all games are not created equal

(I mainly wanted to check out the category function of comparisons now :D )

Ghostbusters and L4D both feature terrific voice acting.  Ghostbusters has the advantage though, mainly due to the actual actors of the movies reprising their respective roles in video game form.

Dan Akroyd and Ernie Hudson stand out to me with their voices.  They're instantly recognizeable, lively, and really help bring the characters to life.  Harold Ramis is still great with his technobabble.  I was sadly dissapointed with Bull Murray, who I anticipated to be a standout.  Bill Murray sounds very quiet and very very sleepy the entire time.  Too bad.

L4D's characters also have great voices and they all sound lively and energetic.  I think the stand out is Francis though, with great lines such as "Nice shot Bill, that was my ass!" and the infamous "I hate elevators/subways/sewers/hospitals/trainyards/small towns/water/helicopters/etc etc etc" . 

While both are great, Ghostbusters still has the advantage where your character doesn't say anything, or even has a name.  It's perfect, as it doesn't at all get in the way of the vets talking amongst themselves.

A very tough choice, but I had to go with World at War mostly because of some more challenging missions. I liked Nazi Zombies too. World at war also has some slightly better graphics and more realistic gameplay. Its also has co-op which is a cool experience to be fighting alongside a friend thorugh WWII.

It's been awhile... But I'm back...

So I've been playing both of these games after returning home from university, and both are no less than fantastic. Both games interpret the strategy gaming genre completely differently, and yet both succeed - although, Rome: Total War gives just that little more complexity that a rapacious RTS/TBS gamer like me needs.

'Kingdom Under Fire: Heroes' seems to be one of those games that people can't remember, it got a 'great' review by IGN, but it lacked a good advertising campaign, and seemed to get lost in the bargain bins of my local GAME and Gamestation shops that frequent my humble coastal town. It plays like 'Dynasty Warriors', yet contains initially simple - but eventually complicated - strategies that give you more of an edge over the horde's of enemies you'll fight against. Whereas 'Dynasty Warriors' gives you a power-laden hero with which to plough through enemies, 'Kingdom Under Fire' gives you a more mediocre hero to entertain you in those long battles, rather than being an unstoppable machine, your controllable hero is simply an entertainment, but in the hands of an experienced player hero's can be channeled to take down enemy groups quickly and efficiently.

The game has great graphics for an old xbox game, with occasional pop-in and some bad environmental textures, but all of this doesn't matter when a massive scale battle is underway. the units you can control vary from your main hero's group to archers, infantry, knights, heavy infantry, spearmen, and ballista's to the more special units of the game, such as eagles and bomber wings, fire elementals to thunder rhino's.

I figured, when buying this game, that it would be oh so easy to play. But hell, I was so wrong. The learning curve is pretty steep, and with all the units having multiple abilities etc etc it can get rather complicated on the battlefield. You find yourself having to think really carefully about what troops to unpgrade, what to promote them too, and whether a Mortar unit would really be more useful than Longbowmen. If your really into the game, there's pages and pages of stat-screens showing troop weaknesses etc etc which I'm sure would satisfy any 'Final Fantasy' player, though, I've never been fond of maths or excel spreadsheets myself, and if your anything like me, just leave the stats alone.

Now, I think a good amount of PC players know of Rome: Total War. Remember that odd TV show? 'Time Commanders' 'nuff said. Basically, you have a good amount of Europe and some satellite countries to invade and conquer, to burn to the ground, enslave, or inhabit. You can play as various countries, getting various units and bonuses, and slowly rip apart the other countries ancient style.

I'm not going to go into depth explaining the mechanics of this game, its easy enough to find, but basically its all about the killing and not so much about micro-management. this is no 'Caesar', and you won't find yourself managing every part of every city. the options are more blunt, you choose somethng to construct, and some units to recruit, and you just have to keep your people happy and finances in the green... Sigh, I wish it was that easy...

The game is a challenge, I've played it loads and loads and loads... And it takes forever to finish a campaigns, but its one hell of alot of fun and is incredibly realistic when it comes down to the battles. You have to be quick on your feet because on the harder difficulties the AI becomes increasingly invasive and aggressive on the battlefield.

