• 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.
nspiliopoulos15

nspiliopoulos15

Member
Nov 16, 2010
44
4
10
Compared to the maps in fable 1 and 2 albion was much bigger. Oakfield was at the very top, bloodstone was at the very bottom, and knothole was... well an island. Now it only shows the middle? Id rather be able to go to Oakfield, knothole island and bloodstone rather then Aurora. Why would i want to go to another country when theres the rest of Albion to overthrow Logan?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arestia, Jigsaw86 and TheGreenAlloy
This isnt Oblivion. If you want to explore for hours upon hours i would recommended oblivion, fallout 3 or fallout new Vegas. Fable has always given you an option to explore, but just not as much places to go. It has very nice graphics and there is a lot of fun quests, so the size of the maps never bother me in any of the fable games.
 
I like how they added mistpeak becuase i always wondered about the east mountains on map in the first 2 games. But now they also just shoved out big chunks of Albion for Aurora, and i personaly dislike Aurora...
Oakfield ftw!
 
Exactly. I miss wraithmarsh, bloodstone, Oakfield (especially Oakfield). And the place where you could enter the temple of light, that tavern and whatnot. Did they get removed from Albion and given to Sweden or something? Apparently bloodstone was safe from the crawler as Reaver went their all OK.
 
Shifting Sands is the only part of Aurora I like... And the fact that I can change the colors of my tattoos there.
 
I loved how Oblivion was huge and super explorable, but I understand this is Fable and they don't plan to go on the same very large route. But i mean c'mon they should've still left all of the old regions in, whether or not they really had any part of the story a few extra regions never hurt anyone.
 
Externium said:
whether or not they really had any part of the story a few extra regions never hurt anyone.
Click to expand...
except the designers and programmers who would have to put them in and sort out silver keys/silverkey chests/demondoors/digspots/random chests etc. 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?
 
Actually, I remember reading somewhere that after Fable 2, Albion's cartographers remapped Albion or something. I'm not too sure about that in relevance to this but perhaps Oakfield wasnt where you thought it would have been? I dunno man =P
 
Relinquished Reality said:
This isnt Oblivion. If you want to explore for hours upon hours i would recommended oblivion, fallout 3 or fallout new Vegas.
Click to expand...

I believe you miss the point, mate.

Oblivion offered a huge game experience and a massive world - in this day-and-age, why didn't F3?? Albion should, in 2010, be equally as large, diverse and crammed with things to do. Sadly, it's not. To me and many others this was a huge let-down. The LH method of areas linked by load-page, rather than one huge map, actually makes creating a larger world easier for the devs. Alas, I have a 250G HDD that this 'next gen' game doesn't even dent.

I agree with the OP - Albion is much, much too small. Here's hoping that the next Elder Scrolls gives me the 'second life' sized game that I crave. I bought into PM's enthusiasm, hyperbole and hype (remember 'Aurora's even bigger than Albion'??) and disappointment has ensued. I was hoping that F3 would be a play-til-the-next-instalment game, but it's not. The graphics, mechanics (bugs aside) etc are all good - it just needs to be 500-800% bigger.

At this point, about a month in, in Oblivion, I hadn't even reached 2/3rds of the map - I've completed F3, 100%, 5 times now.

Undisputably, Albion is too small - what we got was fun, but only very briefly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amon Amarth, RSVR85 and nspiliopoulos15
BatusBrad said:
Oblivion offered a huge game experience and a massive world - in this day-and-age, why didn't F3??
Click to expand...
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.
 
atlantiantokra said:
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.
Click to expand...

What I wanted was Oblivion scale + Fable character and detail. PM's hyping implied, at least to me, that F3 would deliver.

Sadly, it didn't and my wait continues. Oh, and to my mind (and limited money) an $80 game can't ever be 'too big'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amon Amarth and Arseface
I like the game don't get me wrong, it's just that it's too small. And since it took them forever to make I expected it to be a long storied game also. Fable 1 has definitely been the best fable game, and I don't think that's a good thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amon Amarth
BatusBrad said:
What I wanted was Oblivion scale + Fable character and detail.
Click to expand...
You really expected LH to get Oblivion scale AND fable detail in half the time it took bethesda to make oblivion??? Especially with the amount of changes to the games mechanics (which compared to oblivion are a lot more complicated, at least in terms of programing)
BatusBrad said:
Oh, and to my mind (and limited money) an $80 game can't ever be 'too big'.
Click to expand...
ever heard of "quality over quantity"? Sure oblivion had a large world but the dungeons were repetative, and it's overly simple mechanics (in terms of programming) were as flawed as fable 3 is buggy

Oh and given the point of this thread I do agree with you it is too small, I can just understand why LH/MS/Whoever decided didn't add more.
 
I just assumed that the series would progress and grow in scale, I guess. Given the monstrous cash success of Oblivion and Fallout, I was assuming that they'd set the standard for size and scale. Seems I was in error.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Externium
Mastperf said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and I feel Fable truly has the potential. If you look at some of the minor details just like the random gravestones and some of the thought out easter eggs they have included in the game, it shows the developers have a great mindset. Though at the same time it feels like their ideas aren't brought out to fruition. It just seems like Lionhead is filled with great minds who have loads of great ideas; they just can't pan out the ideas to perfection and make them fit into a coherent collaboration of epic gaming.

I think my faith in fable though will be truly restored when I can go onto a Fable fan forum and over 90% of the posts are how great the game is and not why it sucks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom