Fable.

[Mockingbird]

Fable 1 was good. Fable 2 was great. Fable 3 was miserable. I heard that they're planning on making a fable 4. Thoughts on the matter? :p

[Maxios]

Fable 4? As in, the Journey? The Kinect On-Rails shooter with no RPG elements revealed at E3? Pass :smallyuk:.

[Mockingbird]

Fable 4? As in, the Journey? The Kinect On-Rails shooter with no RPG elements revealed at E3? Pass :smallyuk:.

Agreed. :p

[Zevox]

Fable 1 was meh. Haven't bothered with Fable 2 or 3, likely won't with 4 either.

I've long intended to rent the sequels to give them a try, but there are just too many other games that I'm so much more interested in, so I'm beginning to doubt that I'll ever get around to them. And honestly, considering how little I liked about the first title and the lack of anything that interests me in what I've heard about the sequels, that's probably for the best anyway.

Zevox

[Mockingbird]

Fable 1 was meh. Haven't bothered with Fable 2 or 3, likely won't with 4 either.

I've long intended to rent the sequels to give them a try, but there are just too many other games that I'm so much more interested in, so I'm beginning to doubt that I'll ever get around to them. And honestly, considering how little I liked about the first title and the lack of anything that interests me in what I've heard about the sequels, that's probably for the best anyway.

Zevox

I recommend Fable 2, it was much better than the first and it's more of an RPG. Fable 3 was just terrible. They tried to make it an action-adventure. Bad. :p

[Trazoi]

Fable 4? As in, the Journey? The Kinect On-Rails shooter with no RPG elements revealed at E3? Pass :smallyuk:.
What? You gotta be kidding me... (goes to check E3 2011) oh wait you're not. At least I'm hoping this is a side thing to play around with the Kinect, which is why it isn't called Fable 4.

I liked Fable 1 and 2; Fable 1 had a better story path and fit better together as a game, while Fable 2 had this weirdly addictive atmosphere that made it fun to play (especially the bits that weren't in the main plot).

Fable 3 appeared to catch a terminal case of Molyneux disease. They streamlined everything to the point where it wasn't fun anymore. And the Hero had too much of a predefined personality for any of the customisation to feel like it meant anything. You were the Prince(ss), rather than the Pirate Gypsy Swashbuckler Will-User Whatever.

[Leecros]

Had they not released Fable 1 too early with an unfinished game just to meet a deadline, then decided to insult the people who bought it on-release by releasing a finished version of the game later at full price. I would venture to say that Fable 1 was a decent game,but since i didn't want to waste my money by buying the same game twice and didn't get The Lost Chapters...It was incredibly mediocre. The game was too short, i could beat it in an afternoon. I think my shortest play through was a little less than 4 1/2 hours if that. Several of the side quest were uninteresting with little substance, or downright annoying(rescuing the boy from the hobbe cave?:smallmad:). The Demon Doors challenges ranged from quite easy to quite annoying(get a high combat multiplier?) and their rewards were quite...lackluster for lack of a better word. Then there's the voice acting, several times i wanted to kick the person in the face to stop them from talking it was so annoying. I think Whisper was the biggest perpetrator here, but i think there were a few other situations that were similar. Oh and don't forget: Your Health is Low. Do you have any Potions? Or Food? Yes, IIRC there was a way to stop it, but why in the name of everything would you ever think it was a good idea to put that in a game??? It's embarrassing.


With that whole rant on Fable 1 i do have to say that Fable 2 did a lot to redeem the franchise in my eyes. However, i haven't picked up Fable 3 yet and from what i hear i would have a few things to say about it too, but i won't make any judgements on it until i play it(eventually). I don't like to base my opinions on the opinions of others, i like to form my own.

[Skios]

I think the moment that the true disappointment of Fable 1 sunk in with me was when I discovered an incredibly easy to obtain set of armour/clothing that basically made it impossible for any woman in the game to resist my charms. Obviously there are many areas in the game where the truncated development cycle showed through, but that one was the most glaring for me.

[banjo1985]

I quite enjoyed Fable 1 when it came out, mainly because it was something a little different and had some ambition. Sure, in reality it failed on a lot of fronts as you played, and it was as buggy as all hell, but it was okay.

Fable 2 is one of my guilty pleasures. I really enjoyed it, in spite of me realising it was actually quite a poor game as I played it. The main story is short and hackneyed, the good/evil thing is arbitrary and superficial, the voice acting is for the most part appalling (Stephen Fry...how could you/!), it's almost comically easy, and the ending...well, I don't think I need to say anything about what a let down that was. Still, I really enjoyed playing it all the way through, and I did all the optional collections and side missions that I could, which if I hadn't have enjoyed it I wouldn't have bothered with.