Both of these games are simply incredible, and some of the few games that I'll be playing long into the future when I'm bored of all this mainstream 360 junk they seem to want to feed me these days. If you like the more complicated RTS/TBS games then Rome: Total War is a damn good bet. Haven't got a good PC? Grab an old Xbox and get 'Kingdom Under Fire: Heroes', sure, its not as complex, but its a good challenge and is the most strategically focused game I've ever encountered on a console.

I'm comparing these games because they're basicaly the same thing and same concept, you go around, doing whatever the heck you want. while following the main storyline.

But fallout 3 is easier to follow, I'm having a little trouble in farcry 2, I've had the game forever and i JUST found out that my objective is to do local missions until something comes up...

fallout 3 has a prelude that gets you pumped.

farcry2 just kinda puts you in the game after you select the character you want. oh AND your being forced to work for someone because you killed one of their men.

fallout 3's music is better, and for me that's a feature a game has to have, good music.

The big reason that I like Wanted more is because of how impatient I am.  Hitman seems like it could be a good game for the right person, and that person definitely is not me.  I don't have the patience to carefully watch all the people around me and figure out who can go where and how I could kill the people without being suspicious.  What usually ends up happening is me trying to be careful, they see me being suspicious, then I shoot them in the face a bunch of times.  Cue tons of other people running to figure out what all the rucus was about.

Wanted was a very short and flawed game, but I still found it enjoyable.  It was mindless shooting, but it was right up my alley.  No need to scope out patrol patterns, just shoot 'em and move on.

Zombies zombies zombies.  Zombies are pretty popular these days.  Dead Rising may have been somewhere in the beginning of the zombie craze and L4D possibly near the end of it?

Anyway, Dead Rising is a cool game.  It's very much like the Evil Dead series of movies, where instead of keeping it totally serious the entire time, it can get pretty silly.  You may end up running around in kids clothing cutting up zombies with some hedge clippers.  You may even get a hold of a lawnmower or a chainsaw and really end up tearing up some zombies, and it's fun.  Only for a little while though, because the repetition can get pretty boring.  Also, searching for the right weapons can be pretty difficult, especially since there are zombies all over the place just waiting to eat you.

L4D is an even cooler game.  It captures the feel of a more serious zombie movie and does a lot of things right.  The zombie hordes can be pretty intense to fight off and the tank zombies can really stress you out, and it's awesome.

Both games aim to make a certain type of zombie flick into a game, and both do it pretty well.  L4D ends up being better because the type of movie it pulls from ends up creating more exciting gameplay.

While Tony Hawk games used to be the epitome of skating games, but when skate entered the gaming world, everything changed. Skate brought the ideas of not button mashing to get points but flicking the joystick in interesting directions. It brought a sense of purpose to each trick, a 180 meant moving the joystick from south to north along the side, not triangle in the air. Skate also brought the hall of meat. Where as most games you don't want to crash, in hom it is a race to see who can get hurt the most. It is a lot like the mode in Burnout Take Down to rack up damage.

There are some things that I like more in Prototype than I do in GTA4, and vice-versa.  I like how I can quickly pick up Prototype and breeze through a couple missions quickly before I head out somewhere.  With GTA4, it can sometimes be a chore to complete the missions, especially if you have to drive really far, only to get gunned down once you get there.

Prototype actually has a great system for little goals, like "destroy this building" or what would be the equivalent of the rampages in the old GTAs.  These mini side missions can help you gain EPs (the games experience points system) for upgrades to your character.  GTA4 does have this same kind of thing, but it's more hidden away and not painted out for you on a map like Prototype.

Sure, Prototype does do a couple things right, but man, GTA4 is a ridiculously detailed game.  When you drive around the city, each neighboorhood feels different.  The trains come and go, the people walk around with their coffees, cars rearend cab drivers who randomly stop.  It's all there.  Prototype's Manhattan has absolutely no life to it.  Each block feels as dead as the last.  There is actually a block in GTA4 that is exactly the block I live on.  The style of houses, sidewalks and everything is exactly the same.  It's pretty awesome.

Given this, Prototype is a free-roam game I suppose, but there really is no reason to look around the city, unless you're moving to your next mission or side mission.  GTA4, you can wander around Times Square or go down to Radio City Music Hall and just check it out.  You can walk around stabbing people who are annoying.  You can throw a grenade into the Burger Shot.  You can punch people doing yoga in Central Park in the face.  It's up to you.  Prototype has nothing near this level of interaction.

