I finished the game two days ago and by today, I’m asking myself “Is this it?”

To be honest, I felt a little let down when I completed the main quest but maybe I could have set my expectations a little too high after my initial review, which to be honest, the game failed to fully deliver what I thought it would.

I still think it’s a well-crafted RPG, with some unforgettable moments.  To avoid spoilers for the benefit of some, there were moments where I got slightly emotionally involved when *beep* killed *beep* right before your eyes.  The world of Albion has great depth, from the backstories to how the world still functions after you complete the main quest – just like a “real” game world should.  There are still quests to be completed, jobs to do and property to buy.  And I believe the game will keep generating new minor quests as long as you’re playing it.  So in that sense, the game never really ends.

However, I have noted three key areas that could really be improved.

Main Quest – It’s terribly short.  The more I think about it, the more I feel like there’s so much opportunity to lengthen it but didn’t.  In fact, it’s short to the point that the ending felt painfully anti-climatic.  Breaking the conventional of a traditional RPG, Fable 2 has no major boss battles.  Good or bad?  You decide.

Morals – Though it promises that you can craft your character to slant any way you want – good vs evil or pure vs corrupt, the game seems to impose a judgement on you if you choose to stand in moral middle ground.  Just one example, shopkeepers will give you a bigger discount if they like you, and less if they’re afraid.  Of course you can just kill them and take what they have for free, but if I don’t want to be that bad, then should the game penalize you for living in a shade of gray?  Given the perceived freedom of choice, should the game appear to reward you more if you’re good and pure?  You decide.

Character Builds – Though there are three branches of skill to develop, I feel there isn’t much liberty to create diverse characters.  This could be because of how the balance between the three skill types complement each other so well in all your battles.  The flip side is the game doesn’t really allow you to create specialized characters like other RPGs do.  So if I want to create a ranged fighter, I won’t be able to because I’ll need to invest significant amount of experience points to increase my health.  Likewise if I want to create a spellcaster.  Is this the best mechanic to implement or should health increase be given everytime you spend X amount of experience points regardless of which skill tree?  You decide.

At the end of the day, it’s a give and take.  The game is well crafted in many areas that broke the convention of a traditional RPG and I still maintain that the dog is a very well designed and implemented aspect of the game.  And perhaps if they had followed how a traditional RPG delivers a game experience, it wouldn’t have turned out to be such an enjoyable and unique experience.  But if the game is built around the ideology of choice (vs predestination?), then I feel it failed to fully deliver on that because underneath the illusion of choice, the reality is that most of how you experience the game is decided for you.  

My ratings still stand for all the categories except replay value, so here’s my humble grading of Fable 2.

Art/Graphics: 9/10
Music/Sound: 9/10
Controls/Playability: 8.5/10
Production Value/Design: 8.5/10
Replay Value: 3/10
Overall: 38/50 or 76%

p.s. after so many years, the best RPG in my books is still Diablo II.  I can’t wait for the sequel. 

Fable 2 Cover Art

Let me start by saying I’m not a big fan of RPGs. I find games in this genre tend to take up too much time (which is a commodity I seem to having less of), and the badly designed ones just feel too repetitive – you either have to kill someone, find something or bring an item to someone.

I think a well-written RPG needs to fulfill two important criteria: First, the RPG needs to move the narrative in a non-linear fashion so the player is free to pursue whatever he wants with no dire consequences to the story.  The player should be able to jump in and out of the main quest anytime he wants, however he wants. Second, the game needs be crafted such that consequences do matter. Contradictory?  Here lies the dichotomy of an RPG game.  Every action the player takes needs to bear consequences because the world the game lives in needs to be alive and real – or at least give an illusion of. And the easiest way to achieve this is simply making it more linear: action-consequence. Yet, when it’s crafted this way it defeats the point of an open gameplay and results in a flat, oversimplified experience.

Fable 2 has done well in these two aspects.  The gameplay is balanced well between the two – whilst there’s no dire consequences for not pursuing your main quest all the time, your every action will affect you and the world around you.  If you steal something when no one is looking, you increase your evil balance. And too much of that, your physical appearance will alter and NPCs will react to you differently.  You wear certain clothes and increase your attractiveness score, the ladies in town will flock to you. It doesn’t stop there, the world of Albion is deeper and more dynamic.  If you increase the rent on the house you’re renting out, it will affect your purity score. If you trespass in someone else’s property, the guards will come for you.  Everything you do affects the world.

In terms of gameplay, the controls are pretty straightforward. Despite some criticisms, I find the simple fighting mechanic working very well.  X for melee, Y for ranged and B for spells.  You can combo them any way or you can choose not to. Depending on whichever attack you choose to dispose of the enemy, the experience orbs that drop will be from that same category.  So if you’re a predominantly melee player, you will level up your melee skills faster based on the melee experience orbs dropped.  The player’s attributes is governed by the same three skill branches. You can choose to pursure melee, then your character will appear more muscular.  If you choose to pursue range (called “skill” in game), your character will be taller and lankier.  If you pursue spells, your character will develop a magical glow.

My first character is quite well balanced between melee and ranged, but less on spells.  There’s no additional points to spend on what RPGs traditionally label as strength, dexterity and intelligence.  To me the simplicity works – you don’t have to spend too much time mulling and planning what skill point to spend next. The time is better spent exploring the world.

Furthermore, the game isn’t punishing when you die and that’s important.  The more punishing it is, the faster the game frustrates the player. When you die in Fable 2, you merely collapse to the ground, then get up again with full health.  The only drawback is every death will give you a permanent scar. And in this game, the scars you have will have an effect on how an NPC reacts to you.