I've got Fable 3 in my 'To-do' pile, but all I've heard about it is negative. I'll play it to form my own opinions, but surely Fable 2 was streamlined and straightforward enough already without any more dumbing down?

[SilverSheriff]

The Fable Trilogy Suffers from something I call Godfather-itus.
1, Great.
2, Good.
3, Terribad.

And as for the Fourth coming out? I reckon it's the equivalent of somebody releasing another Godfather Film without any mention of the Mafia, just some guy doing small-time crimes like stealing cigarettes and then smoking them four-at-once in the Non-Smoking area of a Restaurant.

[The Succubus]

I think the problem with Fable is that it's unclear about what it wants to be.

You give the players the option to murder people brutally and have sex with their significant other(s) but then you do it in a highly santised way that leaves it looking rather silly. You offer them multiple ways of engaging in combat and then boil it down to repeatedly slamming your face into the same spot on your keyboard/controller. You add more and more mini-games that offer nothing special and merely dilute from the main quest.

So what would I do? Personally, I'd ramp it up to an 18/mature rating, give the combat mechanics a major overhaul and trim down some of the more pointless sidelines (the courier rubbish, the job "minigames") and really buff up the bits that could work well (the moral decisions, building and managing towns) and lose the psuedo cartoony aspect of it.

Also, I'd like a remastered version of Black and White as well.

[ShinyRocks]

The thing that bothers me about Fable is that it lets you marry people, and even lets you be gay, which is always nice, but then your only options are town after town of ugly, UGLY people.

Also the final Act of Fable 3 is just unforgivable.

[Zevox]

Those who are claiming that Fable 2 was an improvement over the original, could you perhaps be more specific? Because I've never heard anything about 2 that would lead me to that conclusion. Mostly I've heard that the story is even worse than in 1, which is an achievement of sorts in and of itself given the story in 1 was rather poor to begin with.

Zevox

[Trazoi]

Those who are claiming that Fable 2 was an improvement over the original, could you perhaps be more specific? Because I've never heard anything about 2 that would lead me to that conclusion. Mostly I've heard that the story is even worse than in 1, which is an achievement of sorts in and of itself given the story in 1 was rather poor to begin with.
It's hard to explain, but the atmosphere and flow of Fable 2 gels it together so it feels like a relaxing adventurous romp. There's something about the presentation and fluidity of the admittedly dead easy combat together with the art style and the music that make you feel like a storybook hero. This is in spite of the plot, which is dreadful and IMO actively works against this feeling. But the side missions and simply running around the towns interacting with stuff is entertaining. Fable 1 has this to a certain level too but Fable 2 adds more.

Fable 3 manages to take this feeling away through forcing the hero character into a pre-defined plot role, removing the fluidity of interacting with people so it's not at all fun, and just generally not feeling as storybook as the previous two. Oh, and they force you much more into the plot which is as bad as Fable 2.

[Zevox]

It's hard to explain, but the atmosphere and flow of Fable 2 gels it together so it feels like a relaxing adventurous romp. There's something about the presentation and fluidity of the admittedly dead easy combat together with the art style and the music that make you feel like a storybook hero. This is in spite of the plot, which is dreadful and IMO actively works against this feeling. But the side missions and simply running around the towns interacting with stuff is entertaining. Fable 1 has this to a certain level too but Fable 2 adds more.
Yeah, that doesn't sound like it fixes any of my complaints about the first game at all honestly. I found that the only redeeming feature of Fable 1 was that it was fairly fun to play through the game as a straight mage, abusing the overpowered lightning, fireball, and time stop magic (among a few other spells I can't recall specifics of) to make the game somewhat fun in spite of the otherwise poorly handled combat. "Atmosphere" is not something that I've ever found remarkable in any game. And "running around town interacting with stuff" falls under the category of "pointless extras that I have no idea why they bothered putting into the game" in Fable 1, so I have a hard time imagining that I'd enjoy it in Fable 2.


Fable 3 manages to take this feeling away through forcing the hero character into a pre-defined plot role,
See now, that actually sounds good to me. It probably doesn't go anywhere near far enough for my tastes, but I much prefer a more pre-defined main character to a blank-slate create-a-character type. It usually makes for better storytelling (though in Fable's case I somehow doubt they took advantage of it properly).

