt that created Israel and evicted the Palestinians from their rightful land.

Now I'm not a foreign affair/national security/economic policy advisor, I'm just a guy on the internet. There are people far more qualified and educated on the nuances of politics than I am, I would just like to see them make the same connections that I can and do their utmost to avoid the disastrous consequences of their actions.

“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster.” -Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Psychonauts beat out Skies of Arcadia, Rez, and Beyond Good and Evil?

Who the crap comes up with these pathetic little lists?