Likes, Dislikes, & Improvements

[BSweet]

Just to be brief... One thing you like/dislike or an improvement you wish they would have made.

I'll start it off.

Like - Actually, I LOVE the voice work. Simon Pegg is awesome. Just wish you would bump into him after you beat the game.

Dislike - How I have no choice but to dance with a man when trying to be good.

Improvements - In my opinion, there is a lot that can be improved for the next one, but I'd have to say, not enough variety of things to fight or encounter. I mean I have a bad memory, but wasn't there those ghostly witches in F2, and those huge moss covered trolls that would pop up out of the earth? I got tired of fighting those big mercenaries that for some reason had fire magic. That seemed lazy to me.

 

[MaleficRaven]

Like - I LOVED the spellweaving. I thought that was an amazing new addition and it alone is enough to keep my interest in the game.

Dislike - Too many to list.

Improvements - ... I'd be here all night.

 

[MudkipLuna]

I cannot be brief in the slightest sense of the word... so I'll bold the basics. haha.


Like - A lot of things.

Agreed with the OP about the voice acting. I loved Jasper. I wish he would stop pressing me to buy that damn dog costume, though.

Spell weaving rocked. Not much else to say about that. I don't understand, however, why you had to wear gauntlets - a physical item - when you are a hero and supposedly have inherent power within you. I didn't mind them, but the idea made no sense. I would have also preferred more spells available, which was a huge problem for me in the last game as well.

Finishing moves = pwnage. Just wish it were possible/easier to do it on purpose, whereas I'm under the impression it's either random or purely based on luck.

The story was much more grabbing than F2, and the choices were sometimes emotionally draining when you don't have enough money. Not to mention that consequences actually exist now, which was a nice surprise. And I'm so happy they brought back real cinematic scenes - even if the facial animation was poor, they brought me into the game.

Relationships feel slightly more 'real' when you have to build them rather than be universally loved by default according strictly to how you look. The ability to choose where to marry, or adopt a child, was fun. The 'sex scenes' were quite funny; the addition of music made it more comical / enjoyable. In the last game it was just plain awkward.


Dislike - A lot of things.

Way too short. For a game franchise that I have been playing nearly every day since the release of Fable 1, the games themselves can be completed in one day. That is unacceptable. There are hours of extra things to do of course, but the story should not be so simple to run through. I hesitate doing plot-specific quests because I know the game will be over too soon.

Facial animations were weird. For a game that centered around it's cutscenes, I really wish they were polished a bit more. The mouths didn't fit the words, your expressions were off, etc.

There were not enough spells and the gauntlets didn't make sense. Like I mentioned above.The inability to lock on to a specific target when using your melee weapon slightly irritated me - I tend to dislike charging up a flourish against a white balverine only to waste it on a stinky little brown one.

The lack of enemies was major. In the first installment there were a few types of bandits / human enemies; lots of bugs to pester you; a few different casts of Hobbes; two species of Trolls; a variety of Nymphs which summoned various smaller enemies; the Undead; and Balverines / White Balverines. Fable 2 removed nypmhs, but replaced them with banshees. Not that it matters when every enemy dies in one hit, though.

Compare that to F3. Bandits; check. Addition; giant bandit with fireball abilities for no apparent reason. Bugs; no. Oh well. Hobbes; check. Even little skeleton ones! Great fun. Now...Trolls? Nymphs? Banshees? No, no, and no. We get humans, hobbes, dead things and balverines. Thats 4 enemy types.Thankfully Aurora introduced some really awesome pwnage fodder, but that is no excuse to dwindle the enemies we once had in Albion. Apart from a few side quests and exploration, Aurora is a seperate part of the game which tends to be left untouched while the player spends all their time killing monotonous enemies on the mainland.

The interaction was a disappointment. I had great expectations for this aspect of the game. What happened to the expression wheel? They took about 100 steps back with this game. I cannot choose which of my expressions to use, and only continue cycling through them until I find the one I am looking for. Fantastic.

With the touch mechanic, the expressions we do have got better. *When* we actually want to go that far. I should be able to dance in a bar and affect the dispositions of my fellow drunkards as a whole, I should not have to grab a random stranger and salsa with him just to make a friend. Now, I like dancing in this game, but I should be given an option.

