Oh, Yahtzee.
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I haven't said anything because I dislike posting in forums. But now I'm finally gonna say it, and the fact that you'll probably never end up reading it doesn't change the fact that I'll be glad to have finally gotten it out and vaguely in your direction.
I enjoy your videos and columns despite the fact that I disagree with you on a considerable number of important points about what makes a given game good or bad, and I think the reason for it is that I disagree with you in different ways from how I disagree with most people. I find it refreshing to hear comparatively fresh and valid criticisms of the things that I like despite their flaws, whereas most of the criticisms I hear tend to seem ignorant.
This is a perfect example.
The issues you take with Fable 3 (and the Fable games in general) are perfectly reasonable issues to take. At the same time, while the reasons you like Peter Molyneux and his games might be outweighed by your problems with Fable, you still find value in the innovation he brings to the table.
Take Fable 2. The conclusion of its main storyline was, whether a given player enjoyed it or not, fresh and different. I suspect that you would not have liked it, but I also suspect that your reasons would be drawn from a lack of investment in the events leading up to the conclusion, which could have made the whole ordeal much more powerful -- which is a perfectly respectable viewpoint.
After I finished Fable 2, everywhere I looked, I saw people complaining about the ending, and it was always for the same reason: the main villain dies without a big, epic final boss fight.
I could even understand the complaint that the main villain's death was unsatisfying due to the way the conclusion was put together, but that was almost never the complaint. The complaint was nearly always that said death was unsatisfying due to the way the conclusion was -not- put together; specifically, that it lacked a nigh-universal gaming convention.
I can appreciate a difference of perspective in which something I like is criticized for executing something poorly. I have a much more difficult time appreciating criticism that stems from an aversion to a change from the familiar.
Your criticisms have an insightful substance that I find endlessly refreshing, even when we don't agree on those matters of substance.
So, in the unlikely event that you actually read this, I want to thank you.
The industry might be moving as you described regardless, but we can always hope. We might not place any bets on the matter... but we can hope.