Zevox

[Trazoi]

I found that the only redeeming feature of Fable 1 was that it was fairly fun to play through the game as a straight mage, abusing the overpowered lightning, fireball, and time stop magic (among a few other spells I can't recall specifics of) to make the game somewhat fun in spite of the otherwise poorly handled combat.
I like Fable 1 when you stuck quite rigidly to being exclusively a warrior, archer or mage. If you max out all three you turn into a bland-o-uber-hero, but stick to one (with maybe a support spell or two if you aren't a mage) and it's fun.


"Atmosphere" is not something that I've ever found remarkable in any game. And "running around town interacting with stuff" falls under the category of "pointless extras that I have no idea why they bothered putting into the game" in Fable 1, so I have a hard time imagining that I'd enjoy it in Fable 2.
Atmopshere sets Fable apart from your standard action/adventure game. I'd prefer it if they went full out and made it more of a sandbox full world game like Grand Theft Auto or Red Dead Redemption. Without it it's an action/adventure with a crappy combat system and an even crappier story.


See now, that actually sounds good to me. It probably doesn't go anywhere near far enough for my tastes, but I much prefer a more pre-defined main character to a blank-slate create-a-character type. It usually makes for better storytelling (though in Fable's case I somehow doubt they took advantage of it properly).
They didn't. At all. Which is the problem.

It also goes against the point of the original Fable. In the original Fable, you start as a young boy dreaming about what kind of hero he'd like to be, and then you get to be a shining knight or an evil mage or the barbarian hero who never wears a shirt. In Fable 3, you're the younger Prince or Princess. You're aiming to rule the kingdom. It feels so very limiting. You've got the choice between being a good prince(ss) or an evil prince(ss), but in practice it's either being a sensible prince(ss) or a deliberate jackass prince(ss).

But if they transformed it into a more standard action/adventure game I wouldn't have minded if they had a decent plot and character path. Unfortunately it really is a story brought to you by the writers of Fable 2.

[Zevox]

I like Fable 1 when you stuck quite rigidly to being exclusively a warrior, archer or mage. If you max out all three you turn into a bland-o-uber-hero, but stick to one (with maybe a support spell or two if you aren't a mage) and it's fun.
I didn't like melee or archery combat in Fable 1 at all - it was nothing but button mashing, really - but at least the magic was fun. Overpowered, but fun.


Atmopshere sets Fable apart from your standard action/adventure game.
Funny, I'd never have said that. Fable to me is pretty much the definition of a standard, mediocre action-RPG.


I'd prefer it if they went full out and made it more of a sandbox full world game like Grand Theft Auto or Red Dead Redemption. Without it it's an action/adventure with a crappy combat system and an even crappier story.
Well, at least if they did that I'd know I have no interest in the games, since experience has shown me that I dislike sandbox-style games.


They didn't. At all. Which is the problem.

It also goes against the point of the original Fable. In the original Fable, you start as a young boy dreaming about what kind of hero he'd like to be, and then you get to be a shining knight or an evil mage or the barbarian hero who never wears a shirt. In Fable 3, you're the younger Prince or Princess. You're aiming to rule the kingdom. It feels so very limiting. You've got the choice between being a good prince(ss) or an evil prince(ss), but in practice it's either being a sensible prince(ss) or a deliberate jackass prince(ss).
Honestly, in the hands of decent writers (who preferably did away with the simplistic "be good or evil" stuff) I'd much prefer a story like that than anything like Fable 1 tried to offer. But yeah, after Fable 1 I fully believe you when you say that the still didn't deliver on a decent story.

Zevox

[hobbitkniver]

I've enjoyed them all, but perhaps I just have low standards.

[dehro]

oooh, look there... I was just about to open a thread on fable 3... I guess I can just post my rant here instead.

I've come rather late to it because I refused to pay 70 euros when it was new and waited for a used copy instead...and boy am I happy I stuck to that particular plan.
I'd be massively annoyed with myself if I'd spent more than double what I have spent on it to buy it new (eh...I even considered buying the special edition...because it's shiny and I'm stupid).
so..one year after most other people, I'm now ready to pour my rant opinion about it on the web.
I'll spoilerize for wall o'text-ish reasons, but will further assume that I won't be revealing anything new since the game has been out a year..if like me you're waiting for the little shop around the corner to put a used copy aside for you, and you haven't played it yet, you might want to skip the post altogether.. in fact..don't buy it at all.. have a night out instead.

firstly, this:
I'm not a hardcore gamer, and have only bought my first ever console, a 360 xbox (except for part-owning a commodore 64 in the good old days) 2-3 years ago..
fable 2 was one of the first games I played on it. I didn't play or even see fable 1 and going backwards seems like a bad idea.
I don't do multiplayer because I don't know how, don't want to know how, don't want to risk giving bill gates any further info about myself than he already has (him seeing my naked piccies I can live with, it's his nightmare after all... for him to also know my gaming preferences is one step to far!:smallyuk:), don't want to pay for subscriptions, waste too much of my time etc etc etc. I'm just not THAT much into games.

