Lionhead Canvases Gamers for Fable Opinions
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Old kingdom is referenced throughout fable 2, Theresa appears constantly throughout all Fables, and the main character in Fable 2 is mentioned in the third installment. The guild is consistently referenced throughout all games, as are specific characters and places. I'd say that the games have connections through lore.Kwatsu said:
I'm glad that they put out a survey, hopefully it will mean that Fable IV won't be so fucking streamlined.
Let that guy who writes the gravestones, write the whole game.Irridium said:
Peter...really....get away from video game designing, because Mr.Molenux, you're not funny and nobody loves you.
I suspect the guys at Lionhead pay attention to Zero punctuation, given the "unique hero character" bit in the survey. Maybe that facism comment got some questions raised as to whether "heroic blood" was necessary.
Hero Morphing and customization were tops for me -- didn't really care for the dog -- I always run so he spent the whole game off screen anyway. Also, MORE SPELLS -- I liked how you could choose all sorts of combinations and sets of spells that play to your strengths -- they seem to reduce the depth of the Will system each time.
Another thing that would be good are "sliding stats" ie there was no reason to use any weapons in Fable 1 than the Katana (highest damage Light category) or the Greatsword vice versa
Another thing that would be good are "sliding stats" ie there was no reason to use any weapons in Fable 1 than the Katana (highest damage Light category) or the Greatsword vice versa
Dear lord did they ever shit the bed with that one in Fable III.canadamus_prime said:
OT: Took the survey. I pretty put down what I'd assume would be the average.
I liked 1 and 2, I didn't think either were amazing games, but they both held up and overall were pretty good. I felt like there was a lot of room for improvement... but I don't think any of the 'improvements' done from 2 to 3 really made the game better, it dumbed it down and just made it uninteresting to me.
I liked the variety of spells in 1, though there was still a lot of room to grow and get more interesting spells. In 2, the spells were dumbed down but it still worked, certainly.
I don't remember when Yahtzee said it, but IMO this is the case where 1 was testing the water, 2 fixed a lot of what 1 did wrong and made it better and 3 is when they got cocky because they had gotten a lot of money at that point.
I barely played 3, I started but I just didn't enjoy it, I didn't feel like I was doing what I wanted to be doing.
In 2 I felt like I had the greatest control over what was happening. In 1 I felt very little control overall but that's actually one of it's interesting points, everything is a little vague and nothing is totally clear cut. In 3, I was going to hang around and build up some money and buy things but I found there wasn't really any reason to, I felt nothing from gaining what little I did.
The big alarm sign that the development team is focusing on the wrong aspects: Making the interactions with the boring nobody townsfolk and generic NPCs way wayyy more in depth than it already was.
I liked the variety of spells in 1, though there was still a lot of room to grow and get more interesting spells. In 2, the spells were dumbed down but it still worked, certainly.
I don't remember when Yahtzee said it, but IMO this is the case where 1 was testing the water, 2 fixed a lot of what 1 did wrong and made it better and 3 is when they got cocky because they had gotten a lot of money at that point.
I barely played 3, I started but I just didn't enjoy it, I didn't feel like I was doing what I wanted to be doing.
In 2 I felt like I had the greatest control over what was happening. In 1 I felt very little control overall but that's actually one of it's interesting points, everything is a little vague and nothing is totally clear cut. In 3, I was going to hang around and build up some money and buy things but I found there wasn't really any reason to, I felt nothing from gaining what little I did.
The big alarm sign that the development team is focusing on the wrong aspects: Making the interactions with the boring nobody townsfolk and generic NPCs way wayyy more in depth than it already was.
I couldn't even get it to "send it in" when I finished.Twad said:
After my experience with Fable II and a very brief encounter with the third title, none of it matters much until Lionhead realizes that everything in that list needs a massive overhaul. Accessibility is a tad laughable considering anyone can pick up this game and immediately become overly familiar. It becomes boring, resulting in a game that can only be described as "why bother," which is the queue for me to pop the disc out and do something else. There is no extra challenge or interest past the first play through beyond "What will I look like with devil horns?" But I think I've heard that is not even included in the third game... Grrr! You can only grow as a player so much until you're pretty much top gun who is aware of all of the scant tricks and nuances.
A real inventory screen would also be appreciated. Zooming off to your personal Neverland bachelor pad just to change socks seems a tad excessive and is more of an immersion breaker than an easy to use menu.
And the Dog? Seriously, why do we have to have a dog? Can't that be an option in case you just don't care about a silly virtual animal in a game that lacks a "mute the bloody dog" spell?
