October
6
Peter Molyneux's request / Should we review Fable II before online co-op?
Late October is turning out to be an incredibly rich few weeks in the videogame world. I now have in my possession review copies of (what look to be) three of the most exciting games of the year: "LittleBigPlanet," "Dead Space" and "Fable II."(Not to mention "Fallout 3," which I haven't received yet.)
Like most such review copies, all three came with information about the game, tips for reviewers to make sure they don't get stuck and see all the best stuff, etc. But "Fable II" comes with something more unusual -- A letter from Peter Molyneux with a specific request for reviewers:
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, pleae 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 a good suggestion. Then again, I think it's a good suggestion for most games, at least if you're writing for a publication like Variety where a good number of our readers are not avid gamers. On the other hand, I think reviewers (at least for non-core publications) should be able to analyze how a more casual player would experience the game. It's kind of part of the job. And while I sometimes do and probably will in the case of "Fable II" get a casual player to try it out, I can't realistically ask them to play it for 10 or 20 hours in order to "see how their world turns out."
Molyneux also devotes two paragraphs to explaining how great online co-op is going to be, but how we won't be able to review that until after the game comes out, perhaps in the first week, via the promised Xbox Live update. Which brings up an interesting question: Should reviewers wait until online co-op is enabled to run their reviews? Or run a review with the caveat that an important feature isn't yet working? I'm actually not sure of the answer. On the one hand, it seems like readers would be well served by a review that includes an analysis of one of the game's key features. On the other hand, reviews (at least online) can be updated just like games and wouldn't readers be well served by a review that's available when the game comes out, perhaps with an update when that feature is added, rather than having to wait a week or even longer to get a review?
On a related note, I've played most of the campaign of "Fracture" and am ready to review it, but I'm going to wait to see if I can find anybody online to play with tomorrow in multi-player. I haven't been able to find any of my fellow reviewers (or anyone else who has the game) so far. Not to give too much away, but the multi-player would really have to wow me for "Fracture" to get more than an "enhhh" after what I've seen of the campaign.
Update: There's some confusion in the comments here and elsewhere, so let me be clear: Molyneux did not ask anyone to hold their review until after online co-op is added. He just explained that online co-op would be launching via an update soon after launch. I asked the question whether we should wait for that to write a review. The request that he made of reviewers is that we watch a non-experienced gamer play "Fable 2."
Chris Morris reports on the business and culture of video games and offers analysis of recent events and industry trends.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
I always heard something from my neighbor that he sometimes goes to the internet bar to play the game which will use him some gw gold，he usually can win a lot of GuildWars Gold，then he let his friends all have some Guild Wars Gold，his friends thank him very much for introducing them the GuildWars money，they usually cheap gw gold together.
Posted by: cheap gw gold | March 11, 2009 at 09:36 PM
So I preordered Fable2 months ago and was looking forward to the clock to strike 12 so I could get my copy, that was until I read this. I don't care what a non-gamer thinks of the game. I care what the actual game is, and as an experienced gamer, I don't give a rats ass about a non gamer, I want the complete game I was promised upon release. No co-op, this is a total joke. It's like next years Madden football saying that the actual football would be released in DLC shortly after release. Eff this horse junk garbage trash etc.
Posted by: Josh | October 18, 2008 at 06:40 PM
Mmm, this does not bode well. I can guess at why you might want to suggest a non-game play your game. The short of it is that you've produced an unbalanced game intended for multiplayer and don't want everyone to know how ineffective your efforts to balance really were.
It's a malady you see pretty often in CCGs, the tournaments only have 3 decks in them. In getting someone new to play, you get to see how someone who's not any good at min-maxing plays the game. I'd prefer it if no one was any good at min-max and we could all have fun, but if the game isn't properly balanced than no amount of hope will save it.
Maybe it'll at least be harder or more interesting than Fable.
Posted by: Hybrid | October 13, 2008 at 07:39 AM
Does anyone remember the letdown that was Fable? I certainly do. I remember the game being released with almost nothing that the developers promised over the THREE YEARS they spent making the game.
I remember it being a horrible waste of my money, and I remember playing through the "rich" content in about 10 hours, then dropping the game off at Rhino Video and getting Mario Tennis.
I remember Mario Tennis not being a shit game compared to Fable.
Posted by: Josh | October 13, 2008 at 04:41 AM
I think the best course of action to take, is to do a "first impression" review. Talking about what you think of the game from what you've seen of it so far, so those that are still in the fence about getting it on release still have something to consider when making up their mind.
