Warpedhero
Warped Hero
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 250
- Reaction score
- 45
- Points
- 80
We all know that Lionhead overpromises, so we can rest assured that the next official installment in the Fable series (if there is one) will be overhyped and underdelivering.
I hate to be such a pessimist, but if we look at the facts, it's hard not to be. Just in case anyone has forgotten, let's look back at Lionhead's statements through the years:
"The world would be a breathtakingly beautiful place filled with waterfalls, mountains, dense forests, populated with compelling and convincing characters with real personality, people who actually reacted to what you did. We wanted to give the player control of a hero who would adapt to the way they played, who would age, become scarred in battle, who could get tattoos, wear dreadlocks and a dress if the player was so inclined. We wanted each and every person who played our game to have a unique experience, to have their own stories to tell. And we called it Thingy." - Dene and Simon Carter
"It's gonna be the best game ever." - Peter Molyneux
Now, those statements are about Fable I.
As we know, the player character in Fable I did get scars from battle, could get tattoos and different hairstyles, and could wear several different outfits; however, the main story does not differ much regardless of the player's alignment.
Some may say, 'That was the first Fable game, they made the story more interactive as the series progressed.' Did they? Let's look at some of the finer points of the succeeding games:
Fable II:
Pros:
-Wider range of villagers
-More expressions, better expression system
-Ability to purchase nearly every house in the game
-Wider range of weapons
-Wider range of clothing, dyes for clothing
Cons:
-Impossible for Hero to be killed
-Inability to skip 'interactive' cutscenes
-Less spells
-Removal of Guile skill
-Mostly serious tone of Fable I replaced with mostly humorous tone in Fable II
-Main story still does not differ much according to alignment
-Incomplete outfits
We see that the main story still is largely unaffected by the player's choices. Basically, Fable II repeats Fable I's mistake by allowing the player to commit great good or great evil in the final mission of the game. Instead of the world drastically changing because of the player's choices throughout the game, Lionhead simply forces the player to make a huge good/evil choice at the end of the game.
Although the 'Sacrifice', 'Family', and 'Wealth' choices do affect which people are returned to life at the end of the game, they still do not interfere with the world at large.
In addition to these faults, many outfits are incomplete unless DLC is purchased; this is an underhanded way of getting people to buy DLC.
Let's move on to Fable III:
Pros:
-Better writing
-Better real estate system
-More choices that affect the world at large
-Expanded world
Cons:
-Much smaller range of weapons; only rifles, pistols, swords and hammers
-The Road to Rule system
-No skill points; replaced by Guild seals
-Small range of villagers
-More underhanded tactics to get people to buy DLC
-The Sanctuary system
-NO expression system; expressions are completely random
In Fable III, I feel that the writing was a great deal better than Fable II. Even though I feel that way, I can still say that, in most cases, your rise from noble outcast to King is largely unaffected by your moral choices.
Once the player becomes King, Lionhead implements the 'good or evil' choice system. This system simply does not work.
Why? Because the player's view of 'good and evil' may be vastly different from Lionhead's view of 'good and evil.'
For instance, how many people would say that it would be 'evil' to drain a lake in order to gather much-needed resources, especially if those resources were needed to ensure the survival of the planet?
Furthermore, day-to-day 'moral choices' seem more like liberals versus conservatives, not good versus evil.
For example, if you eat meat, your morality is lowered; if you eat vegetables, your morality is raised. Is this really the best system for determining good and evil? I don't think so.
Apart from the choices aspect of the game, the actual content that players can access (treasure, clothing, weapons) has been vastly reduced. It would seem to me that, if Fable designers cared about the players, they would expand the weapon cache, not reduce it. The same can be said of clothing and treasure; both have been greatly reduced, and most 'unique' outfits (and even some clothing dyes) must be purchased as DLC.
The 'Road to Rule' concept is a horrible addition to the game. Instead of spending skill points or reading books to learn new abilities/expressions/etc., players are required to earn 'Guild seals' through combat in order to learn abilities. In addition to earning 'Guild seals', the player must travel to another dimension and open a chest in order to learn the new ability.
Idiocy.
To top it off, players may not get married, own businesses, or even buy property until opening the corresponding chest on the 'Road to Rule'. This mechanic is not only inefficient, it is counterintuitive. Instead of simply improving the skills menu, Lionhead ripped it out and replaced it with an infinitely more annoying system.
The Sanctuary follows the example set by the 'Road to Rule', and makes a simple character menu into another dimension.
Now, I know that in every RPG (RPG? Really? Yep, Fable lists itself as an action-RPG!) some elements are fantasy, and some elements are realistic. The ideal would be a perfect balance between realism and fantasy, with everyday elements being realistic and characters/enemies being fantastical.