GTA4 for the clear victory.  It has hours of gameplay beyond the end of the game.  It really is a living, breathing city in GTA4's 'Liberty City'.

Both of these games feel like budget titles to me in there own way.  They get some stuff right, but then a lot of other stuff just doesn't feel like it has the same polish on it.

Wanted had cool moments with the shooting and the story part of it wasn't half bad.  It kinda did one thing kinda right, which is this whole cover and shooting thing.  Problem is, that's all the game was, for the around 4 hours it took to beat it.  Nothing more than taking cover and shooting the entire time.

Prototype is the same in its repetition.  You fly/run around, kill some stuff and just keep doing that.  It has a great system of all these little goals to accomplish which can keep you playing for a while if you're a 100% guy like I can be sometimes.  You can upgrade your moves, which is cool, but there are far too many separate moves and it's hard for me to actually use them all in battle.  I usually just use the same couple over and over until I make everything dead.

Story-wise, they are both interesting enough.  Wanted was a cool continuation of the movie.  Prototype goes with the Bourne Identity "who am i" kind of stuff the entire time and slowly shows you bits and pieces of your past as you play, which can be motivating enough to keep you playing to see what the deal is.

Prototype gives you more bang for your buck.  Wanted is a short game and there isn't much reason to 100% it, so you won't be playing it for long.  Protype isn't that bad of a game.  It's also not that great of a game, but it can still be enjoyable.

If you like MMO games especialy the FREE to play better than pay to play ones. Then here are 2 really nice free MMO's. Silkroad takes place as a historical MMO either choosing to start in China or Europe. Each starting point has its own Characters to choose from, and you can customize your character in height, Choose what weapon your character will be weilding ( usualy defines their class ). You however dont have controll over hair color. or hair style. You have a little customization for the clothes. but not much for the begining.

In 2 Moons you have 6 classes, each being a different character, 3 of which being male, and the other 3 being female. I saw this as a drawback but the game later fills that void with the overdramatized VIOLENCE. You dont have realy any controll of customization of your character till after you start playing the game. you choose a class, read the specs on that class, and start playing with basic armor.

Quests:

In Silkroad the quests are very very repetative... "Kill 50 (insert monster here)" or "collect 10 (insert item here) which can be found by killing the (insert monster here)" The story behind the quest always leads up to you killing a certain number of monsters. Which that doesn't seem to help because of monster respawn. "hey I just killed you all, i guess the village will be safe now... Oh you respawn?.... well at least I got the points"

In 2 Moons The quests are a little more complicated Which makes it a lot more fun though it does have those certain quests where it tells you to kill a certain number of monsters... there are other quests that want you to take a nice long journey just to get to another NPC. These quests not only give you the experience of exploration, but also give you XP for the monsters you'll have to face.

Buildings:

In Silkroad all the buildings look .. oversized. i mean walk up to a door and its almost like a friggin giant could fit through. this makes it seem a little unrealistic.

In 2 moons all the buildings look decent. they're a good size. makes the game look more "populated" if you will.

Leveling up

In both games Leveling up becomes a challenge but 2 moons takes the cake with a level cap of 150. Right around level 30 is when it take practically all day to get to level 31 and so on and so forth. Placement of points into your characters skills is a bit confusing at first, if your new to that kind of stuff you may have to make a new character to get the best out of that class. 2 moons doesn't let you go back and reset your int, str, dex... or anything of that matter.

Weapons and Armor:

2 moons has a very large selection of weapons and armor. And its a good way to get yourself to train for that next level. because each piece of armor is one level above the other, for example: say you want the next set of armor and the legs of that armor are for lvl 8 or something like that. The next part of the armor would be 1 lvl above that, so you can always anticipate the next level ahead. until you get the full set of armor then you have to wait a decent amount of levels till the next armor type.
Weapons are basically the same And they are abundant.

Silkroad has a very small selection of armor for the first few levels. I haven't played the entire game for it gets long and boring. But I do know that the armor shop only has 3 armor sets for each class. And the weapons shop doesn't get any more rewarding. So its not really THAT much to look forward to.

Money:

Silkroad and 2 moons have decent amount of currency that monsters drop. 2 Moons gets more abundant though

Herbs in Silkroad are more expensive than the healing potion in 2 moons, so money gets tight in Silkroad. I easily can obtain a large sum of money and keep it a large sum of money on 2 moons.