What happened to the functional "Follow" / "Wait" expressions? Hand holding was a nice addition to the game, but Peter has a tendency to think that adding something new merits removing something else. I could have my entire family, or my many little sheep to slaughter, follow me at the same time in both F1 and F2. Now if I am to get anywhere with anyone at all I am forced to hold their hand schoolgirl style and babysit them the whole way there while they get stuck on stairs, caught on rocks or behind people, etc. Even criminals whom I am dragging to prison willingly skip along with me, hands cupped with my own, all the way to jail. Right up till we get to the guard, when they must be dragged across the glowing line.

 

[Maverickhey]

Pros.

Combat: Combat has gotten much better very impressed the counters have gotten much more flashier, and more difficult to do.

Magic: This has become fantastic Spell Weaving is amazing not my style but the element it adds is awsome.

Range:Range has become better being able to finally block with your ranged weapon again after removing it for Fable 2. Counters with Guns also awsome, and flourishes.. though make way less sense with guns more so better with bows it is still a nice feature that has been re added.

Story: Much better than Fable 2 the ending lacked a little but it had great depth.

Difficulty:Was suprisingly high up there if you truly paced yourself, and didnt take the easy way into combat.

CONS:

Melee:Blocking is very annoying still holding X sometimes bugs out, and it does not register you are holding X while you take a pounding from an enemy.(one button controlling all aspects of a form of combat is complicated in design, and simple at the same time. Leaving plenty of room for error.)

Magic: Has become too powerful most enemies can be dispatched without any fear of death by spamming Vortex, and charging up. Enemies need a way to block magic.

Enemy Models:Sandfury was basically a re used Highway man but slightly smarter therefore there was no learning this enemy since it fought the same.

Hair Styles: Were a huge lack of, and most were voted on polls to just be horrible.

Tattoos:Not enough of, and they were adjusted by color which is fine but the option is to ink yourself.. it looks more like will marks than tattoos.

Makeup: Replaced having visual taste of tattoos for some of them acted as true tattoos without a change of color.

Clothes: Where were they all? There was the least amount of clothes I have ever seen in fable, and most of them were either jokes, or posh.

Aging: No Aging? Means no fountain of youth idea.

Lionhead: They keep removing things that are great to replace them with new things, which are also great but when they take out the already good things you tend to always have something lacking in the game. Most of the original enemies no longer exist, bows, and cross bows do not exist which is absurd cause we have them in our modern age still. They removed stealth rather than improving on it. Augments dont exist so custom weapons are limited to your hero blade(Which many people just have the same models) Legendary weapons are way less impressive, and are reused/recolored skins from the limited amount of designs for weapons. They removed some of the coolest looking armor from both Fable 1, and 2 to give us more current time clothes which also doesnt make sense since there are old kingdom artifacts everywhere which could include ragged old clothes you restore to their original condition. Aside from them trying to make us all look british or clone of eachother I mix clothes but there isnt much to mix. You cant lock on one enemy, certain buttons on my controller arent being used when I am not engaged with another person socially so there was room to better the controls. The glow trail is buggy, and my dog is far more annoying, and less loved than fable 2 with him not even being included in the story at all. The game made me feel no attachments to my comrades not enough time too. Rose is not in this one so why even include her in the ending of Fable 2. Hammer, and Garth dont exist which made no sense I was looking forward to travelling to the north, and Samarkand to do some optional, or story line quests with them.

 

[Mlaar]

Still running through first playthrough and enjoying it, my main gripe is repairing of buildings, with the amount I own its damn annoying to go around repairing all houses by hand, I would have prefered an option to let it drop to around 30% then automatically remove funds and repair.. give me a slider to set the percentage then make it a toggle auto on/auto off

 

[MaleficRaven]

Spellweaving rocked. Not much else to say about that. I don't understand, however, why you had to wear gauntlets - a physical item - when you are a hero and supposedly have inherent power within you. I didn't mind them, but the idea made no sense. I would have also preferred more spells available, which was a huge problem for me in the last game as well.

