Review Fable II

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.