• 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

The Future of Fable

Daniel Ray

The Wizard From The East
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
661
Reaction score
89
Points
125
Age
30
I meant the new company thingy I read in this thread. But I was in a bit of a rush, so I may have misread.

Oh.Yeah, they don't have the licenses. Another Place Productions don't have any plans for the Fable universe (well, at least none that I know of), but I expect them to come up with something that has Fable's charm. The good kind. :p

EDIT: On second thought, I'm NOT gonna expect anything. Just in case...
 

Cain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
1,496
Reaction score
75
Points
145
Im sure if the Fable franchise was passed over to another developer then Im sure it would be great.

That'll be great. Just like all the other franchises that have changed hands, right?

Fallout: Almost nothing like the originals, in either gameplay or storywriting, except for elements they copied from the older games. The fans mourned.

Syndicate: Almost nothing like the originals, in either gameplay or storywriting, except for elements they copied from the older games. The fans mourned.

XCOM: Enemy Unknown: Sticks to the gameplay and setting of the originals, but adding new stuff to keep it interesting. The fans rejoiced.

So out of 3 franchises, 2 have been changed massively from the originals, and the old fans have been given the middle finger. I honestly hope that Fable dosen't change hands, because it's unlikely that the new developer will respect the originals or the fans, and will just want to make more money.
 

WittyUsername

Active Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
33
Reaction score
15
Points
40
Age
32
Fallout: Almost nothing like the originals, in either gameplay or storywriting, except for elements they copied from the older games. The fans mourned..
Gonna be honest here, though it's nothing like it's predecessor, I think Fallout is stronger. At least in the way of gameplay mechanics.

What's funny about that, though I know it's just Elder Scrolls in post apocalyptic times, I fine a lot more joy in Fallout and can't really get into Elder Scrolls at all.

Still, Fable changing hands is a bit of a pickle. I really doubt it'd be the same. Not that it's the same now.
 

Daniel Ray

The Wizard From The East
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
661
Reaction score
89
Points
125
Age
30
Gonna be honest here, though it's nothing like it's predecessor, I think Fallout is stronger. At least in the way of gameplay mechanics.

Agreed. Well, at least up to Fallout 3. Don't see whats so shiny about New Vegas other than being a really big expansion pack.

What's funny about that, though I know it's just Elder Scrolls in post apocalyptic times, I fine a lot more joy in Fallout and can't really get into Elder Scrolls at all.

Really? I find myself in the opposite scenario, where I can never get into Fallout, but I'm a devoted Elder Scrolls player. Fallout always seems so.... grey...to me.

Still, Fable changing hands is a bit of a pickle. I really doubt it'd be the same. Not that it's the same now.

Well, technically, Fable was passed from Big Blue Box to Lionhead, and the dev teams from Fable 1 and Fable II are quite different (Fable III more so). And if you draw parallels, you'd notice that the quality of the game decreases as the original dev team members leave Lionhead...
 

Cain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
1,496
Reaction score
75
Points
145
Gonna be honest here, though it's nothing like it's predecessor, I think Fallout is stronger. At least in the way of gameplay mechanics.

Well, the main story was badly written, the factions were badly written, and there were a lot of inconsistencies with the past games. Gameplay was ok, and it really depends on what you like.

Don't see whats so shiny about New Vegas other than being a really big expansion pack.

Except it has more quests than fallout 3, more choices in the storyline, new gameplay features. Add to the fact the storyline is better written and original, and that it sticks to the tone of the original fallout games far more than 3 ever did, it's really more the true sequel to the original games than an 'expansion pack'.
 

WittyUsername

Active Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
33
Reaction score
15
Points
40
Age
32
Well, the main story was badly written, the factions were badly written, and there were a lot of inconsistencies with the past games.
I personally didn't find the story bad, but hey, that's me. Particularly New Vegas with the three armies. Though, I did find the environment of New Vegas to be meh.
 

Daniel Ray

The Wizard From The East
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
661
Reaction score
89
Points
125
Age
30
Except it has more quests than fallout 3, more choices in the storyline, new gameplay features. Add to the fact the storyline is better written and original, and that it sticks to the tone of the original fallout games far more than 3 ever did, it's really more the true sequel to the original games than an 'expansion pack'.

I concede. I guess I played only 2 hours of it when it first came out, and didn't come back to it. In those two hours, I didn't find anything special that could get me to play longer (something that happens a lot, when you have ADHD). Maybe all that shine comes AFTER those two hours... :/ I'll give it a shot, once I find the disc
 

Cain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
1,496
Reaction score
75
Points
145
I concede. I guess I played only 2 hours of it when it first came out, and didn't come back to it. In those two hours, I didn't find anything special that could get me to play longer (something that happens a lot, when you have ADHD). Maybe all that shine comes AFTER those two hours... :/ I'll give it a shot, once I find the disc

I hope you enjoy it when you do play it. I have nothing wrong with people not liking the game, but when they throw terms like 'expansion pack' around, when evidence shows it is a full game, with more content than its predecessor, I get a bit peeved. It's like saying that Fallout 2 is jsut an expansion pack to Fallout 1. Yes they have the same graphics, but Fallout 2 has more content and expands upon choices made in Fallout 1.
 

Daniel Ray

The Wizard From The East
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
661
Reaction score
89
Points
125
Age
30
I hope you enjoy it when you do play it. I have nothing wrong with people not liking the game, but when they throw terms like 'expansion pack' around, when evidence shows it is a full game, with more content than its predecessor, I get a bit peeved. It's like saying that Fallout 2 is jsut an expansion pack to Fallout 1. Yes they have the same graphics, but Fallout 2 has more content and expands upon choices made in Fallout 1.

I can understand how you feel. I tend to call sequels expansion packs when they don't bring much change to the previous game, like Half Life 2: Episode 2 (excellent game, by the way). Mind you, I think from a game design's perspective, so saying a new story and a new setting does not mean innovation. But I guess I didn't give New Vegas much of a chance, did I?
 

m800_runner

If you ain't happy, you ain't livin'
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
538
Reaction score
5
Points
70
After playing the original fable and TLC for 6 years before picking up the PM's "evolved" fable 2, I feel like I have to point out some of the basics.

Fable/FTLC were developed originally by B3 and later became LH. It took them 5-6 years to get the plot fully resolved. That alone atones for the quality of the original game.
so therefore let's look at the features that Fable 1 had:

- Boasting Platform
- Interactive announcing via Guildmaster (Fable was the first game to do this in single player)
- Hotkeys/shotcuts for expressions that you EARNED based on what you did/alignment.
- Combat was more difficult generally especially in the beginning when you tried to gain exp by killing guards in the beginning of the game (guard/assassin upgrades were nasty)
- Quests with time limits
- Weapon tiers and augmentations
- Silent hero portraying a sense of self-activation.

and the list goes on...

Fable 2 DID improve on many of these features but the story was so disconnected and bland that it took away from these perks though the expression wheel was awesome. The weapons, the world, free roaming, people's opinions, real estate, demon doors were good for the most part. What ruined it for me was the multiplayer. It was an utter failure.

Fable 3 comes along with an even lazier story development team based of the "See the future" DLC with the multiplayer being the only incentive for its replayability value.

In short, I think the sequels, more Fable 3 than 2, needed more development to tie loose ends, a childhood arc, weapon tiers, more abilities and specializations (the chest leveling system in the RtR is a joke, no flexibility). I honestly exhausted all possibilities playing Fable 3 amassing more than 500,000 kills and over 30 days of play time.

I would hope that with Fable 4 we would see older features returned to the game from the first fable (I know bows are out of the question since it's post-industrial revolution). Unfortunately, since Micro$oft still runs the place there is little chance for that.
 

MazeisMaze

Rattus Rattus
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
268
Reaction score
65
Points
100
After playing the original fable and TLC for 6 years before picking up the PM's "evolved" fable 2, I feel like I have to point out some of the basics.

Fable/FTLC were developed originally by B3 and later became LH. It took them 5-6 years to get the plot fully resolved. That alone atones for the quality of the original game.
so therefore let's look at the features that Fable 1 had:

- Boasting Platform
- Interactive announcing via Guildmaster (Fable was the first game to do this in single player)
- Hotkeys/shotcuts for expressions that you EARNED based on what you did/alignment.
- Combat was more difficult generally especially in the beginning when you tried to gain exp by killing guards in the beginning of the game (guard/assassin upgrades were nasty)
- Quests with time limits
- Weapon tiers and augmentations
- Silent hero portraying a sense of self-activation.

and the list goes on...

Fable 2 DID improve on many of these features but the story was so disconnected and bland that it took away from these perks though the expression wheel was awesome. The weapons, the world, free roaming, people's opinions, real estate, demon doors were good for the most part. What ruined it for me was the multiplayer. It was an utter failure.

Fable 3 comes along with an even lazier story development team based of the "See the future" DLC with the multiplayer being the only incentive for its replayability value.

In short, I think the sequels, more Fable 3 than 2, needed more development to tie loose ends, a childhood arc, weapon tiers, more abilities and specializations (the chest leveling system in the RtR is a joke, no flexibility). I honestly exhausted all possibilities playing Fable 3 amassing more than 500,000 kills and over 30 days of play time.

I would hope that with Fable 4 we would see older features returned to the game from the first fable (I know bows are out of the question since it's post-industrial revolution). Unfortunately, since Micro$oft still runs the place there is little chance for that.
Well said
 
Top