They use this video as proof
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VP0aYKklsc
) You should never trust anyone who calls himself "a cynical person"
2) the british retard spend 7,5 minutes talking about simple options such as sound,brightness and controls
3) His argument is that the textures are not good enough for 35 price tag
4) he spend 20 minutes talking about 35 dollars price tag and menus
Are you people really autistic to the point of thinking he proved the anniversary HD is bad?
Fable Anniversary is bad though senpai
>>343636283
Why?
>>343635770
Fable was never good to begin with
I played anniversary and don't remember anything that bad about it.
>>343636468
shut your lying jewish mouth
>>343635770
All I remember about anniversary is that fucking stuttering every 30 seconds.
I liked the original fable when it first came out.
I feel like a lot of the shade it gets is from people just now playing it for the first time.
Not all games age well. It doesn't mean it wasn't good for its time, though.
>any price above 5€
>game looks like a nintendo64 game
>>343636693
It's not above 5 though?
>>343635770
It was $30 when it came out which was fucking ridiculous.
For $5 it's probably fine.
I'll take low-poly over uncanny valley any day.
>didnt get any (you)'s
>makes a new thread
Underage neo /v/ everyone.
>>343636939
should games be reviewed based on price?
Who is retard enough to pay anything over 25 dollars for a video game?
>>343637008
No
you first shut your jewish mouth and go back to nintendogaf
>anniversary is 5 dollars
>the original is 10 dollars
they know
>>343637065
>should games be reviewed based on price?
why not? its an important consideration when looking at any purchase. you're not going to buy a small family sedan for the same price as a fancy sports car
>>343637065
>should games be reviewed based on price?
That's a good question, actually.
If Pokemon Ruby costed $40 but Pokemon Sapphire costed $10, would Pokemon Sapphire actually be a better game? Would its lower price deserve mention in the review, or impact on the reviewers opinion?
>trying to shill a shit game on two different threads
>calls others jews
>>343637235
1) comparing cars to games
2) not buying used games or games on sale and never for the full price
>>343637249
It's funny because the reviewer always get the money for free and gifts from the publisher
>>343637303
Because I want to understand why people here suck the cynical british cock that hard
It's not normal.
>>343637491
Specially in that fable review where he spent 20 minutes talking about menus and mouse options
>>343637065
if something is a really good game but is priced at a million dollars and is behind 20 layers of denuvo, does it really matter if its good or not?
>>343637589
No game other than CoD+DLC costs more than 59 USD
>>343637680
you're not very good at this, are you? most people can't buy every single 60 dollar game that comes out in a year, so they're going to take the price and quality into account each time
>>343637379
>not buying used games or games on sale and never for the full price
So you're taking the game's price into consideration?
>It's funny because the reviewer always get the money for free and gifts from the publisher
Way to miss the point you fucking idiot.
>>343636539
You still can't play as a girl and that triggers me
>>343635770
it has better models and textures but is completely inferior in the end so it doesn't matter
removing hero saves and adding that awful console menu was their biggest mistake
>didnt play The Lost Chapters
>thinks people play games because of looks
>pretends the "remake" doesnt have any problems
>shilling a shit game FOR FREE
>thinks people base their opinions solely on youtube videos
>also underage
>>343636468
The only thing Anniversary does is highlight how weak a game Fable was.
Fable is an exercise in populating a game with as many missed opportunities as possible.
>>343637787
What people should do is:
wait for 12 months for a good deal or buy used
>>343637791
>So you're taking the game's price into consideration?
Sure I do but not if I was responsible for giving it scores (a.k.a journalist prostitute
>>343637942
>>thinks people base their opinions solely on youtube videos
You just admired that the only source of information about Fablo Anniversary is that retarded video by the british cuck
You fucking admitted.
Can someone actually tell me why the game is bad without the mention of memes, shorthanded greentext or keyboard and mouse controls? I haven't played TLC in a long time and for 5 bucks this interested me.