all that said, I can get rather fanboyishly nerdy about games I like and get hooked on (DAO to mention just one)
in this case, I was rather taken by fable 2 for several reasons:
it's RPG (or what I understand RPG is in videogames terms).
it was rather funny to watch my character morph along with his dietary habits, power ups, moral decisions.
it's pretty much what I would call a textbook steampunk environment. it was what I would refer people to who asked me what steampunk was before I discovered "girl genius". I'm not obsessed with the genre, but now and then it's fun to watch.

overal the good outweighted the bad in fable 2 by a fair ammount and kept me busy with it despite some evident failings.
rather understandably, I expected fable 3 to be even better and to introduce enough novelty in the game/story/setting/new gimmicks to make it at least as entertaining as Fable 2 had been.
so...wtf happened?
I'm not really good at reviews so I'll just list a number of things that have made me gradually lean towards the "not happy" faction

1) the story... I have played it through once, and am currently in my second play through. I am under the impression, so far, that very little I do will make a substantial difference to the main plot. my first playthrough I managed to be the good guy and save about 35% of the population. I'm now trying to be the bad guy and save everybody. so far I don't see many differences in the game. as if my actions didn't actually change the outcome that much..not in significant ways (ways significant to my ability to reach the outcome..or significant to the character's ingame life)
2) the items, their purpose and effects. I have no idea whether I'd get fat if I ate pies, like I did in fable 2..because I have never ever needed to have a pie. in fable 2 I'd have to stock up on food and stuff to survive battles and so on. here..no..because in all the game I've died maybe 2-3 times total...so..why bother with food-for-stats? I shall now try and eat anything I can get my fingers on...same goes for the other items
3) the broken fights. why have a gun and sword at all? magic alone will do from the very start, it's that powerful. the only reason to carry a gun is for when you have to shoot dwarves. for the rest it's like fishing with dinamite..why carry a fishing rod with you at all?
4) the broken fights.2 rifle shots seem to be much less defined than they were in fable 2...where it was fairly straightforward how the various "levels of skill" worked. I remember explanations on how to target specific areas/vital organs etc etc.. none of that in fable 3. flourishes in shooting seem to be really random and rare...not to mention utterly useless because when you are sharpshooting someone far off, the whole scene kind of falls through the cracks, as if your cameraman just dropped the camera on his foot. so half the shooting flourishes depict hillsides, people's nostrils and shaky sideshots of the monster you shot... more in general, serious video glitches.
5) the broken fights.3 trying to fight a charging mob of monsters with only your blade can be so ineffective that you start magic-blasting them away in droves out of sheer boredom and frustration. it's just that unbalanced. even so however, you really have to be sleeping to ever get in serious trouble, except with 1 or 2 monsters. it should not be the job of the player to make things more difficult for himself to balance out a severely broken fight system.
6) shops.. so little of it is appealing..why bother buying stuff if you don't need it because it won't alter the story or your relationship with npcs at all? why buy stuff when there are so many things you'll find for free even if you play the bloody bastard son of satan?
7) the npcs... totally pointless. all of them are carbon copies of one another, and the only reason to get in touch with any is for the points you need to unlock the chests on your path to the throne. and if you play it for the achievements and to "explore", you're in for an endless repetition of the same 2 chores..bring a package to someone, dig a lost item out of somewhere and bring it to them.
there's very little in the way of exceptions, and with an altogether short game, this weights it down a lot. very little variety, very little personalisation of the npcs, and next to no purpose to them in the first place.
a bunch of uggos too.. all very bland and visually half as interesting as they were in fable 2.
8) the gameplay... I remember it took me several days of intense playing to get somewhere in the main plot of fable 2... fable 3 I expected to expand it even further... I was done in less than 15 hours...and I did get married, had a bit of random fun, chased a few dwarves, did a fair number of sidequests. in other words..I didn't actually rush very hard to see the plot. when you're doing a sequel, you should plan for "experts" who have played the previous games, are interested in the plot and want to see it...it needs to be challenging for them too. and LONG... a 15 hour game really isn't worth the ammount of hype lionhead created around it...or the money they ask for it. more importantly: the "replay value" is rather low. now I have rushed through, and I'm heading for a different angle in my ingame decisions, I have the feeling however that all main events (so basically 95% of the things) have the same outcome (a major failure in Dragon age 2)..so..why bother replay again? all that's left now is to "enter relations" with anyone who is alive..to unlock all the smaller achievements. I might just do that with the current character... after that, it's on the "sell back" pile, for this game...which speaks for itself, since I rarely buy a game that I don't want to keep...and didn't expect that to happen with fable 3.