After the game has come out and the rest of the content is accessible, write a second part to the review, a fuller and more comprehensive evaluation of the game. I agree that its only fair to review the game in its entirety, but we need something to go on before release date.
Posted by: Ithrix | October 12, 2008 at 10:17 PM
I can understand why some people are upset at the lack of inclusion of online co-op on the disc. After all, what about those people who don't have a net connection? How will those people without a net connection be able to download the patch which will allow them to play online co-op over the internet? Huh? Why didn't they think of that? It's very important that they offer the ability to play online internet over the internet online with the internet connected online via the internet cooperative play without actually having to connect to the internet!
(It should be noted that I'm being somewhat sarcastic. The argument that not everyone has an internet connection seems a little pointless when the downloaded content is specifically for online co-op, which would require an internet connection anyway.)
Posted by: Master of Poppets | October 12, 2008 at 07:27 PM
Anyone who uses Fable 2 as an example of developers releasing a game unfinished has no idea what they're talking about. Lionhead had a choice - delay the game a few more weeks, or make the one feature that requires you to connect to Xbox Live downloadable.
Nobody who didn't get the game early will notice. It will be available for download on release day. If you don't have Xbox Live, you won't need the patch anyways. Not one player will be in any way inhibited by it.
I'm not fanboy. I criticize Peter Molyneux whenever he does anything stupid, but I'm sick of retards picking apart every little thing that happens and making it seem like he's destroying the world and letting all his fans down.
Posted by: Durandal | October 12, 2008 at 12:18 PM
i think this guy is a real tool. i think if you like him or his shitty game, ur a big fat fucking tool. Fable sucked huge donkey balls. Fable 2 is a non-entity. Fuck DLC, maybe I don't have net? Fuck non-gamers! Who give a shit what they think? I didn't buy my BMW because some skateboarder popped a boner when I flashed him a picture of one. Sucks to your assmar. - Out
Posted by: Master of Puppies | October 12, 2008 at 12:08 AM
I think that the reputation of the developer is now such that anything he suggests should be now be considered in a somewhat different light, and generally is. I wouldn't dare to suggest that Mr.Molyneux is using the note to distract reviewers into seeing the emotional bonds that would develop between a non-player and their avatar; I do think that the lack of on-line multiplayer at launch is nothing to get entirely in a lather about. I'd rather it shipped when it were ready, but you must review the game as a whole, as one would purchase it, and if there be no multiplayer, that's a delightful bonus that we are given afterwards for free.
Posted by: Balal | October 11, 2008 at 06:03 PM
First off, I don't see why so many people are getting angry about this. This is not the kind of game where online co-op is the selling point. It's not like if Call of Duty 5 didn't have any online co-op when it came out. This is primarily an one player game. Offline or online co-op in this case are extras not game breaking or making features.
Now, after that. I think the reviews should go ahead and run. People won't be buying Fable 2 for the online co-op. They want to know if the gameplay, story and other features are good. The reviews can always be updated later.
I do like what Molyneux said about letting someone who plays games less play. I myself am interested in how may girlfriend would play the game.
Posted by: Nik | October 10, 2008 at 10:01 PM
You, and anyone else set to review the game, ought to run the review immediately upon release. There's really no excuse for a game shipping without one of its main features functioning. I don't remember if it was at IGN or PC Gamer, but someone used to go off about that on a fairly regular basis. A game should be playable as intended out of the box.
In theory, the patch model exists so that people with different system specs from those the game was designed/intended for can still buy the game, help the developer sort out the bugs, and then pick up a patch that will allow them to enjoy the game at its fullest.
This shouldn't be an issue for consoles, where I think a good portion of the appeal is that until the manufacturer comes out with a next-generation model, you will be able to play EVERY GAME released for that system. It's the big advantage over PC games. There's an argument to be made that with the 360 and the PS3, there have been significant hardware changes that might prohibit that compatibility. Even still, that's not what this sounds like. It sounds like someone wanted to hit a release date and pressured the developer. Someone ought to tell them that gamers will in fact be grateful if a game is held off. Many of the best games ever made had a posted release date of "When it's done."
Posted by: Matt | October 10, 2008 at 11:25 AM
The Co-Op will be a patch at launch...that's a statement I'm not sure I wanted to hear. Something about patches on games for content that should be there makes me a little iffy about the whole deal.
Although I do have the feeling this will be a fun game, just not an "amazing" game.
Posted by: The Nooge | October 10, 2008 at 09:03 AM
The same-console co-op is still going to be in at launch, and from what I've seen they seem similar enough that reviewing one should tell you how well the other would work. If you're going to get a second player anyways, just play together for a while. The only thing I'd miss is how good their matchmaking system is, or if they have one at all, for those of us who want to play online but don't have friends who play.