The character menu is meant to be simple and user-friendly, as well as semi-realistic. Take Skyrim, for example. You can only store a certain amount of items in your inventory, so it is easy to imagine that your character is simply wearing or carrying a pack. While this allows for more realism, it is also much more efficient to allow a player to carry a variety of items on them and stop for a few seconds to use or switch between items.
In Fable, you store nothing in your inventory, but can teleport to another dimension and take whatever you want. This is both unrealistic and inefficient. Every time you want to change clothes, change weapons, or even check how much money you have, you are required to teleport to the Sanctuary. Ridiculous? This gamer thinks so.
In conclusion, here is a list of things I think need to be improved in Fable IV, if it is ever made:
-Get rid of the Sanctuary and the Road to Rule; make a more traditional skills menu and character menu.
-Stop trying to get players to take your game seriously when you put ineffective humor in nearly every quest.
-Don't put incomplete things in your game; if you want to put out DLC, fine, but don't withhold content from players who paid for a full game.
-Stop putting one hundred villagers in each town if 1/5 look the same; players would appreciate distinct, interactive villagers, and quality is better than quantity. Also, add more depth to NPCs in general. I found myself apathetic to the 'Crawler' crisis because it is currently impossible for me to care about any of the boring, redundant villagers found in-game.
-Stop cutting back on weapons; players want variety in weaponry. Also, the 'weapon morph' system doesn't work, and most of the time is just an excuse to make people buy Xbox Live Gold.
-Bring back the 'Guile' skill category
-Give players choices that seriously change the world, not just the way certain regions look. Also, stop criticizing every player's choices. If the villagers/population complain, that's fine, but nobody wants a sermon from Theresa every time they make a choice.
-Allow the Hero to die! Stop with this trend of 'the Hero is immortal'. Bring back Resurrection Phials, but at least allow the Hero to be able to die! Without danger, there is no need for strategy in combat!
-Stop with these 'interactive' cutscenes; they are not 'interactive', they are simply placeholders while your game loads in the background. Improve your loading system, don't make players sit through some crap with the illusion that it's an important aspect of the story.
-(Almost forgot this!)Allow the player to select the race of their choice. I'm sure not everyone wants to be forced to play as a Caucasian. You've allowed players to choose their gender, so *wink, nod* allow them to choose their race! (And for the record, I am Caucasian, but I would still like the ability to choose my race, not have the developers hold my hand.)
That's not all, but it's all for now.
I hate to be such a pessimist, but if we look at the facts, it's hard not to be. Just in case anyone has forgotten, let's look back at Lionhead's statements through the years:
"The world would be a breathtakingly beautiful place filled with waterfalls, mountains, dense forests, populated with compelling and convincing characters with real personality, people who actually reacted to what you did. We wanted to give the player control of a hero who would adapt to the way they played, who would age, become scarred in battle, who could get tattoos, wear dreadlocks and a dress if the player was so inclined. We wanted each and every person who played our game to have a unique experience, to have their own stories to tell. And we called it Thingy." - Dene and Simon Carter
"It's gonna be the best game ever." - Peter Molyneux
Now, those statements are about Fable I.
As we know, the player character in Fable I did get scars from battle, could get tattoos and different hairstyles, and could wear several different outfits; however, the main story does not differ much regardless of the player's alignment.
Some may say, 'That was the first Fable game, they made the story more interactive as the series progressed.' Did they? Let's look at some of the finer points of the succeeding games:
Fable II:
Pros:
-Wider range of villagers
-More expressions, better expression system
-Ability to purchase nearly every house in the game
-Wider range of weapons
-Wider range of clothing, dyes for clothing
Cons:
-Impossible for Hero to be killed
-Inability to skip 'interactive' cutscenes
-Less spells
-Removal of Guile skill
-Mostly serious tone of Fable I replaced with mostly humorous tone in Fable II
-Main story still does not differ much according to alignment
-Incomplete outfits
We see that the main story still is largely unaffected by the player's choices. Basically, Fable II repeats Fable I's mistake by allowing the player to commit great good or great evil in the final mission of the game. Instead of the world drastically changing because of the player's choices throughout the game, Lionhead simply forces the player to make a huge good/evil choice at the end of the game.
Although the 'Sacrifice', 'Family', and 'Wealth' choices do affect which people are returned to life at the end of the game, they still do not interfere with the world at large.
In addition to these faults, many outfits are incomplete unless DLC is purchased; this is an underhanded way of getting people to buy DLC.