9) the gameplay.2 WTF!!!!! major gripe here: where did the "juicy second part of the game" go? I was told by adverts and general promotion of the game that getting to the crown was but the beginning of events..and that once king, my character would seriously affect gameplay and have serious gaming to do to get to the actual ending. yeah..right. from the moment I became king, I think the game was over in little over one hour. at no stage was it mentioned that the "whole year of preparation, stocking up supplies, coin and skills" would be sorted in 3 short jumps. overal it left me really unsatisfied about the promised developments of the game in a "ruler's viewpoint"..they could just as well have told me that the final battle was the very next day after I became king. also because I have the nagging feeling that having or not having certain allies wouldn't in any way affect the outcome of the plot or the difficulty of getting to the plot's end.
10)Dialogues...talking npcs are on the whole infodumping and nothing else...and those that don't talk... well..in fable 2 dialogue with npcs was already a major point of contention.. talking through gestures of various nature was never a big hit amongst the game critics...now however they've "simplified it" into utter crappitude. if I want to estabilish a connection with anyone, (necessary for those sidequests and the points they bring) main options seem to be "dance, dance like a chicken and menace"... I don't want to end on the foul side of a guard..so I have to pirouet with him or ..play the chicken. because those are the two main options to come up..ever. wtf? in fable 2 at least I could be charming with characters I wanted to hook up with, witty with those I only wanted to befriend, menacing or rude, depending on the other character's preferences and dislikes..
11) the dubbing.. a minor gripe.. .I had to play it in italian because that's the only language the game menu was displaying. I didn't get the chance to hear it in english which I suspect is marginally better.
12)clothing... has it got any special effects? it didn't feel like it. I seem to remember it was more than aestethics in fable 2
13) weapons... they feel really interchangeable...especially long range. using a crossbow or a rifle in fable 2 made a substantial difference, in reload time, range and so on... now, one rifle/gun is pretty much the same as the other..with very little in the way of noticeable difference...just maybe the range was slightly bigger with rifles than with guns..but it hardly ever became an issue.
hammers deal more damage than swords...that's about it, in terms of gameplay.
did I mention that magic is overpowered? they manage to simplify it by removing some enchantments (time is now bought in a bottle??) and by mixing 2 spells together..but the overal effect is that the only difference is visual, for when you want to capture a screenshot. in terms of playing the game, all magic is so powerful you really can't see the difference between one spell and the next.
14)where is my stats bar...????? I hardly ever died..and even then, the only reason I died when I died is that I didn't know I was dying so I didn't heal myself. it's stupid not to have one. I still haven't figured out if I never really hurt myself a lot (when I wasn't dying that is) or if you automatically heal after fights...
15)the map!!!!!! argghhh!!! where's the "you are here" button on the map?? where is the minimap? where is the direct link to the map? why do I have to click on a number of buttons, enter the sanctuary, find the map etc etc...only not to find myself on it and be only marginally wiser as to where I'm at?
where is the arrow pointing north when I'm not on the map? realism? ok...well, I can live with that, but it makes actually consulting the map a real nightmare. also, I had to find out basically by reading it on the net that you can in fact teleport/quicktravel to places..but you have to pick out a building to do so...not to mention what it does to your shiny path of pixiedust when you do.
16)the dog was funny and kind of useful in fable 2... in fable 3 they might have done without...not to mention it was highly glitchy
17)glitches!!! soo many..the dog, vanishing walls, poor graphics, holding hands that..don't hold hands... shiny paths that disappear on you, the quicktravel function blocked by a misterious quest you must finish before you can use it again (this is after you "finish the plot").. graphics that were... poor. in fact, I expected a bit of improvement in the graphics department and..couldn't detect any.
18) who is your demographic target? a game with sex, lgbt themes, venereal diseases and overal naughtyness which is really really dumbed down on the comunication department (not to mention the bunch of uggos you're supposed to mate with..which in a world made of and defined by pixels isn't as shallow as it sounds)....having to go through tickling, playing patty, posing like a chicken to invite a girl to bed is rather moronic. (need I mention the moustached trannies and the consistent absence of eligible female partners?)
it looks like they're just using the condoms and the cheesy sex sound clips to appease some 12yo with a very active immagination and next to no friends.
except they treat the whole thing as yet another feature..but disconnected from anything else.
btw..what's up with marriage? wives were nagging creatures who demanded attention, sex, gifts and whatnot, in real life fable 2.. and they were part of your main ending too...
in fable 3 they're so far on the background that you might as well do without, for all the good it does you. btw..why does your wife not get royal status when you become king? she stays villager, farmer shopkeeper..
it's targeted officially to a mature audience..but fails in depicting anything mature in any believable way... it's also rather messed up if the target is younger.
19) the money-making games... I like it more than I liked some of the ones in fable 2..but...I said "IT" because there's basically only 1 game..since all 3 professions are executed, games-wise in the exact same manner. in fable 2 different jobs were executed in different ways.
also..where's mah gambling?