Longest review I've done....

Edit: HOLY COW! I forgot to mention the BEST part of 2 moons

If you like blood and gore and i mean. like totally unneeded but still awesome blood and gore. Then 2 moons is the game for you. If your using dual blades then it gets pretty messy. blood splattering everywhere. and then the way you kill your enemies. most the time sliced clean in half.

The music in this game is very good, and the camera angle is FTW.

I Stopped playing 2 moons for the reason that Acclaim decided they wanted to put ads Everywhere. Usually I would enjoy what the loading screen for each new map looked like. But now with all the ads that pop up, I cant enjoy that art. Maybe they've fixed it now. There was a way to turn the ads off last time I played. But if you did. You lost that 10% bonus XP from having it on.
( I'm going to pick this game back up when I get my new system )

I stopped playing Silkroad because It got way to repetitive. It was fun to play with my friend. But you can only be entertained for so long before your like "you gotta be kiding me".

At this point in time, I've played both of these games equal amounts.  That amount of time is a shade under an hour. 

They both take place in Manhattan.  True Crime is actually GPS accurate, so if you wanna drive from Columbus Circle down to the financial district, it's gonna take a little while.  Prototype is a scaled back version of Manhattan.  It does have a couple landmarks, but is missing a ton of streets.  I live in NYC, so I'm always a little picky about this kind of stuff.  But for an outsider, these games make the city look totally boring.  It just doesn't feel right in the game.  GTA4 does a pretty good job with the feel of NYC and these two games don't even come close.

Gameplay-wise, both games are average.  Prototype does edge out True Crime a little bit because the graphics and special effects make the game feel cooler.  They also have some more detail in the little things like construction awnings and people in Prototype.  I do wish that they learned more from mistakes in previous games like TC:NYC to make Prototype a better game, but oh well.

I recently purchased Burnout paradise, it is by far one of the best racing games I've ever played, and, in comparison to its older brother's and sister's this game kicks serious butt.

I believe that this is the first time free roam has been applied to a burnout title, correct me if I'm wrong.

Burnout was good, everybody loooooves crashing, the game had no where to go but up. with games like Burnout 2: Point of impact and Burnout 3: Takedown. both of which only improved the series. then later on, much later on they came out with burnout revenge and from that day on i swore i would play every burnout game.

anyway, Burnout Paradise not only puts allllll the goods of the original burnout games into one but puts in a unique way to get to each event. you drive to your events, and all your event start on intersections. of course this limits the number of events you can have but hey I'm not complaining because there's online play.

Revenge rivalries with other players is always fun of course. because nothing says "hell yes" like taking down your rivals car.

While both are RTS's, W3 takes the cake. W2 brought the addition of bnet to Blizzard, but it never went far with it. All it had was melee style games. What w3 brought to the table was the use map settings style games of starcraft mixed with a new 3d aspect. Also w3 allowed for a level of customizability not seen before. With the addition of creating your own character model, though it is a lot of work, but enough people made them to justify it.  The story of w3 was better as well. It brought more controversy in the warcraft universe with the introduction of two new races and with many more plot elements.

I have owned the new one for a week now, and finally got to play a decent amount of it yesterday, so here goes!

The new Punch-Out on the Wii is the first disc that I've put in the Wii for a long time, and it's awesome.  With the exception of one lame new character and one particular special Nintendo branded cameo, this game is just full of nostalgia.  From the small cutscenes, the music, and even the controls, this game feels exactly as it should: a modern re-telling of the original.
Of course, motion controls are unavoidable on a Wii title.  However, let it be known that I've yet to even try them, nor do I really plan to.  Sure I could wave the wii-mote and nunchuk while juking on a balance board, but you just can't get the split-second timing you need with a motion controller. 

The original game is definitely harder than the Wii version.  Part of the fun of the NES version was looking for the small hints that your opponent was about to throw a haymaker, whether it was Pison Hond(a/o)'s eyebrows or Great Tiger's gem flashing.  However, in the Wii version, these clues are much more obvious, and generally include an audio hint to go with it.