Let's move on to Fable III:
Pros:
-Better writing
-Better real estate system
-More choices that affect the world at large
-Expanded world
Cons:
-Much smaller range of weapons; only rifles, pistols, swords and hammers
-The Road to Rule system
-No skill points; replaced by Guild seals
-Small range of villagers
-More underhanded tactics to get people to buy DLC
-The Sanctuary system
-NO expression system; expressions are completely random
In Fable III, I feel that the writing was a great deal better than Fable II. Even though I feel that way, I can still say that, in most cases, your rise from noble outcast to King is largely unaffected by your moral choices.
Once the player becomes King, Lionhead implements the 'good or evil' choice system. This system simply does not work.
Why? Because the player's view of 'good and evil' may be vastly different from Lionhead's view of 'good and evil.'
For instance, how many people would say that it would be 'evil' to drain a lake in order to gather much-needed resources, especially if those resources were needed to ensure the survival of the planet?
Furthermore, day-to-day 'moral choices' seem more like liberals versus conservatives, not good versus evil.
For example, if you eat meat, your morality is lowered; if you eat vegetables, your morality is raised. Is this really the best system for determining good and evil? I don't think so.
Apart from the choices aspect of the game, the actual content that players can access (treasure, clothing, weapons) has been vastly reduced. It would seem to me that, if Fable designers cared about the players, they would expand the weapon cache, not reduce it. The same can be said of clothing and treasure; both have been greatly reduced, and most 'unique' outfits (and even some clothing dyes) must be purchased as DLC.
The 'Road to Rule' concept is a horrible addition to the game. Instead of spending skill points or reading books to learn new abilities/expressions/etc., players are required to earn 'Guild seals' through combat in order to learn abilities. In addition to earning 'Guild seals', the player must travel to another dimension and open a chest in order to learn the new ability.
Idiocy.
To top it off, players may not get married, own businesses, or even buy property until opening the corresponding chest on the 'Road to Rule'. This mechanic is not only inefficient, it is counterintuitive. Instead of simply improving the skills menu, Lionhead ripped it out and replaced it with an infinitely more annoying system.
The Sanctuary follows the example set by the 'Road to Rule', and makes a simple character menu into another dimension.
Now, I know that in every RPG (RPG? Really? Yep, Fable lists itself as an action-RPG!) some elements are fantasy, and some elements are realistic. The ideal would be a perfect balance between realism and fantasy, with everyday elements being realistic and characters/enemies being fantastical.
The character menu is meant to be simple and user-friendly, as well as semi-realistic. Take Skyrim, for example. You can only store a certain amount of items in your inventory, so it is easy to imagine that your character is simply wearing or carrying a pack. While this allows for more realism, it is also much more efficient to allow a player to carry a variety of items on them and stop for a few seconds to use or switch between items.
In Fable, you store nothing in your inventory, but can teleport to another dimension and take whatever you want. This is both unrealistic and inefficient. Every time you want to change clothes, change weapons, or even check how much money you have, you are required to teleport to the Sanctuary. Ridiculous? This gamer thinks so.
In conclusion, here is a list of things I think need to be improved in Fable IV, if it is ever made:
-Get rid of the Sanctuary and the Road to Rule; make a more traditional skills menu and character menu.
-Stop trying to get players to take your game seriously when you put ineffective humor in nearly every quest.
-Don't put incomplete things in your game; if you want to put out DLC, fine, but don't withhold content from players who paid for a full game.
-Stop putting one hundred villagers in each town if 1/5 look the same; players would appreciate distinct, interactive villagers, and quality is better than quantity. Also, add more depth to NPCs in general. I found myself apathetic to the 'Crawler' crisis because it is currently impossible for me to care about any of the boring, redundant villagers found in-game.
-Stop cutting back on weapons; players want variety in weaponry. Also, the 'weapon morph' system doesn't work, and most of the time is just an excuse to make people buy Xbox Live Gold.
-Bring back the 'Guile' skill category
-Give players choices that seriously change the world, not just the way certain regions look. Also, stop criticizing every player's choices. If the villagers/population complain, that's fine, but nobody wants a sermon from Theresa every time they make a choice.
-Allow the Hero to die! Stop with this trend of 'the Hero is immortal'. Bring back Resurrection Phials, but at least allow the Hero to be able to die! Without danger, there is no need for strategy in combat!
-Stop with these 'interactive' cutscenes; they are not 'interactive', they are simply placeholders while your game loads in the background. Improve your loading system, don't make players sit through some crap with the illusion that it's an important aspect of the story.
-(Almost forgot this!)Allow the player to select the race of their choice. I'm sure not everyone wants to be forced to play as a Caucasian. You've allowed players to choose their gender, so *wink, nod* allow them to choose their race! (And for the record, I am Caucasian, but I would still like the ability to choose my race, not have the developers hold my hand.)
That's not all, but it's all for now.
Last edited:
