Albion is too small

[Arseface]

To people who say Oblivion was too big:

How can a game be too big? You don't have to go everywhere, silly.

Games can, however, very easily be too small.

 

[joslen1]

... a considerable amount of work and time for a region that has absolutely no relevance to the story?

JUST LIKE SILVERPINES! It appears in ONE judgement. ONE. There is no reason for it, when it's in the same relative location as Brightwood (Entrance in Bower Lake/Millfields), it would have been easier, not to mention more canonical, to leave Brightwood in, but no, they had to take Brightwood, cut Garth's tower out of it, slap it around a bit, bulldoze Giles' farm, dump the wreckage in the middle, and turn it into a 'quaint' little village. Oh, and fill it chock-a-block full of Balverines/Wolves. An unnecesary waste.

 

[Arseface]

Why would they put in what would be a considerable amount of work and time for a region that has absolutely no relevance to the story?

They can just import the data from Fable II. They use the same engine.

 

[Faedil]

i think people need to consider a few different view points before you start arguing over the size of a game. as far as oblivion goes, i had that game for almost a year and never even got close to finishing it. the game was SO big with SO much to do, that my ability to progress in it became redundant and i ended up returning the game for store credit. while i agree that the story line of fable games have always been a bit lacking (there is SO much more that Lionhead could so with the characters and world they created) but as far as the "size" of the world i don't see such a big issue. would you rather have a game that is SO large its almost impossible to ever truly finish it 100% or a game that is possible to play again and again, experiencing it in new ways each time? would you rather have a game at 100% completion at the time of release (and the developers NEVER release new content because the game is big enough already) or the "possibility" that Lionhead might release new content as time goes on (like the DLC coming out soon with a new area and new quests)? the game is what it is, if your so disappointed in it maybe you should go play oblivion.

also, as far as the "missing" areas from previous fable games...the world CHANGES! yes, the time period between fable 2 and fable 3 is not an overly long time, but its possible that some of these "missing" areas were destroyed or fell out of popular existence since the times of fable 2. you know BRIGHTWOOD and BRIGHTWALL are basically the same name, its POSSIBLE that brightwood became brightwall or replaced brightwood.

westcliff, oakvale, rookridge, wraithmarsh, bloodstone......yes, many locations are now gone but it doesnt mean that a) they arent there (we just cant get to them) or b) that they didnt turn into one of the new locations. the world changes, places rise and fall, names change, stuff happens. if you want a giant game, go play one. if you want to enjoy what fable has to offer, try to ENJOY the game and relax (its JUST a game)

 

[skull]

I believe you miss the point, mate.

I bought into PM's enthusiasm, hyperbole and hype (remember 'Aurora's even bigger than Albion'??) and disappointment has ensued.
.

okay imma just going to say this since no one else has:

the golden rule of fable (or indeed any Lionhead game) is that you take PM's enthusiasm, hyperbole or hype with a pinch of salt, if you havent learnt that yet you have no one to blame but your self.

but i digress, the locations were lacking in fable 3 if you consider fable 2's map's for the most part each being different from the last from the dank swampy graveyard of wraithmarsh to the stormy bandit coast heck even the demon door lacations seemed more impressive than in fable 3. anyway i hope some old favorites from past games make a return in upcoming DLC.

 

[atlantiantokra]

To people who say Oblivion was too big:

How can a game be too big? You don't have to go everywhere, silly.

Games can, however, very easily be too small.

Games can be too small when there's not enough in it. Games can be too big when the quality of it's content starts to suffer because of the quantity.

 

[Terra_Zeta]

because they're completely different games, and to be fair Oblivion was too big. Sure I still haven't seen every single inch of the map, it's too big, and I haven't explored every cave I've come across because after the first few they all start to look the same.
Where oblivion developers made a large world, fable developers made a smaller world with more unique and memorable places.

Fable 3 memorable? I lol'd.

Nothing about the areas in fable 3 stand out to me, if they had kept some of the old areas maybe...