overal it seems to me they've cobbled together fable 3 using existing material, dumbed it down, and done a piss-poor job of it.
I'm quite happy they didn't invent laser guided weapons or add dozens of new features..but stayed somewhat consistent with the setting of fable 2...
(I found it really annoying to play through Dragon Age Origin and earn my super armor/blade the hard way only to discover that in the awakening expansion even potato peelers used IN THE VERY VILLAGE MY CHARACTER CAME FROM were of better quality than my super-blade) ...except for where they cut out several parts of it and dumbed it down..and made it too easy..and... didn't improve very much where they could've...and... and...

plotwise it's still rather fun if clichee (shame I couldn't get the dialogues in english)...
other than that...meh..I expected more..and would have been royally cheesed off had I bought it new.
well..you get the idea.

all in all, the game is still playable and interesting visually..plotwise..it kind of falls apart in what is supposed to be the second half..where it fails to deliver on the promises of extensive gameplay once your tushie is confortably seated on the throne.
in fact, the second half is about an hour worth of gameplay... which becomes several hours of playing pony express if you decide to beef up as much as you can..which you don't really need to do anyway.
you cannot really fail in this game (not to mention the insta-respawn upon dying..with very little, if any, after effect)

one real gem in the game..is the game in the game...with the 3 mages acting as dungeon masters..it had me rolling with laughter and mad as hell at the same time.. how can the same people who come up with that, suck so badly at improving fable 2?

[dehro]

also..zevox..did you just go and ponify Toph?

bad, zevox, bad! *waves a rolled up newspaper in his general direction*
toph eats ponies for breakfast :smalltongue:

[Zevox]

also..zevox..did you just go and ponify Toph?

bad, zevox, bad! *waves a rolled up newspaper in his general direction*
toph eats ponies for breakfast :smalltongue:
Toph is awesome.
Ponies are awesome.
Therefore, with Pony Toph, the awesome has been doubled. :smallcool:

Zevox

[Typewriter]

I really enjoyed the first Fable. I was a huge fan of the varied options for combat and gameplay, and the goofy atmosphere of the characters while still focusing on a semi-serious plot was ideal to me. The only complaints I had with the first game were either disappointments due to moly-hype or were resolved in The Lost Chapters.

I loved Fable 2 to death. I considered a lot of the modifications to be minor refinements to the first game, and I actually liked the story a bit more. There is a certain sweetness to the overall arch of the game that I absolutely love. The one thing I didn't care about the gameplay was that it felt just a little bit more restrictive than the first. Nothing too bad, just a bit more linear.

A few more comments on Fable 2:

1. The final boss was one of my favorite end bosses of all time. He was nothing more than a weak man who had hidden behind mercenaries and planning and money. You get to fight him, you shoot him, he dies. This is exactly what it should have been.

2. It is, in my opinion, one of the greatest tragedies in any video game I've ever played that in the 'Love' ending you get a letter from your ressurected sister but this is never explored further. I know there are plenty of theories on what is going on here (some I agree with to a certain degree), but I would have loved some real resolution to this.

3. Towards the end of the game, the part where you go to live on the farm as a child is the only scene I've ever experienced in a video game that made me want to cry (26 year old male). It was annoying as hell, but the fact of the matter is that you get to sit there and live in paradise for as long as you choose. You can go to sleep at night and simply relive the perfect day over and over. You must eventually choose to go and explore. You, as a child, run through all the blood and violence that brought you to this point, and at any moment you can turn back to that idyllic life. And the entire time that haunting melody from the music box that you and your sister shared as a child is calling to you to save the day. This scene is truly touching.


Fable 3 is one of the most linear, disappointing games I've ever played in my life. The attempts at choice that they put into the game are generally shallow and ultimately doesn't change anything. If told to go and make yourself known to people you can do so by completing 3 quests, or farting into the faces of 100 random villagers. Either way the people cheer for you and love you. You can kill everyone in the game, abandon everyone at the first option, and in the end - it doesn't matter. Walter will be proud of you. You will be a hero. You can choose to destroy a lake or not, but does this matter? Nobody in the game seems to care, so what's the point?