In single-player mode, the Wii version has nearly the exact same controls as the NES version.  This is a good thing.  You still collect stars for landing punches at special times, and there's still some special one-punch knockdowns that you can do, too.
Definitely my favorite edition is title defense mode, where you'll face off your old opponents again, but this time they have quirks.  For example, you'll face off Glass Joe again, but this time he wears a sparring helmet, so punches to his head are next to useless.  However, if you star-punch him, then his helmet flies off for a few seconds and you can punch Glass Joe in his Glass Jaw.

I found the multiplayer mode on the Wii better than what I heard from most people.  The punch controls are way different, and are better suited for two-player play.  You have special hooks and jabs that you can perform.  However, when one player transforms into Giga-Mac, the guy that's still Little Mac gets to use the exact same controls as the single-player mode, so it's definitely a treat.

The only reason I pick the Wii version over the NES version is that they're nearly identical in gameplay that you might as well have the flashy audio and visuals to go with it.

Ok so this is my first review and lets get the ball rolling. Battlefield 1942 and Call of Duty: 2 are both WWII First Person Shooters that received good reviews.

            Battlefield 1942 features many of the most famous battles in all 4 theatres of World War 2 (Pacific, European, North African, and Russian) and a choice to fight as any Either Axis or Allies, depending on nation-specific battles (for example, UK-Germany in Battle of Britain and Italians-American in ‘Operation Husky’)

            Call of Duty 2 only features campaigns in 3 theatres (North African, Russian and European) as the Allied force but raked in excellent reviews and had a very wide following.

 

Gameplay:

            There is no set storyline for the single player campaign in BF: 1942 it more or less throws you into a battle as the selected Nation as you capture or recapture territories (similar to that of Capture the flag) While it lacks story driven gameplay the battle’s aren’t linear and boast a whopping 21 maps in itself and more with the 2 expansion packs included. As in the sense you can make you way pretty much anywhere around, to an extent for if you wander too far out you come into a ‘red zone’ where you will die after a certain time. The player is given a choice of 5 infantry types, Scout (sniper rifles and binoculars), Assault (automatics), Anti-tank (rocket launcher), Medic (Machine gun with med packs so that you may heal your fellow allies), and Engineers (Un-scoped rifles, the ability to heal Vehicles and mounted weapons, Landmines, and C4). The multiplayer is essentially the same as its singleplayer, featuring the same maps as the Single player. except the ai in the singleplayer is replaced with other players connected to the server, although there is the option to play with both AI and connected players together. The game allows you to take control of all vehicles and mounted weapons, such as machine guns, shore guns, and anti-aircraft guns. The vehicles list everything from Tanks, Aircraft Carriers, Submarines, and Aircraft. BF: 1942 shifts the FPS genre from the usual lone fighting machine player and attempts to make it more of a cooperative team effort. Since its map are rather large and open exploits such as botting are seen very much, and most of the servers are PunkBuster protected the chance of encountering such exploits are slim.

            In Call of Duty 2 you play as a soldier in the Red army on the eastern front, then The British in North Africa then Europe, then as an US soldier in Europe. Call of duty’s storyline is moving and tells the story of a soldier In each of the allied nations and expresses dramatic situations of war such as being over-run by the enemy, discovering Prisoners, running from a big ass tank that broke through the wall, and having to retreat after a hard fought battle, you become attached to the fate of the soldier. The storyline covers up the fact that the gameplay is linear in fashion, with minor exceptions in the fact that opportunities present themselves where you can achieve objectives in a selective pattern. The multiplayer is fast paced and intense, allowing you to choose from a list of weapons (which in most cases are nation sensitive and range from scoped rifles, shotguns, semi-automatic rifles, to automatics), and features 13 maps. But with the Release of ‘Radiant’ players can make and upload their custom maps thus, creating an almost infinite amount of new maps. Though with everything good there exist bad, as with BF’s servers CoD uses PunkBuster, which in personal cases seems to suck kicking you sporadically, and when you play a server without it the exploits come and kill the fun. Even so the multiplayer proves a very fun battle arena and will keep me coming to kick Gene’s but for quite awhile.

           

This comparision is for the purposes of the hall of meat and crash mode. While both offer the ability to destroy, Skate 2 has a better medium. In both games the player must find a suitable launch point. Where skate 2 deviates is that you can initiate the hom mode mid air. Then you can control is the character goes into a ball or is streched out. Also you can make your person roll if he is in a ball at the right moment. Burn out is interesting in that it has after touch and crashbreaker. After touch allows the user to control where the car goes in slow-mo and crashbreaker makes the car explode after it hit a certain number of cars. 

