• Welcome to the Fable Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Fable series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

Fable 3 Arguments /Opinions

Status
Not open for further replies.

SkellingtonBurton

New Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
5
Reaction score
4
Points
4
Age
32
So I was reading through the Fable 3 improvements thread and thought it would be a good idea to post this as a separate thread. I am not trying to start up a big commotion or anything but I just want to stick up for Peter Molyneux and the folks over a Lionhead Studios.

A lot of talk in the "Improvement" thread was to allow more customizable features, more spells, weapons, clothes, facial hair, hair, etc. I do agree with these comments. I was disappointed that the hair and facial hair categories were slimmed down quite a bit.

As for the rest of the materials such as weapons, Peter Molyneux wanted the weapons to be tailored to the player's moral alignment, use of the weapon, etc. Then he wanted gamers to sell their weapons to other Fable fanatics online. It is in my understanding, (from watching interviews with Peter) that his vision for the game was to be played more like an MMORPG rather than a solo game.

The information that I gathered was that a lot of gamers wanted Fable 3 to almost mirror Fable 2 or to expand on Fable 2's massive RPG elements. If you compare the two games then one will realize that Fable 3 is less of an RPG then its two predecessors, this was intentional. Fable 3's main focus is about the power that the player receives through the game-play. I think that he also wanted to prevent the mishaps of Fable 2, in regards to the certain functions in combat. He said in one interview that half of the controls that were designed for combat, weren't being used.

He also said, "We want to make a very big bold step. Lionhead is all about innovation, it's all about questioning the foundation stones as what you think of being cast in stone. We need to come up with a dramatic story that no one has ever played before. We need to come up with game mechanics that no one has ever touched before. Because if we don't then it will just be another Fable and that's not what Lionhead is about, it's about taking big steps."

Peter upgraded the storyline, by making everything revolve around it. He also got rid of the big messy menu screen that Fable 2 used, he wanted something smaller and compact, resulting in the Sanctuary. He didn't want the player to scroll through 300 different items just to find 1 little thing. He wanted the primary options to be close and quick to run through. Keeping that in mind; hairstyles, weapons, clothes, facial hair, spells, and gifting options, are all cut down by about half (of what was in Fable 2). Now by combining these two factors together then the RPG element becomes smaller but is still there.

Basically Fable 3 revolves around two things: Power and simplicity.

I'm not trying to bash on Fable 3, I absolutely love the game. I just feel like people over look what the designer was trying to achieve or what he did achieve, because the game did not meet the gamer's expectations or their own criteria.
 

El Mosqueton

Party Animal
Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Messages
1,712
Reaction score
152
Points
165
Thing is, it drifted off too much from it's roots to appeal to a wider audience, a while I understand why would LH do it, it's not something I liked. What I mean is, if you compare Fable I to III, they have ABSOLUTELY nothing in common.
 

Externium

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Points
3
And I understand wanting to appeal to a wider audience, but at the same time... what's the point?
I would honestly hope game designers would care for their current fanbase and try to appeal to them, logically people aren't going to pick up a game because it's mechanics are made "simpler" than previous games in the story, they pick it up because it looks epic and an experience they hope will give them pure enjoyment.
 

Arseface

Look at me still talking when theres science to do
Premium
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
5,471
Reaction score
813
Points
315
As for the rest of the materials such as weapons, Peter Molyneux wanted the weapons to be tailored to the player's moral alignment, use of the weapon, etc. Then he wanted gamers to sell their weapons to other Fable fanatics online. It is in my understanding, (from watching interviews with Peter) that his vision for the game was to be played more like an MMORPG rather than a solo game.

That idea is marred by the fact that every weapon ends up looking exactly the same.

The information that I gathered was that a lot of gamers wanted Fable 3 to almost mirror Fable 2 or to expand on Fable 2's massive RPG elements. If you compare the two games then one will realize that Fable 3 is less of an RPG then its two predecessors, this was intentional. Fable 3's main focus is about the power that the player receives through the game-play. I think that he also wanted to prevent the mishaps of Fable 2, in regards to the certain functions in combat. He said in one interview that half of the controls that were designed for combat, weren't being used.

The whole power thing, I get, but that feeling completely dissipates when you get railroaded so badly that it makes you want to put the game down and never play it again. I didn't feel powerful at all. I felt like I was just doing what the game told me to do.

He also said, "We want to make a very big bold step. Lionhead is all about innovation, it's all about questioning the foundation stones as what you think of being cast in stone. We need to come up with a dramatic story that no one has ever played before. We need to come up with game mechanics that no one has ever touched before. Because if we don't then it will just be another Fable and that's not what Lionhead is about, it's about taking big steps."

Change for change's sake is never good. "Innovation" doesn't mean taking out things that worked well in previous games for something that isn't as good.