In terms of storyline, the game establishes very early what your final goal is.  In fact, the first part of the game when you’re playing as a kid, sets up the entire game for you.  Though that first part is terribly linear, it establishes many important facets of the game so it’s very clear what your objectives are once you transition to play as an adult.  However, like a good RPG, the game lets you decide when you want to pursue your main quest or when you just want to tinker around – get an odd job, check out stores that are on sale or even just go exploring the world.

One of the best feature I like about Fable 2 is the inclusion of the dog.  It’s such a risky and difficult mechanic to build into the game but I have to say that it works really well.  The dog is a reflection of you. If your character skews evil, your dog’s appearance will change just like yours.  And how you treat your dog will affect how the dog is.  If you punish it all the time, you’ll get a more aggressive dog that will aid you in fighting but always fearful of you.  If you praise your dog too much, it will be more playful and might not fight as hard.  You can buy trick books to teach your dog new tricks or you can buy a rubber ball to play fetch.  After a while, the dog is so much part of your character that you begin to develop a bond with it.

Once I was taking my time fighting a group of bandits early in the game, and the dog got kicked really hard by one baddie.  Doggy whimpered and collapsed and that really pissed me off so I proceeded to zap that mofo with lightning, shoot him with my rifle until he collapsed then finished him off with a sword through his chest.  Injured doggy needs to be given potions to heal, just like you. After that, I bought a book called “Dogs of War” and upgraded the little canine to fight better. After the upgrade, the dog is able to pounce on fallen enemies to finish them off.  So in my typical encounters now, I’ll start by shooting a few enemies from distance and pooch will finish them off while I clean up the rest.

The dog also acts as your mini-map.  If you’re exploring and there’s a treasure chest nearby, the dog will bark to get your attention and will lead you there.  If there’s something buried, the dog will start digging as an indication that you should take out your spade to join in.  Even the treasure hunting skills can be upgraded via books.

There are some bad points about the game.  There’s some framerate issues especially when the screen gets busy and on menu screens and sometimes the camera seems a little misplaced. But all these are not particularly glaring so I can live with it. All the stuff that’s good covers these little flaws.

Overall, my experience with this game far surpassed earlier RPGs like Oblivion.  The balance between simplicity and depth is very well thought out and executed.  The visuals look rich, and I particularly like the music, which I believe is scored by Danny Elfman. If you’re a fan of RPGs in general, you should enjoy this.  If you’re not, this game could be a pleasant breath of fresh air, unlike some others before that in comparison to Fable 2, plays heavy and feels terribly stuffy.  Though I’ve yet to complete the game and can’t give a complete review, I feel the game has definitely got legs to be terribly engaging. I would say this is highly recommended for new players and fans of the Fable franchise alike.

Art/Graphics: 9/10
Music/Sound: 9/10
Controls/Playability: 8.5/10
Production Value/Design: 8.5/10
Replay Value: 7/10
Overall: 42/50 or 84%

On the 14th April, the Media Development Authority of Singapore announced that by the end of April, Singaporeans will enjoy a new classification system for video games.

According to the press release, the new classification system was developed over a two-year period involving detailed research and extensive consultation with key stakeholders, including members of the MDA’s advisory committees, representatives from the video games distribution and retail sectors as well as parents, academics and gamers themselves.

I’m really pleased that such care and thought had been put into crafting and defining an in-depth and comprehensive rating system for the games sold in the local market. These two years of deep cooperation between the public and private sector is a testament to the commitment by the authorities on the importance of an extensive rating system to protect the young minds in our country.

To help you better understand the new system, I’ve taken the trouble to study and summarize the different tiers of the new ratings. Without further ado, here it is:

1. Mature “M18″ – Restricted title, suitable only for those 18 years and above.
2. Age Advisory “Suitable for 16 and Above” – Suitable for 16 years and above.

There.

No, stop refreshing your browser, I didn’t miss out anything. That’s it.

Two years in the making. Does this mean it took one year per rating?

Seriously, I’m not kidding. Read it here.

Let’s see how this compares with video game rating from elsewhere.

All games sold in US and Canada are regulated by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) and its unique because its voluntary and self-regulating. ESRB’s rating system is based on consultation with child development and academics, and nationwide research with parents. The result is that the system is age-based and most importantly, impartial.

In the end, ESRB’s system has six categories: Age 3+, Age 6+, Age 10+, Age 13+, Age 17+ and Age 18+. Along with these six categories is a list of 30 different content descriptors such as Sexual Themes, Real and Simulated Gambling, Tobacco Reference, Use of Drugs and Violent Content. So understanding game content is based on two-tiers, first look at the categorical age rating, then read the content descriptor to see why.

Full list can be found here

As a gamer, I may have some issues with how some games are rated. But as a member of the discerning public, I have to agree that ESRB’s two-tier rating system is just as comprehensive as it can get. Gaming content isn’t one dimensional, so you can’t just stick on an age rating and get it over with. The more difficult part is to explain why it is so – the aim is really to empower the buyer with the ability to make an informed choice.

Back to MDA’s rating system. Perhaps what I’m most uncomfortable about is that such a system is once again, top-down. Yes, there’s grassroots consultation but at the beginning and the end of the equation is the government’s policies.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a government-led rating system but I’d personally very much prefer that something this should be one of those policies that are public-led instead. After all, it’s us who are buying for ourselves or our loved ones. We should have created a rating system that meets the needs of the consumer, providing clear and objective information on game content that could perhaps build on what ESRB has already established. Maybe it’s just me, but I really can’t get my head around this rating system, crafted over two years that really just oversimplifies the complexity of game content.