I just find it all lacking or outright incongrous: Emotional drama and story? What?!? Freedom, customizable hero who changes based on his or her choices? Wonderful! Except it doesn't work too well when you have black and white as options, and sometimes the "evil" choice is actually reasonable. The morality is too limited and skewed, damaging the entire foundation of Fable's premise of creating your own destiny and story. I think the proof is in that eating meat makes you "evil" and eating tofu makes you comparatively saintly. I'm sure that given the option, refusing to have a dog would paint you as Michael Vick's "Palpatine," you monster!
I enjoyed II for what it was, but the little bit of III made me turn tale because it felt like too many tester ideas thrown in to be different, while not contributing to an overall better final product.
...Damn marrying everyone. Let us aim for Harvest Moon styled dating/marrage! Aka, character's that are actually developed and have some level of consequence to the story.
And if you don't know "harvest Moon" styled - You pick from a handle of named characters each with their own personality/unique design. Being able to marry anyone ruins the specialness of it all.
And if you don't know "harvest Moon" styled - You pick from a handle of named characters each with their own personality/unique design. Being able to marry anyone ruins the specialness of it all.
Make Fable more like the original Fable again (Fable I / The Lost Chapters), give the series the magic feeling back it once had.
Keep the dog, and the fluency and improvements of the fighting system of the second Fable.
No quick-travel, just cullis-gates.
Keep the dog, and the fluency and improvements of the fighting system of the second Fable.
No quick-travel, just cullis-gates.
"BRITISH HUMOUR"
I would like to think that british humour is more sophisticated than fart jokes, and some annoying old man shouting "BALLS" for no particular reason
As for the dog, he played a prominant role in fable II, but I all but forgot about him in fable 3.
marked the "knobing about" options as last and I dont know what deep lore there going on about, none of that has been evident since the first game.
I would like to think that british humour is more sophisticated than fart jokes, and some annoying old man shouting "BALLS" for no particular reason
As for the dog, he played a prominant role in fable II, but I all but forgot about him in fable 3.
marked the "knobing about" options as last and I dont know what deep lore there going on about, none of that has been evident since the first game.
Gameplay that's actually about freedom as a central gameplay element rather than just faffing about.
Alright, maybe this isn't the place for this, but I have a question for those of you who have played all three games. Do any of you really think that this describes them:
"Emotional connections through drama: Fable games offer an emotional story, with great cast and a compulsive story"
See, I've only played the first two, but I found both of them extremely lacking in this department, the second much more so than the first. 99.9% of the characters in the game are generic NPCs that have about as much personality and depth as one of the little dot people that you see walking around in the old SimCity games, and the stories frequently just seem to fall flat in terms of intrigue, drama, and character interaction.
Secondarily, since I haven't played Fable 3, does anyone think that it was better at this then either of its predecessors, or at least as good as the first one was able to do?
"Emotional connections through drama: Fable games offer an emotional story, with great cast and a compulsive story"
See, I've only played the first two, but I found both of them extremely lacking in this department, the second much more so than the first. 99.9% of the characters in the game are generic NPCs that have about as much personality and depth as one of the little dot people that you see walking around in the old SimCity games, and the stories frequently just seem to fall flat in terms of intrigue, drama, and character interaction.
Secondarily, since I haven't played Fable 3, does anyone think that it was better at this then either of its predecessors, or at least as good as the first one was able to do?
Where was the Old Kingdom mentioned in Fable II?ultrachicken said:
The other thing is about Fable lore, though, is that it may be *mentioned*, but it doesn't *matter*. The only lore that actually matters in Fable is that Heroes exist. Everything else is definitely drifting away by Fable III.
Also: I know Theresa is present in all games, but she's more of a plot / exposition device than a character. She just takes the (PHENOMENALLY POWERFUL) Spire away from you at the end of Fable II and acts like this was part of her plan all along. It's never explained why or what's she's doing in there.
Is Theresa an ally? A villain? Okay, she's meant to be ambiguous (which she was in the first game, to great effect), and I like a bit of mystery, but come on--she's been in three games now, being generically mysterious. At some point she needs to either become relevant or just go away.
The Spire was an old kingdom artifact, Lucien was obsessed with Old Kingdom stuff, Hammer mentions the old kingdom a few times, you see old kingdom ruins as you go adventuring, and so on.Kwatsu said:
As for Theresa? I agree with you that she isn't much of a character, but she does play important supporting roles throughout the series.