I'm personally one for big maps, thats probably why i liked Oblivion, Morrowind and fallout 3 so much because i'm an explorer, Fable 3 disappointing in terms of maps, the only map i liked was Millfields...but that was mostly for the music.

And Aurora was the biggest disappointment of all time, I was expecting so much more from that place, like huge areas to explore and more quests, but no, about the only thing to do in Aurora is collect flowers, I don't even think i have to explain why i find that so disappointing.

 

[BatusBrad]

'I'm an explorer' pretty much sums me up, too.

'Fable meets Oblivion' would be my ideal game and distraction from RL.

 

[Arseface]

would you rather have a game that is SO large its almost impossible to ever truly finish it 100% or a game that is possible to play again and again, experiencing it in new ways each time?

That's exactly how I play Oblivion. Games are supposed to emulate the real world, or a realistic world, and guess what? The world is huge! If I want to have a different playthrough in Oblivion, I go join a different guild, different race, etc. In Fable, that essentially means just picking all the evil choices if I was good last time. Crappy binary choices aren't what makes replayable. A huge world where you can discover something new each time you play, is. For me, at least.

would you rather have a game at 100% completion at the time of release (and the developers NEVER release new content because the game is big enough already) or the "possibility" that Lionhead might release new content as time goes on (like the DLC coming out soon with a new area and new quests)? the game is what it is, if your so disappointed in it maybe you should go play oblivion.

Hang on.... Berthesda have released more DLC for Oblivion than they've released for Fable II and III combined. Your argument doesn't make sense.

also, as far as the "missing" areas from previous fable games...the world CHANGES! yes, the time period between fable 2 and fable 3 is not an overly long time, but its possible that some of these "missing" areas were destroyed or fell out of popular existence since the times of fable 2. you know BRIGHTWOOD and BRIGHTWALL are basically the same name, its POSSIBLE that brightwood became brightwall or replaced brightwood.

Brightwood and Brightwall aren't in the same place. Busy, thriving towns and their roads don't disappear over the course of 50 years. And even if they did, it would have been nice to have it explained as a part of the game lore. My guess is that Lionhead was just hoping we'd forget about all the old areas.

westcliff, oakvale, rookridge, wraithmarsh, bloodstone......yes, many locations are now gone but it doesnt mean that a) they arent there (we just cant get to them) or b) that they didnt turn into one of the new locations. the world changes, places rise and fall, names change, stuff happens. if you want a giant game, go play one. if you want to enjoy what fable has to offer, try to ENJOY the game and relax (its JUST a game)

I shouldn't have to enjoy a game because it was what the developers decided to give me. I tried, believe me, and I admit there were many parts where I actually had fun. But thinking back on it, I realise that's because Lionhead are good at programming. That's it. They can't create worlds, or stories. At least not ones I'm interested in being a part of.

 

[Mastperf]

I shouldn't have to enjoy a game because it was what the developers decided to give me. I tried, believe me, and I admit there were many parts where I actually had fun. But thinking back on it, I realise that's because Lionhead are good at programming. That's it. They can't create worlds, or stories. At least not ones I'm interested in being a part of.

Considering Fable 3 has slowdown during mini-games I'm gonna have to disagree with the "good at programming" part. The best thing about Fable 2 was the lighting and they neutered that in Fable 3 (along with most of the color).

Lionhead just finds it easier to destroy old areas rather than build on them. Anything with a pre-existing story that can be expanded on is like kryptonite to Lionhead. They destroyed Oakvale and completely erased the existence of the Hero Of Oakvakle in Fable 2 and 3 for this very reason. Anything with any meaning like the birth of the Hero, building of the Sanctuary, death of the mother,everything concerning Loagan's rule and so on, all happened before Fable 3 started so that they didn't have to actually explain things better.
Maybe Two Worlds Two will deliver what we're looking for. It would be hard for them to screw things up as bad as Lionhead has.

 

[Arseface]

Considering Fable 3 has slowdown during mini-games I'm gonna have to disagree with the "good at programming" part. The best thing about Fable 2 was the lighting and they neutered that in Fable 3 (along with most of the color).

Shhhh, Oblivion had heaps of bugs too. :ermm:

 

[Mastperf]

Shhhh, Oblivion had heaps of bugs too. :ermm:

Which is completely acceptable considering the massive world/content.

 

[atlantiantokra]

Which is completely acceptable considering the massive world/content.

No, it's not acceptable it's just expected

 

[Mastperf]

No, it's not acceptable it's just expected

Nah, it's acceptable given the scale. You accept it, just accept that you accept it.Know what I'msayin?? Freal...

 

[atlantiantokra]

Nah, it's acceptable given the scale. You accept it, just accept that you accept it.Know what I'msayin?? Freal...

No, it's not acceptable. It's just that because you were expecting it you were less disappointed/annoyed when it happened

 

[Mastperf]

No, it's not acceptable. It's just that because you were expecting it you were less disappointed/annoyed when it happened

I've learned to accept that you do not accept it. Maybe one day you will make an exception and learn to accept the unaccepted.

 

[Wallace]

Maybe Two Worlds Two will deliver what we're looking for. It would be hard for them to screw things up as bad as Lionhead has.

That would be interesting. Considering I though two worlds one sucked.

 

[nspiliopoulos15]

For the new dlc understone has there ever even been signs of this place existing? or did they just randomly add it in?

 

[Arestia]

if they took the f1 map and be able to go everywhere (no invisible wall) than tht would b a big map ^_^

 

[JBeach]

This is what Fable 3 should have looked like. It has a huge scale like Oblivion with a focused main quest like Fable..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7ON0Yi4yU8
That's the PC version but the Xbox 360 version is said to look very close to this in detail. It's a third party multi-platform title that destroys a first party,massively linear Lionhead game. You can't use the "Fable isn't supposed to be Obliovion!" line when games like Fable 3 are so severly lacking content.What did Lionhead do in those 2 years of development that cause them to come up so massively short of other games in content? You have a small, focused world that should be absolutely overflowing with choices and quests. You can't say it's because they were trying to keep a consistent story because..well, there's nothing consistent about Fable anymore.
I look at all of the content in games like Fallout New Vegas and it's shocking to see just how far ahead they are of Fable.They both had 2 years of development and a previous engine/game to build on.
Lionhead is clearly one of the most inefficient developers in the industry.

I wasn't in the room, but my suspicion is that they first spent a TON of money on the voice cast - Stephen Fry, John Cleese, Ben Kingsley, Simon Pegg, etc., which cut into the development budget.

Then they devoted tens of thousands of developer hours to figuring out how to do weapon morphing (which didn't really work) and getting rid of 2D menus (which I don't think anyone thought was a problem to be solved), then thousands more developer hours working on the touch system - which only kinda worked but at the expense of making interaction less personal and customizable (you meet a soldier and instead of shaking his hand you dance with him.)

In other words they spend all of their time on 'what no one else is doing' and forgot about what everyone else is doing. That's a fine approach, to an extent, but when everyone else is doing it to the point where players expect it (large maps, more sandboxing etc) it's a mistake unless you have something really amazingly awesome going on instead - which they didn't.

From the bugs, glitches, limited play time, rushed story line and all of the new elements which only kinda work it feels like they got overly ambitious and ran out of time and money, then had to package SOMETHING together and get it out the door.

Again though, I wasn't in the room.

p.s. Peter Molyneaux needs a babysitter. Someone needs to follow him with a cattle prod and stop him from saying anything to anyone about Fable IV until it's actually released. Part of the problem with Fable III is that PM has spent the last 18 months telling everyone about all of the awesome new things that would be in Fable III and many of those things weren't in it at all, and some of them were but didn't work the way he said they would.

p.p.s. - I miss Brightwood. That was my home in Fable II and it's where my children would have grown up (not the castle). Having it not in the game at all, for me, makes it feel completely separate and detached from my Fable II character - His children would not have become Logan and the Prince.