Peter upgraded the storyline, by making everything revolve around it. He also got rid of the big messy menu screen that Fable 2 used, he wanted something smaller and compact, resulting in the Sanctuary. He didn't want the player to scroll through 300 different items just to find 1 little thing. He wanted the primary options to be close and quick to run through. Keeping that in mind; hairstyles, weapons, clothes, facial hair, spells, and gifting options, are all cut down by about half (of what was in Fable 2). Now by combining these two factors together then the RPG element becomes smaller but is still there.

It wasn't a choice between a thousand cumbersome menus or no menus. They could have improved the menu system, but kept it in place. They could have intergrated menus into the Sanctuary. They could have done a thousand other things. For some reason Lionhead can only see two exreme choices, both of which are usually either not ideal or just plain terrible.

Basically Fable 3 revolves around two things: Power and simplicity.

The problem is that Lionhead don't seem to understand what it is to make a game simpler. What they should have done was to simplify the way something was used (menus, etc), but what they did was they simplified the content by just cutting half of it.

I'm not trying to bash on Fable 3, I absolutely love the game. I just feel like people over look what the designer was trying to achieve or what he did achieve, because the game did not meet the gamer's expectations or their own criteria.

I shouldn't have to look at what the designer was trying to achieve to be able to enjoy it. I should be able to enjoy it in it's own right.
 

atlantiantokra

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
170
Reaction score
16
Points
65
Age
32
Change for change's sake is never good. "Innovation" doesn't mean taking out things that worked well in previous games for something that isn't as good.
No, it's taking out something that worked well and replacing it with something you think will work even better. The problem is sometimes you can't tell whether something works better or not until after you've done it.
 

Arseface

Look at me still talking when theres science to do
Premium
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
5,471
Reaction score
813
Points
315
No, it's taking out something that worked well and replacing it with something you think will work even better. The problem is sometimes you can't tell whether something works better or not until after you've done it.

But my point is that you shouldn't take out things that worked well. You should improve them.
 

JBeach

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
13
Reaction score
2
Points
5
Age
54
As for the rest of the materials such as weapons, Peter Molyneux wanted the weapons to be tailored to the player's moral alignment, use of the weapon, etc. Then he wanted gamers to sell their weapons to other Fable fanatics online. It is in my understanding, (from watching interviews with Peter) that his vision for the game was to be played more like an MMORPG rather than a solo game.

That isn't how I use it though. I only connect to xbox live when I need to download something, I have no interest in online gaming. Also the weapon morphing didn't really work. They don't morph as you use them, they morph at pre-defined times and then in only a handful of ways. The Hero weapons are also useless when compared to any of the legendary weapons - there won't be a big trade in them online or anywhere.

The information that I gathered was that a lot of gamers wanted Fable 3 to almost mirror Fable 2 or to expand on Fable 2's massive RPG elements. If you compare the two games then one will realize that Fable 3 is less of an RPG then its two predecessors, this was intentional. Fable 3's main focus is about the power that the player receives through the game-play. I think that he also wanted to prevent the mishaps of Fable 2, in regards to the certain functions in combat. He said in one interview that half of the controls that were designed for combat, weren't being used.

If that's true then he should have simply taken those controls out. Combat was easy in Fable 2 and is childishly easy in Fable 3. Big step backward in the combat sytem.

He also said, "We want to make a very big bold step. Lionhead is all about innovation, it's all about questioning the foundation stones as what you think of being cast in stone. We need to come up with a dramatic story that no one has ever played before. We need to come up with game mechanics that no one has ever touched before. Because if we don't then it will just be another Fable and that's not what Lionhead is about, it's about taking big steps."

Sorry but he gets a total F in that department. The problems in Fable 2 are all still there in 3 and all the things that worked in 2 have taken a big step in the wrong direction.

Peter upgraded the storyline, by making everything revolve around it.

NONE of the side quests are even remotely connected to the storyline, and the storyline is full of holes and inconsistencies. Step 1 before doing any more Fable stuff should be firing the writers.


He also got rid of the big messy menu screen that Fable 2 used, he wanted something smaller and compact, resulting in the Sanctuary. He didn't want the player to scroll through 300 different items just to find 1 little thing. He wanted the primary options to be close and quick to run through. Keeping that in mind; hairstyles, weapons, clothes, facial hair, spells, and gifting options, are all cut down by about half (of what was in Fable 2). Now by combining these two factors together then the RPG element becomes smaller but is still there.

There was nothing wrong with the Fable 2 menu screen. Now (unless it's clothes or weapons) it's nearly impossible to check your inventory for something - you have to go to one of the two pawn shops and look at your inventory.

Step 2 (after firing the writers) should be srapping all of the changes to the menu system and bringing back the old menu and expression wheel.

I'm not trying to bash on Fable 3, I absolutely love the game. I just feel like people over look what the designer was trying to achieve or what he did achieve, because the game did not meet the gamer's expectations or their own criteria.

Fable is in trouble. I think it has become more about what Peter wants than what fans or gamers want. Innovation is great, and I'm all for it, but that does not mean doing things differently simply for the sake of it. Fable 3 didn't work - the story, the side quests, the menu system, the combat system, the sand boxing, the emote/expression system, the weapon morphing system - none of it worked. Even the dog in Fable 3 sucked.

They did introduce some good new characters and gave us a marriagable NPC who wasn't a clone of every villager in the game, but otherwise they blew it.

I would guess that they have one more chance, and with this one they need to focus on giving the fans of the series (not mythical potential fans) what they want, even if it is not 'innovative'. If the fans stop buying the game there will be no more Fable or Lionshead - as it stands, I won't be pre-ordering it, or buying it until I've read fan reviews (from forums like this one) for awhile, the same goes for any DLC.

Sales, based largely on anticipation, were good for Fable 3 - but I think sales are nearly over. There is a game shop up the street from me with a whole shelf of used Fable 3 (including Limited Collectors Edition copies.)
 

El Mosqueton

Party Animal
Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Messages
1,712
Reaction score
152
Points
165
Thing is Beach, Fable is not what we want. It's what Lionhead wants it to be. We, the fanboys (and girls), represent a minimal portion of LH's target, so they'll keep on making games until it MS stops winning money from them, which won't be any time soon.
 

JBeach

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
13
Reaction score
2
Points
5
Age
54
Thing is Beach, Fable is not what we want. It's what Lionhead wants it to be. We, the fanboys (and girls), represent a minimal portion of LH's target, so they'll keep on making games until it MS stops winning money from them, which won't be any time soon.

I think it will be very soon. As I said the used shelf at my local game shop is stuffed with Fable 3. That means that A) people didn't enjoy it and B) anyone else who wants a go can try it at half price and none of the money will go to LH or MS. They seem pretty happy with pre-orders and the sales for the first month. I think they are going to be very disappointed in the xmas/holiday sales.
 

Recycled Human

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
468
Reaction score
10
Points
50
Thing is, it drifted off too much from it's roots to appeal to a wider audience, a while I understand why would LH do it, it's not something I liked. What I mean is, if you compare Fable I to III, they have ABSOLUTELY nothing in common.

What roots did it drift away from and how does the first and third game have nothing in common? I can list lots of similarities, guild seal, demon door, silver key, melee, range, magic, chickens, choices, character morphing, hero, reality sim, balvarines, Theresa, digging, action style combat. That's stuff in common.

I'm starting to think there are no facts in the hate speech against fable 3...
 

atlantiantokra

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
170
Reaction score
16
Points
65
Age
32
That doesn't make any sense.
Imagine (if you need to) you had an old-ish computer. You could replace parts to make it faster/more efficient/whatever but eventualy you'll get to the point where the best way to improve what you call 'your computer' is to get rid of the one you have and get a brand new one
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
12
Reaction score
1
Points
5
Age
33
I know what you mean with the strange computer metaphor/thingy. I think it is a shame that PM has thrown away the old structure of fable. although i liked fable 3 i didnt feel into the game as much as fable2+1 because he has made it simpler to appear to a "wider audience" I still liked the game though but as you try to replace some of the parts of the computer with new ones, the original ones just get older...
 

Arseface

Look at me still talking when theres science to do
Premium
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
5,471
Reaction score
813
Points
315
Imagine (if you need to) you had an old-ish computer. You could replace parts to make it faster/more efficient/whatever but eventualy you'll get to the point where the best way to improve what you call 'your computer' is to get rid of the one you have and get a brand new one

That's different. You replace the bad things with good things, and improve the good things that are already there. The computer in your analogy is a bad thing, so replacing it makes sense.

Imagine however, you have a perfectly good computer. It does everything you want it to do, and more. Except one day, however, you find yourself wanting something different but can still do the same job, so you buy an iPad.

That's how Peter Molyneux's head works.
 

atlantiantokra

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
170
Reaction score
16
Points
65
Age
32
That's different. You replace the bad things with good things, and improve the good things that are already there. The computer in your analogy is a bad thing, so replacing it makes sense.
I'm not very good at analogies. erm... Kinect, it's not really improving classic controllers it's replacing them, but it's not replacing something bad with something good, it's replacing something good with something that could (and theoreticaly should, once people get used to it) be even better
 

Arseface

Look at me still talking when theres science to do
Premium
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
5,471
Reaction score
813
Points
315
I'm not very good at analogies. erm... Kinect, it's not really improving classic controllers it's replacing them, but it's not replacing something bad with something good, it's replacing something good with something that could (and theoreticaly should, once people get used to it) be even better

And how many people do you know who've bought a Kinect?

I rest my case.
 

atlantiantokra

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
170
Reaction score
16
Points
65
Age
32
And how many people do you know who've bought a Kinect?

I rest my case.
Nobody, but then I don't know that many people... anyway people aren't getting it not necessarily because the kinect itself is any worse than a controller, but because it's new and different so they don't like it because they're not used to it, developers haven't got used to making games for it so there are no particularly worthwhile titles yet and also because it's quite expensive
 

Arseface

Look at me still talking when theres science to do
Premium
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
5,471
Reaction score
813
Points
315
Also, there's a bunch of people who think it will be as fun as the Eye Toy was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top