• 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

Albion is too small

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wallace said:
That would be interesting. Considering I though two worlds one sucked.
Click to expand...
Early reviews and impressions from gamers say it's a massive improvement on the first game. Some are saying it's better than Oblivion. The customization with items and spells is said to be extremely deep.

When Bathesda decided they wanted to make "Modern Oblivion" what did they do? They bought the rights to Fallout and made a whole new game that took some of the best mechanics from Oblivion and expanded on them to deliver an incredible game. Lionhead wanted a "Modern Fable" and took something awesome and unique and ruined it. If they wanted guns, factories, child labor and irritating bisexuals they should have started a new franchise. Bathesda's foresight gave them 2 hugely successful franchises and gamers two incredible games to enjoy. Lionhead on the other hand has all but destroyed everything they had built with Fable-TLC.
 
I never once got the impression from Lionhead that Fable 3 would be anywhere near as massive as a Bethesda game.

And I don't think you guys are being fair to the Fable 3 team. To make a Fable game that was that utterly massive would mean the entire Fable system would have to be rethought and redesigned and the end product probably would be anything like a Fable game should be. The reason Fable 3 was able to be produced in only 2 years was because it used an updated Fable 2 engine.

Personally, Fable 3 was exactly what I was expecting and was only disappointed with its ending.

Fun fact: Fable 3's maps are actually much bigger than Fable 2's.
 
It will most likely be extended, With the 80% of aurora that isn't being used.
 
It's easier to make a map bigger than Fable 2 when there's absolutely nothing to do in them. It's also easier when every map is completely forgettable and devoid of any connection and soul. When (if) Fable 4 comes out nobody will be saying "Why can't we go back to *insert random area from Fable 3* because there was no emotional connection to anything in the game. I didn't care who lived or died or what happened to any area in the game. This game was literally the unFable.
 
Mastperf said:
It's easier to make a map bigger than Fable 2 when there's absolutely nothing to do in them. It's also easier when every map is completely forgettable and devoid of any connection and soul. When (if) Fable 4 comes out nobody will be saying "Why can't we go back to *insert random area from Fable 3* because there was no emotional connection to anything in the game. I didn't care who lived or died or what happened to any area in the game. This game was literally the unFable.
Click to expand...

I agree - although I did like some of the new characters, the geography meant nothing to me. I did a bunch of exploring early on, but never found anything worth the bother so eventually I just stopped exploring. It may have been bigger in square feet, I don't know, but it certainly didn't feel bigger.
 
Mastperf said:
It's easier to make a map bigger than Fable 2 when there's absolutely nothing to do in them. It's also easier when every map is completely forgettable and devoid of any connection and soul. When (if) Fable 4 comes out nobody will be saying "Why can't we go back to *insert random area from Fable 3* because there was no emotional connection to anything in the game. I didn't care who lived or died or what happened to any area in the game. This game was literally the unFable.
Click to expand...

I get how you feel, but the point is that not everyone does. I felt that this was very much a Fable game.
 
Arseface said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wasn't implying that Berthesda or Oblivion didn't release extra content. I was trying to make the point that games like Oblivion are SO big that adding DLC for new areas can be redundant (at least to me). When a game is as large as Oblivion is, and it takes forever to see everything in the initial release, whats the point in adding extra things? Whereas Fable, being short and sweet, when Lionhead releases something new for it, its exciting and anticipated (at least by those who didn't hate it) and we can jump right into the new content because we aren't still running around discovering old content.

Its honestly a matter of personal preference, I'm just sick of hearing complaints about ALL video games and people assuming that its easy to make these things or that its easy to please large numbers of people. I can't even count how many threads have been posted recently saying it would be "SO EASY" for Lionhead to change this or that, and its not easy. It takes time, it takes effort.

Also, I am not a big fan of comparing one game to another. Fable is what it is. Oblivion is a completely different game, so one expects it to be larger or smaller, more quests, less quests, more or less choices, etc. I understand the disappointment that some people have, and I'm all for intelligent discussion, I just feel most of these threads ultimately degrade into people whining about how they hate the game, and they wasted money, and blah blah blah (NOT implying this thread or you were doing that, just stating an opinion)

I respect that ideal that you wish Fable was bigger, that the world had more to explore and your choices weren't so black and white. However, I respectfully disagree. I think Fable has a good story and was satisfied with what it had to offer. I'd much rather have 5-6 shorter games and play them for variety, than spend hours upon hours upon days trying to discover everything about a game as huge as Oblivion.
 
"Actually the maps have grown! Mistpeak I would say has the biggest map."

He said albion. not each individual map. i hate the new albion, its got rubbish places as well as smaller world map
 
"It's easier to make a map bigger than Fable 2 when there's absolutely nothing to do in them. It's also easier when every map is completely forgettable and devoid of any connection and soul. When (if) Fable 4 comes out nobody will be saying "Why can't we go back to *insert random area from Fable 3* because there was no emotional connection to anything in the game. I didn't care who lived or died or what happened to any area in the game. This game was literally the unFable."

sorry couldnt find any of you to reply to just found these comment s in replies. but anyway that is exactly what i think about the maps on fable 3. I found them really disappointing and much preferred fable 2 maps.

As i once said like five mins ago. " Its not abbout size its about emotional connection"
 
Faedil said:
Sorry, I wasn't implying that Berthesda or Oblivion didn't release extra content. I was trying to make the point that games like Oblivion are SO big that adding DLC for new areas can be redundant (at least to me). When a game is as large as Oblivion is, and it takes forever to see everything in the initial release, whats the point in adding extra things? Whereas Fable, being short and sweet, when Lionhead releases something new for it, its exciting and anticipated (at least by those who didn't hate it) and we can jump right into the new content because we aren't still running around discovering old content.
Click to expand...

