• 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

Why do Lionhead keep ditching all the old regions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arseface

Arseface

Look at me still talking when theres science to do
Premium
Dec 28, 2006
5,470
813
315
Melbourne
I was pretty annoyed when, in Fable II, the only regions that looked remotely similar were the Chamber of Fate (but nowhere else from the guild), and the Oakvale part of Wraithmarsh. Everywhere else is either a different physical location, or just completely different. Rationalising that it's been 500 years, things may have changed, old paths had been grown over, new ones sprung up, not to mention the fact that trying to recreate everything with a new engine would have been more difficult than just creating something new from scratch, I grudgingly accepted it.

Now, with the same engine (albeit a more advanced version), and with only 50 years passed, I was appalled to find out that they've done exactly the same thing. I can't accept the changes. Where have Oakfield, Westcliff and Bloodstone gone? Whole settlements rarely completely dissappear within the course of 50 years, let alone three. And what about all the seemingly ancient structures which seem to have just appeared? Brightwall Academy, the wall itself? Even more baffling is Bowerstone Castle. How does a building, which has apparantly been in continuous use since Fable II, become completely different?

The more I look at Fable as a series, the more I see them as three completely different games, with the exception of their titles. Had Fable's sequels any other connections besides Theresa and their titles, then they would have been much, much more enjoyable games. I used to love Fable, now I just see it as a joke.

P.S. And did they really name a region Mourningwood? Really?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ryu_the_fox and Terra_Zeta
My point is that there's nothing within the story to justify these changes, as well as nothing outside the story justifying them. The Fable series isn't so much a series as it is three different games with the same title, which means that it's nothing more than a money maker for Lionhead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hermit
Industry does explain rapid development to an extent. Bowerstone Castle could have been build up that quickly with enough labour. I don't really understand why they left out Westcliff/Bloodstone/Oakfield though. Brightwall is a new area of the map, which partly explains why we didnt see the wall before, although not why we never encountered it in Fable 2. The academy was built by your father, so its presumably been around for less then 50 years.

Brightwood Tower is visable in the game still, so is the Spire. That said, I do agree that the total absense of previous area's and added a sway of new ones without explaining how they changed or any background at all is rather lazy.
 
They haven't disappeared, they're just not accessible in Fable III. Do you think there are only three locations in Aurora? There's gotta be ruins and even a few survivor settlements all over that desert! Just because you cannot go to North Korea doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Wait, does it exist? ...Of course not! CONSPIRACY!
 
That doesn't explain why we can't get there though. Well used roads to thriving settlements don't get abandoned easily, let alone completely grown over.
 
Arseface said:
That doesn't explain why we can't get there though. Well used roads to thriving settlements don't get abandoned easily, let alone completely grown over.
Click to expand...
It's not that we can't go there, it's that we won't. An explanation that doesn't really reduce the amount of questions...

On a somewhat similar note, what do you think of an open-world/sandbox Fable game? Could be cool (could be awesome!), but it could... I don't know; I wouldn't mind. :P
 
Bloodstone is still there I think Reaver speaks about it, just not accessable ingame, because of Wraithmarsh probably. I think because of the decisions in Fable 2 they didn't include Westcliff/Oakfield. They could have included the regions importing our F2 save files, but they obv. got lazy
 
Rukishou said:
It's not that we can't go there, it's that we won't. An explanation that doesn't really reduce the amount of questions...
Click to expand...


I don't understand what you're saying.


Rukishou said:
On a somewhat similar note, what do you think of an open-world/sandbox Fable game? Could be cool (could be awesome!), but it could... I don't know; I wouldn't mind. :P
Click to expand...

Is that not what they're trying to do but failing?

handsdown65 said:
Bloodstone is still there I think Reaver speaks about it, just not accessable ingame, because of Wraithmarsh probably.
Click to expand...

The fact that it's acknowledged to still exist makes it even more frustrating.
 
Rukishou said:
Disappointing though it may be, it is not lazy. They made a whole f--king game for us, you do realize? XD
Click to expand...

No, they recycled Fable II with a few improvements, and charged us the same price for it.
 
who's to say these areas no longer exist.. They were just not integreal to the current story so for the timebeing dropped, Look on the brightside at least the Devs have a plethora of locations they can add in DLC
Also a designer wants to design new vivid areas to explore not keep rehashing old game areas so I personally dont mind, though I hope they do use some of these area's in future content as I wouldnt mind a few more one of a kind buildings to add to my real estate i.e graveyard mansion etc etc
 
Suppose that's true, imagine if the main regions were still Bowerstone, Greatwood, Darkwood, and Oakvale, in Fable 2 and 3. Just made larger but everything relatively the same.. Would suck, you'd wanna know what other areas there are. But to make new areas and leave out the old ones sux, Albion in F3 hardly feels like a kingdom. You feel more like Mayor
 
I both agree and disagree with you Arseface. Yes yes it sad that they dont have the old region but like they said above It just doesnt fit with the timeline. Also we have the whole industry age, they're gonna say "F**K these ruins, lets build a freaking train in a cave!" Who's not to say it wont be in a DLC. They'll prob use them in dlc's for people like you. Yes they should leave SOME areas behind but that's stretching it thin.
 
the seriously need a huge canon expansion pack. i think it would make most people happier if old plots were tied up and finished/revealed to us. along with some revamps of old towns.
i mean its not hard to just re-use the landscapes from a few fable 2 towns but with new textures. i wouldn't even mind if they kept one or two of the old towns exactly the same as they were. like oakfield, since that could use save import data.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom