dark tower. way of shadows. pendragon (years ago). to name some

[QUOTE="fubarfoote"]

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"] Most likely. I've seen a lot of made up specifics to discredit the 360 recently. CaseyWegner

hey.... i'm discrediting fable not xbox.... get ur facts straight mr. scientist

..................................... 360 feeds off the souls of newborn puppies.... crap i just proved ur point

is this a term you made up?

no sense of humor. i think i get more excited about reading a book series then i do about fable games. sumone earlier also mentioned that a child could beat it easily...... that to me is casual, as in anyone

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="fubarfoote"]

i consider core games to be intensive, challenging, have depth, scale, among other things (don't have to have all mind you). fable is not intense at all, i have played 1 and 2. and challenging?.... minesweeper is harder then fable games, honestly...... i really think they are. now look, i am not saying they aren't fun, they r. but i wouldn't classify them as core.

Ravensmash

is this a term you made up?

hey.... i'm discrediting fable not xbox.... get ur facts straight mr. scientist

..................................... 360 feeds off the souls of newborn puppies.... crap i just proved ur point

[QUOTE="fubarfoote"]

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]Eh..I don't like grouping games into "core" and "casual"...but if I had to Fable 3 definitely would not be core. It's a cake walk for beginning to end and is as shallow as it gets for an "RPG". It has as much depth as Disney game.Ravensmash

exactly

lol ok this is gonna sound mean and narrow minded but still funny... ok?..... here goes.....

wow.... an hour of odd jobs to buy a house? CHECK MARK BY INTENSITY, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING TODAY'S MARKET

mario might be the only exception to the rule, but zelda dev. needs to die. also msg. oh n for the love of god stop making pokemon games

Eh..I don't like grouping games into "core" and "casual"...but if I had to Fable 3 definitely would not be core. It's a cake walk for beginning to end and is as shallow as it gets for an "RPG". It has as much depth as Disney game.killab2oo5

exactly

[QUOTE="fubarfoote"]

i consider core games to be intensive, challenging, have depth, scale, among other things (don't have to have all mind you). fable is not intense at all, i have played 1 and 2. and challenging?.... minesweeper is harder then fable games, honestly...... i really think they are. now look, i am not saying they aren't fun, they r. but i wouldn't classify them as core.

DoomZaW

so going by that judgement god of war ain't core?

intense? yes. scale? hell yes. depth?kinda challenging? yes, simply adjust difficulty

depth only thing lacking for me for gow3 n if u didn't like the game i am kind of amazed cuz it kicked ass

i dont see the fun in playing as the same characters over n over again. why not make new ips with the new creative ideas?..... i mean it doesn't work anywhere else does it? no one wants harry potter books to keep going or more twilight movies to come out. eventually things should end

[QUOTE="fubarfoote"]

abviously i have hit a nerve with you. or you like confrontation.... regardless... i do think that fable has scale and depth (well not the first one but the sequal was way better) n i don't see intensity in the story or gameplay. mayb its just me. prbly is. and not 2 seem like i am avoiding the argument but this is one thing of 6 that u r defending that deals with the topic.

also, i guess no matter how u spin what makes a core game is simply how the gamer overall percieves it. hints the present argument

lundy86_4

Hit a nerve? Hardly. Nor am I being confrontational. I am simply asking you to explain your reasoning. A reasonable request, wouldn't you say?

If it's how the gamer perceives it, how can you blanket the game as not being core? By that logic, it all depends on the person and a blanket statement cannot be used.

As for your other points, here are my thoughts. With regards to point 1, I don't even understand what you mean. It doesn't even make sense. It's advantageous to workout games (which are becoming more popular).

Your second point I agree with, as the price is steep. I also agree with 3. Point 4 I don't because it is a great addition to the hardware, and limits problems such as losing controllers, or not being able to find them.

Point 5 makes no sense, because you can use a controller along with Kinect, therefore FPS games are playable (and have been demoed).

Point 6 is purely subjective, and thus, irrelevant.

lol thanx. all i wanted was ur opinion on it.

my first point was more directed at kinect for games not involving excersise, which most gamers want. the tech is cool but has no real purpose in most games. the rest i accept as valid points.

Clearly you have missed the point of gaming if you include Nintendo amongst your list of not so creative devs.

kontejner44

e3 this year: mario, zelda, icarus, kirby.... thank god for these new franchises that prove ur point

also, i slightly agree with the main point of the topic. some franchises need to die(cod and halo after reach comes out) but hey if gamers still want them then they will still make them. supply and demand.