As for the upcoming Kinect game I'm seriously stunned. What began as an attempt at making a freeform intuitive game series has devolved over time to be the most linear game imaginable. An on-rails shooter? Really? How did we get here from the unlimited freedom that the first Fable attempted to promise?

That being said, if they make a Fable 4 I will still buy it. I've seen enough in the series to make me want to continue playing games in the series. I will be skipping the on-rails shooter, though.

[Tyndmyr]

Fable 1 was good. Fable 2 was great. Fable 3 was miserable. I heard that they're planning on making a fable 4. Thoughts on the matter? :p

You've gotten two and three backward, Im afraid.

[Derthric]

I thoroughly enjoyed the first game, in both incarnations, as I had not followed its development and had no idea what all the disappointment was about. I treated it as more of an adventure game than anything else and enjoyed the ride. I usually like to play Mages in my games and really I felt in that game like I was Arcane Death Incarnate, few other RPG's made me feel this way.

The Second had an interesting atmosphere. But the one button to one action type set up is, quite frankly, annoying like JarJar. To get your spells powered up you have to sit there and take hits, and if you get a power/critical/flourish/whatever they call em in Molyneaux-land your charge goes away. The overall story seemed lacking, was your motivation revenge or just stopping Lucien, whats the friggen point of the tower, and if you let Lucien Monolgue long enough Reaver just up and shoots him for you. Some things were interesting the time jump at one point letting you see how the world has changed because of your decisions, (though my rugrats stayed the same age) but not enough to make me love the game. I liked the concept of the dog as guide, though it was a bit annoying at time, and i did like no minimaps. But hated the perma-breadcrumb trail, and overall felt the game left a very Meh taste in my mouth.

The Third..........the third.........ugh. To start I would like to say I didn't mind the concept of the road to rule, and not having a menu(for somethings, more on that later). Beyond that; Evolving weapons, hells yeah, I love that idea, except I don't exactly know why its doing what its doing nor does it say what it does. Is having a bonish handle mean itsbetter against Hollow-men? An explanation would be nice. The dog was less annoying this time, and that to me is the only improvement they made between the two games. The lack of menu's made shopping annoying, Reaver becoming a recurring character makes me hate life more than I can express, and the sudden shift when you are ruler in who the prime antagonist is just plain ruins everything. Also the choices you make at the end, keep a promise and lose money. The choices weren't very compelling at all. If it had pitted promise versus promise, making you fight to keep your ruling coalition together would have been more interesting. That leads me to my next point.

And tying your Kingdom's citizens and gold to a 1 to 1 ratio to measure survival, that sense make no. Especially since if you break the economy by becoming landlord of everything you can fill your nations coffers while offering free healthcare and lollipops to all. If they had instead made it a matter of followers(just a thought) based on your ability to keep your allies happy and perhaps bring in a few other factions that would have been a vast improvement

For the series overall? The cartoonish and campy feel works at times, but its become the calling card of the series as everything else remains in flux. The setting rarely remains tangibly recognizable, only recurring location is Bowerstone and then it never looks the same in its various incarnations. The lack of continuity, the decline in gameplay(IMHO) and overall lack of story makes me give the series as a whole a thumbs down.

[Daremonai]

Fable 3: I played your adventure, I didn't comment on how everything was made a pale shadow of its former self from F2....so why do you still make me repair my properties one. At. A. Time?

Seriously, unless you want to be a slumlord, keeping all your bought houses in good condition can easily take up half of your gameplay time.

[Avilan the Grey]

I recommend Fable 2, it was much better than the first and it's more of an RPG. Fable 3 was just terrible. They tried to make it an action-adventure. Bad. :p

But wasn't Fable 2 the one with the main plot totally lacking any sense and aggravating players whenever it gave a chance?

[Tyndmyr]

But wasn't Fable 2 the one with the main plot totally lacking any sense and aggravating players whenever it gave a chance?

Yup. IMO, they spent way too much time and focus on the stupid dog.

[dehro]

I thought I'd add a few more points to my list of things I dislike in the game

20)the save mechanism..is... non existent. you can save where you're at, and that's about it. navigating "saved games" is either a nightmare or impossible at all. if you want to save somewhere before making a choice and then go back to it if you dislike the way your plot is going according to that choice..you'll find it's actually impossible because the game will have been saved somewhere along..after your choice. this is a very basic flaw. one I don't expect any game made in this millennium to have
21) this game badly needs a "repair all" button on the map. it's nice to see that as a landlord you must keep the properties in good shape if you want them to be "rentable".. but having to do so for each single building navigating the impossibly stupid map is a stupid chore you shouldn't have to waste your time on, once you start accumulating properties. the only option seems to be owning shops and stores, as they don't require maintenance. it's still stupid.
22) navigating the quest/sidequest menu is idiotic. to find out what the quest entails you must select it, then go back to the map and select another one if you don't like the one you selected first. it actually takes even longer to do so than it takes for you to read this point.