So you'd rather pay the same price for a game that's a quarter as big, because it's easier to finish?
 
I appreciate dev's leaving out locations that may not be relevant, but Fable 3 really let me down. The Albion shown in the maps in the Sanctuary and castle look as though the bottom half of the country has just been lost. Locations don't change that drastically in 50 years.
I daresay we will see some our beloved locations in DLC, just like we got the 'long awaited black dye'. I was sure that despite PMs hype and all the doubts surrounding the game, I would love it. But frankly the whole game is average, functional but bland. A lot of work needs to be done to salvage the S.S Fable
 
Faedil said:
I respect that ideal that you wish Fable was bigger, that the world had more to explore and your choices weren't so black and white. However, I respectfully disagree. I think Fable has a good story and was satisfied with what it had to offer. I'd much rather have 5-6 shorter games and play them for variety, than spend hours upon hours upon days trying to discover everything about a game as huge as Oblivion.
Click to expand...

It is this exact point which I suspect will polarise opinions on F3. I think it comes down to what sort of gamer you are...you clearly like short and sharp games, and a variety of them, as you state. Me, I like to own one game at a time, and devote myself to it fanatically. I love huge games, exploring and 'just seeing what's over there'. For you, F3 was the mutt's nuts, and I'm glad you're digging it. To me, F3 is waaaaaaaaaay too short for a full price game. Particularly given the size and scale that $80 will get you in other titles. Whilst it is fun, and, as I've stated, I love the Fable look, feel and mechanics, it's all over (and I get to know the world too well) much, much too quickly.

On the subject of game-length, rather than scale/size - can anyone really claim that the 'being King' section wasn't compressed, rushed and, well........****? Really?

F3, for me, relegates F4 to a 'keep an eye out for reviews' game, rather than 'a must have'. My trust and faith in LH is severely tarnished. I just hope some of devs read and digest what we post here. I will also treat every word PM EVER SAYS again as deeply suspect, as, frankly, he's properly mugged me off with F3.:ermm:

In this day and age, I simply expect much more content for my hard-earned dosh.
 
Faedil said:
I respect that ideal that you wish Fable was bigger, that the world had more to explore and your choices weren't so black and white. However, I respectfully disagree. I think Fable has a good story and was satisfied with what it had to offer. I'd much rather have 5-6 shorter games and play them for variety, than spend hours upon hours upon days trying to discover everything about a game as huge as Oblivion.
Click to expand...
And this is the reason Fable has become so broken. Lionhead reads this, smiles, puts up their feet and makes the soulless void that is Fable 3. In the time Lionhead has made Fable 2 and 3, Bathesda has made Oblivion and Fallout 3. The difference in content is absolutely massive. We aren't all asking for an Oblivion-like Fable, we're asking how they can come up so painfully short of content when other developers can deliver so much in the same amount of time. Fallout New Vegas was in development the same amount of time as Fable 3. How can Obsidian Entertainment deliver so much more content in that time than a 1st party Microsoft developer with a larger budget? Fable 3 was severely lacking when compared to even Fable 2.
Lionhead is just woefully inefficient.
 
Mastperf said:
The difference in content is absolutely massive.
Click to expand...
I haven't played fallout 3 so I can't really make a comment about comparing it to fable, but the difference in content between oblivion and fable (2 or 3) probably isn't much from a programming point of view
 
I think the difference is the way they make the game. Before you say, "Well duh," here me out.

Bethesda like to make the tools they use to make their games easy to use. They make every different part of the game fit together like lego, and then they build massive worlds to play around in. Their tools, being easy to use, allow them to rapidly create everything, including DLC, in a relatively short timeframe.

Lionhead like to hand craft everything. Each area, item, person, etc, is pretty much unique. This is why it takes longer to make, and there's ultimately less. What Lionhead don't get is that, at least for me, this approach isn't as important as scale. A world where I can spend hours exploring, fighting, questing, and actually be challenged in, is one I can enjoy a hell of a lot more than one where I basically just get told what to do in.

P.S. Another massive plus with those tools I mentioned earlier is that Bethesda actually releases them and encourages people to use them. The main reason why Oblivion and Morrowind are still really playable is because Bethesda make it so easy for people to mod the game.
 
Yeah, I get that but I'd rather have the 'hand-crafted' approach if it means better gaming mechanics and less repetative areas. Don't get me wrong they're both great games and there was a game that was essentialy Oblivion with Fable level mechanics and story(TLC not 2 or 3) it'd probably be the best game ever made
 
atlantiantokra said:
Yeah, I get that but I'd rather have the 'hand-crafted' approach if it means better gaming mechanics and less repetative areas. Don't get me wrong they're both great games and there was a game that was essentialy Oblivion with Fable level mechanics and story(TLC not 2 or 3) it'd probably be the best game ever made
Click to expand...

My point exactly - couldn't agree more.
 
Mastperf said:
Early reviews and impressions from gamers say it's a massive improvement on the first game. Some are saying it's better than Oblivion. The customization with items and spells is said to be extremely deep.
Click to expand...

In terms of size and scale, I hear you, dude. However, having recently scoured Youtube for all things TW2, I must say - the graphics and voice-acting are, imho, ****ing dreadful.

TW2 is not my saviour - the wait continues.*sigh*
 
Is it just me, or are the water animations in Two Worlds II lame?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top