It actually makes a great deal of sense. From Fable to Fable II, five hundred years have passed and it's safe to assume that the bloodline wasn't kept between just heroes. This might explain why there weren't so many spells in Fable II although that's more likely to be because the developers wanted to get lazy. In Fable III another fifty years pass and AGAIN the bloodline is diluted so our hero's magic would not be as strong as our ancestor from the original game and it would explain the use of the gauntlets. My guess is that they're not necessarily required but that they help to harness and give us a way to channel our magical abilities since without it, it would be very weak. Of course, I'm just guessing all this since Lionhead has done nothing to explain anything.

 

[Maverickhey]

It actually makes a great deal of sense. From Fable to Fable II, five hundred years have passed and it's safe to assume that the bloodline wasn't kept between just heroes. This might explain why there weren't so many spells in Fable II although that's more likely to be because the developers wanted to get lazy. In Fable III another fifty years pass and AGAIN the bloodline is diluted so our hero's magic would not be as strong as our ancestor from the original game and it would explain the use of the gauntlets. My guess is that they're not necessarily required but that they help to harness and give us a way to channel our magical abilities since without it, it would be very weak. Of course, I'm just guessing all this since Lionhead has done nothing to explain anything.

Exactly what I thought, also was the reason I assumed some bandits could use magic afterall the character from Fable 3 cannot be the only one with hero blood in him. There were tons of them at one time, there still are they just dont know it, Bandits pillage, and loot it is fully possible they found gauntlets, and gained that ability to use it.

 

[MudkipLuna]

Its mighty fine and well if that was their original idea. However, had they elaborated on it, things would have pulled together far more nicely. Players can always assume, but it's up to the developers to give depth to its enemies and mechanics, which they failed to do in that aspect.

 

[Sir Robin]

MudkipLuna and Maverickhey - amen to that. Literally could not have said it all better myself.

 

[Sir Robin]

It actually makes a great deal of sense. From Fable to Fable II, five hundred years have passed and it's safe to assume that the bloodline wasn't kept between just heroes. This might explain why there weren't so many spells in Fable II although that's more likely to be because the developers wanted to get lazy. In Fable III another fifty years pass and AGAIN the bloodline is diluted so our hero's magic would not be as strong as our ancestor from the original game and it would explain the use of the gauntlets. My guess is that they're not necessarily required but that they help to harness and give us a way to channel our magical abilities since without it, it would be very weak. Of course, I'm just guessing all this since Lionhead has done nothing to explain anything.

Funny, those are about the same conclusions I arrived at. I had to in order to soothe my ire at the glaring incongruities between this game and the rest of the series. But we shouldn't have to do the work - it's a video game, not a novel. Spell it out for us.

 

[MudkipLuna]

No, in a novel it would have been elaborated on, haha.

I think it was nothing but pure laziness myself, or possibly the dire need to get the game released in a short amount of time. "Instead of forming a new enemy from scratch, let's just randomly scatter hero-spawn around Albion... which amazingly all grow up to be giant mercenaries! Really, who will notice!?"

And I'm assuming the gauntlets were just the easiest way they could introduce spell weaving. Which brings up another question: who invented the damn things in the first place? Or more importantly; how? What reason would there be for a non-hero inventor to think up and materialize a will channeling gauntlet? And certainly none of the past heroes created it, seeing as none of them ever required such things.

Your own parent could cast spells without any sort of device. One generation really should not water down an ancient bloodline that much. Considering it survived over 500 years of the genetic melting pot already, not even counting the original Archon, I'm assuming it cannot be all that recessive.

 

[Sir Robin]

No, in a novel it would have been elaborated on, haha.

I think it was nothing but pure laziness myself, or possibly the dire need to get the game released in a short amount of time. "Instead of forming a new enemy from scratch, let's just randomly scatter hero-spawn around Albion... which amazingly all grow up to be giant mercenaries! Really, who will notice!?"

And I'm assuming the gauntlets were just the easiest way they could introduce spell weaving. Which brings up another question: who invented the damn things in the first place? Or more importantly; how? What reason would there be for a non-hero inventor to think up and materialize a will channeling gauntlet? And certainly none of the past heroes created it, seeing as none of them ever required such things.

Your own parent could cast without any sort of device. One generation should not water down an ancient bloodline that much. Especially considering it survived at least 500 years of the genetic melting pot already, I'm assuming it cannot be all that recessive.

Truth. The first time I read someone's comment saying the game was rushed for fourth quarter profits, I was in denial. But then I quickly came to realize its truth - that's exactly what happened, and I'm pretty sure that it accounts for just about every omission and incomplete feature in the game. We've seen that Lionhead is capable of much better than this. Thus, the only explanation for leaving out mainstay features and not building on most of the ones they did include is that they just didn't leave themselves time.

IIRC, PM and Lionhead used to hold to the "it's done when it's done" school of release dates, prizing completeness and perfection over expediency and profits. I can only hope they return to that model for the last two games of the series. They owe it to their legacy to do so, and they owe it to us, the endless, loyal player.

 

[MaleficRaven]

Exactly what I thought, also was the reason I assumed some bandits could use magic afterall the character from Fable 3 cannot be the only one with hero blood in him. There were tons of them at one time, there still are they just dont know it, Bandits pillage, and loot it is fully possible they found gauntlets, and gained that ability to use it.

Actually, I believe the reason why some bandits are able to use fire magic (or what appears to be fire magic) is because they may be descended from Twinblade or some other bandit "hero". It's highly unlikely but (and this is assuming I'm remembering this correctly) there were also bandits in Fable II who used some magic. That's the only reasonable explanation I can come up with... the other is just the developers don't give a damn about any of their lore or the explanations they gave to us for why things are the way they are.

Funny, those are about the same conclusions I arrived at. I had to in order to soothe my ire at the glaring incongruities between this game and the rest of the series. But we shouldn't have to do the work - it's a video game, not a novel. Spell it out for us.

I don't mind speculating about certain things provided I've got something to go on but there's so much in all three games that have been left unanswered and... well... it would be nice to have something spelled out for us.

 

[MudkipLuna]

Yes.

As anxious as I always am for a new Fable game, I do hope they spend as much time as possible on the next installments. Or at least allow for modding the PC versions.

Now, I really really do enjoy fable III - I love it. I am working on my second play through at this moment. But this franchise has an infinite amount of potential... should the aforementioned flaws be cut out of the picture, I could really call it my perfect game. My favorite game; yes, of course. But it saddens me that such simple issues were passed on into the finished product, when they hold it back so terribly.

PM is an incredibly ambitious man. But being passionate about this franchise, he is also unfortunately impulsive, and therefor hasty. He gets so wrapped up in break-through gameplay and all of his ideas that he over-hypes the games and becomes blind to it's weak points. I think he just needs a good strong woman to beat the shit out of him once in a while. I mean, sense into him. Yes. That is exactly what I meant.

 

[James009]

MudkipLuna and Maverickhey - amen to that. Literally could not have said it all better myself.

Yes, they hit ALL of the issues I've had with Fable 3. I've even gone as far to report some of these "features" and "improvements" as bugs, I think Lionhead needs some better feedback because whatever they got from Fable 2 feedback negatively influenced Fable 3.

Likes:
Combat has been improved
Graphics are AMAZING- Huge improvement over Fable 2
Best characters of series- However, they didn't feel fully utilized
Sanctuary- Against my prejudgements I actually like this menu. I do miss being able to easily drink potions and eat food. I'd enjoy a compromise for that to come back.


Cons:
Magic overpowered
Social interaction system- This new and "improved" system removes all the fun and choice in socialization with NPCs. I CANNOT stand dancing with shopkeepers to get better prices and to make friends, it's wrong. Furthermore, I can't stand the people who defend it as a good design choice. Gimme the wheel selection back!
Glitches and bugs
Lack of clothing- Huge step back. Why are there so few clothings, half I dislike.
Weapons- I kinda like the morphs but I'd rather have a large assortment of weapons to select from.
Character customization- Not enough meaningful ways to develop character
Lack of Road to Rule choices- Id rather have Fable 2's system, however, if RtR had more meaningful choices it might work. Most are so dry, standard, and boring.
Storyline was good but unengaging- Player had limited, little, or no choices.