    Banjo-Kazooie brings back nostalgic memories, of a time when I didn't care about multiplayer or achievements, and just played games for pure fun. I played Wind Waker a few years after Banjo-Kazooie and I was enthralled by it also, loving the gameplay, items and the graphics.

    This is actually a really hard comparison to make as I love both games almost equally, but it is on my comparison list so it shall be done!

    The reasons, in my opinion, why Banjo-Kazooie was better than Wind Waker are the reward and the grind.

    Nothing beats the feeling when you receive that jiggy that you've been working hard to achieve, the happiness and joy often made my mum ask me what I was smiling about. Also these jiggies weren't there just for show, they opened up new levels for more fun to be had and exploring to do.

    On the other side, Wind Waker rewarded you after a long gruelling task or dungeon with a piece or two of equipment. At first I was happy to have the cool new item and try it out in different situations, but this soon died out as I realised it was "just another item" which I would have to use over and over again to overcome simple (or not so simple) tasks.

    Some of the other objects you receive may of been useful in the dungeon which you found them in, but absolutely useless later on while in Banjo-Kazooie all those jiggies added up and kept a purpose.

    The second reason why I think that Banjo-Kazooie is better than Wind Waker is the grinding in the games.

    In Banjo-Kazooie, there may of been some grinding and repetition of tasks to win the jiggies, but the tasks weren't usually that long and could be dealt with without too much boredom.

    However, in Wind Waker, it usually forced you to do long sailing trips with absolutely nothing happening (they shortened it later with with a wind-direction changing song and a transportation song).

    But the thing I completely hated about Wind Waker was when you had to collect the triforce pieces. While collecting them, not only did you have to find the pieces, you had to find the maps to show you where they are (there is a different map for each of the eight triforce pieces). And to find the maps to show you where they, you needed to buy a map to locate them.

    But then, once you found the triforce maps, you had to get them deciphered from Tingle at 398 rupees each. Did I mention that each of the things you needed to collect had to be sailed to and then a short puzzle completed to receive them?

    I dreaded the triforce collection part of Wind Waker everytime I played it, and for this main reason I think that Banjo-Kazooie was a more enjoyable game.

Just glanced over at the top ten games and noticed that it says that TF2 is better than Fallout 3.

I don't think so =)

Both games are a ton of fun when you're playing them.  Team Fortress 2 has an advantage because, since its multiplayer, you can play it endlessly and always enjoy it.  Fallout 3 does have a much more limited play time. The big difference though is the memories of my experience playing these games.

TF2 gives you memorable moments like "that one time I rocket jumped and did that thing" or "when i set up that thing over the thing and that guy thinged".  But with Fallout 3, I remember stuff like "I hate those stupid kids that call me mungo" and "I wish I blew up megaton so that stupid guy next to the bomb would shut up".  The entire game was a unique experience that left me with vivid memories, which I think is pretty rare with games now. 

I remember feeling a certain way when I had to make certain decisions in Fallout 3.  Now that there is a lot of DLC coming out for Fallout 3, your experience doesn't have to end when the game ends.  TF2 is still an awesome game, but everyone seriously owes it to themselves to play Fallout 3 if you haven't already.

I'm more of a classic Meg Man fan. I really didn't get into the X Series that much. Lately I've been playing Anthologies trying to give it a decent chance, but I really prefer the less flashy side scrolling action. . . . . .and the music is f$%^#@ epic!

When looking back through the ages of fantasy RP gaming and the different plot lines/ideas, alot are similar.

 

WoW is not any different than most fantasy games and the characters are quite bland. The typical races, troll, elf, human, do have their different quirks but all-in-all they are following the mold which was set.

 

Fable II, although more about following the storyline then meeting and fighting people online, I found was more adventurous and more fun due to the multiple expressions and quests you can complete. The baddies are not necessarily well-thought out but along with some of the usual villians, there are new ones such as the Hobbes and Balverines.

 

Also, I have never played a game until Fable that dealt with Banshees. I thought that was cool. The trolls looked more organic to their environment instead of their clothing matching their territory and the Hollow Men were a little creepier than the typical skeletons.

 

I was surprised to hear British comedian Stephen Fry's voice as one of Fable's characters [Reaver] and laughed quite hard at the end.