I will concede that there is a bit more variety and gameplay in the game than I first acknowledged, in the sidequests. new locations and so on... but this doesn't alter my perception of a railroaded game with little or no deviation from the main plot and, more importantly, any deviation one makes has exactly 0 effect on the plot.

[Trazoi]

20)the save mechanism..is... non existent. you can save where you're at, and that's about it. navigating "saved games" is either a nightmare or impossible at all. if you want to save somewhere before making a choice and then go back to it if you dislike the way your plot is going according to that choice..you'll find it's actually impossible because the game will have been saved somewhere along..after your choice. this is a very basic flaw. one I don't expect any game made in this millennium to have.
I don't have an issue with this in theory. If a game is about making tough choices and living with the consequences then having a no backsies save system might make design sense. Fable was too cartoonish for this though - all the tough decisions were between almost stupidly self-sacrificing or pointlessly evil. And the results of the choice were hardly if ever explored.

The real unforgivable sin was implementing that kind of save system and then not guaranteeing the game was nigh-near bug free.

[Deth Muncher]

I'm going to warn you, this is going to be a very biased and impassioned rant.

Fable: Lost Chapters was my end-all be-all in terms of Fantasy RPGs when I played it in highschool. My friend lent me his XBOX and the game just so I could experience it, and I was so glad he did. Literally everything about this game made me happy - especially the spells. When you got a high level spell, you knew it, and it was amazing to rain down fiery vengeance upon your enemies. Every boss fight was a winner, and the story was immersive and just made you WANT to be a part of it.

Then comes Fable II. They've got guns! Yeah, guns are good, right? Well, I suppose - except you've taken out not only armor, but completely borked the Magic system? What is this, Dragon Ball Z? Why the hell is my Fireball taking so long to cast? I unlocked it, I shouldn't have to spend a day charging it! Not to mention, when you're charging you take more damage! Bollocks to that, thank you very much! It basically punishes you for not playing a Ranger, since Melee doesn't work as well with no armor (I mean, it does, but it doesn't).

But then came Fable III. I have a lot of problems with F3, but less so than F2. I "like" the idea of the Spell Gauntlets, in that while you still have to charge your spells, your charging gets faster the better you get at magic, and you start off with all levels of spell unlocked once you have the gauntlet. You still have no armor, but the guns are better, and the melee weapons are fun and flavorful. Not to mention, the whole idea of becoming king and deciding what to do was a really neat idea, and I was behind it all the way.

So, it's 1>3>2 for me.

[dehro]

I don't have an issue with this in theory. If a game is about making tough choices and living with the consequences then having a no backsies save system might make design sense. Fable was too cartoonish for this though - all the tough decisions were between almost stupidly self-sacrificing or pointlessly evil. And the results of the choice were hardly if ever explored.

The real unforgivable sin was implementing that kind of save system and then not guaranteeing the game was nigh-near bug free.

fair enough..but I have yet to find out how I can go back to my first playthrough character to explore the "after-quest" a little further using him. apparently I can only ever play with the last character created. am I doing something wrong?
what if I want to create an evil bastard magic oriented dark angel kind of character but still want to play with the good guy from my first play through? do I have to start over again..and lose the evil bastard in the process?
sorry, but no.. not cool. at the very least, different "new characters" from different play-throughs should remain accessible like they were in fable 2.

[GodGoblin]

I love the trilogy I really do and I enjoyed playing 3, it was good fun but the problem I have with it is that the game didnt finished it stopped. The single most anticlimatic ending to a game Ive ever played. A dissapointing boss fight and a quick summary!? WTF!? Ruined it all for me sadly, doubt ill re play it. :smallfrown:

[Trazoi]

fair enough..but I have yet to find out how I can go back to my first playthrough character to explore the "after-quest" a little further using him. apparently I can only ever play with the last character created. am I doing something wrong?
In Fable 2 they had multiple hero save files that you could select. I'm afraid I don't know what they do in Fable 3, because I haven't had the urge to replay it.

My save files had a tendency to get corrupted anyway. In my Fable 3 game I couldn't interact with any of the children in Bowerstone and I don't know why.