 

[MaleficRaven]

Cons:
Magic overpowered

This stood out to me. Why? Because I find it silly when someone says that magic, of all things, is overpowered. You want overpowered? Use melee weapons. One Flourish is enough to knock any enemy down (with the exception of the big guys) and all you have to do is run over and stab him/her for an easy, instant kill. Guns are... well, they toned them down from how unbearably overpowered they were in Fable II and I'm actually very happy about that. They made magic a little stronger but it all balances out. Besides, this is MAGIC we're talking about. It has no inherent weaknesses like swords and guns do.

 

[Maverickhey]

This stood out to me. Why? Because I find it silly when someone says that magic, of all things, is overpowered. You want overpowered? Use melee weapons. One Flourish is enough to knock any enemy down (with the exception of the big guys) and all you have to do is run over and stab him/her for an easy, instant kill. Guns are... well, they toned them down from how unbearably overpowered they were in Fable II and I'm actually very happy about that. They made magic a little stronger but it all balances out. Besides, this is MAGIC we're talking about. It has no inherent weaknesses like swords and guns do.

You missed the point, Magic by far has done nothing but get stronger since Fable 1, Guns in Fable 2 were over powered thats a given Red Dragon for example.. Fable 2 Melee got dropped some like for instance no GS etc. but it was missing a certain flare that Fable 3 gave however.. you may not be using Melee or understand it near as much as you think in Fable 3 Flourishes offer an opening that most AIs will take advantage of with a longer charge time, and the swing time after release is so incredibly slow that being selective in when to use it is a major cause we all know you cant take a beating very long charging or swinging into a group or even one enemy. You can knock them down, and stab them but it is highly unlikely unless you smash potions into your throat that you can be doing this every single moment of combat. Also most of the AIs have been given some INT boosts to be a bad RPG pun they will move away from you while you charge a flourish.

Magic on the other hand is the easiest form of combat, you can literally Vortex level one, and smash them with a level 3 spell.. then they kill over. While both range, and melee have a way of defense Magic cannot be defended against. Magic is a bit over done it is really cool in Fable 3 but it has done nothing but get stronger each game to the point anybody can utilize it with little effort to kill any enemy they face "It's Magic" is not a viable debate against it. Not being agressive just stating my opinion.

 

[MaleficRaven]

You missed the point, Magic by far has done nothing but get stronger since Fable 1, Guns in Fable 2 were over powered thats a given Red Dragon for example.. Fable 2 Melee got dropped some like for instance no GS etc. but it was missing a certain flare that Fable 3 gave however.. you may not be using Melee or understand it near as much as you think in Fable 3 Flourishes offer an opening that most AIs will take advantage of with a longer charge time, and the swing time after release is so incredibly slow that being selective in when to use it is a major cause we all know you cant take a beating very long charging or swinging into a group or even one enemy. You can knock them down, and stab them but it is highly unlikely unless you smash potions into your throat that you can be doing this every single moment of combat. Also most of the AIs have been given some INT boosts to be a bad RPG pun they will move away from you while you charge a flourish.

Magic on the other hand is the easiest form of combat, you can literally Vortex level one, and smash them with a level 3 spell.. then they kill over. While both range, and melee have a way of defense Magic cannot be defended against. Magic is a bit over done it is really cool in Fable 3 but it has done nothing but get stronger each game to the point anybody can utilize it with little effort to kill any enemy they face "It's Magic" is not a viable debate against it. Not being agressive just stating my opinion.

The enemies can't defend themselves from a Flourish and they can't block gun shots either. Often times spells won't hit everyone in the circle so you end up missing some anyways and they too will often move out of the range of your spells. Not to mention it takes a while to charge up and you're vulnerable during that time. Also, magic has not gotten "stronger" in each game. In Fable II it was just about the worst thing you could use and I had been knocked out several times because of how lame it was. That is, of course, until I learned of a neat trick with helped me out but that didn't make it so much easier that I just breezed through the game. There were still a few trouble spots.

Actually, that's a very viable debate.

 

[MudkipLuna]

I do understand what he means about magic. I can stay quite a range away from an enemy and stay completely safe from harm, and still kill them in one move. Or get in the middle of a group and erase every one of them with just as little effort. I don't believe this boils down it magic being overpowered, though. Like you already said so well.. it's magic.