>>343638154
unless the game is complete shit, a used copy is only cost a couple dollars less. this isn't 2004 anymore
>>343638295
Ok, pirate as a way of trying it for yourself (''illegal'' trial) and if it's good buy it or wait for a steam sale
>>343638160
Its old and outdated, if you don't have a huge nostalgia boner for Fable you won't like it.
You probably won't like it even if you do
>>343635770
I would understand if he was talking about fable 2. But this is fable 1, fable 2 is just better in every way. dont waste your time with an objectively worse game.
>>343638716
Fable 2 was most definitely not better. It was a pretty good game though.
>>343635770
i played fable on the PC and wasn;'t really a massive PC gamer then. I remember it being a good game and visually nice, but it's not a game to return to.
>>343638716
> fable 2 is just better in every way
>>343635770
>no mouse in menus
>graphics still looks like shit
>performance issues
>modding tool is worthless
>combat is still dogshit
>multiple actions bound to single button
i bought that piece of shit 4 days ago and refunded after 20min.
I hate TB since he got cancer he became a prick but in this video he got valid point that fable remaster is a rip off.
I'm replaying Lost Chapters right now and I still enjoy it, as I did when it first released in 2004. I think that people who have never played it ever would prefer the remake since it's "prettier" and has lots of small fixes.
Play whichevee one you want, I still recommend the game since I really enjoy it.
>>343635770
Graphics aren't everything, Anon.
>>343637065
>should games be reviewed based on price?
shit mate im on the wrong site, i get all my games free
>>343640249
Not everyone is Quinn who is willing to suck any dick for a piece of plastic or a digital key
I replayed it using the anniversary edition and it worked well and looked pretty nice. Installed the old edition to compare and i don't understand people who claim that the old one looks better.
>>343638716
Fable is fantastic with that whole "no upgrades, potions and legendaries" playthrough, its a whole different game, and yea its kindof weak otherwise, but Fable 2 is just so flaccid and weak its not even comparable, you literally cannot die in the game, this is a real thing in the game, when you run out of health you drop your XP and get back up.
>>343635770
Question from someone not living in America: Are 5 dollars too much money to pay for a video game? I'm asking because I've seen many posts about people hesitating to pay that much money, and from the outside, it does not really seem to be really much.
>>343643521
You need to consider that this site is literally full of children who only have so much pocketmoney to spend.
>>343637802
>t. 40 year old man
>>343638608
How is it outdated again? Because it's not Skyrim/Fallout 3-4?
>>343643521
>>343643723
Bing bong boom
>>343636468
Fable 2 was objectively better in every single way, but Fable 1 nostalgiashitters don't seem to like it for some reason.
>>343635770
The game's mediocre with one of the most disgustingly ulgy looking character designs.
>>343637235
What if I told you there's a game on steam right now, with 42% positive reviews, only because it's overpriced for what it offers.
That very game is 90% off.
I do agree price matters, but should your review be based on it?
>>343635770
>PC will never get a Fable II port
Does anyone have actual arguments against it? I've been getting the itch to give Fable another try and don't know if it should be Anniversary or original. As long as the autumnal forest still looks hot I'm keen on A.
>>343644414
They're both fine man, played both of them and only thing I don't like is that they use Jacks lost chapters voice in anniversary.
Anniversary looks pretty good imo but the one thing I can't stand is the way they changed the MC's face and some of the beard/hairstyle options. Looks worse in every way than the original and I could not find a combination that didn't look retarded and was pretty much forced to wear a helmet the whole game.
>>343643723
Ha. But still. I watch US series, and 5 dollars seem something that your mom would give you without thinking.
>>343635770
Kill yourself, Mr XBob.
>>343635770
>>343644414
The problem with anniversary is that whenit came out it was an incredibly lazy port. It had all sorts of performance issues and crashed often. Getting keyboard/mouse support was also a hassle.
Not sure if they fixed the tech issues, but if they did it's probably decent. I played through on 360 and it was fine little update. Some of the new model decisions were a bit strange or felt out of place, but otherwise okay.
The one big complaint I haveis that it had day-one DLC instead of all being included. There's no excuse for that shit especially when it's just an HD upgrade to an exising game. I just ignored the DLC.