Posted by: Durandal | October 09, 2008 at 08:01 AM
The better games almost always launch last, that's why Fallout 3 now follows Fable 2 in launch order, it was two weeks before Fable 2 earlier last month. Peter M. is a hype monger not a good game dev. Pub game glitch FTL with a spin to not look like an idiot. Fail.
Posted by: cornerman | October 08, 2008 at 07:31 AM
Myself, I wish game developers would stop treating games as a "release now - patch later" affair. Maybe Peter shouldn't ship the game until the features promised were ready with it (like the online co-op, the Champion Edition extras that keep getting cut, etc.)
If developers make a Good game, it will be reviewed as such. If Peter's latest offering is crap, or even mediocre, I'd like to see that reflected in reviews. Reviews are so biased however that that will most likely never happen. Thanks be to the almighty dollar...
Posted by: Jon | October 08, 2008 at 06:16 AM
If Pete Molyneux releases Fable II before co-op has been added then we will review it before co-op has been added it.
It's very cheeky of him to release the game without features and then expect gamers to reserve judgement until the day he adds those features.
Posted by: Kate Lawler | October 08, 2008 at 03:52 AM
MY girlfriend is the same way, Eric. She LOVED watching me play Fable, really any game with an intriguing storyline, loved the music, the enviroments, the relationship, good vs. evil, etc.
I think she takes something different away from the experience than I do.
In fact I think she might be more excited for Fable 2(to watch me) than I am, which is a lot.
Posted by: Jon | October 07, 2008 at 09:58 PM
What are you people talking about? Peter is not asking him to wait for co-op, he is just asking him to have an inexperienced player start a world by themselves.
Posted by: D | October 07, 2008 at 01:23 PM
The co-op seems like it can be cool, although its an RPG, which is traditionally a loner type of game. Sure it might have similarities to the die and paper adventure games of my youth, but the co-op there was for the good of the group. With this game letting a "friend" into your world could be a risky experience, from their ability to kill all of the families you've created to killing everyone in a trading post that you might be currently trying to build into a prosperous town. Does turning FF off keep them from killing friendly AI?
Oh yeah back on topic, I'm not buying it for the co-op, I'm buying it for the solo adventure. So just post the review.
Posted by: Odacom | October 07, 2008 at 12:26 PM
I think it's important to mention that they didn't include co-op at launch. That was one of the main reasons I'd been looking forward to it. As it stands, I'm not buying the game until co-op is functional. Removing one of their key selling-points just before launch is ridiculous!
Posted by: raynaa | October 07, 2008 at 05:59 AM
If the game isn't ready, they shouldn't release it. Review and be damned! We'll be spending our hard-earned money on it, and we deserve to know your impressions of it before we do.
Posted by: Simon | October 06, 2008 at 08:26 PM
this is a joke right microsoft really takes the cake rushing games out the reason they dont want it reviewed is either it sucks or it wont be out for another month sorry but the first fable was a huge disapointment wont be suprised again
Posted by: MILLER | October 06, 2008 at 08:09 PM
I think you need to review what you have. If they don't want the game reviewed without CoOp than they should not be releasing the game yet.
This game is sounding more and more like it was rushed. I cancelled my pre-order when I found out I will not be getting everything as advertised on day one. Still plan on buying it when the game is finished. What a gen this is when developers release unfinished games and expect people to buy them.
I think the SP mode should be able to stand on it's own and hopefully will still get high praise.
Posted by: Chris | October 06, 2008 at 07:21 PM
There is a typo in the title: Moore should be Molyneux. :)
Posted by: TnS | October 06, 2008 at 04:17 PM
Ben- You should go ahead and run the review of Fable II right away with the caveat. I wish they could have included the co-op so this situation didn't come up. I think the game is going to be killer, but this issue will stain it's release as many reviewers grapple with the same problem.
Personally, I will try the online co-op, but it's not the selling point for me. This is not the online game I'm going to play with some dude I don't know (like Halo, or COD). So, I have to count on friends buying it, and playing it at the same time, whereas with Halo or COD, there will always be somebody to play with.
As to Peter's request, my wife LOVED watching me play the first Fable. I asked her many times to try it, but she was just interested in the cause-effect relationship of good and evil. My point is, I think having a non-gamer with you during some of your review playing may be just as good or better than asking them to play. Have fun, can't wait to read the reviews!
Posted by: Eric | October 06, 2008 at 04:16 PM