I really believe it boils down to every spell ultimately doing the same thing, which would be killing something. Vortex defends and does damage, shock stuns and does damage, fire does damage and damage over time, etc. Should magic mean more than simply attacking and killing everything around you, the game would balance out. Make us be strategic in combat, don't give us the ability to spam any button and bring our enemies down. Spell weaving was a good start, allowing us to combine spells to our liking, but it doesn't make much difference in the end, now does it? I can think of tons of useful spells and combinations that have nothing to do with directly killing the enemy, but would be much more helpful in battle than simply fire and ice. Slow time was one of my favorite spells, but is now a potion (along with summon) because neither of those spells directly inflicted damage to your foes.

And as far as giving the enemies a form of magical defense... Well, yes and no.

Bandits are just old-school gangster thieves, not heroes. So, Bandits should be defenseless against magic, but have great combat skills. Don't make them our only enemy and it won't be so bad if they are weak to spells. Why a hero is constantly doing a guard's job in the first place I have no idea.

Balverines don't need/use magic, or armed combat skills. But they, too, are superhuman, aren't they? So they need to be buffed. Majorly. Especially the White Balverine. Considering he is made out to be something special, shouldn't one be, well... special? I do miss the silver augments of the original, but anything that sets a Balverine battle apart from every other fight would suffice.

Hobbes, however, could definitely pull off magical defense. We know they can use magic, and we have seen the barriers they can make first hand in this game. Why not incorporate that into shields? At least allow the mage-hobbe to shield himself while he summons the little dead ones. Hobbes have been the weakest enemy for far too long. They are the only creatures exclusive to this franchise, and that is something to build on.

Should they bring back nymphs and trolls and the like, it would be easier to balance things out. When the majority of the enemies are either mortal humans or weak in general, nothing is balanced. More magically inclined foes would fix this.

 

[MaleficRaven]

I understand what he means about magic. I can stay quite a range away from an enemy and stay completely safe from harm, and still kill them in one move. Or get in the middle of a group and erase every one of them with just as little effort. I don't believe this boils down it magic being overpowered, though. Like Raven said so well.. it's magic.

I really believe it boils down to every spell ultimately doing the same thing, which would be killing something. Vortex defends and does damage, shock stuns and does damage, fire does damage and damage over time, etc. Should magic mean more than simply attacking and killing everything around you, the game would balance out. Make us be strategic in combat, don't give us the ability to spam any button and bring our enemies down. Spell weaving was a good start, allowing us to combine spells to our liking, but it doesn't make much difference in the end, now does it? I can think of tons of useful spells and combinations that have nothing to do with directly killing the enemy, but would be much more helpful in battle than simply fire and ice. Slow time was one of my favorite spells, but is now a potion (along with summon) because neither of those spells directly inflicted damage to your foes.

And as far as giving the enemies a form of magical defense... Well, yes and no.

Bandits are just old-school gangster thieves, not heroes. So, Bandits should be defenseless against magic, but have great combat skills. Don't make them our only enemy and it won't be so bad if they are weak to spells.Why a hero is constantly doing a guard's job in the first place I have no idea.

Balverines don't need/use magic, or armed combat skills, but they too are superhuman, aren't they? So they need to be buffed. Majorly. Especially the White Balverine. Considering he is made out to be something special, shouldn't one be, well... special? I do miss the silver augments of the original, but anything that sets a Balverine battle apart from every other fight would suffice.

Hobbes, however, could definitely pull off magical defense. We know they can use magic, and we have seen the barriers they can make first hand in this game. Why not incorporate that into shields? At least allow the mage-hobbe to shield himself while he summons the little dead ones. Hobbes have been the weakest enemy for far too long. They are the only creatures exclusive to this franchise, and that is something to build on.

Should they bring back nymphs and trolls and the like, it would be easier to balance things out. When the majority of the enemies are either mortal or weak in general, nothing is balanced. More magically inclined foes would fix this.

None of the enemies can defend against Flourishes or gun shots so I don't see why gimping magic by giving them a defense against it would be a good idea. Aside from that, I agree with most of what you said. It would be nice if they had brought back a lot of the spells from the original game but that would be a good idea and we all know how much Lionhead hates those.